Global Warming Climate Models Have Made a Successful Prediction

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:26:05 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:04:43 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Sunday, 11 September 2016 20:30:40 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:


[And intense ranting deleted for sanitary reasons]

You like a bit if cherry picking, don't you St.Gary?

Does "God's Own Country" love its indigenous peoples?

Many among us ARE its indigenous peoples.

Some of you.

Exactly.


Has it ever? Does Christian America love communists?

Why should it?

Does Christian America love Muslims as much as it worships Jews?

Atheists hate them all.

Stupid statement. Most atheists and agnostics pity the superstitious ( you
would call them religious) but don't hate them.

You do hate them.



Does "Christian" America love its slaves?

We have no slaves.



http://www.endslaverynow.org/learn/s...y/forced-labor

And that doesn't even count those incarcerated in private prisons.

There aren't any slaves here.

The slaves who built its great wealth. Who built its infrastructure with
their own sweat and blood and tears and the scars of the whip and the lifelong
chains.

Most of the infrastructure has been built in the last few decades, long
after slavery was abolished.

Does Christian America love those who continue as its proxy slaves today and
tomorrow to provide its [now exported] textile and consumer
manufacturing capacity while chained to a bench in some sweatshop
hellhole with "exclusive"
"designer" "labels" being sneaked in the back door?

Where does Denmark get its clothing, "designer" or otherwise? Where was
your computer made?


Does Christian America love multinationals and multi-billionaires who pay no taxes?

Get rid of the income tax and that "problem" goes away, along with a host of others.

Does Christian America love the inmates of its unbelievably vast prison population?

Do you?

Does Christian America love those it executes by any means legal,
immoral or otherwise after years on Death Row?

Do you?

Does Christian America love those worthy only of minimum wage, or even less?
Does Christian America love the working poor with two [slave wage] jobs? Those
who still struggle to make ends meet despite working every hour under God's
sun and long after it has set.

"God's" sun? Aren't you atheist?

Does Christian America love all those children it denies an education
but easily affords them indoctrination from birth?

"Christian America" often avoids that indoctrination by sending its kids
to private schools or by home schooling. And the kids get a better education too.

Does Christian America love its wounded and damaged ex-servicemen as "it loves itself?"

In Jesusland, definitely. Blue areas, not so much.

If America "trusts in its [own, private, nationalist] god for protection"
then why does it need a vast nuclear arsenal, chemical, cluster and nerve weapons?

Because our adversaries have them.

Not to mention the largest conventional "defense" force on the planet?
Which part of "Thou shall not kill" does Christian America not understand?

Who fought to restore freedom in WWII? Not Denmark.

If "rich men and eyes of needles" is a basic Christian code of conduct
then why does Christian America worship wealth above all else?

You should give away all that you have to the poor, critter. Then get back to us.

You are the Christian. Apply the same rules to religion that you do to
environmentalists.
So you give away all you have to the poor and I'll consider selling my car.


If one "shall not kill" then why does Christian America start illegal and immoral wars?

That's a cop out Chris. Illegal war? Just a stupid phrase used for
exaggeration.

Such as?

Why does every policeman carry a gun

For self-defense.

Self defence doesn't include shooting those who run away.
That's murder.

The question was: "Why does every policeman carry a gun?"
The answer was: "For self-defense."
That -some- police might shoot someone is beside the point.

and commit summary execution for minor[ity] traffic offenses?

They don't.

Yet the genocidal dictators who sell Christian America its cheap oil are
treated as gods in their own right.

Where does Denmark get its cheap oil?

Denmark is the world's 32nd biggest net oil exporter.

IOW, Denmark profits from oil.

They are the untouchables

No, Saddam Hussein wasn't.

while hundreds of millions must leave home with nothing but the dusty
rags on their backs.

That's currently due to the antics of ISIS.

Who would not exist without Bush's folly.

ISIS formed under slick willie's watch and flourished under the zero's watch.

Or die of malnutrition and festering wounds on the spot. Every terrorist
is manufactured from deep resentment,

Resentment for what?

however bogus their methods to seek bloody revenge.

Revenge for what?

Does Christian America love immigrants?

