Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 76 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well maybe that is because oil does not take millions of years but rather decades. Old wells which were pumped dry a few decades ago are now found to have refilled to some degree: https://rense.com/general63/refil.htm

You may have noticed that I frequently stopped responding when you challenge me?  I decided your posts weren't worth responding to after you cited Breitbart News as a source some weeks ago, but now you've sunk to even deeper lows than I could have ever imagined.  From the first page on the Rense.com website, a video about "Demonic Democrats" mixed with Jewish hate.  I'd laugh but these types of beliefs are too common among right-wingers these days and causing so much damage in the world as people increasingly turn to such nonsense. Why would you trust an article on such a website?

"The Demonology Of The Democrat Party

With 80% of Jews voting Democrat you know the devil’s at work through his children.And with Karl Marx—himself a Jew—spun by the devil’s children as a “profound intellectual,” and “far-seeing prophet,” you know the fix is in.
Marxism for the Jews is simply ‘economic theory’ with nothing sinister about it.
Add some smoke and mirrors and you got the Democratic Party Platform.
Inter-connected Jewish globalists by whom the White Christian Middle class is crushed are the Party’s main benefactors.
Jewish donors like George Soros; Arthur Blank of Home Depot; gun-confiscator Michael Bloomberg; David Rubenstein’s Rothschild-orbiting Carlyle Group…all fund the Democrat Party that uses Marxist activism to bring America to its knees.
And what better way to put the goys under the Jewish boot than to use the symbols of Satan himself.
Jewry isn’t called the Synagogue of Satan for nothing, you know.
Now, does this look like a woman’s ovaries?
Looks more like the skull of a steer, doesn’t it?
Merged with the image on the left we now have Baphomet, the image of the devil, complete with the three pointed torch of Lucifer, the “angel of light,” condemned as the devil in the Bible.
Now, Joe Biden, who supports the murder of babies in their mothers’ wombs, and endorses ***** sex between men, is no~ advocate of the Light of Christ. [Clip]
[”I will be an ally of the light not of the darkness.” “May history be able to say that the end of this chapter of American darkness began here tonight as love and hope and light joined in the battle for the soul of the nation.”]
He’s not talking about the Light of Christ here.
He’s touting the occult ritualism of Freemasonry—which is, ‘Judaism for Gentiles.’
“Freemasonry,” said the occultist Albert Pike, “is the search after light, and Lucifer is the Light Bearer.”
You see, the “light” of “Lucifer” plays a large part in the rituals of the Masonic Lodge.
For when a fellowcraft Freemason is raised to the sublime degree of Master Mason the initiate is taught:
“My Brother, in being brought to Light in this degree you behold the Three Great Lights in Masonry.”
The “Three Great Lights” is the crown of Baphomet, included now in the new symbolism of the Democrat Party.
Tell me, is this the symbol of the medical profession?
Yes, the snakes and the pole, but not the three steps above.
The three steps here are the symbol for the Masonic degree system which is a step-by-step ascendancy into the Luciferian mysteries.
The Democrats have been transformed into an occult political party structured to destroy all that’s left of Christian-informed Western civilization.
This is obvious in its “Equality For All” button.
The fist here is identical with the fist of the “Black Hand” terrorist group that assassinated Archduke Ferdinand of Austria that triggered World War 1.
The Democrat black fist is a subliminal message of the demonic overthrow of Christian civil order historically led by the natural selection of aristocracy to govern.
But the Democratic worldview isn’t just against meritable talent, it’s vehemently against nature itself.
Never in the history of any civilization has homosexual activity, transgender deformity, and bi-sexual confusion, ever been promoted and advanced.
All of these–”Homosexual Pride;” “Transgender Pride;” “Bi-Sexual Pride;” are demonic memes to eviscerate society’s natural stabilizing norms.
And all funded by the inter-connected, nature-phobic, Synagogue of Satan.
If hate has no home here, but Satan lives rent free, then the Democrat Party is building a stairway to hell."

https://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1458

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

75 plus years of fire suppression has led to this. Instead of small fires clearing out the underbrush every few years we let the accumulated forest detritus build and build and build. And when there i

Posted Images

5 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

A wildfire is the result of the condition of the forest when the fire starts. If there isn't 100 years of accumulated debris on the forest floor, you probably won't get a wildfire.

