Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Thursday, October 30. 2025

Thursday morning links

"We Just Won": Trump Gloats After Bill Gates Admits Climate Change Won't End World


The Environmental Disaster of Wind and Solar


Scientists Deliberately Misled Public On Fires, Ice, Food, Floods, Heat, Islands, Coral, Sea Level, And Hurricanes


 Obama: Let's 'Experiment' With Government-Censored 'Diversity' of Opinion in Journalism,
Or Something


Sen. Kennedy Hilariously Eviscerates Schumer and Rest of Dems on Their Shutdown and Their TDS


Mollie Hemingway: ‘The Base of the Democrat Party Really Has Become Angry Women’ (VIDEO)


Some Democrats Now ‘Growing Anxious’ About What a Zohran Mamdani Victory Will Mean for Their Party


Magical Thinking Is Why Socialists Get Everything Wrong


Imagining a Socialist New York


Sudan: Arab Militia Slaughters Hundreds in Maternity Ward Massacre


New Report Details Extent to Which Mexican Government is Arming Drug Cartels

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 08:08 | Comments (32) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

QUOTE:
"We Just Won": Trump Gloats After Bill Gates Admits Climate Change Won't End World ... To wit, his new forecast is that climate change "won't lead to humanity's demise."

Gates never claimed that climate change would lead to humanity's demise. Nor has that ever been a consensus view of scientists. The facts supporting anthropogenic global warming don't depend on partisan polemics.

Humans are highly adaptable. They can overcome the difficulties associated with anthropogenic climate change. Indeed, humans have already made major strides in mitigation. However, the longer it takes to temper anthropogenic global warming, the greater the economic cost and the greater the permanent losses to humanity's shared ecological inheritance. There are also second-order effects, such as increased human migration which is already causing significant strains to political and social systems.
#1 Zachriel on 2025-10-30 09:53 (Reply)
Climate change IS a significant threat to humanity. It's just not caused by humanity.
#2 willful knowledge on 2025-10-30 10:30 (Reply)
willful knowledge: Climate change IS a significant threat to humanity. It's just not caused by humanity.

If humans weren't emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases, the Earth's surface would be cooling slightly rather than rapidly warming.
#2.1 Zachriel on 2025-10-30 10:38 (Reply)
We need more CO2 and not less CO2. It is the "Green" energy that we really need to grow more food more efficiently. The other green energies are nothing more than secular religion.
#2.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2025-10-30 15:46 (Reply)
Cool graph! And scary. I bet it took all of ten minutes to make. Geee whizz. I'm impressed. Did you go to college to learn those skills? I bet you're a Harvard man.
#2.1.2 B. Hammer on 2025-10-30 17:12 (Reply)
B. Hammer: I bet it took all of ten minutes to make.

See Huber & Knutti, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance, Nature Geoscience 2012.
#2.1.3 Zachriel on 2025-10-30 18:50 (Reply)
Huber and Knutti, like most climate shills, relied upon the highly tainted temperature datasets that have been used to politicize the climate issue for decades. When skeptics finally investigated temperature monitoring stations was discovered that a great percentage of them were placed near airports, parking lots, HVAC exhausts, asphault roads, or simply were inoperable or missing altogether. And when skeptics asked for the raw data, East Anglia conveniently had lost the data. Oops!
Sorry, nobody is buying the bs anymore. Huber and Knutti’s 15 year old paper is based on flawed models and fake data. This will only be exposed more and more as the elites like Gates demand more power generation to fuel their data centers.
#2.1.3.1 Randy on 2025-10-31 09:36 (Reply)
Randy: When skeptics finally investigated ...

The trend remains even when not including problematic stations. The surface data is publicly available.

More importantly, other observations, using entirely different methods find the same trend, including satellite observations and ocean heat content.
#2.1.3.1.1 Zachriel on 2025-10-31 12:26 (Reply)
I just explained to you that the raw temperature data is not available - it was discarded. Yet you begin by claiming that it is available to the public.

Nobody cares if weak computer models show “trends”. They are all over simplified and purposely leave out a ton of inputs. Not to mention that they are all over the map with their predictions. If climate freaks would admit that their predictions were wrong the public might learn to trust them. But that never happens. Kind of like when temperature data is revised it always is revised up - never down. There is simply no public trust left. You’ve burned it all.

Its so obviously a money scam that no sensible person believes it any more, as evidenced by the dwindling concern among the public.

The biggest climate shills like Obama buy ocean front property while scaremongering that the ocean will destroy the coasts. Or else they are flying private jets to the next climate conference when they could just as easily meet over Zoom. But then they wouldn’t get all the free hookers and blow would they?

