You quoted the answer to your question.

Its obvious that worshiping has gotten in the way of reading.

There is a difference between a simplified overview and a dense fact-regurgitation. The difference is that I expect to get an understanding from a simplified overview, while I dont expect to get an understanding from a dense fact-regurgitation.

"Simplified" does not mean "simplistic" unless you dont understand how education works.

Richard Feynman. End of discussion.

Doug Stanhope, "You were born free, but you got fucked out of half of it."

Wont make them any more OR less safe, which means that the regulations arent about safety at all. Do you think regulations that arent about safety but are sold to you as if they were about safety is a good thing for you?

We are talking about contracts, and people do "slavery" contracts all the time. For example, employment contracts.

Contracts, unlike the "slavery" that you want to imply, can be broken. Broken contracts go to civil court, where a judge decides how the harmed person is to be made whole again (typically with a money judgment.)

I'm sorry that you dont understand anything at all about the world of contracts but insist on acting like you do anyways.

Son, the pixels arent 14-bits each. They are 42 bits each, which is rounded to 48 bits each. 6 bytes per pixel.

Is this the same American Heart Association that had a negative stance on salt?

Why the hell do we care what they say again?

Missile technology is science.

Yes. I also predict that the violent overthrow of the government will happen within my lifetime.

Dude, she was penpals with *2* people from those violent overthrow groups that you claim she was twice-removed from affiliation-wise, while they are (still) serving time in jail. You want other people to read the fucking article? Why not inform your own dumb ignorant ass?

It has nothing to do with welcoming critics. It has to do with lying during the one step of getting hired where you absolutely shouldn't fucking lie.

My job requires government licensing, which includes a 10-year background check form in which we are to list things like arrests, charges, convictions, lawsuits, dispositions, , etc that happened in the past 10 years no matter how minor. Neglecting to mention anything, no matter how minor is immediate grounds for refusal of licensing. No license no job. Period.

The only thing I could have put on the form (in my case) that would have lead to a refusal of licensing is that I was convicted of specifically larceny (my job deals with very large sums of money.) I could have been an parole for the murder of a nun and that would have made no difference at all. My only job at that point of the hiring process was simply not to fucking lie.

I didn't. I got the license necessary to legally perform the job because I didnt fucking lie. Very fucking simple.

It used to be that they did a popular job. If the job is unpopular now, one must consider what changes have taken place between then and now.

...and by eurocentric you mean "including at least also Asia, Mesoamerica, Africa, Antarctica, Pacific Islands, New Zealand, and South America."

The claim that the Little Ice Age was a phenomena local to the north atlantic was completely debunked by the existing data immediately after the claim was made.

Have you looked at the data?

heading:

Climate data (raw)

The *first* link, which is to the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) "v2" data is not raw temperature data. I know that the site claims that its raw data, but only precipitation data is within the main data set. Within the "v2" set is a subfolder with temperature data in gridded (processed) format, and the readme for the gridded data specifically mentions that if you want actual raw temperature data to look at the GHCN data set (yay thats what we are doing....?) Unfortunately as I already pointed out, in the v2 data set there is only precipitation data and gridded (processed) data.

Above the folder that is linked to are links to other data. The GHCN has gone through two significant changes since its inception in 1992. They are affectionately called "v1", "v2", and "v3." The v1 data is culled and processed data presenting only monthly mean temperatures (most stations do daily recording.) This data also only goes up to 1997 at which point v2 took over. So v1 contains culled and processed data and as I already pointed out, the v2 data does not include unprocessed temperature data either. So the raw data must be in v3, right? Let me quote the readme file for v3: "A new software processing system is now responsible for daily reprocessing of the dataset. This reprocessing consists of a construction process that assembles the data in a specific source priority order, quality controls the data, identifies inhomogeneities and performs adjustments where possible." and of course this is again monthly mean temperatures, not the raw station data.

This sort of story is true for every single link. Some of the links are literally to bitmap images of graphs, rather than to data. Others are links to only the most recent measurements at each measurement station (which itself isnt comprehensive), rather than to the hundred+ years of supposed historical data.

They claim the raw data is available, and go so far as to pretend to link to the raw data, and that of course gets people like you to shout down people that want the raw data.

Now to be perfectly clear what just transpired. People are asking for the raw data and are saying that the climate scientists wont release it. You then responded by linking to the blog of those very same climate scientists that it is claimed wont release the data (realclimate is run by Mann, Jones, Hansen, etc.) This blog claims to link to the raw data but actually does not. And finally, yuou tried to shout down someone that wants the raw data by yourself claiming that the raw data is available by citing the blog of the people it is claimed wont release the raw data and does not itself link to the raw data but claims that it does link to the raw data.

Do you feel at all duped?

At no point did you show or even claim that they actually did the measurement all over the world. We know that CO2 concentrations are not evenly distributed, ergo the argument of the person you replied to has not been been challenged by you. Perhaps you would like to try again and pay attention to what the person you are so quickly responding to is actually saying.

lol.