Again with the "manipulated data" shtick. Everyone who has looked at the data with an open mind has determined that the data has not been "manipulated." As we learn more, we can use the raw data better, but the underlying data doesn't change. Go look at berkeleyearth.org and learn where they started and where they ended up. That is, if you actually want to learn anything. Which I doubt.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

By use the raw data better, I assume you mean, corrected, or fixed, or adjusted, or changed, or manipulated. ;-)

I would like to learn more, but I have a day job and don't have years to study the basic science and the data and the models to speak authoritatively about climate change. But I do know enough, even as a layman to know that complex, multi-variable models, are not accurate in the predictions. Or we wouldn't have weather disasters, or economic crashes, etc.

That plus the financial incentive behind continued study of climate change, and the (unable to accurately predict) economic consequences of the proposed 'solutions', leaves me a skeptic who isn't going to make any major lifestyle changes (not that many of the proponent of CC have) based on the models.

I mean exactly what I wrote. If we determine that certain data measurements have some built-in error, we adjust how the data is used, and we get better input for the models.

You don't know enough if you think that models can predict weather disasters. Sorry.

With all the funding available behind the climate skeptics (Koch brothers, fossil fuel interests, Heartland), *nothing* has been found to contradict the current research on climate change. Not a damned thing. Financial interest, cut me a break. The best thing that could happen to a climate researcher would be to find that climate change was not caused by humans. We're talking Nobel Prize territory. Yet you think there is this huge incentive to continue to refine models.

Lifestyle changes aren't the issue. Putting environmentally responsible policies in place are the issue, and that starts at the ballot box.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Fixed it for you.

Here is a link to a video showing how some models seem to predict temperatures. Hit pause as you go to study the slides.

However, predicting, for instance the last 30 years, could have been done by simply drawing pretty much a straight line on the same slope as the rise in temperature for about the first half or three quarters of the last century. I could have been just as accurate extrapolating by hand.

We have had a pretty steady rise in temperature over the last 50 years. I sure hope they can make a model the matches that. We won't know the flaws in the models until the rising trend changes drastically in one direction or another. Remember too that according to the IPCC, about half the rise has been natural.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I would be hard pressed to find an experiment in any field that doesn't manipulate raw data. There is a reason that we do Cal/Val and it isn't to get the results we want, it is to get results period.

You probably already know I (along with many scientists) have little confidence in the models that are out there, modeling does need to improve. Recent news on a new study that shows things may not be as bad as feared:

That “known unknown” is called equilibrium climate sensitivity, and for the last 25 years the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the ultimate authority on climate science – has settled on a range of 1.5C to 4.5C (2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit).
Cox and colleagues, using a new methodology, have come up with a far narrower range: 2.2C to 3.4C, with a best estimate of 2.8C.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/18/worst-case-global-warming-scenarios-not-credible-says-study

So, are all y'all trying to say the Kelly is going to be fired for climate change? ;)

Still happy with your "over 2 months" position? I'm going to double down on "under".

Kelly will last as long as Trump thinks his value as chief of staff is greater than the damage he could do as a potential witness. Or said another way the damage he does a chief of staff is less than the damage he could do as a potential witness.

So it might be a long time.

Kelly has disappointed me, especially in the last few weeks. He was one of the few that I had hoped would help level and positively influence POTUS.

His comments this week about DACA and immigrants are not in keeping with the values and ethos I thought he possessed. His comments about Porter, his political naivety about what he said about it, and inability to read the room show me he is not as grounded in the principles I thought he was. I was wrong about Kelly. He is not the man I thought he was.

---

Suffer Well.

i think he realized he wasn't going to escape before Tillerson Rosenstein, and Sessions unless he went really crazy.

not sure i would go "over" if the cut off was the end of the week given what we know now. The week started bad for him with the dreamer comments, crashed over the Porter stuff and now the defense of Todd Shane Tomko is getting some airtime. There isn't enough space here to list all of the really bad things Tomko has done but Kelly thought he was a fine officer.

Maybe Kelly's comments on Tomko were taken out of context, but i don't see how he can continue with that and everything else. If nothing else he looks like a completely hopeless judge of people and situations. i guess Tillerson, Rosenstein and Sessions will have to wait.

Q: what's Kelley's favorite kind of shirt?

A: the wifebeater!!!

I hoped for the same thing about kelly. However, my opinion on him went down after the whole calling congresswoman wilson (the one with the weird hats) an "empty barrel" and claiming that during a speech she has being a self promoter. Then when video came out showing nothing of the sorts, he didnt apologize. Instead he said something along the lines of "well me and my friends remembered and interpreted it differently."

Kelly, like everyone else in the administration, will be there until they start getting more airtime on the news programs than Trump.

Just a wild guess though.

-
Just reported that a second staffer (speech writer) is leaving due to domestic abuse. Wow

David Soreson, a speech writer, resigned today amid allegations he has been physically and verbally abusive to his wife.

I wonder if he was one of the 30+ staffers still awaiting to receive their full security clearances after 13 months.

Kelly reportedly offering to step down...

https://www.nytimes.com/...mp-porter-abuse.html

Some say.....Corey L. Ratted on Porter because they both interested in Hope H. And Kelly is not sharpest knife in drawer and directed staff to make up bogus story on when he was made aware. Some say....

Yeah, I don't understand why he's inserting himself publicly into ideological debates. I fully understand that part of his job is advancing Trump's agenda, but I thought he'd do so in a more professional, restrained way. He almost seems to have some desire to be a politician himself, rather than just manager of the White House staff. Among "my generals" I'm much preferring Mattis and McMaster.

We knew the man at the top is a bit nuts, but the supporting cast seems increasingly like a ragtag collection of wacky B-listers, all brought together to fight it out on a reality TV show.
Oh.. wait a minute..

... interested in Hope H.

Is there anyone who isn't?

(Standing by, steadfastly hoping this devolves into a normal LR thread with bathing suits.)

Maybe one, Mike Pence.

No way! He's having a (somewhat late) private dinner with her at this very moment.

Reports vary on exactly how private it is, though. Mrs. Pence might be there. Good clean fun.

Is McMaster in hiding?

That's the question I'd hoped we'd be asking about Kelly.