atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#5754: Making adjustments

How can we still have 80-year-old high temperature records when $Latest-Year is the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH? You would think that somewhere these old high temperature records would be falling if man-made global warming was real and happening now YOU VILE NAZI CLIMATE DENIER--

...but if you look at the unadjusted record, you find that no, temperatures have not been higher than they were 80 years ago, meaning that $Latest-Year is not, after all, the hottest year on record. Borepatch points out that "no state has set a highest temperature record is more than 20 years." (Emphasis his, SIC.)

Now, if that is the case, if no new high temperature records have been set, it means one of two things:

1) Global warming, if occurring, is not leading to extremes in weather, but rather an overall rising temperature. The highs are not record highs, but the lows end up being higher than previously, such that the average is higher, and there are fewer excursions beyond that mean or median temp in either direction.

2) The global temperature is, overall, cooler than it was, and while excursions from the mean or median are still similar in magnitude to former records, they start from a lower baseline and are therefore unremarkable compared to the previous records.

Given that weather is a chaotic system, which of those two do you think is more likely? The warming but calmer model, or the cooling but still noisy model?

The former would contend that as temperature increases, the atmosphere approaches a steady state where deviations are uncommon. That would mean fewer and weaker storms, among other things, which is contrary to the claims made by the AGW crowd. Somehow the higher average temperature means fewer extreme highs, but it also means fewer extreme lows.

The latter would contend that as temperature decreases, nothing really changes but for the fact that record high temperatures are less attainable. Sure, you still have a 100-degree day in summer once in a while, but you don't have the unbroken string of 100-degree days in 2017 that you had in 1937, for example.

The raw data suggests that the latter is the case, that overall temperatures today are lower than they were eighty years ago. Certainly the sunspot data and other solar trends seem to back that up; reduced solar output, a weaker solar magnetic field, and increased cloud formation (Svensmark hypothesis) could account for a cooling climate.

...which is why we see such great and monotonic temperature adjustments to the temperature record, always upward. Climatologists have hitched their wagon to the anthropogenic global warming horse, and nothing--not even the facts--will get in the way of proving themselves right.

* * *

Illinois is boned. I'm surprised that Moody's has not rated Illinois bonds as "junk", but as the article concludes that's only a matter of time, because the budget "deal" that was passed late last month does nothing to fix any of the causes of Illinois' current woes; it's merely an exercise in can-kicking.

* * *

The answer is fairly simple. Because islam is the darling of the left, that's why; the left has correctly identified islam as a political system masquerading as a religion. It's nothing but 100% control of the proles with a thin veneer of "god stuff" atop it, and it keeps the masses stupid and pliant so they'll do what you tell them to. All you have to do is call yourself an "imam" and issue a fatwa, and the people will do what you say.

That is why islam is off-limits when it comes to an atheist's criticism of religion: islam is considered a fellow traveler.

* * *

We must do away with all traces of Jewish white male science!

Lysenkoism, by any other name, still smells like bullshit. Whether it's a rejection of imperialist science, Jew science, or white male science, it's still a complete rejection of science and scientific principles.

There is no such thing as "feminist science" the same way there's no such thing as "German Physics". Pretending otherwise is self-defeating.

* * *

Why is 15% ethanol fuel allowed at all? The standard was supposed to be 10%. With the United States becoming a net exporter of petroleum why do we even need to increase the ethanol content of gasoline?

Except of course "buying the farmers' votes"?

* * *

Marvel SJW Comics is seeing its sales tank.
Can we have any female characters who aren't fundamentally parasitic free-riders on the goodwill and legacy of male characters?

I guess not. I guess we're all done with making new characters or any kind of new movies, period.
The problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes a character, and what makes him interesting.

Take Spider-Man: Homecoming, for example. The movie was massively entertaining because--rather than focus on the costumed exploits of a superhero--it concentrated on character. We spend a lot of time following Peter Parker around, seeing how he deals with being Spider-Man, how he reconciles his costumed persona with his daily life.

It's the same with any other superhero. Iron Man is not the suit; Iron Man is the person inside the suit. When Tony Stark gets up in front of the press and says, "I am Iron Man," he's not just admitting that he's the guy flying around in the suit, but making a statement of his identity. If Obadiah Stane put on Tony Stark's suit (instead of making his own) would he become Iron Man?

Another example: Bruce Wayne. A friend of mine told me about a story arc in Batman where someone was using a telepathic device to try to drive Bruce Wayne crazy. He resisted it; and in the end he said it was because the voice that was talking to him kept calling him "Bruce", which was not his name. The implication was that he refers to himself as "Batman", not "Bruce", because that is his true identity.

To me, the hero is the hero. If Lex Luthor puts on Superman's cape, he doesn't become Superman; he becomes someone dressed like Superman.

To be sure, there are heros which are dependent on costume--Green Lantern comes to mind; the person wearing the ring bears the title--but by and large you can't just up and say, "Hey! Thor's a girl now!" or "We'll put the bat suit on this transgender lesbian of color who identifies as a man, and that'll be Batman!"

As Ace puts it:
Has it occurred to any of these people that Tony Stark is more than just the suit? Like, Batman is more than just the costume; people respond to the character of Bruce Wayne, too. You can't just take a completely different character--and one the audience hasn't spent decades following--and put him in the same costume or give her the same name and say "This is your new Batman."
It doesn't work. It doesn't work because a Batman, an Iron Man, a Thor, these characters are more than fancy suits. The same way you can't take a random kid off the street and put a Michael Jordan Bulls jersey on him and have him dunk a ball the way Michael Jordan did, you can't slap the bat suit on someone else and have him be Batman.

Bill Jones in the Batman costume is just that. He's not Bruce Wayne; he's not the Batman. Otherwise the whole thing becomes a franchise, where you have a Batman. It cheapens the whole mythos of the character by making superhero status something anyone can do if they get the right training. In that world there'd be universities or trade schools which trained people to be superheros, rather than have a superhero be the result of a long and arduous process that's unique for everyone.

Simply put, no one else could be Batman because no one else can be Bruce Wayne; only Bruce Wayne can be Bruce Wayne. No one else can be Spider-Man. Sure, other people can be bitten by radioactive spiders and turn into people with superhuman powers, but that doesn't make them Spider-Man; it makes them people with superpowers who would do things completely differently than Peter Parker does.

But in service to political correctness, the myths surrounding the heros must be undone so that anyone can become them. It cheapens the hero, makes him less of an ideal. Then again, that's what political correctness does: it ruins everything it touches.

* * *

WTF?

Today's "Jump Start", a comic I read, has this punchline: "Bad idea to count on twelve dudes. It's in the Bible."

"Twelve dudes" went on to found a religion that's endured more than two millennia, and which has always been a beacon of truth and hope for Mankind.

I don't know what point the artist was trying to make with that strip, but my instincts tell me it's meant to be derogatory. Any time the media makes a point about Christianity, it usually is.

* * *

Maki doesn't seem to have much trouble getting to the food and water and litter box, which is good. His appetite is unchanged; he still eats like a horse. Further bulletins as events warrant.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 2 comments