The 1% loves illegal immigrants and uses them as cheap labour.

What 1%?

The legal ones.

Does Christian America love genuine asylum seekers?

Sure, why not?

Does Christian America love its women *equally* as much as its men?

It does.

Because most of them are Muslim.

Most women in America are Muslim????

Does Christian America love the sex workers it abuses in such vast numbers?

"Christian America" does not generally hire sex workers, and therefore isn't abusing them.


Does it love those oppressed by a nationwide glass ceiling?

What glass ceiling is that?

Does Christian America love anybody else except its truly mythical self?

http://listaka.com/top-10-countries-usas-allies/

Denmark didn't make the list, but then perhaps Denmarkians haven't ever
done anything to deserve to be on it.

A lot of those countries will slide off the list if Trump is elected.

Doubtful.

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:55:22 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 10:37:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I knew it was, because when I looked at the data I saw that column
which could be ranked.

Let's review this discussion, shall we?

No, let's not. Your point was stupid at the beginning, and you're not
improving things.

You deleted this by mistake:

On September 9th wsnell01 wrote:

"California has the nation's highest poverty rate, followed by DC."

Later peterson wrote:

"Where in the heck do you get that? The states with the highest poverty
rates, from the worst: Mississippi, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alabama,
Kentucky, Arkansas, DC, Georgia, West Virginia, Arizona. California is
#35. That's from the U.S. Census Bureau."

On September 10th wsnell01 wrote:

"When California's high cost of living is factored in, its poverty rate jumps to almost 24%. DC's is only slightly lower."


On September 11th peterson wrote:

"Yeah, I guess you can make up whatever numbers you want. I'm going
with the Census Bureau."

On September 12th wsnell01 wrote:

"Then here you go:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-...le2916749.html

California has highest poverty rate.

Are you going to argue with that, peterson???"

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:15:20 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:51:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You just provided a link to an article that has absolutely nothing to
do with physical modeling. You've just demonstrated that you know
nothing of the subject.

Physical models can be and usually are tweaked, peterson. Read the link again, peterson.

Pride in ignorance is revealed by doubling down on the stupid.

So you are saying that models aren't tweaked to make them conform to pesky reality.


That is a strawman argument. For PRACTICAL purposes celestial mechanics is deadly accurate.

Not at all. There are many practical areas where the current orbital
dynamics models are not accurate enough to solve certain problems.

Incorrect. Those are not PRACTICAL areas, but mathematically intractable problems.

Not at all. There are no mathematical problems, simply a lack of
knowledge about all the physical processes or the values of some free
parameters.

The physical processes and parameters values are known, the math is the problem.

In my professional research, I work with
orbital dynamics. I propagate particles forward and backward in time,
and the math is perfect. The errors accumulate because all of the drag
factors are not fully understood or cannot be fully accommodated in
the model.

IOW, the math is inadequate.

Other errors are related to an incomplete understanding of
all the inputs- how albedo varies with longitude, or how mass is
distributed in the body.

IOW, the math can't deal with it.

I try to estimate the degree each of these unknowns contributes to
computation errors, and propagate those errors the final output.

IOW, you tweak the model to make it conform to reality.


The only reason you're willing to give an astronomical model a pass
and call the climatological model useless is because your fringe
political biases override any rational analysis you might be capable
of.

Irrational assumption. But then you are famous for those, peterson.

I've seldom encountered anybody who is so driven by biases.

Look in the mirror.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 05:54:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:15:20 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:51:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You just provided a link to an article that has absolutely nothing to
do with physical modeling. You've just demonstrated that you know
nothing of the subject.

Physical models can be and usually are tweaked, peterson. Read the link again, peterson.

Pride in ignorance is revealed by doubling down on the stupid.

So you are saying that models aren't tweaked to make them conform to pesky reality.

Models have parameters which are physical (based on physics; not
empirical) but which may be poorly constrained (such as the
reflectivity of aerosols). Those inputs are varied systematically
(e.g. Monte Carlo methodology) until the output matches reality. This
approach allows those parameters to be assigned rigorous
uncertainties.

