placeholder

And keep on raising issues that have been settled long since.

There have also been grumblings from other non ethnic Russian areas where Russia has been intensively and disproportionately recruiting Russia deploys ethnic minority soldiers in riskiest attacks to their growing dissatisfaction General Staff report https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-deploys-ethnic-minority-soldiers-040950789.html

Given shortfalls in production, and the Ukraine war, what do you suggest? And which administration are you referring to? The UK's? Germany's? France's? Inflation is rampant in virtually all the developed economies except Japan's. Oddly enough, their inflation rate is 2.5% despite the fact that their GDP to debt ratio is almost 3 times that of the USA.

You mean ride sharing and food delivery services? In fact, Taiwanese businesses have been major investors in China. Although, that's changing. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-21/china-s-crackdown-on-taiwan-inc-risks-accelerating-decoupling

So the covid year is irrelevant but the fact that Obama inherited an economy that was under the greatest threat since the Great Depression is not relevant? Actually, the reason for QE is because, unlike the Democrats who responded to the emergency of covid, Republicans refused to increase spending to counter the depressed state of the economy. And just repeating that QE is responsible for current inflation does not make it true. You may have heard of Occam's razor. The simplest explanation that fits the facts is the best one. We have supply shortfalls due to covid and a war that has increased the cost of energy. Yet your explanation takes none of that into account.

This is another tired objection. It is undeniable that earth's climate is changing. What also undeniable is that for the last several thousand years, it hasn't changed as fast as it is now changing. In other words, it's about rates. Comments like yours are exactly analogous to saying that there's no important difference between an investment that offers 1 percent interest and another that offers 10 percent interest.

A very feeble attempt at evading the fact that your objections are baseless.

You may not have been addressing Richard Muller but you were addressing the issues that Richard Muller's team had already researched and invalidated the objections that matched those that you raised here.

Why should you? Because it's a fact, that's why. Trump massively raised the deficit when the economy was at full employment and tax revenues were going up. As for your comment about the economy, another religious statement masquerading as an economic fact. Please share with us how the current situation is due to QE and low interest rates.

What don't you understand about the fact the Richard Muller assembled a team of high level scientists to examine the very issues you raise concerning methodology? What don't you understand about the fact that climatologists told Mueller that they had already accounted for these issues in their methodology? What don't you understand about the fact that Muller confirmed that climatologists had gotten it right after all? Have you examined the research of Mueller and others? And yet you think you know better than they do? And you accuse me of conceit? It is to laugh.

All these questions have been addressed by climatologists. And despite the fact that climatologists told Richard Mueller that these issues had been addressed, he went ahead anyway. And his research independently confirmed what they claimed. What's sociologically and ideologically interesting, is that the same denialists who had enthulsiastically sponsored his research, dropped him like a hot potato once he revealed its results. You've got nothing. The issues you raise have obviously been repeatedly addressed. The only way your objections could be valid is if there was a huge conspiracy of thousands of climatologists who ignored the obvious points you raised. You clearly have no knowledge of what scientists like Muller have done, and I daresay, absolutely no interest in learning about their research.

Sometimes, when I see objections like this raised, I feel that I'm dealing with children who understandably enough, think that their questions are new to the world and haven't been addressed long since. It's endearing in kids. In adults, not so much. Do you really believe that the thousands upon thousands of data points captured daily won't overcome the statistical noise of the factors you've cited.? Objections similar to yours were posed by denialists not long ago. And an eminent physicist, Richard Muller, who had also questioned the accuracy of such measurements was hired by them to analyze these temperature reports. He assembled a team of some of the best scientists and statisticians out there analyze temperature reporting. After Climate Research, Physicist Richard Muller Says "Call Me a Converted Skeptic" Two years ago, Richard Muller, a star physicist at Berkeley, assembled a team of scientists who had not previously taken public positions on global warming essentially to start from scratch to find answers about climate change. They began a project called Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST). With skepticism still prevalent, the team set out to conduct its own research in a manner that would convince the public of its credibility. https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/after_climate_research_physicist_richard_muller_says_call_me_a_converted_sk

More silly word games. And that rise in temperature has huge implications for precipitation and hurricane formation.

That you have to ask that question shows how little regard you have for the science. The answer is yes, of course.

No, I didn't report it. You have a genuine talent for making things up.

Why is an average global temperature a dubious concept? And why is it that records for high temperatures are increasingly outpacing records for low temperatures?

I just wrote my comment above and find that you've posted this. What don't you understand about the fact that the heat trapping properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases aren't a matter for legitimate debate? That at this point it is finely calibrated. This is old and settled science, preceding the issue of global warming.

It is remarkable how denialists hold science in contempt. These pages are littered with denialists questioning the power of CO2 and the greenhouse effect even though this question was settled about 160 years ago by the eminent Irish physicist John Tindall. Somehow they believe that because CO2 is currently .041% of the atmosphere it can't possibly be responsible for global warming. And to their way of thinking, this kind of rhetoric qualifies as scientific reasoning.

What you don't acknowledge is that Trump increased the annual deficits when the economy was doing well thanks to his massive tax cuts. "Economists agree that we needed massive deficit spending during the COVID-19 crisis to ward off an economic cataclysm, but federal finances under Trump had become dire even before the pandemic. That happened even though the economy was booming and unemployment was at historically low levels. By the Trump administration’s own description, the pre-pandemic national debt level was already a “crisis” and a “grave threat.”" https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump

Well, if it was my opinion alone, you might have a point. But since this is what the overwhelming majority of climatologists believe, I'll go with them rather than the empty rhetoric of an anonymous poster on thaivisa.com And first you claimed that it was only a few ships taking samples back when and now you claim that samples are being drawn from a few disparate sites. Can you share with us an actual numerical figure of what "few" actually means? Because I've got news for you. "Few" isn't a word that has much use in science in defining quantity. So, since I'm sure you've done the research, share with us what number you actually assign to "few".

Even if your characterization of how samples were obtained in the last 200 years was accurate, there is plenty of recent evidence to support the fact that the warming of the oceans is ongoing. Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions The increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities traps heat within the climate system and increases ocean heat content (OHC). Here, we provide the first analysis of recent OHC changes through 2021 from two international groups. The world ocean, in 2021, was the hottest ever recorded by humans, and the 2021 annual OHC value is even higher than last year’s record value by 14 ± 11 ZJ (1 zetta J = 1021 J) using the IAP/CAS dataset and by 16 ± 10 ZJ using NCE https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-022-1461-3I/NOAA dataset. The Oceans Are Getting Warmer Annual average temperatures of the oceans’ surfaces have been diverging from the 20th century (1900-1999) average more and more since the 1980s. In 2021, global ocean surface temperatures were 0.65 degrees Celsius higher than that century’s average, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). https://www.statista.com/chart/19418/divergence-of-ocean-temperatures-from-20th-century-average/

Well, when someone calls those who disagree with them an "alarmist mob" maybe accusing that someone of being willfully dishonest isn't out of line.

Whatever the merits of the info that the link leads to, (and given that it comes from climateaudit.org its merits are dubious) the fact is that the "hockey stick" has been confirmed over and over again by climatologists using different data sources. It is now settled science.

Plenty of links to how proxy determinations of global temperature gets done have been offered. If you don't want to follow those links and learn something, well, that's what's called willful ignorance.

But do we deserve the nonsense you're pushing? Got some actual evidence from these globalists to share with us?