Reply With QuoteAnthony Colpo frequently addresses global warming in his articles. This particular piece, written 2 years ago, is particularly noteworthy:
Naomi Oreskes, Science Magazine, and the Global Warming Scam
Member
62 year old man arrested for flashing razorabzz in public (and private)
Thanks, Rip. I sincerely appreciate that, and I will wear it with genuine pride.Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe
I'm going to look so fucking cute in that thing after I custom tailor the living shit out of it, à la Bre.
Member
Anthony Colpo frequently addresses global warming in his articles. This particular piece, written 2 years ago, is particularly noteworthy:
Naomi Oreskes, Science Magazine, and the Global Warming Scam
TMPHBITEU
This is good, Buddy. I encourage everybody to read Colpo's article.
Member
The dumber you are, the hotter it gets
So the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) claim is that the Earth's average global temperature has increased about 1° C since the start of the industrial revolution, because of humans - mostly white males, of course - spewing donaldtrumpdioxide into Gaia's perfect ecosystem, thereby threating all life on the planet.
Sure, there are countless problems with this line of "reasoning," but let's just focus on one basic but central point: What does average global temperature even mean?
As someone with a degree in geophysics from UCBerkeley, obtained way back when chicks-with-sticks didn't compete in women's sports, and uttering "scientific consensus" would have made you the laughing stock of the department, I for years have been wondering what the hell average global temperature even means. The Earth's ocean/atmospheric system is a far-from-equilibrium coupled chaotic dynamical system, with varied and variable energy throughput, so what in the blazes does an average global temperature physically mean, and even more elusive, what do microscopic changes in this pseudo-metric physically mean ... you know, in the real world?
A number of years ago I came across an article published in The Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics titled: Does a Global Temperature Exist? It was very satisfying to read because it covered and confirmed EXACTLY the problems I was bringing up with alarmists - a true exercise in futility.
Here is a link from the Neil Bohr Institute: https://www.fys.ku.dk/~andresen/BAho...obalTexist.pdf
The TLDR version is this:
Abstract
Physical, mathematical, and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both ‘‘warming’’ and ‘‘cooling’’ simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed.
The article is interesting if that's your thing. But some basic points are that:
- Non-equilibrium systems don't have an "average" temperature; it's a meaningless concept from the get-go.
- There are - like genders - an infinite number of averages you could define - arithmetic, geometric, etc.. There is no physical basis for choosing one over another, so it's whatever your little heart fancies, but different choices lead to different outcomes, this one making the Earth appear to be getting hotter, that one making it appear to be getting cooler.
- The same random choice exists for the time frame used to define "climate" (currently being 30 years). Pick a different time series, get a different answer. Oceans will boil away, or we're plunging back into the Quaternary Ice Age's coldest range ... hey, whatever you happen to identify with today. It's all good, bro.
- Don't even get me started on how "average global temperature" is somehow accurate to a 1/10th of a degree, and that 1/10th of a degree changes can be measured. And, um ... let's see some error bars, if you don't mind.
- And assuming these precision measurements, what does a 1/10th of a degree change physically (read: thermodynamically) mean when the difference between the hottest and coldest spots on Earth is about 150° C?
I could go on and on and on.
Life is short and precious, and arguing with idiots is the worst possible way to squander it. But still, I get so sick of being fire-hosed with this stupidity that it makes me want to go out there an commit some micro-aggression.
✓ Member
So, basically climate scientists are trying to use microplates as they bounce around to different chain gyms?
Member
On another board a good friends sig line is, "Life's too short to drink cheap booze and argue with stupid people."
But...
... that.
Member
Excellent post. The issue of error bars is what awoke me to this scam back in the 2010's as I was getting out of college. I was in a job with which i had to apply statics and analysis to very large amounts of measurement data. The fantastical claims coming from IPCC sent me down a path to look at THEIR OWN data where one finds, plain as day, that the error bars on their temperature data were larger than the so called world ending 3 degree C increase if humanity continued to burn carbon. From there.... the more you look the worse it gets. IN THEIR OWN DATA mind you.
Heh, good narrowcast joke there bud.
TMPHBITEU
They're like exercise "science" papers.
Member
Indeed, and your comment is truly profound when one sees it in the context of the Big Picture.
Modern warfare is full spectrum, and takes place across every conceivable dimension of human existence. No sliver of our lives is too trivial to be spared full-on assault.
The major theater is the war on the mind, and the target is the obliteration of its crown jewel, the capacity for logical thinking.
The tactic is simple: use shame to mandate inclusion of ALL ideas, no matter how imbecilic. So logical/scientific/mathematical thinking is turned into a circus by allowing every bozo into the tent. From there, the stupid must be given equal time and attention as the profound, so the capacity for discriminating wheat from chaff is eliminated. As Yuri Bezmenov so clearly articulated, the goal of "active measures" is to render people such that even if you shove their noses into mountains of crystal-clear data, they simply can't process it. They are perma-morons. And because they raft together in numbers, they bubble up to positions of power, and amplify their insanity.
So that's where we are. The Mindwar has been wildly successful.
Now you walk into major medical institutions, and our guardians of medical science allow and promote "Wellness Centers," bullshit factories that promulgate crap like homeopathy (truly THE dumbest idea to ever blight the planet), acupuncture, etc., etc.. And the rot is across ALL of the sciences, ALL of the applied fields, ALL law, ... it's absolutely everywhere.
That you see it and chafe against it in "exercise science" is merely a symptom of the systemic end-stage disease. You could try to escape to a different field, but in the end, same wine, new bottle.
-----------------------------------------------------
There is an absolutely fascinating and profoundly useful branch of applied mathematics called "control theory," the application of which governs chemical refineries, landing probes on comets, anti-lock brakes, and an infinity of other uses, many of which you interface with daily.
Here is an example of control theory being used to pass through the numerous equilibrium transitions of a triple inverted pendulum.
Tell me that's not mind-boggling.
But I have news. Control theory can be applied to countless dynamical systems, including social systems.
Control theory is being used to control YOU.
Never forget: there are people out there who are WAY smarter than you, and not all of them are good souls.
Sapere aude.
✓ Member
Damn good advice. I would add that life is too short to read stupid forum screeds. A carefully curated ignore list is a must both on and off line. Life is better if you ignore the NPCs, especially those whose life -- if they actually exist -- revolves around anonymous key board diarrhea. (don't let them get it on you!!)
Posting Permissions