starting strength gym
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71

Thread: Podcast #50: RPE and AGW Theology

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,077

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by xng View Post
    This is probably the best 0-10 scale I've seen. But in practice, you can tell people these things and they will always say it's either a 7 or an 11, no matter what. So really I just use a three point scale, mild, moderate, severe (which is also described on the linked chart). But patient's have been very well trained regarding the pain scale, and nurses are taught to treat the standard pain scale with near religious reverence and you can't get them to stop asking for a number between 0-10. So by the time the doc sees them, they have already been asked about 10 times to rate their pain, so even if I only give them the options of mild, moderate or severe, they will say seven. So I say, "OK, mild then."

    There was another pain scale floating around somewhere that I can't find again which was probably not something you can post in a patient's ER room, but also pretty accurate. I can't find it again. Starting about seven it says "actively contemplating suicide." At eight you have already attempted suicide and failed. At nine you have having trouble staying conscious. A ten is actively being anal raped by Satan with spikes sticking out of his three foot penis, or something like that.

    Any of these scales are more useful than what we use now.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    At first glance, this might suggest that neither solar radiation nor C02 drive temperature.

    But the fascinating thing is that when you plot temperature vs the two factors combined (i.e. solar radiation plus C02), you get an excellent correlation, as discovered by Dana Royer over a decade ago. You can see this for yourself in this paper (see Fig 2 in full text here).
    I'd buy that, but that's not what we're being told. The most important take-away from the either chart is that these relationships function over Geologic Time, not Paris Climate Accord time. The second most important take-away is that there have been glacial periods throughout geologic time while A-CO2 was much higher than it is now, and that the general trend for the past 300 million years has been falling CO2 levels.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    I'd buy that, but that's not what we're being told. The most important take-away from the either chart is that these relationships function over Geologic Time, not Paris Climate Accord time. The second most important take-away is that there have been glacial periods throughout geologic time while A-CO2 was much higher than it is now, and that the general trend for the past 300 million years has been falling CO2 levels.
    Yea it's unfortunate that reporting on the science is often mired with bullshit and hysteria on both ends (with Al Gore being a prime example on one of those ends).

    The reference to high level of glaciation combined with high A-C02 levels is an interesting one, and often brought up by people like Christopher Monckton. But there's a good explanation for this. During snowball earth, the high albedo of ice should have kept the planet permanently frozen. What seems to have happened, though, is that the loss of the ocean's carbon sink (due to the surface of the oceans being frozen) allowed volcano-produced C02 to accumulate for millions of years, until it reached a high enough level to warm the planet and melt the ice, causing a positive feedback ending in a hothouse earth (where the planet was much, much warmer than it is today).

    There's also the fact that while C02 levels in the past have been higher, solar radiation was also lower.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    Fascinating, that the planet is a multi-variant system.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    211

    Default

    I don't tune in for the politics and current events. Those are just a bonus - like a free milkshake every 5th time I go to Whataburger.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    181

    Default

    The real question about global warming intervention is for exactly how much of the Earth's temperature rise human activity is responsible for, and what would be the opportunity cost of attempting to curb it.

    Take the Paris agreement, for example. It would cost the US trillions of dollars (on top of our ~20 trillion existing debt) and lower the Earth's temperature by an estimated .. what .. 0.2 degrees Celsius? In a hundred years?

    Instead of hamstringing our most viable industry, let it flourish so we can better address our problems.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    The problem with that approach is that there are far too few opportunities for graft.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    The problem with that approach is that there are far too few opportunities for graft.
    Well for example, what if the process of developing the materials that are completely renewable require years of development and monumental amounts of energy? The development of more advanced machinery always requires less advanced machinery. You don't get more advanced technology by limiting current technology - there is a cumulative effect that benefits every aspect of efficiency when you allow industry to prosper.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cfreetenor View Post
    The real question about global warming intervention is for exactly how much of the Earth's temperature rise human activity is responsible for, and what would be the opportunity cost of attempting to curb it.

    Take the Paris agreement, for example. It would cost the US trillions of dollars (on top of our ~20 trillion existing debt) and lower the Earth's temperature by an estimated .. what .. 0.2 degrees Celsius? In a hundred years?

    Instead of hamstringing our most viable industry, let it flourish so we can better address our problems.
    See, the problem is you assume (maybe not you, but people in general) that the goals of the agreement are in fact the stated goals. But how could they be? As you note, the agreement would do little if anything to stop global warming, and they freely admit this, and yet this is all that they talk about (because why would they talk about their real goals when they have everyone arguing about something that they know doesn't even matter?). But the actual result of the agreement, as you say, is to hamstring the West and more specifically America. Perhaps, just maybe...that was the whole goal in the first place? You have to judge the intentions by the results, not by the rhetoric, because the people who wrote the agreement are not this stupid. They know exactly what they are doing, they would just rather talk about something else. It is not an "unintended consequence," as they like to say. It is the intended consequence. If you look at all lefty ideas this way, it all becomes clear. Why do they keep enacting laws that constantly have so many "unintended consequences" while never addressing the stated problem? It's because they never cared about the stated problem. It was a front. The consequences they got were the consequences they intended. We need to stop letting them off the hook.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    139

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    But the fascinating thing is that when you plot temperature vs the two factors combined (i.e. solar radiation plus C02), you get an excellent correlation, as discovered by Dana Royer over a decade ago. You can see this for yourself in this paper (see Fig 2 in full text here).
    Did you buy the paper? This interests me "Here, I compare 490 published proxy records of CO2 spanning the Ordovician to Neogene." What proxies did they use?

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •