The topic was global warming and the administration’s attempt to conceal the information regarding it.
TB KNOWS that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, and that he will look like a fool arguing it… He also knows that arguing FOR the suppression of science will blow his cover as a supposed pro-science conservative intellectual and reveal him for the partisan hack he really is…
so instead he tries to change it to a discussion about how the liberal media (correctly) pointed out that there as a record high on a certain day and certain place, but nefariously failed to mention the temperature records on all the surrounding days.

This is his clumsy attempt to to reframe the topic. Changing it from the irrefutable science to an argument about the ‘liberal main stream media’.

The Bra-strap is an impediment he creates to conceal the truth, to prevent you from getting to the subject at hand. Fruitlessly yanking on the bra-strap will only leave you frustrated and distract you from your ultimate goal.

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d27ef904970c-800wi

Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS)

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

Arctic sea ice volume reached its annual maximum for 2017. The volume maximum occurs one month later than the extent maximum because some areas continue to thicken while the extent begins to recede. Arctic sea ice volume through April 2017 continued substantially below prior years.April 2017 sea ice volume was 20,600 km3 , 1800 km3 below the previous record from April in 2011. The April growth was equivalent to previous years with about 1000 km3 gained during April. The sea ice volume results of anomalously high temperatures throughout the Arctic for November through January discussed here and here. April volume was 37% below the maximum April ice volume in 1979, 25% below the 1979-2016 mean, and more than 1.7 standard deviations below the long term trend line. April sea ice volume follows the overall long term trend (Fig 3) but the departure from the long trend is the second largest in the record. Similar departures occurred in 2011 and 2007. The departure from the long term trend is only surpassed by 1982.

Pull up the admin comment section, go down, and count the political posts, particularly the raving, mouth-foaming ones. See how many of them I account for. Take your time.

At some point, you have to start putting the blame for the poison where it belongs.

Your goal is to further a political agenda. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is not the same thing, especially when you constantly claim the first but doggedly pursue the second. And this is not the place to do it anyway. Your eagerness to show us Liberals how mistaken and foolish we are has driven off too many real space enthusiasts already. And to be honest, it has attracted some pretty unsavory people as well.

If you don’t like the way this forum has evolved, then you should seriously consider the role you played in making it that way. I know I didn’t come here to argue politics. It was that way when I got here. I stumbled into a minefield, almost from the first day. I didn’t start the fire.

Once again, I make the offer of a moratorium. When Robert initiates the new ZONE, I suggest we come in politically neutral. We devise new handles (the old timers will still know who’s who) and we once again restrict our discussions to issues related to space exploration and related fields. Proper moderation can keep it that way, and defuse and referee borderline cases.

We don’t argue sports, or promote our businesses, or preach religion here. The same should go for politics. It does not belong here.

The EPA website wouldn’t be my first choice for researching the climate no matter who was running it. It’s a political entity more than a scientific one.

That is his opinion. As he himself admitted in the first sentence. TB believes scientific agencies (and practitioners) are just as biased and have similar agendas to oil companies and other highly profitable polluters. That is an assumption, and a biased one on his part. It is not an obvious fact.
It is just another false equivalency he has devised to demonstrate his supposed neutrality. What TB has accomplished in that one remarkable sentence is that EPA, its data, the scientists who work there, and anyone who has ever been associated with it or them cannot be trusted.

I did look at the history of weather severity quite a while back. After looking at a lot of sources and papers, I saw that the most common answer from scientists is “we don’t really know for sure.” Apparently there are far too many variables involved to nail the answers down. To be fair, I haven’t revisited the question since then, so something new might be out there.

If the “most common answer from scientists” is that it is not known how long-term climate trends yield short-term weather, doesn’t this suggest that most scientists are NOT careerist hacks desperate to cherry pick facts to push their pet theories so they can get grants and university tenure?

Unfortunately, too many people on either side are cherry-picking the data to sell the answer they want to sell. What is left out is as important as what is mentioned.

I guess the “either side” remark is supposed to establish TB’s bona fides as a fair and objective observer, not a partisan propagandist. What is being left out is his side has billions invested in the status quo, has millions to spend to keep it that way, and has a past history of doing exactly that on a variety of issues in the past. (Means, motive and opportunity) They are not equivalent to the scientific community. Scientists can make mistakes, and they can be dishonest, but they do not have trade associations, lawyers, lobbyists, PR departments, and politicians on the payroll. They can’t afford it.

Just one example: remember the news article about the march that took place on the “warmest April 29 ever at Washington Airport?”

April 29 was indeed a record high (91) in 2017. What the news article left out is that the day before and the day after had record highs, too (92). One in 1957, and one in 1942. The record highs for the 26th and 27th were in 1915, (94 and 95). Just for fun, look at the month of May.

This whole argument is bogus, and a deliberate distraction. What a news article says, however misleading, cannot be used to demonstrate the unreliability and bias of climatological scientists. Even if it is deliberately and maliciously misleading, it just demonstrates the bias of a newspaper reporter.

This takes nothing away from the accuracy of the 2017 number. Just puts some perspective on it.

That’s mighty white of you.

Its what you do here. Its what you’ve always done here.

Don’t worry, once Trump gets around to it he will delete that for you as well…

Is one government propaganda mill being overwritten by a different government propaganda mill. Just my personal opinion, of course.

The EPA website wouldn’t be my first choice for researching the climate no matter who was running it. It’s a political entity more than a scientific one.

I did look at the history of weather severity quite a while back. After looking at a lot of sources and papers, I saw that the most common answer from scientists is “we don’t really know for sure.” Apparently there are far too many variables involved to nail the answers down. To be fair, I haven’t revisited the question since then, so something new might be out there.

Unfortunately, too many people on either side are cherry-picking the data to sell the answer they want to sell. What is left out is as important as what is mentioned.

Just one example: remember the news article about the march that took place on the “warmest April 29 ever at Washington Airport?”

I looked it up:

http://www.weather.gov/lwx/dcanme#apr

April 29 was indeed a record high (91) in 2017. What the news article left out is that the day before and the day after had record highs, too (92). One in 1957, and one in 1942. The record highs for the 26th and 27th were in 1915, (94 and 95). Just for fun, look at the month of May.

This takes nothing away from the accuracy of the 2017 number. Just puts some perspective on it.