Debt Rattle August 19 2022
- This topic has 54 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This dumb fuck has looked at the science for a long time and sees that we are clearly adding to the wobbles of an already exacerbated global climate. I can’t speak for my fellow dumb fucks.
Now, the idea that we can do anything to stop it is to assume something far more ludicrous than merely the idea that human industry can impact the weather in a large discernible pattern; it is to assume that humanity has the ability to significantly affect humanity in a manner resembling control.
Control. An opposably-thumbed, technologized hominid’s favorite fetish. We’re like this enormous murmuration of dingbats flying around in ever greater numbers at ever faster speeds in ever more directions at once, thinking that just because we always find ourselves following some kind of group pattern that someone must be in control of all this. Some guy in a Palpatine costume, maybe.
The climate might well turn frigid in 50 years, Ocean currents and such can create interesting rebound effects. Lotta thermal mass in our ocean. There are “332,519,000 cubic miles of water on the planet”. THat’s an awful lot of freely flowing fluid thermal mass.
Global Climate Disruption is the proper scientifically neutral term for anthropogenic climate models, says me in a white lab coat and a sexy pushup clipboard. But it is nonetheless based on greenhouse effect initial warming of our atmosphere.
Any dumb fuck who disagrees with me needs to go form their own dumbfuck club and get outta my dumbfuck club treehouse.
aspnaz
‘None of the dumb fucks who believe that humans are causing global warming will ever have looked at the science and they do not care either.’
Since anthropogenic climate change deniers -those who refuse to accept, or even look at, well-documented scientific evidence, and have zero evidence to back up their absurd narratives, they resort to trolling and making personal insults.
For the umpteenth time: the Earth is overheating at the fastest rate in geological history going back 600 million years as a direct consequence of humans de-sequestering ancient carbon that nature sequestered tens of millions or hundreds of million of years ago and transferring that carbon to the atmosphere and oceans.
I suppose climate change deniers will still be churning out the same nonsense until the day they die from overheating, due to wetbulb extreme, or from starvation because there is nothing to left eat..
‘None of the dumb fucks who believe that humans are causing global warming will ever have looked at the science’
Having studied the absorption and re-emission of radiation in the infrared range and used data to identify the structure of atoms, what would I know compared to you?
I mean, I have only got an Honours Degree in Chemistry and only spent several decades in the field of environmental monitoring, and only won the international debate with professor Guy McPherson when he tried to pull a fast one by twisting the science to his own agenda, so what would I know, whereas you…..?.
After reading today’s TAE comments, I realized that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, are badly mis-understood by historians. They were all really fighting climate change by thinning their herds.
When the English replaced all the Irish farmers with sheep, they were really fighting climate change. The the British also sent my British ancestors packing to the US & Canada. I should really be thanking them for sending my Irish and British ancestors to Canada or I wouldn’t be here.
When the British shipped their criminals to their colonies, they were really fighting climate change.
Still somehow I still think all of these folks, fighting climate change, are a rather misguided bunch who ended up making climate change even worse. There is no pleasing them.
‘used data to identify the structure of atoms’
Correction. That should be:
used data to identify the structure of molecules.
Ultraviolet-visible radiation absorption and re-radiation informs us about the structure of atoms.
What I love best about the concept of “fighting climate change” is that everything we would do to fight it requires burning that much more fossil fuel, since we can’t do anything without machines using fossil fuel energy.
The idea of conservation, of course, is forbidden, because that reduces profits. Carter practiced conservation, and it worked really well to pu some gradual brakes on our lifestyles and begin moving us toward less energy-dependent/indulgent lifestyles, but that reduces oil consumption and that is forbidden.
It’s a reliable argument starter, and we homo saps love to argue almost as much as we love to leave the lights on all day.
Now that we have the climate change denial distraction out of the way we can get on with real stuff’
Interesting. Andrei indicates real Ukrainian casualties are 200,00 killed and 300,000 injured. And conscripts are surrendering or running as quickly as possible. But the neoNazis are holding show trials and executing the poor sods, to intimidate others thinking of doing the same.
Something big Monday…
Red said
“We have no choice and must work towards a new solution, even if it takes several attempts,” she told a news conference. “It is key for Switzerland to catch up with other countries when it comes to digitalization.”
Government speak for get it in through the back door regardless of what the people have democratically decided.
AFewKnow: yes, that’s why they had entire YEARS with nothing but rain, in regular cycles, when the Little Ice Age fell, and previously, when Rome fell. And when Greece fell. And when Maya fell. It was all their SUVs.
