Leaderboard

If you have ever spent any time working with large scale simulations/models (which pretty much excludes almost everyone) there is only one thing that comes to mind regarding such models... George Box "All models are wrong, but some are useful" For those that are "sure" scientists have climate all figured out, feel free to watch the results of a dozen billion dollar models predict the track of a hurricane 24hours into the future. each type of model is "designed" to push the agenda that the senior model advocates think is the right way. These are all scientists that are sure they are right, each has convinced somebody to invest millions of dollars that they are right. Here comes the tricky part, they cannot "all" be right. The climate of planet earth has gone thru warm spells, cold spells, huge grass fires that burned entire continents, volcanic eruptions that darkened the skies; and yet here we are. People are so wrapped up in the need to be right, they have forgotten how to pursue what is truth. Do not think that science is this emotionless vacuum in pure pursuit of knowledge. The only good thing it had, well "used to have" going for it was that people could freely exchange those ideas, defend them, attack with logical arguments until eventually that kernel of truth did pop up. Today we have lost the ability to have an open and lively debate about important topics. NASA most certainly DOES adjust the data when it comes to things like temperature, there are reasons why you need to do such a thing. The trouble is, when the reasons switch from science to political agenda. Now science has discovered they get a lot more funding if they produce results that match what the funding organization are expecting. and here is where it all falls apart, most of the populous (and all of Hollywood) have lost the ability for even a little logical thinking. They get all spun up about 0.002% change in something because media tells them they should. They have not looked at "climate" over the past 50,000 years. We live on a changing hunk of rock that is always evolving. Do people freak out over the Sahara desert today, I guess I should not mention it was not always like that!!! oh no Global warming; AHHHHHH, run! science does NOT mean everything said is inherently truthful...it means the ability to logically pursue truth is something you possess and are willing to do.

and it looks like we have gotten around to the "faith" part of the thread that also occur with regard to climate change hehe The science behind simulations/models is very complicated; as a system engineer I have designed massive system models and the effort it takes to "avoid" introducing bias is considerable. You can easily see what you want rather than accept that what the model is telling you is useless (working for months/years only to have to accept you have, well, nothing useful is tough to do). When I would create such system models (these were not network simulations, they were behavioral models) the most important factor to capture is the one that is almost always overlooked...model output confidence. This is why I brought up the current weather models which are MUCH simpler than global climate models and yet, they are extremely poor with regards to their degree of confidence in a prediction. It is not that the science is wrong, it is that today it is wrapped up in the politics of funding. If you received $20M (which is not that much with large scale models; go hunt up NCEPs budget) for a model and at next years budget review are you going to stand up and state "well, we now have 8% confidence" or will you say "we now have refined our model such that we have established an 80% confidence interval in just what you politicians thought".. which means little and trust me with how much time is spent on PowerPoint slides to not tell a lie but let people walk themselves right off the logic cliff. Do not feel bad or misled, it is the nature of the beast. The CO2 levels on this planet have often change by a large amount, in many cases there were NO people on the planet and yet there goes the CO2 levels for climbing for 50,000 years before it settles back down. The tiny spike that people get flustered about now is just soooo small compared to the global climate picture. Always keep in mind that when headlines spout stuff like "<XYZ> is the <lowest/greatest> it has been in recorded history...recorded history is such a small slice of time. The ice sheet gas analysis does give us insight into things at the 100,000 year+ range which is good, but understanding that, why it moves the way it does, how do sun cycles impact the earth... it is a very difficult problem and instead of letting pure science do what it should, we have gotten all wrapped up in sensationalism. Ok, I rambled on enough...so I raise my glass to the dearly departed soul of science, I will miss you! If you want to panic forget CO2... fukushima and the poisoning of the pacific... THAT gives me nightmares.

Your icon image is small and blurry, but you look like you are still young, 20-30's. Make a calendar note for ten years from now and see if you are then still baffled.

Back up to the starting line: all this alarmism was brought up to begin with by...drum roll... -falsified data -illegal math and physics --HUGE money trail So don't sweat (pun) any of it. The climate is doing what it always has. So are humans (see also "forked tongue").

The political left is clearly anti-men and anti-white people. I'm a white man ... My enemies enemy is my friend. Go alt right!

I think the statement "it doesn't dissuade you from doing potentially dangerous things" is the key point... I have engineers curse, I focus on outliers. This is the fundamental problem I see with the push we have in medicine/health today. It is a focus based on the premise we are all basically the same biological machine. As you start to shrink you viewpoint down to the molecular part of that machine, the differences start to become rather significant. If I declare something absolutely "bad" for you, well, no surprise if you do it and something bad happens. That is exactly what I would expect. When it comes to diets and sensitivities to cholesterol, smoking, sugars , alcohol, fats, carbs, etc., there are a "lot" of outliers. So many that it makes me question the validity of the foundational argument, we are all the same and fall under the same standard distribution. I suspect that there are, much like cancer markers, much stronger sensitivities in our molecular machine works that will really drive what hurts and what helps us. Consider cholesterol, every doctor today will want to slap you on the current fad cholesterol drugs, and yet, we know that there are absolutely cholesterol sensitivity markers that are passed on. I recall a study that had some interesting results based on your markers (say american Indian/Asian vs European) things like drinking alcohol, good for one group, harmful for the other. Exercise was another one, aerobic vs anaerobic was very different ratio based on markers to get benefits. carbs were the same from one end of the spectrum to the other; one group needs low-fat high cards, the other, high fat and low cards! I agree that we only know what we know, but the issue may be not what we know, but "who" knows it to help each person. If your doctor is only treating you as the midpoint of the distribution, they can be really off the mark. Sadly, no group seemed to be high fat and high carbs Oh the agony, I hear the doughnuts crying out...

Through example. Live your principles. Be happy. Others will follow.

MGTOW is another marxist trick to eradicate whites. I have never seen a black MGTOW. No married man is considered to be MGTOW. No man with a girlfriend is considered MGTOW. No man with a child is considered MGTOW. MGTOW specifically targets teenagers to forgo female contact. MGTOW creates a strawman of the female character as something undesirable (sour grapes). MGTOW promotes isolation from society (ghosting). MGTOW criticize any enjoyment of female interaction as misandry. MGTOW sells itself as a male boycott to female vanity but its true intentions became clear after the "leaders" stated that there's no such thing as a good woman.

Trump couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag. He's NOT a politician; he has no political background whatever, and I don't care that he's the newest celebrity president. Sorry; I'm not a fan of Trump. He's a misogynist, ableist, and racist. And that pig has his finger on the button, for God's sake! I understand why people voted for him: it's because he had the most extensive media coverage during his campaign, and because he literally shouted down any possible opposition. He appeals to the rednecks and to the gun-crazed morons down in the southern part of the country. And Stefan sanctioned him, which, really, to me, just goes to show how even the most intelligent people can make hideously misinformed decisions. I'm not saying that, of necessity, I would have preferred Hilary (I'm Canadian, not American, so I can't REALLY talk), but she did strike me as the lesser of two evils.