Seriously, I used to think you shills were just poorly educated simpletons. But now that so much corruption is out in the open I have to assume that you are just an evil simpleton.
#2.1.3.1.1.1 Randy on 2025-10-31 18:43 (Reply)
Randy: I just explained to you that the raw temperature data is not available

You didn’t explain, but asserted. The raw (unadjusted) climate data for surface stations dating from 1780 has been publicly available for decades. See the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), NOAA.

Randy: Nobody cares if weak computer models show “trends”.

We’re not talking about models, but observations from completely different and independent sources and methods: surface, satellite, ocean, among others. They all show a similar warming trend.
#2.1.3.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2025-10-31 22:24 (Reply)
"observations from completely different and independent sources and methods: surface, satellite, ocean, among others. They all show a similar warming trend."

96% of US temperature stations fail to meet acceptable criteria for operation, even by NOAA's own standards. Over 85% are compromised by heat sinks and urban heat island effects.

And yet amazingly, their results match all the other methods!

As the climatologists say - "Garbage in, Consensus out".
#2.1.3.1.1.2.1 Rusty on 2025-10-31 23:44 (Reply)
Rusty: 96% of US temperature stations fail to meet acceptable criteria for operation, even by NOAA's own standards. Over 85% are compromised by heat sinks and urban heat island effects.

That’s false. Per NOAA, 95% meet standards, 5% do not. The ones that don’t meet standards are removed from the database. Nor is perfection required to extract scientific information. If it did, then no observational science would be possible. As for the urban heat island effect, if you remove all urban stations, the warming trend is essentially the same.

Rusty: And yet amazingly, their results match all the other methods!

Now you got it! When entirely different methods result in the same conclusion, it increases scientific confidence.

Eppur si riscalda.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2025-11-01 08:15 (Reply)
Ah yes. The “We have investigated ourselves and found that we have done nothing wrong” defense.

Pay no attention to those pesky independent studies that include photographic evidence of all the compromised surface stations.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.1 Rusty on 2025-11-01 08:41 (Reply)
Rusty: The “We have investigated ourselves and found that we have done nothing wrong” defense.

Your claim: "96% of US temperature stations fail to meet acceptable criteria for operation, even by NOAA's own standards."

But that claim was false.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2025-11-01 10:00 (Reply)
See Menne, Williams & Palecki, “On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record”, Journal of Geophysical Research 2010: "we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting."

Also, blaming poor station data doesn't explain why the satellite and ocean observations support the same global trend.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2025-11-01 10:20 (Reply)
Sorry, but I’ll take the photographic evidence of poor station siting over the claims of the scientific establishment who’s very existence relies on supporting the political narrative.

And if the surface temp data is inflated and consistently revised upward, any other methodology that agrees with it is immediately suspect as well.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.1 Rusty on 2025-11-01 10:46 (Reply)
Rusty: Sorry, but I’ll take the photographic evidence of poor station siting over the claims of the scientific establishment who’s very existence relies on supporting the political narrative.

That some stations are not suitable doesn't mean other stations are not, or why multiple independent investigations have found that the surface trend is supported by the evidence, and that removing problematic stations doesn't significantly change the trend.

Nor have you explained why satellite and ocean observations support the same trend. The most parsimonious explanation is that the station data is largely correct, not that there is some grand conspiracy, which includes scientists working independently using independent methodologies and instruments, to hide the truth.

You keep basing your position on falsities.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2025-11-01 12:00 (Reply)
Let’s recap.

An independent investigation finds that the vast majority of surface stations are compromised, and provides photographic evidence.

Same investigation concludes that if substandard stations are removed there is no century long warming trend as stated by the corrupt government narrative.

You claim otherwise and cite - 3 scientists who work for the government that is pushing the trillion dollar grift?

What did you think they would say, Zach? “We are ashamed of the fact that for decades we have used faulty and doctored data and we hereby resign our lucrative government careers?”

I’d say you were a fool if I didn’t know you were evil.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1 Rusty on 2025-11-01 12:21 (Reply)
Rusty: An independent investigation finds that the vast majority of surface stations are compromised, and provides photographic evidence.

Which was examined by other scientists who found that the questionable stations did not impact the overall trend. Now, all these other scientists could be wrong, but just saying so doesn't make it so. Furthermore ...

Rusty: 3 scientists who work for the government that is pushing the trillion dollar grift?

