Welcome to Thunderdome

TheCatt wrote: Also, I don't think you read the Memphis part correctly. Or, you don't understand what the "World" is. I dunno, I don't get it.

I understand what "world" means. I also understand that they're implicating that cities that were near triple digit temps are part of this record heat when at least one of those cities appeared to be below average in temperature for the month.

For shits and giggles I checked Little Rock, which also appears to be slightly below average.

If someone is going to fall for a scam, they should find one that doesn't insult their intelligence.

New York city does appear to have had an above average month of July. That may explain the tone of the article. East coast elites always think anything impacting them is the greatest thing (good or ill) to befall humankind. So if they were hot, then the world is melting.

Vince wrote: Still throwing the bullshit flag

They can lie to me with more emphasis on each syllable. Doesn't it make it not a lie.

That's relevant. I dunno where the heat wave hit, only that it hit where I live (NC) and where I sometimes work (MA). People kept asking me in MA how we handle 95+ degree temps, like they'd never seen them before. Their avg is 80, iirc, this time of year.

Vince wrote: I understand what "world" means.

Alright, so let's focus on the real news, instead of the crappy journalism that was added about Memphis + Little Rock. But, way to beat up half of that one sentence.

After historical temps were adjusted down.

Kinda going to have to go with Gordo here. If it takes an organization 15 days to gather their own numbers, I have to wonder what kind of massaging went into that.

Don't get me wrong, we've had some hot days here as well. I just watch the daily temps because I try to gauge how bad the utility bill is going to be, and I notice when he have the below average cool days along with the normal July (now Aug) hot days.

Maybe they're right. Their track record on their future forecasting hasn't been great. Maybe it's just the extremists pushing their own agenda are hurting the credibility of the legit groups. If so, it would behoove them to do more to distance themselves from the crazy talk. I suspect they see it as an opportunity to crank up their funding, so they aren't going to worry too much about it. We don't have a lot of sciencing happening anymore.

Vince wrote: Kinda going to have to go with Gordo here. If it takes an organization 15 days to gather their own numbers, I have to wonder what kind of massaging went into that.

I... just... can't. Data is literally my job. Has been for more than 20 years. I feel like a scientist trying to talk to Trump.

Vince wrote: Maybe they're right. Their track record on their future forecasting hasn't been great. Maybe it's just the extremists pushing their own agenda are hurting the credibility of the legit groups. If so, it would behoove them to do more to distance themselves from the crazy talk.

That's not their job. To blame them for your failure to process information, data, and/or extremists, is just insanity.

Data that was all "scrubbed" a decade ago, and adjusted down.

TheCatt wrote: That's not their job. To blame them for your failure to process information, data, and/or extremists, is just insanity.

Okay, let's say they aren't massaging data or discarding data that shows a pause in the warming from ocean buoys in favor of data that agrees with their hypothesis or anything shady like that. Let's assume that they aren't adjusting their raw data after the fact and that all their predictions are correct and unbiased.

Now what?

Vince wrote: Now what?

You've already stated you're going to let humanity burn.

I'd try to do something with regards to Carbon emissions, etc.

Like switching from plastic to glass, and releasing more CO2 into the air during the shipping process in order to needlessly save landfill space?

If Satan were running the environmental movement, he couldn't do a more evil job.

GORDON wrote: Like switching from plastic to glass, and releasing more CO2 into the air during the shipping process in order to needlessly save landfill space?

If Satan were running the environmental movement, he couldn't do a more evil job.

The environmental debate reminds me of your comments about people being garbage. On the one hand, capitalism is really predicated on the notion that everyone will benefit by individuals choosing their best path in life; invisible hand and all of that. On the other hand, this really causes people to be very self-focused, with little regard to others (the button pushing test, the behavior of people on twitter/in public, etc) to the point where people don't even want inconvenience to avoid catastrophe.

I believe science will figure something out, but I'd sure like to try mitigating things in the meantime.

It's my base theory that capitalism already found the most efficient way possible to, say, give customers plastic bags (or whatever). Spending energy costs money as a variable cost (did I get that right? fixed/variable costs were always a dead area in my brain in acct classes). The more energy you expend, the more your product costs. Plastic bags are the most efficient, cheapest way to do things... and thus, they required the least amount of energy. Least amount of energy expended = less pollution in the atmosphere, which is the actual thing that scientists keep telling us is going to kill us all, soon.

And yet Satan has people fooled into using less plastic in order to save landfill space which we have plenty of, in order to pump more CO2 into the atmosphere. Satan is brilliant and I admire how he is playing so many fools who think themselves the most enlightened of all their peers.

Then they adjust data because they say scientists between 1850 and 1990 didn't know how to record temperatures properly. The absolute brilliance of that move is inspiring.

TheCatt wrote:

Vince wrote: Now what?

You've already stated you're going to let humanity burn.

I'd try to do something with regards to Carbon emissions, etc.

How much would that impact the projected temperature increase?

GORDON wrote: It's my base theory that capitalism already found the most efficient way possible to, say, give customers plastic bags (or whatever). Spending energy costs money as a variable cost (did I ge that right? fixed/variable costs were always a dead area in my brain in econ classes). The more energy you expend, the more your product costs. Plastic bags are the most efficient, cheapest way to do things... and this, they required the least amount of energy. Least amount of energy expended = less pollution in the atmosphere, which is the actual thing that scientists keep telling us is going to kill us all, soon.

No. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Capitalism has flaws. We would have to have a price on carbon emissions/pollution/climate change that reflected the impacts of the product(s) under consideration. But we cannot do that, because the cost is debatable. Instead, we end up with no/little cost, and bad decisions.

Vince wrote:

TheCatt wrote:

Vince wrote: Now what?

You've already stated you're going to let humanity burn.

I'd try to do something with regards to Carbon emissions, etc.

How much would that impact the projected temperature increase?

You'd have to ask a scientist.

If the world actually ends in CO2 global warming, it isn't going to be because a million Cletuses in appalacia didn't believe in climate change, or evolution. It'll be because of a whole bunch of educated people in positions of authority making bad decisions based on imperfect understanding.

Who will then blame Cletus in Appalachia.

TheCatt wrote: You'd have to ask a scientist.

The Paris Climate Accord, if everyone met their promised reductions, would have impacted the projected increase by lease than 0.05 C.

You also have to ask yourself how big of a crisis this is. Is it worth going to war with China if they won't comply with CO2 restrictions? Or India? The US has had one of the largest drops in produced CO2 in the industrialized world. So what we're doing is going in the correct direction. What do we do about the nations that refuse to do that?

GORDON wrote: Who will then blame Cletus in Appalachia.

Who did Cletus vote for? The "educated" people in authority making bad decisions?

TheCatt wrote:

GORDON wrote: Who will then blame Cletus in Appalachia.

Who did Cletus vote for? The "educated" people in authority making bad decisions?

And we're back to thinking voting matters.