"Like zombies rising from the dead, legislators continue to push the flawed notion that logging can preclude large wildfires and protect communities.

The “Emergency Wildfire and Public Safety Act of 2020,” which was introduced by Senators Daines and Feinstein is yet another example of the failure of our politicians to use science to guide effective legislation.

The goal of the legislation is to reduce wildfire impact on communities, but the legislation is more a giveaway to the timber industry than a panacea for large wildfires.

All larger wildfires are driven by climate/weather, not fuels. Extreme fire weather includes low humidity, high temperatures, drought and, more importantly, high winds. If you have high winds, you can not stop or slow a wildfire by logging or any other “fuel reduction”.

If fuels were the primary cause of large wildfires,  the coastal forests of Oregon and Washington would be ablaze. These forests have more fuel per acre than a hundred acres of mountain woodlands. But there are virtually no fires in these coastal forests. Why? Because the climate is cool and moist.

However, when you have extreme fire weather, nothing stops fires—until the weather changes. That is the conclusion of fire researchers at the Missoula Fire lab. They found:[1] “Extreme environmental conditions . .overwhelmed most fuel treatment effects. . . This included almost all treatment methods including prescribed burning and thinning. . .. Suppression efforts had little benefit from fuel modifications.”

As written the legislation would reduce environmental regulations and public oversight while fast tracking logging far from communities and homes. It calls for creation of “fuel breaks” of up to 3000 acres (an acre is approximately the same size as a football field). Never mind that large wildfires regularly eject embers that can cross extensive areas without any fuels. For instance,   the Eagle Fire in Oregon jumped the mile and half width of the Columbia River or the Carr Fire in California jumped the Sacramento River.

Numerous researchers have emphasized that it is the flammability of the home that determines the vulnerability of houses to wildfire. Logging miles from communities provides no added benefits in reduction of wildfire threat.

For instance, a paper from the Missoula Fire Lab researchers concluded: “It may not be necessary or effective to treat fuels in adjacent areas in order to suppress fires before they reach homes; rather, it is the treatment of the fuels immediately proximate to the residences, and the degree to which the residential structures themselves can ignite that determine if the residences are vulnerable.”[2]

Logging roads are a chronic source of sediment in streams, damaging trout waters across the West. Since most ignitions start on or near roads, more roads, ironically will increase the likelihood of more fires.

A 2012 paper examining the location of fires and roads reported: “We found that human-caused ignitions were concentrated close to roads, in high road density areas, and near the wildland-urban interface (WUI). In contrast, lightning-caused ignitions were concentrated in low road density areas, away from WUI, and in low population density areas. [3]

This may be one reason for the findings of Bradley et al. who reported: “We investigated the relationship between protected status and fire severity applied to 1500 fires affecting 9.5 million hectares between 1984 and 2014 in pine (Pinus ponderosa, Pinus jeffreyi) and mixed-conifer forests of western United States… We found forests with higher levels of protection had lower severity values even though they are generally identified as having the highest overall levels of biomass and fuel.”[4]

Logging also increases the chances for a fire by putting more fine fuels on the forest floor and opening up the forest to greater drying and wind penetration. Logging also compacts soils, spread weeds, and disturbs sensitive wildlife.

Logging reduces carbon storage and releases far more carbon into the atmosphere than wildfire. According to recent research, the amount of biomass combusted in high-severity crown fire is greater than low-severity surface fire, but difference is small. While the probability that treated forests will be exposed to fire while effective (~20 yrs) is extremely low. Thus, most thinning projects do little to preclude fires, but immediately release more carbon into the atmosphere.

Law and Harmon in a 2011 paper reiterate this concept. “Thinning forests to reduce potential carbon losses due to wildfire is in direct conflict with carbon sequestration goals, and, if implemented, would result in a net emission of CO2 to the atmosphere because the amount of carbon removed to change fire behavior is often far larger than that saved by changing fire behavior, and more area has to be harvested than will ultimately burn over the period of effectiveness of the thinning treatment.”[5]

Thinning larger areas to decrease the probability of high-severity fire ensures decreased carbon stock and net carbon balance over treated area.

Ironically, this legislation will contribute to greater CO2 emissions which are the main factor in climate warming, which in turn creates favorable conditions for wildfire spread.

