Priory_of_Sion

HYPED

There's at least a 75% chance that Looser already posted this, but Iraq has bought ~70 T-90s according to Al-Masdar.

June situational report on Yemen

4 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Thanks.  What's your take?

Similar to Jesse Richman's, that America has tens of thousands of non-citizens voting, but the number still isn't high enough to make any real change to most electoral outcomes or account for millions of votes in the 2016's meaningless popular vote differential. Complaining about voter fraud, to me, is just as banal as when liberals deride gerrymandering or how voter ID laws screw over some trivial percent of the population. 

My solution: 

14 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

An editorial in Investor's Business Daily, citing three studies, asserts that it is likely that Trump was right about illegal votes costing him the popular vote.  The first study was by an online anti-voter-fraud website, the second was in a political science journal and the third was from a conservative/libertarian think tank.  I am curious if there are any reasonably rigorous studies that have come to the opposite conclusion.  I don't know, it's not something I've looked into.  My gut feeling is that Trump was right, or at least numerically not far off on that particular point, but guts are for digesting and holding in bacteria, not number-crunching.

The authors of the that poli-sci journal study disagree. I'd suspect an "anti-voter fraud" website would like to promote the idea that voter fraud is large enough to change outcomes of national electoral results. I'd also be skeptical of the think tank that looks like it is basically one guy who was convinced by the Bible's factual accuracy to become a Christian. 

never forget

1 minute ago, Belesarius said:

Anything is an assault rifle to the media.

 

19 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-teach/2011/09/the-story-of-l-a/

That's one of my favorite urban legends. 

Qatar has less than a day to accept these demands by the Saudis, UAE, and friends:

• break relations with Iran
• expel Hamas members
• freeze bank accounts of Hamas members
• expel all Muslim Brotherhood members
• expel anti-GCC elements
• end support for terrorists
• stop interfering in Egypt
• end Al Jazeera
• apologize for Al Jazeera broadcasting anti-Saudi stuff
• pledge allegiance to the GCC

I doubt the Qataris can do all these things within the day. 

Trump said something about Qatar, which in Trumpian fashion, is neither false nor entirely correct. 

Saudis probably got the OK to go through with this during the orb visit and seeming have used Qatar as a scapegoat for all their salafist militants murdering across the world. 

For reference, Qatar's military is primarily Pakistani mercenaries and is smaller than the US CENTCOM force that is in the country.

People in Georgia just have those names

Saudi Arabia & Bahrain cut off diplomatic relations with fellow GCC state Qatar and have closed down their airspace and seaways to Qatar. 

This follows some hacked emails showing UAE diplomats working with US think tanks about trying to get Qatar punished for not being fully on the Iran-hate train even though Qatar does fund its share of Salafists who routinely murder any Shia they come into contact with. 

Edit: UAE follows 

Edit: An alternative theory to this that doesn't center around Qatar being buddies with Iran, which they don't seem to be, is that Qatar is way more lenient towards the Muslim Brotherhood which is hated by the rest of the ruling parties in the region. 

11 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Wait, how does pulling out of the industrial council help prevent climate change?

It is almost as helpful as the Paris Agreement was. 

Look at this weird looking aquatic bear I found 

5 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

I really think once the baby boomer politicians die off things will get better. 

They're going to try to take us all out with them 

Saw a Timber and an Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake down here last month. 

It was a juvenile gray rat snake. I was at a university outreach event for my herpetology class and someone brought this rat snake. The asshole bit basically everyone that tried to pick it up. It bit me four or five times that day by that bugger. 

Monster turtles are much more rare today than they were a century ago. Georgia's alligator snapping turtle population took a big hit in the 70s and 80s due to trapping and turtle populations are really finicky because it takes forever for them to age to sexual maturity.  I assume this applies to the other states they're found in too. 

I've only caught common snappers, which look just as wild in my opinion. 

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

*cartoon*

cool 

12 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

So, I'm agnostic about climate change, just like I'm agnostic about everything that isn't "in my area". Hell, one could argue that small arms caliber configuration is "in my area" and I'm still agnostic about that, too.