Go to a scientific conference and call that work "tweaking" and you'd
be laughed out of the room.

In my professional research, I work with
orbital dynamics. I propagate particles forward and backward in time,
and the math is perfect. The errors accumulate because all of the drag
factors are not fully understood or cannot be fully accommodated in
the model.

IOW, the math is inadequate.

No. This has nothing to do with the math.

Other errors are related to an incomplete understanding of
all the inputs- how albedo varies with longitude, or how mass is
distributed in the body.

IOW, the math can't deal with it.

No. This has nothing to do with the math.

I try to estimate the degree each of these unknowns contributes to
computation errors, and propagate those errors the final output.

IOW, you tweak the model to make it conform to reality.

No. The model is not adjusted at all. Error propagation is the method
used to take all the individual errors in the various inputs and
calculate an error on the final output. You'd know this if you'd ever
taken a college level science class for science majors.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 05:34:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:55:22 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 10:37:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I knew it was, because when I looked at the data I saw that column
which could be ranked.

Let's review this discussion, shall we?

No, let's not. Your point was stupid at the beginning, and you're not
improving things.

You deleted this...

Obsessive drivel snipped.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 05:05:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Churches don't have to file tax returns. The possibility that some might have is irrelevant. They didn't have to.

So why do you think that virtually all of them do so?

Because the IRS is violating the First Amendment and is screwed up, generally.

Clueless.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-who-must-file

With a tax code exceeding 70,000 pages, the IRS is bound to get confused.

I think it's a lot more likely that YOU are the one getting confused.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 10:05:44 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 05:05:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Churches don't have to file tax returns. The possibility that some might have is irrelevant. They didn't have to.

So why do you think that virtually all of them do so?

Because the IRS is violating the First Amendment and is screwed up, generally.

Clueless.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-who-must-file

With a tax code exceeding 70,000 pages, the IRS is bound to get confused.

I think it's a lot more likely that YOU are the one getting confused.

Then you are misleading yourself, peterson.

https://www.startchurch.com/blog/vie...you-bad-advice

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 10:05:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 05:34:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:55:22 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 10:37:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I knew it was, because when I looked at the data I saw that column
which could be ranked.

Let's review this discussion, shall we?

No, let's not. Your point was stupid at the beginning, and you're not
improving things.

You deleted this...

Obsessive drivel snipped.

Do you deny that this exchange took place earlier in this thread, peterson? A simple unqualified Yes/No answer is the requirement:




On September 9th wsnell01 wrote:

"California has the nation's highest poverty rate, followed by DC."

Later peterson wrote:

"Where in the heck do you get that? The states with the highest poverty
rates, from the worst: Mississippi, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alabama,
Kentucky, Arkansas, DC, Georgia, West Virginia, Arizona. California is
#35. That's from the U.S. Census Bureau."

On September 10th wsnell01 wrote:

"When California's high cost of living is factored in, its poverty rate jumps to almost 24%. DC's is only slightly lower."


On September 11th peterson wrote:

"Yeah, I guess you can make up whatever numbers you want. I'm going
with the Census Bureau."

On September 12th wsnell01 wrote:

"Then here you go:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-...le2916749.html

California has highest poverty rate.

Are you going to argue with that, peterson???"

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:42:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 10:05:44 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 05:05:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Churches don't have to file tax returns. The possibility that some might have is irrelevant. They didn't have to.

So why do you think that virtually all of them do so?

Because the IRS is violating the First Amendment and is screwed up, generally.

Clueless.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-who-must-file

With a tax code exceeding 70,000 pages, the IRS is bound to get confused.

I think it's a lot more likely that YOU are the one getting confused.

Then you are misleading yourself, peterson.

https://www.startchurch.com/blog/vie...you-bad-advice

That link has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. So
I have no idea what point you think you're making. Churches that take
in money and want to claim tax exempt status need to organize as a
type of 501 corporation and file federal returns. Churches are not
constitutionally exempt from taxation, merely legislatively so in
many- but not all- jurisdictions.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:45:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Do you deny that this exchange took place earlier in this thread, peterson? A simple unqualified Yes/No answer is the requirement:

Obsessive drivel snipped.