None of these “costs” of logging will get serious consideration if this legislation is passed.

Some might say all these impacts are worthwhile if logging prevented large wildfires. But the science is clear on this topic and the overwhelming evidence is that thinning/logging can’t preclude large climate/weather-driven blazes.

The Daines-Feinstein legislation is misguided. The best way to assist communities is to provide financial resources to improve the resistance of homes to wildfires and community preparedness. Long term we must also address CO2 emissions which are the ultimate source of climate warming driving large wildfires."

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/14/zombie-legislation-the-latest-misguided-wildfire-bill/

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gov Inslee was on the news yesterday explaining how many of the fires in his state are on grasslands or grassland/shrub areas & not in woodlands with accumulated dead fuels in the understory.

I live on the prairies, and when the grass is dry and the wind kicks up it's a major hazard. What are we supposed to do...apply Roundup grass killer to all vegetation and live on a dead planet to remove all sources of fuel?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Rense.com is like Infowars for people who think Infowars is the mainstream media. I'll bet that paper is even more compelling when you see the original manuscript written in crayon.

The article seems credible. Arielle misunderstood it or, more likely, didn't read it. Here's an excerpt from the article...

Analysis of the oil being driven into the reservoirs suggests they were created during the so-called Jurassic and Early Cretaceous periods (100 million to 150 million years ago), even before the existing basin itself was formed. This means the source rock is buried and remains invisible to seismic imaging beneath layers of salt.

In studying so-called biomarkers in the oil, Whelan said, it was concluded that the oil is closely related to other very old oils, implying that it "was probably generated very early and then remained trapped at depth until recently." And, she added, other analyses "show that this oil must have remained trapped at depths and temperatures much greater than those of the present-day producing reservoirs."

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The article seems credible. Arielle misunderstood it or, more likely, didn't read it.

Certain groups of people adhere to the abiogenic origin of oil theory and so don't believe it will ever run out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pixieplumb Flanagan said:

He's SO stupid, SO wilfully ignorant - it's just astonishing to watch.  And astonishing that this is so hilariously funny to anyone who has to share a continent with that doofus.  Extraordinary that people - the not as stupid ones - must look at this and say to themselves, yeah, he's dreadful, he's a racist, an abuser, a moron and dumb as a box of rocks, but at least he doesn't want us to have clean air and health care and homes.  Think how awful THAT would be.  To be so hate filled that you're eager to suffer horribly just so long as the ones you hate suffer too.  Very strange.

It's a gift. From god.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Gov Inslee was on the news yesterday explaining how many of the fires in his state are on grasslands or grassland/shrub areas & not in woodlands with accumulated dead fuels in the understory.

I live on the prairies, and when the grass is dry and the wind kicks up it's a major hazard. What are we supposed to do...apply Roundup grass killer to all vegetation and live on a dead planet to remove all sources of fuel?

When we were in a drought back in 2004, we did controlled burns on our dried out areas..we went in with bush hogs and bailers and then burnt short.. I think we were close to 80 or more days without rain that year.. the dust would cover your boots up at the barn where we parked it was so deep..

You can control the short a lot easier than just leaving it long.. if we weren't in a drought we would have left it long to get more out of the burn.. ever since that year, it seems like it's always wet here now..

We have a saying since then, it's either wet or raining..

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this site just looking to try and find live overhead images..

It's called Wild Fire Today..

They look like they've had those areas and more in the red for a bit now..

This was a prediction for wild fire potential in august 2017.. Have you guys been in droughts for a few years now?  I know we were in droughts for a few years when we had did our burns in 2004.. I'll link the whole site in case you guys want to look it over..

I just found it myself but thought I would share it real quick. I haven't had a good look around it yet..

Also I think the reason we are so wet a lot of the time is, we get a lot of stuff from tropical storms.. It seems like the west coast hardly gets a lot of hurricanes and storms like we do more on the southern  stretch..mostly gulf.. If we get rain where I live, it's usually coming from Texas way or  straight up from the gulf.. I'm always hoping for that Canadian push to cool things off, myself..

https://wildfiretoday.com/2017/08/01/wildfire-potential-august-through-november-2/

https://wildfiretoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/month1_outlook.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The article seems credible. Arielle misunderstood it or, more likely, didn't read it. Here's an excerpt from the article...

