The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[freebeard]

Clever? I thought it was uncharitable toward people suffering from poor infrastructure design. They don't need pink flamingos but direct to satellite cell service.

Anyways, here's an interesting take. The tropics and anti-Tropics are different climates so the greenhouse effect only affects the Tropics. Then there's the Coriollis Effect, but I'd have to watch that part again.

This Well Known Effect Breaks the Climate Narrative

Why does the United Nations get to 'fact check' Youtube?

[Piotrsko]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Clever? I thought it was uncharitable toward people suffering from poor infrastructure design. They don't need pink flamingos but direct to satellite cell service.

Anyways, here's an interesting take. The tropics and anti-Tropics are different climates so the greenhouse effect only affects the Tropics. Then there's the Coriollis Effect, but I'd have to watch that part again.

Why does the United Nations get to 'fact check' Youtube?

Because you cant out troll the resources the UN has?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Clever? I thought it was uncharitable toward people suffering from poor infrastructure design. They don't need pink flamingos but direct to satellite cell service.

Anyways, here's an interesting take. The tropics and anti-Tropics are different climates so the greenhouse effect only affects the Tropics. Then there's the Coriollis Effect, but I'd have to watch that part again.

Why does the United Nations get to 'fact check' Youtube?

1) I suppose that the poles didn't get the memo, as they're warming faster than the tropics.
2) Richard Lindzen was debunked by his own colleagues by 1989. He, nor the half-dozen others spouting the same rubbish had any specialized education in greenhouse research.
3) Lindzen never has an algorithm, he never calculated anything, and had no evidence to support his hypotheses, but nevertheless, claimed that he had a better climate model in his head than the climatologists who wrote actual climate models for the supercomputers required to process the tens of thousands of pages of code.
4) MIT meteorologist Kerry Emmanuel's climate model sucked so bad that he accurately predicted Hurricane Katrina.
5) Other climate modeller suckees which rejected Lindzen's claims:
* Syukuro Manabe, NOAA Geophysical Laboratory, Princeton University
* Wolfgang Knorr, climate modeller
* Michael MacCracken, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
* Jerry D. Mahlman, NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratoty
Stephen Schreider, National Center for Atmospheric Research ( NCAR ), Boulder, Colorado
* Peter Stone, Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
* Alan Betts, Specialist, mechanics of convection, Middlebury, Vermont

[freebeard]

I took from it that the poles are decoupled from the tropics.

Do you have a link to any one of your opposition's rebuttal? The sauce, as they say.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The tropics and anti-Tropics are different climates so the greenhouse effect only affects the Tropics. Then there's the Coriollis Effect, but I'd have to watch that part again.

That claim is counter to my understanding of warming, which is that hot places are generally not increasing much in temperature, but cool places are, and that the coolest seasons are warming more than the warmest ones.

The video didn't explain why global warming would impact the tropics more than the poles, only explained that weather patterns are due to the Coriolis Effect.

Here's my favorite video on the Coriolis Effect

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38

Obviously, predicting the future is impossible, and for that reason, I remain open to a range of possible outcomes for humanity. The thing I'm closed-minded about is anyone saying you've got to toss them your bag of liberty first, before they rescue you.

This Raiders scene came to mind as I picture sleazy politicians telling us we've got no time to consider if it's wise to surrender liberty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws8btF36O1Q

[freebeard]

There's a popular podcaster who likes to say that all data is false. What about the data about the data?

DEF CON 26 - Svea, Suggy, Till - Inside the Fake Science Factory?t=3957

A 'film' embedded in a DEF CON talk. 5% of all scientific papers are bogus or indeterminate.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

There's a popular podcaster who likes to say that all data is false. What about the data about the data?

A 'film' embedded in a DEF CON talk. 5% of all scientific papers are bogus or indeterminate.

The topic that stood out to me today from SA was how non-credible the scientific community is, primarily due to the "follow the money" principle.

My wife gambles with makeup products, as some of them cause an allergic reaction. I asked her why she hasn't identified the ingredient that causes the reaction by looking up the data on which makeup ingredients cause the most adverse reactions, and she said the data doesn't exist (or isn't made available). I find it impossible that with half of everyone using these products, that the data hasn't been gathered, or is not made available. We're in the year 2000, and people still gamble on what products will make their face swell up.

I'm hoping AI demolishes the health industry gatekeepers by making their maleficence apparent to so many people that the gig will be up. As it is right now, folks are happy with medicine as it exists, because their doctor is friendly, and listens to their cat stories during the visit. They're not angry because the doctor costs a fortune due to gatekeepers keeping medicine absurdly expensive. They aren't furious that the diagnosis will depend solely on the knowledge and experience of that single person, rather than having symptoms cross-referenced in a database of millions of symptoms and diagnosis. It's fine that the primary motivation of medicine is to not get sued rather than finding the most effective solutions at the least invasive, lowest cost. Filling out the same exact hundred question paper form every single time they have a visit is no problem when habit convinces us that's reasonable. It's cool that the majority of time spent is documentation rather than considering the symptoms in context, and reasoning through possible remedies.

We are currently living in the age of bloodletting, and we say

[freebeard]

I'm going to go with ?t=391 "Reality is subjective."

This has been true for me since the 1960s, if you know what I mean...

[redpoint5]

I know what you mean, but I "reality is subjective" and the corollary "perception is reality" is untrue.

Our perceptions are abstractions of a seemingly infinitely complex reality, and are susceptible to hallucinate a seemingly infinite number of things; sometimes closer to describing reality, and sometimes further.

I don't have an opinion on whether it's useful to purposely hallucinate as I haven't tried it yet. The hunter/gatherers didn't seem to gain any advantage whatsoever by it, however.

[freebeard]

There's a normie take for you.

Joe's Epic Rant About Psychedelics - Animated by After Skool

The hunter/gatherers became civilized.

It's turtles all the way down.

Sturgill Simpson - Turtles All The Way Down (Official 4K Video)

Edit: Hey, this is awesome: Sturgill Simpson - The Making of 'Turtles All the Way Down' (Vevo Footnotes)

"There's a gateway in our minds that leads somewhere out there, far beyond this plane..."