Clearly you have never been to the UCLA campus because, if you had, you would have known this isn't true in the least. You can walk all over that place.

The problem in LA is the culture. People believe they are to be seen in their automobiles and they buy or lease expensive cars and drive them ridiculously short distances for that sole reason (if there is another reason, please do share but nothing really makes sense).

I worked for a company based out of LA for 2.5 years and we were there often. One guy lived a 10 minute walk from the office but chose to drive each and every day. He didn't buy an M3 to have it sit in his garage, after all. Nope, it sat in the company's garage instead.

SMH.

Bazinga!

Oh, right, of course: CANNOT be the fault of the White House. It's "somebody else's fault". We can blame this one on Bush, too, right?

So, we can say they told "the truth", because, of course, the truth is fungible. It doesn't matter if it was completely wrong, or inaccurate, or that they kept promoting the false narrative even after the intelligence reports were corrected, only that we deflect blame before the elections!

Until you think about it. So now the IRS/FBI/NSA will have our financial data in real time. Seems like just another way for the government to track us and look for violations of structuring payments.

LOL @ MediaMatters propaganda.

Oh, really??

From ABC: "The "talking points" memo on what the Obama administration should tell the public was the basis for statements made by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on talk shows five days after the Sept. 11 attack to explain what happened.
Rice insisted the attack emanated from a protest over an anti-Islam video produced in America that turned violent and that terrorism was not involved. The White House has since acknowledged the assault was a preplanned terror attack and no protest happened."

I have a 64G SD card that holds 8000 songs that are about 4 minutes each at 250KBPS MP3. This SD card is the size of my toenail. It costs about $15. The same amount of recorded sound on vinyl records would take up about 140 cubic feet of space.
Did I forget to mention that I can plug my 8000 song music collection into your computer and a few hours later, my music collection is my any your music collection and it costs you $15, should you decide to store said collection on a medium the size of a toenail. An 800 album vinyl music collection would cost about $12000.

There are idiots out there who would argue that the nearly in-perceivable audio difference between a 250KBPS MP3 music collection and a vinyl collection is worth $12000. They are trustafarians with young perfect ears who don't have to worry about paying rent, food, and childcare on a $40000 salary.

Unless you actually are one of them, you should never take anything that these people say seriously.

I had to pay $60 for an eight mile (12 km) taxi ride from the Portland Oregon airport to downtown because the idiot public transit system there stopped running from the airport at 11:25pm. All the flights from the East coast and Midwest USA leave in the late early evening and arrive between 11:30pm and 1:00am. The local public transport system (TriMet) spends millions of dollars each year telling people how wonderful they are, but they can't even get one single bus an hour on this most important route of the city: the airport to the downtown.

To hell with taxis, and especially to hell with Tri-Met!

Anything that improves the basic transport needs of any 21st-century city is welcome!

The temperature chart calculates a temperature of about -17C at 50 Km, with a pressure of about 5.4 mb. That's in line with everything else I can find. What do you think the temperature at 50 km is, anyway?

I appreciate Joel's reasoned criticism (you could have just posted a link, but it appears you don't like to reference any of your claims), but it seems all you can come up with is bullshit ad hominems.

The Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere before humans were around. And there is certainly plenty of CO2 (and methane) present there, which also makes it into the atmosphere. Clearly there is currently a lot of anthropogenic sources of CO2 today. So I'm not sure what you're referring to that the "authors" said, or why you think it's wrong.

What a fucking jackass tool you are. Stop posting on the Internet. You're making the whole thing dumber by your presence.

You are correct - there are issues with Nikolov's ideas (I was actually referencing Jelbring, but some of the ideas are similar), specifically, now can the equilibrium temperature of a black body be different with an atmosphere without GHGs? I don't think it can, but that doesn't mean that the tiny amount of CO2 is going to make up all the difference, and I think it's a good starting point to describe why the "radiative forcing" theory is clearly wrong.

There is a better discussion at (Oh Nos! DENIERS site) Watt's blog, and he has the same problem with those theories himself.

What if I want my server in a different room from my router?

Minimal solution: run a cable between rooms.

Better solution: put in structured wiring and use that to make the connection between rooms.

Best solution: buy a home where the builder put in structured wiring, and use it. :-)

Not sure what you're trying to assert here. There is nothing in the "Maxwell gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure theory" that explains global warming - it's used to calculate the average global temperature of a planetary body, and does so very accurately without using "radiative forcing" as a feedback mechanism. That pretty much disproves radiative forcing, since the Maxwell theory is so accurate without it.

I don't know what your context is, here, but it seems to have changed. You originally said "should be exactly the same temperature all day and all year around at any place on Earth's surface." How is that not "constant". Of course temperature changes, because the climate is chaotic. But we're looking for a global average temperature over a long term. There is no model anywhere that will tell you with any accuracy the surface temperature at any given time. The best we have is using current observations to predict temperature within a few degrees 10 days to 2 weeks out.

Because you said so. Got it.

I'll remember who NOT to ask for scientific evidence in the future.

Incorrect. You need to determine the Earth's base equilibrium temperature with the Sun, which was unknown in the 1970's. We now have satellite observations that give is that (Te = 255K). They didn't have that in 1976, so they used the known surface temperature. But it works just the same with more precise measurements.

Neither can any other theory, certainly not the "radiative forcing" theories that drive the climate change alarmism. The formula DOES, however, when combined with satellite observations, DISPROVES "radiative forcing", because it would result in temperatures much higher than we have today. So it cannot be true.

In this case, not an opaque computer model with unspecified parameters and assumptions as input, but instead a clear mathematical model that can easily be tested.

Look again, that's exactly the opposite of what the model does.

dT/dh = -g/Cp

where

dT = change in temperature
dh = change in altitude
g = gravitational acceleration constant
Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure

"Denialist"? Is that the term you CAGW alarmists are using these days to describe "science"? Pretty clever, considering you have completely destroyed the original meaning of the word science into something that is (1) Settled (2) Reported by political committees, and (3) Arrived at by "consensus".