Credible articles can be found on credible web sites. If someone won't go to the insignificant effort of finding the original source instead of posting a link to a crank magnet site like Breitbart, Infowars or Rense, their citations should be dismissed out of hand.

Edited by Lyssa Greymoon
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

The brief temperature rise that some elderly still remember from the 30s was limited to North America. The "ice age scare" was the result of the then absurdly simplistic model of atmospheric effects trying to understand a small cooling effect resulting from "a post-World War II surge in the emissions of aerosols from dirty fossil fuel burning and the cool phase of a Pacific Ocean cycle related to the strength of the trade winds." (arsTechnica)

There are several new dendroclimatic studies from both Finland and China that show a similar warming and cooling for those time periods and though that still is not global, the locations are diverse enough to be a pretty good indicator, combined with the fact that the 1930's warming was over 75% of the North American continent. Article  (Bjorklund et al., 2020) (Yuan et al., 2020) Keyimu et al. (2020)

Looking at your link at Ars Technica it strikes me they very much minimize the magnitude of that 60's 70's cooling period. Even I remember a slew of articles about it in the local paper where I grew up never mind the amount of one's in the New York Times and other big daily's. Here is a list of them along with a 1978 video of a young Steve Schneider warning us what the ramifications would be of the coming Ice age and some of the potential solutions the scientists of those days came up with to possibly alleviate it. List of Articles Steve Schneider

Edited by Arielle Popstar
Spelling
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

You have misunderstood that article Arielle. The oil that seems to be refilling the reservoirs is not being created over decades. It is moving up from deeper in the ground, where it has been for millions of years.

I you the believe the new oil in those reservoirs is being created in just decades and is therefore some kind of renewable resource, I have a simple question for you. Created from what?

ETA: You apparently didn't read the article at all. Here's a quote from it...

Analysis of the oil being driven into the reservoirs suggests they were created during the so-called Jurassic and Early Cretaceous periods (100 million to 150 million years ago), even before the existing basin itself was formed. This means the source rock is buried and remains invisible to seismic imaging beneath layers of salt.

In studying so-called biomarkers in the oil, Whelan said, it was concluded that the oil is closely related to other very old oils, implying that it "was probably generated very early and then remained trapped at depth until recently." And, she added, other analyses "show that this oil must have remained trapped at depths and temperatures much greater than those of the present-day producing reservoirs."

 

Admittedly I scanned over it quickly as I was dressing for work and surmised from this quote: "oil and gas generation and migration on very short time scales in many areas globally," she wrote in the journal Sea Technology." That combined with other articles i have read in the past regarding oil production on short time scales led me to think they were on about the same thing. As Luna already pointed out, something like abiogenic oil production could be what they are seeing the wells refill with. Unfortunately I wrote the post in a rush and in hindsight see that I perhaps I came across a little strong in how much validity I think it has. Having said it though, I'll stand behind it and point you to this article which in my opinion gives the idea some good credibility.

http://www.devtome.com/abiogenic_theory_of_petroleum

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

There are several new dendroclimatic studies from both Finland and China that show a similar warming and cooling for those time periods and though that still is not global, the locations are diverse enough to be a pretty good indicator, combined with the fact that the 1930's warming was over 75% of the North American continent. Article  (Bjorklund et al., 2020) (Yuan et al., 2020) Keyimu et al. (2020)

Looking at your link at Ars Technica it strikes me they very much minimize the magnitude of that 60's 70's cooling period. Even I remember a slew of articles about it in the local paper where I grew up never mind the amount of one's in the New York Times and other big daily's. Here is a list of them along with a 1978 video of a young Steve Schneider warning us what the ramifications would be of the coming Ice age and some of the potential solutions the scientists of those days came up with to possibly alleviate it. List of Articles Steve

Schneider

Firstly, your source isn't credible.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

I too remember warnings of global cooling in the 70s in the media due to SO2, they were however a minority of the articles (about a sixth) and the reasons for thos predictions was the exponential rise in SO2 and aerosols that were controlled by Clean Air Acts as a result averting that disaster. The message to be learnt from that is that humans can effect the environment and that changing what we do can change future trends.

