we'd never fit.

True that....

No Victor, I do not agree that I am “horribly wrong”. I may not have told the whole story of Copernicus, but saying that the Church exiled him is accurate.

Eric, on the other hand, exemplifies “horribly wrong”. But at least he works hard at it.

Btw Victor, have you ever considered raising bricks in the Poconos?

Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.

The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.

The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide “continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations,” NOAA states on its website. “The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.” In essence, NOAA chose locations so they don’t need to be adjusted for “biases” in the temperature record.

”Clearly, a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ exists in this most pristine climate data,” writes Anthony Watts, a veteran meteorologist and publisher of the science blog Watts Up With That. “In fact, a very slight cooling trend appears.”

Watts’s plotting of U.S. Surface Climate Observing Reference Networks (USCRN) data comes after NOAA researchers put out a study claiming there’s been no “hiatus” in global warming– a 15-year period with no significant rise in the world’s average temperature. Basically, NOAA made adjustments to weather stations, buoys and ships that increased the warming trend from older data.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus’,” NOAA scientists wrote in their study.

NOAA found that from 1998 to 2012 there was “more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists wrote. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”

NOAA’s latest climate adjustments were sharply criticized by climate scientists skeptical of man-made global warming. Skeptics argued NOAA’s data adjustments were largely unwarranted and excluded data that didn’t fit with the global warming narrative.

“My bottom line assessment is this,” wrote Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. “I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated.”

“The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target,” Curry added. “So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”

What’s interesting about the USCRN data is that it was created to provide scientists with “long-term sustainable and robust climate observations that are necessary to document long-term climate change trends for the United States,” according to NOAA. Much of this relies on the fact that these climate stations are placed in areas that don’t need to be adjusted for interference, like urban heat created in cities.

NOAA’s latest temperature update did not include USCRN data. One reason for this may be that the USCRN stations only have about a decade of data on them, which could be considered too short of a time period to use them in their analysis.

It should also be noted that USCRN only covers the U.S., including Hawaii and Alaska, but the rest of the world lacks these high quality weather stations that don’t require temperatures to go through ex post facto adjustments by NOAA.

Skeptics, however, argue that USCRN data could deflate future arguments of rapid warming made by NOAA and others.

“So, since this state of the art network requires no adjustment, we can most surely trust the data presented by it. Right?” Watts asked.

“While we seldom if ever see the USCRN mentioned in NOAA’s monthly and annual ‘State of the Climate’ reports to the U.S. public, buried in the depths of the [National Climatic Data Center] website, one can get access to the data and have it plotted,” Watts added. “We now have 10 years, a decade, of good data from this network and we are able to plot it.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/americas-most-advanced-climate-station-data-shows-us-in-a-10-year-cooling-trend/ 

I think you’re tryin’ to make a monkey out of my posting…..

So I go to The Daily Caller and a head line reads:

Local Paper Reacts; News Alert Claiming ‘The Sun Just Exploded’

Another DMV link……

no way man.... just a thought.... I don't think I'll ever understand my thought process... 🤔

I tried raising bricks. But BPS (Brick Protective Services) took them away from me. Said I was being neglectful.

Anyway, from what I read (I am NOT a historian, and I did NOT sleep at a Holiday Inn or whatever) the church and Copernicus were all "we're cool brah"" while he was alive. It wasn't until he was dead and there was some brief protestant anti-science revival (kind of like what we're seeing in the south now) that the church decided to be all anti-copernicus.

First off... hell no. I'd still drive my BMW.

Second, what costs? I honestly don't know of anything that seems outrageously expensive? I agree that fuel impacts the cost of the supply chain. And I agree that there is a cost for anything made from petroleum products (assuming that item comes from the same fraction as fuel). But I don't see anything in my life as being that expensive...

Let me rephrase that... when I look at the total cost of the items I've been buying, the bulk of the cost is certainly not fuel or petroleum based input. When I buy a 4$ latte, how much do you really think the price of fuel for harvesting the beans, bringing them to the cafe, sourcing the milk etc etc etc really contributes, vs how much is simply mark-up by starbucks or whatever cafe owner it is, or labor for the highly trained baristas? When you buy a $20 drink at a bar, do you really think lower gas prices is going to make that cheaper? To keep the topic somewhat based around cigars, do you really think there is much impact gas prices will have on your $20 cigars? How much more do you think you're paying for your cigars because gas is 4$ instead of $2? How do you think that price compares to the percentage you're paying for taxes or raw material or labor?

the lawn crew charges me more!

I said I wasn't getting a more fuel efficient vehicle. My point is pretty clear, unless you already live close to work or drive a fuel efficient vehicle, the bulk of your fuel expenses are a "luxury" in that they allow you to live in some area other than where you work.

Yeah, but admit it; deep down inside and secretly - you really want a Prius.

With a Louis Vuitton shifter…..

Me? No. But the gf will literally wear anything with LV on it. Don't get me started on their f-ing suitcases.

Well at least you lead by example, living walking distance from restaurants and entertainment, only using a small apartment, driving a four cylinder. You help make others green……

Straight six. Let's not get hasty. No way I'm moving down to 4 cylinders.