atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#6522: Viewer warning

Watched an ep of Gordon Ramsay's 24 Hours to Hell and Back the other day, and it was prefaced with a warning. He read the title card: "Warning: this program contains images which may make you puke," in this voice that dripped with disdain and disgust. That's because that episode contained a restaurant kitchen which was the answer to the question, "What happens if you never clean a heavily-used restaurant kitchen for at least five years?"

That show makes me ask, "Where in the everlasting fuck is the health department?" We pay a lot of taxes for this shit, including health departments that have oversight over various jurisdictions. So, where are the health inspectors, coming in to evaluate the place for safe food preparation and storage? Why do these places actually have rotting food stored in their freezers? Why is there such a thick layer of sludge on things? Roaches? Dead rodents?

* * *

The science is settled, say the people who can't do basic arithmetic.



Maybe not lead off with a 3-year difference when you're talking about a "10-year" challenge.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but Lake Oroville is an artificial lake. They dammed a river and created that lake. Prior to human intervention there was no lake there. Using changes in an artificial lake as "proof" of man-made global warming is pretty fucking stupid.

Picture #2 shows more trees with a long blurb explaining why it's so good that trees can grow.

Pic #3 compares a picture with one from a century ago, and says, "This is the truth about the #TenYearChallenge". No, that's the one century challenge you're doing, you idiot. "I fucking love science but I don't know the difference between ten and a hundred!"

For #3 and #4, the two pictures being compared do not have any common elements visible in them. That could be any forest and any bare ground anywhere; ditto for the coral reef. In fact, the closer I look at those two pairs of pictures, the more convinced I become each pair are images of two entirely different locations.

#5 shows the now-famous picture of a starving polar bear. We must be reminded that the population of polar bears has decreased from 8,000 to 30,000 in the last ten years.

Fact: wild animals die of starvation all the time. I find it unlikely this polar bear could not find food at a time when there are more polar bears than ever unless it was sick or unable to eat for other reasons.

#6 is a pair of computer generated images showing the extent of arctic ice, and they are presented with absolutely no context whatsoever other than "2006" and "2016". So, for example, the former image could be January 2006 and the latter could be August of 2016, and probably are. We don't know, but I do know that NASA likes to play those games with the ozone "hole" over Antarctica, by comparing the low number for, say 2015 to the high number for, say 1960. Because if they compared the low and high numbers for the same year, they would show that there ozone hole is a temporary, seasonal phemomenon.

Much like, y'know, melting arctic ice is.

#7 cites "rainforest" deforestation from 2006 to 2018, which is a period of twelve years. Let's see 2006 to 2016, or 2008 to 2018, guys; if the problem is really that bad, the difference should be obvious even with two years lopped off.

#8 is actually an apples-to-apples comparison. And there are some glaciers in the world which are melting. So, bravo for having a decent grasp of arithmetic and making a case for the fact that the climate is changing.

...except that the climate always changes. There is no proof that human activity caused that glacier to melt, and this pair of pictures isn't proof either.

#9 Is Lake Oroville again. Jeeze.

#10 Brings up Lake Chad. The first picture is from 1972 and the second is from 2012. That's forty frigging years, not ten. And what is happening to Lake Chad? Is it drought, overuse, or what? Should the people of Chad and Niger starve because they can't irrigate their crops?

#11 shows a picture of a plastic bottle on a beach, then shows a photoshop of the same bottle underwater ten years later. Totally fake!

#12 shows no evidence that the two pictures were taken in the same spot.

#13 doesn't even try: the first picture is an aerial photo and the second's from ground level.

#14 shows a snail; in the second image it has the word "extinct" plastered across it. I thought you people believed in Darwin?

#15 is two pictures of seals. In one picture, a seal has a plastic bag around its neck. Apparently in 2009 there were no plastic bags, but in 2019 there are.

#16 brings up the starving polar bear again.

#17 another melting glacier, 2006 and 2017 respectively. It's a ten-year challenge, not an eleven-year challenge. But see what I said above about glaciers.

#18 which lake, what years?

#19 where? How much time passed betweem them? I don't even think those are the same places.

#20 Another math fail. Again, what time of year do these two computer-generated images represent? 1979 was a very cold year. And not to put too fine a point on it, but 1979 and 2007 are 28 years apart.

The whole point behind this nonsense is, "look at how much man-made global warming has ruined in just ten years!" but the comparisons are so sloppy with both the alleged facts and the presentation of them it doesn't convince at all.

But this is the best evidence they have.

* * *

Cold weather is bad for electric cars. Batteries are chemical devices, and cold temperatures slow or stop chemical reactions. Your battery becomes a brick if its electrolyte freezes.

* * *

Covington student suing a whole bunch of assholes for libel. Good for them!

* * *

Yes, that's decidedly a fail, right there. Also f-ing hilarious.

* * *

Today I got to sleep in; and when I got up, Mrs. Fungus said she wanted to go see Glass.

We ended up making the 4:30 showing in a theater which was almost entirely deserted thanks to it being Super Bowl Sunday.

The movie was phenominal.

I enjoyed Unbreakable and Split was pretty good, but this one beat them both.

* * *

After the movie we stopped at Menards, and I picked up $60 worth of plumbing supplies, including a propane torch with a trigger, so I'll no longer have to use a sparker to light a propane torch. Just CLICK and off you go. That was $30; I also bought a bunch of PEX fittings and another bag of crimp rings and so forth. I should be good to go on pressure-testing the manifold for the water filter; and once that's done, start making with the PEX lines to and from the crawlspace..

Only problem is, Menards didn't have the tool I wanted for cutting the stuff. They had any number of expensive ones. I'll check another store for that. It can wait since I don't expect to do anything else with it until next weekend. Besides, I forgot to buy the Sharkbites we'll be using to divert the water from the main water line to the filter manifold.

Looking it all over again, I realized that if we do end up wanting to put in a water softener, and I really want to put it by the laundry tub, it won't actually take too much doing.

But, one thing at a time.
Tags: #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #2, #20, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #tenyearchallenge
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.
  • 0 comments