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Admittedly I scanned over it quickly as I was dressing for work and surmised from this quote: "oil and gas generation and migration on very short time scales in many areas globally," she wrote in the journal Sea Technology." That combined with other articles i have read in the past regarding oil production on short time scales led me to think they were on about the same thing. As Luna already pointed out, something like abiogenic oil production could be what they are seeing the wells refill with. Unfortunately I wrote the post in a rush and in hindsight see that I perhaps I came across a little strong in how much validity I think it has. Having said it though, I'll stand behind it and point you to this article which in my opinion gives the idea some good credibility.

http://www.devtome.com/abiogenic_theory_of_petroleum

Who is the author? Where was the article published?

Anonymous Research papers that claim to overturn established science aren't very convincing.

Edited by Aethelwine
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aethelwine said:

Firstly, your source isn't credible.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

I too remember warnings of global cooling in the 70s in the media due to SO2, they were however a minority of the articles (about a sixth) and the reasons for thos predictions was the exponential rise in SO2 and aerosols that were controlled by Clean Air Acts as a result averting that disaster. The message to be learnt from that is that humans can effect the environment and that changing what we do can change future trends.

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

I do not remember hearing or reading anything about greenhouse warming back then but if as you say the articles were 6 times more prevalent then the global cooling ones, it should be easy to trot out a list of them here like I did for the cooling camp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I do not remember hearing or reading anything about greenhouse warming back then but if as you say the articles were 6 times more prevalent then the global cooling ones, it should be easy to trot out a list of them here like I did for the cooling camp.

You can find the Peterson 2008 paper on my link that will give you the details

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I do not remember hearing or reading anything about greenhouse warming back then but if as you say the articles were 6 times more prevalent then the global cooling ones, it should be easy to trot out a list of them here like I did for the cooling camp.

Yes, that was certainly a comprehensive summary of the scientific literature on the climate research of the day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2020 at 2:40 PM, Arielle Popstar said:

Another, simpler proof is to be seen by Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius' 1896 paper on the idea of a greenhouse effect from human produced Co2. Though much of that paper was subsequently falsified by his peers, the one thing he mentioned that was never contested was that the Earth's temperature at that time in 1896 was 15 degrees C. If one contrasts that with the Nasa Earth temperature readings in 2013 of 14.6 C, one readily sees that in spite of 50% more ppm of Co2 today then there was in 1896, the overall Earth's temperature has actually dropped by .4 C

For some reason the Earth's temperature had dropped from 1896 to mid 20th century which no doubt led to the fears back then that we were headed for another ice age. That was in spite of C02 increases over the same time period. 

Thermometer placement during the 19th century was quite erratic. A researcher did testing over 61-year period and discovered that the older protocols for measuring temperature tended to read about 1 degree high.

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-was-the-1896-heatwave-wiped-from-the-record-33742

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2020 at 11:41 AM, BilliJo Aldrin said:

5% of CO2 is from man made sources, the rest (95%) is from natural sources.

Furthermore, 95% of greenhouse gas is in fact water vapor, which is ALL from natural sources.

Please explain how 5% of 5% is the critical driving force in climate change.

While you are at it, perhaps your scientists can answer a few other questions I have

1) What is the proper temperature for the earths climate?

2) What is the proper rate of change for the earths climate

3) If man disappeared tomorrow would the climate stop changing?

4) Why is it that ALL changes in climate prior to the last hundred years all have been natural in origin but now its all driven by man?

5) Why were previous interglacial temperatures higher, with higher CO2 levels, all with no help from man?

Many scientists have a vested interest in maintaining this farce, they chase the money, and the money is on research that "proves" man made global warming is real.

 

^ is BS.  Climate change has lead to a longer dry season and a shorter wet season which is why there are more fires now than before.  The "properly managed forests" argument is rather stupid when the fires are burning in towns.

And as to why is it happening now, hello, do you recall something called the industrial revolution? Not a natural phenomena, we did it to ourselves.

Edited by kali Wylder
eta so glad I moved from California to the east coast in July!
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I'll stand behind it and point you to this article which in my opinion gives the idea some good credibility.

http://www.devtome.com/abiogenic_theory_of_petroleum

That's some heavy science you're dropping there. Does that article include multiple references to birther, 9/11 truther, Infowars contributor and blobfish impersonator Jerome Corsi? Impressive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No comments on synthetic oils?
I'm not pretending I know enough about any of this to comment further.
all I know is the majority of the Australian Canola crop goes to Europe for bio-diesel manufacture.

