> The IPCC

100% pure, total propaganda with nothing objective
at all, certainly not peer-review.

After reading their Guru Ramaswamy's radiative forcing
it was totally clear that they were totally worthless
for anything meaningful.

They are a political organization trying to raise money
by carbon taxes on the developed countries to transfer
wealth to the third world.

Somehow I just lost 37 points today, 5
points from my post here
and another 4 points on a post on how to help a 7 year old girl
who went to the wrong comic book store.
Apparently with HN arithmetic, 5 + 4 = 39.

For the girl,
I suggested
she go to a music store that focused on classical
music. I also suggested the movies, stores of
American Girl. The comic book shop was right next to porn.
Gee, my suggestion was not liked.

> the vitriol that you fire at the NYT's opinions

The NYT has long been and still is a NYC wild-eyed
liberal,
bleeding-heart, emotional hysteria organization,
heavily for wealthy English majors and wannabees.

I deeply, profoundly, bitterly hate and despise
the NYT, but I fired no "vitriol" but (1)
said good things about their graph but (2)
criticized them for using extreme values to
get people excited.

Again, once again, over again, one more time,
rock solid, for such a situation extreme values
may be better than no data at all but, given
good average data, one more time, this time just
for you, once again, maybe you will actually
read it this time, you can read, right,
the extreme value data is useless. Or,
some solid advice -- f'get about extreme value
data. Stuff it for the hottest, the coldest,
the least ice, the fastest winds, etc.

Leave the importance of extreme values to, say,
Olympic records. For GDP, that's an average.
For the corn crop, we want an average.
For crude oil production, we want an average,
say, monthly. For global temperature
to consider global warming, we want an average.
An average, not extreme values.

One biggie reason for the importance of the average
is that it essentially is, has to be, what's important,
e.g., the area under the curve, the total energy
involved, etc. The average per day times the number
of days is the total, e.g., as for your income
and paying your taxes.

But the NYT will use anything they can get away with
to get their readers all hysterical, up on their
hind legs, believing in their trilogy of
transgression by evil humans against the
pure, pristine, precious, 100% all-natural
mother earth. So, it's a 1000 year old
morality play they learned in English literature
class. Then there is the retribution part --
destroy the coral reefs, the oceans, the whales,
the forests, NYC via rising sea levels,
etc. Then there is the redemption --
suffering, sacrifice, self-denial.
So, walk or ride bicycles, use electric
cars (NYC liberals hate anything having to
do with cars -- in Texas, Wyoming, and Montana
they like cars). In this way the NYT creates
a story and an audience for their story and
then just keeps running such stories to feed
their audience. They also make NYC liberals
feel good. If you don't see this transparent
manipulation, too bad -- it's what they've
been doing for decades. You've been
manipulated by some people who want your
eyeballs, your money, your time, etc.

What's going on with the temperature of the
planet? No one knows. The record is totally
clear -- the computer models have been
wildly off. The models are far too much in
agreement and far too far away from reality --
what the models predicted for now is much, much
higher temperatures than we are seeing.

Just why the models are wrong, no one knows.
Maybe they got the Navier-Stokes equations
right, or the sunspot data right, or the
black body radiation right, or the convection
right, or some such, but messed up on the
biological effects, the oceans, or whatever.

Maybe we are still slowly pulling out of The Little
Ice Age. As we warm from The Little Ice age,
we will also have to warm the oceans, and they are
mostly 3 miles down and 7 miles or so over
much of the Pacific; it might take a long time
to warm the oceans from the cooling they got
in The Little Ice Age.
There is the NAS report that shows
that from year 900 to year 1000, just before
The Little Ice Age started, the temperature
was increasing very rapidly, about the same
as the past 100 years, and that increase
had nothing to do with human generation of
CO2.

But, given their record, and their
nonsense with extreme values,
there's no way to
trust the NYT. So, we need to get their
data from other sources. They have to
name the sources or we have to regard their
writing as just drama. NASA? Sadly
they may have been bent by Obama who wants
global warming as one of his issues.

While I hate the NYT, all I wrote about them
was that they wanted people to get excited
about extreme values, and there I was
rock solidly correct. If you can't see this,
then that's your problem.