We cited hundreds of scientists from all over the world, working independently, some reanalyzing the surface data, some using satellite observations, some using ocean observations, all detecting the same warming trend.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2025-11-01 12:32 (Reply)
I really can’t think of a more egregious lie. 96% of the surface stations examined and photographed were compromised. Then the government says” nothing to see here, folks”.

And instead of a mea culpa, the scientific community breathes a sigh of relief and continues to cash those government checks.

Pure evil.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.1 Rusty on 2025-11-01 12:44 (Reply)
Rusty: 96% of the surface stations examined and photographed were compromised.

Repeating your points, while ignoring our responses is a fallacy of diversion, a tactic you started with our very first exchange. Try again:

We cited hundreds of scientists from all over the world, working independently, some reanalyzing the surface data, some using satellite observations, some using ocean observations, all detecting the same warming trend. When multiple, independent measures show the same result, that provides strong scientific confidence in the result.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2025-11-01 13:00 (Reply)
In conclusion:

Rusty: "Who ya gonna believe? Your own eyes, or a bunch of sleazy government bureaucrats involved in the most lucrative political scam in history?"

Zach: "Why the government of course!"
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.2.1 Rusty on 2025-11-01 13:30 (Reply)
Rusty: In conclusion

Our position is not based on an appeal to the government, but to the evidence. Try again. (See previous comment.)
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2025-11-01 14:25 (Reply)
To the contrary, the very first paper you appealed to was from three government employees.

You then appealed to the GHCN. Government funded.

You then appealed to NCEI. Government funded.

You then appealed to NOAA. Government funded.

You then appealed to NOAA again.

You then appealed to 3 NOAA employees again.

You then appealed to a paper funded by Bill Gates.

You then appealed to NOAA again.


But sure. You aren't appealing to the government.


That's the thing about liars. Once they start, they can't seem to stop.

You're not fooling anybody. Nobody believes you evil fuckers anymore.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.1 Rusty on 2025-11-01 15:14 (Reply)
You have yet to address why satellite and ocean observations support the same trend as the surface data.

Rusty: You then appealed to the GHCN

Randy falsely claimed that the raw surface data wasn't available. We provided a public repository for the data.

Rusty: To the contrary, the very first paper you appealed to was from three government employees.

The first paper cited was by two scientists at Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, a university in Switzerland.

In any case, we didn't appeal to their authority, scientists can be wrong certainly, but to the evidence they presented. To argue otherwise requires addressing the papers themselves. Or you can just wave your hands.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2025-11-01 15:53 (Reply)
A better question is why would the satellite data agree with a temperature record that's based on compromised surface stations and on a data record where the past is almost exclusively adjusted downward and the present is almost exclusively adjusted up?

To normal people, that's just fucking weird and highly suspect. But you keep holding it up like it's some holy relic to be admired.

It's similar to asserting that Nancy Pelosi is an authority on financial analysis because she does so well in the stock market.

Normal people see through the charade. Nobody believes you fucking creeps anymore. Climate now rates below public transportation among people's concerns.

You have squandered the public's good will, you evil pricks.

Have a nice day. I'll be taking the V-8 truck out for a steak dinner in your honor.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.2.1 Rusty on 2025-11-01 16:32 (Reply)
Rusty: A better question is why would the satellite data agree with a temperature record that's based on compromised surface stations and on a data record where the past is almost exclusively adjusted downward and the present is almost exclusively adjusted up?

The parsimonious answer is that they show the same underlying trend. Note also that ocean observations also support the warming trend.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2025-11-01 16:41 (Reply)
Being in agreement with corrupt data is not a good thing unless you just want to use it for nefarious purposes.

Luckily it is now easier than ever to spot bullshit like this.
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.1 Rusty on 2025-11-01 17:09 (Reply)
Rusty: Being in agreement with corrupt data is not a good thing unless you just want to use it for nefarious purposes.

So your position, such as it is, is that thousands of scientists, working in different fields, in different countries, using different methods, are all corrupt, because Rusty says so.

UAH Global Temperature Report (satellite observations of lower troposphere)
#2.1.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2025-11-01 19:37 (Reply)
Arab militia slaughters blacks, women and children!

Wow! Just wait until the college students hear this they will riot against this racism and genocide. Wait for it... wait...
#3 JustMe on 2025-10-30 10:50 (Reply)
At this point, I can easily picture Mamdani allowing a dirty nuclear device to be detonated in NYC. You get what you vote for.
#4 Maniac on 2025-10-30 11:01 (Reply)
The base of the Democratic/socialist party is angry women and effeminate men.
#5 indyjonesouthere on 2025-10-30 15:49 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.