I was a diesel fixer, fixed a diesel, diesel fixed me
What a weasel........ Oh! - OH NO!
And baby was a workshop owner
Baby was a workshop owner! ♪
The Guess Who :)

 

Edited by Maryanne Solo
I lub dis tuuuune!
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Thermometer placement during the 19th century was quite erratic. A researcher did testing over 61-year period and discovered that the older protocols for measuring temperature tended to read about 1 degree high.

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-was-the-1896-heatwave-wiped-from-the-record-33742

I've a neighbor who, twice in the last two decades, ranted to me about the left-wing conspiracy to alter the historical temperature record to make it appear Earth is warming. I've been unable to explain to him that recalibration of historical data is routine and necessary, as we discover errors in individual measurements, or measurement methods. These errors are sometimes detected when discrepancies in what should be identical measurements arise from those measurements being made via different methods, or when measurement points are modified or moved.

The most recent recalibration I read about concerned ocean surface temperature readings taken by cargo ships, which use seawater to cool the engines and measure both inlet and outlet temperatures for use by the engine control systems. Certain classes of ships locate the inlet sensor closer to the engine room than others, elevating inlet temperatures above actual ocean temperatures. Once enough confidence was obtained in the magnitude and consistency of the measurement bias in various kinds of ships, the bias was removed from the historical record. I haven't read the following paper, but I imagine it details some of the thinking. https://os.copernicus.org/articles/9/683/2013/os-9-683-2013.pdf

He would have none of my explanations.

He recently had a new HVAC system installed in his home, and soon claimed the system was defective because he had to constantly adjust his thermostat during the day to stay comfortable. I bought over two precision thermometers and verified that his home was within 0.5F of the indicated thermostat temperature, at the thermostat. The thermostat is in a new location, exposed to the morning sun. I did not reveal this observation at first, preferring (as I do) to have a little fun with my secret knowledge. I looked at the weather forecast and saw several overcast/rainy days ahead. I did a spooky incantation over the thermostat and proclaimed that, in a day or two, it would settle down. It did. Looking at the forecast again a few days later, I told him my spell would wear off the next day, and he would have to adjust his thermostat again. It did, and he did.

"What's going on Maddy?"

"Your furnace is part of a conspiracy to drive you nuts, though I think you're already there."

"Ha ha. No really, what do you think is going on?"

"Your thermostat was moved from the north facing wall of your hallway to the east facing wall of your kitchen, probably because you told the installers it would be easier for you to adjust from there. That wall gets morning sun, which warms the thermostat and causes it to cool the house. You have just experienced data-discontinuity caused by a sensor and sensor location change. Forevermore, you will either have to adjust the thermostat on every sunny day, or move it back to the hallway. This is precisely the kind of problem that modern researchers deal with when looking at historical temperature records that don't line up with other measurements."

"No, this nothing like that Maddy and you know it."

The installers moved his thermostat back to the hallway wall and now he claims they did something wrong. Though he no longer has to adjust the thermostat on sunny mornings, he must set it two degrees cooler than the old system to stay comfortable, and that's "costing him a lot for electricity". I reminded him that I verified the accuracy of the new thermostat and suggested he should correct his memory of the last twenty years to account for the error in the old thermostat.

He's still not buying any of it, the new thermostat and my two precision thermometers must be defective.

I will not tell him there's a way to offset the measurement in his new thermostat to match the error in his old one. I prefer to be a part of the conspiracy.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I will not tell him there's a way to offset the measurement in his new thermostat to match the error in his old one. I prefer to be a part of the conspiracy.

For no particular reason, my mind drifts to my two favorite quotes from Lily Tomlin:

“Reality is the leading cause of stress among those in touch with it.”

"Information cannot argue with a closed mind."

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I will not tell him there's a way to offset the measurement in his new thermostat to match the error in his old one. I prefer to be a part of the conspiracy.

This thermostat surely has a Celsius setting. If it were to become "inexplicably stuck" in that dreaded Socialist system of measurement, it might henceforth account for all the world's ills.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 76 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...