“Record warm as well as record rain.”
Also record COLD in Europe, snow in Saudi, lakes forming in East Africa, and also record droughts. Record drought in Oroville CA…immediately following record rain. Record dry in NV…following 75 FEET of snow. So…rain is a proof of CO2 but also dry? Heat is a proof of CO2 but also Cold? That’s not science when all data that could happen is a proof of your thesis. Theses have to be dis-provable. As a Scientist, you know that.
As Phoenix says, we could focus on 1) things we all agree on and 2) things we can do something about personally, as it will gather more allies and help the environment a lot more. But the “environment” is fine. It’s only humans who are in trouble. We’re not the ones who save the earth, the earth saves and supports us.
And as you say, right now all that’s too late. So what you gonna do?
“We have no choice … even if it takes several attempts,”
“You need to keep voting until you get it right.” That’s Democracy! Or as they used to say:
“When I want your opinion, I’ll beat it out of you.”
ezlxa1949 said
What we need is a permanent change in the human psyche, one that will not atrophy over the years.
Fixing how people live their lives, how they think? The biggest problem humanity has is that there is a significant majority of the population who believe that they can tell others how to live their lives. They do it for all the right reasons – or so they claim – except that it is none of their business: humanity needs to learn to mind its own business and let people alone to do as they wish.
Afewknowthetruth said
Yep. That’s what you get when you elevate the atmospheric CO2 level to 190 ppm above the long-term average or 140 ppm above the pre-industrial level (current 420 ppm versus 230 ppm 800,000-year average and 280 ppm pre-industrial). Superheated oceans = greater evaporation and supercharged storm systems.
Yet more “pulled out your arse” science … no better than the MSM media. It doesn’t matter how many times you slam this crap in our faces, it will continue to be “out your arse” science, as perfected by our friend Fauci.
John Day said
I think it’s accurate, the greenhouse gas modeling, and anthropogenic global warming, but it needsto be taken in the context of lots of things changing Earth’s climate, and unpredictably, especially big volcanoes, but also solar output, which is not just absorbed by the atmosphere and planetary surface, but by the planetary core, which heat is slower to surface. There are “electrical universe” weather events, also. A big destabilization may soon arrive, or our solar system may pass into it.
I believe in climate change because everything changes everyday, there is no constant. I absolutely do believe in humanity causing climate change because humanity is part of nature. Those are my beliefs over and done with.
There is no evidence that humans are a primary driver of climate change. Modelling is bullshit, I happen to do financial modelling and I know it is bullshit. Whether modelling which has been practiced for over 50 years, is still not able to predict anything beyond 5 days – in the most stable environments – or 2 hours – in the least stable environments. Its inaccuracy is legendary.
Given the number of inaccurate climate predictions – plain opposite in most cases, thinking of the “we are about to enter a new ice age” bullshit 30 years ago – and the total lack of improvement in weather forecasting, let alone climate forecasting, I see absolutely zero reason to believe that their models are any better than they were many decades ago.
Remember, climate is a superset of weather: if you cannot model the weather you cannot model the climate unless, by some amazing chance which has so far proven to be false, all the unmodelled variables happen to cancel each other out and their effect become infinitesimal.
John Day
“Modelling is bullshit” needs some explanation. You can model stuff that happens daily because you can do “back testing” to verify your model. If you are going to model the climate, specifically climate change, how do you back test your model? Sure, you have ice cores etc, but they just tell you the atmospheric gases – and completely rule out CO2 as a cause – but that is about it and they do not cover periods when there was no ice. A model is only valid if it can be back tested across transitions similar to those it is being asked to predict. A climate model cannot do that, so it is not back tested. As a result, it is just a cognitive model of the way the climate works in the modellers’ brains, it is a theory converted into a model-like program so that the scientists can say they have a model, even though that model is actually just a theory, not reality. It is a fantasy and it is 100% subject to subjective inputs such as the 100k that was depositied into my bank account yesterday, by a person called Gates with a reference of “Make it predict warmer”.
Afewknowthetruth said
I mean, I have only got an Honours Degree in Chemistry and only spent several decades in the field of environmental monitoring, and only won the international debate with professor Guy McPherson when he tried to pull a fast one by twisting the science to his own agenda, so what would I know, whereas you…..?.
Oh, it’s a my dick is bigger than yours contest? How does this settle climate change? Tell you what, if your dick can flip the light switch from 2 meters, I will grant you your wish of being seen by me as “talented”, but I have to be able to film it for TikTok!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.