 

The problem I see comes with the corruption that I see growing in the scientific world, and also the cult-like behavior we see from climate change/global warming proponents. I'm less worried about what the facts about climate are* than I am about the state of science. I think there are real things to be concerned about on that front. There's a lot of money in promoting these ideas (whether right or wrong), and I think the argument that this position is so viciously defended has a lot to do with the fact that people's jobs are tied to it is pretty compelling.

*Well, actually, I'm fairly worried about what the facts of climate are, which is why I'm more immediately worried by the fact that climate science looks like it's in danger of being unable to produce those facts because the Religion of Global Warming is swirling about in its natal maelstrom.

 

 

A completely unfalsifiable position that doesn't really care what is true and false is really cute, but completely worthless. 

If you come across something that actually debunks 150 odd years of science, let me know. 

27 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

How many times do I have to tell you that I know what the greenhouse gas effect is before you will believe it?
 

15 times

27 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

It's not, but that's not the point. The point is that there's an anti-science environment and the "pro-science" crowd doesn't even realize they're fueling it.

Fuck that crowd then. 

27 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

There is a big fucking jump between "the greenhouse effect exists" and "greenhouse gas emissions from humans are the significant factor in the greenhouse gas effect on Earth which is the dominant factor in global temperature increase which is going to cause a catastrophe in N years". You see how someone might look at your responses - which are very similar to the sorts of responses you can find all over the Internet - and go "this guy is a condescending asshole who isn't worth my time?" It's neither persuasive nor scientifically rigorous. It's just throwing memes at people and hoping they'll give up. Think back to all the arguments you've ever had, and ask yourself: Did anyone ever just give up? So then your approach and the approach many people are taking isn't working, is it?
 

Well there's a couple established ways the climate changes, with these 3 being the major global drivers of climate. 

1. solar irradiance
2. orbital perturbations 
3. atmospheric composition 

Solar irradiance has, on the average, been fairly steady over the past couple decades 

The earth's orbit has been relative constant over in this modern era too and thus there's no reason to suggest that warming is caused by shifts in the earth's orbit. 

So that leaves atmospheric changes. Sulfate concentrations (which have a cooling effect and where behind the global cooling scare) are going down and GHGs are increasing in tune with temperature. 

In the past, solar irradiance & orbital changes were the triggers for climatic change with CO2 levels increasing following the initial warming and thus exacerbate that initial warming. Today we have an initial warming that isn't related to those things, but warming does match up with CO2 

27 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

They are, as you mentioned, also against nuclear. Which doesn't help the "scam" image.

They 

27 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You mean that thing called the "Mid Miocene Climate Optimum"? See how this is weak-ass persuasion?

When the poles were ice free, yeah

27 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

And it didn't work with the creationists, either.

That is why

27 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Right, so basically there's a bunch of hugely complex models of the variety that are very unreliable. Climate is extraordinarily complex, and there's not really a good way to predict exactly how it will behave. So we don't really know what will happen, basically. This isn't me shutting the book on the science or anything, it's just not in accord with the party line on climate. I get that it's tough to get people to take something seriously when you don't even have a slick way to illustrate that it's a problem, but the problem with just running with a set of assumptions is that people will eventually figure it out. There are a lot of smart climate deniers, and they will use all their powers of confirmation bias to defeat you.

Well, if you include the positive feedback loops, it gets really complex, but its also alarmist to talk about a runaway greenhouse effect. 

27 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I do not at all mean you can't separate individuals, I mean you can disentangle the organizations and tribalism that's grown up in the scientific community.

Like, I guarantee you 100% that you and virtually everyone else on your side who isn't an SME on climate believes in climate change/global warming because you identify as scientific, reasonable people, and all the thoughts and arguments supporting climate change are channeled through that belief. The evidence doesn't produce the belief, the belief summons the evidence. That's how the human mind works.

I used to be extremely skeptical of climate change a couple years ago. I changed my mind based on rebuttals I read. I had to agree with the I Fucking Love Science crowd, but they bumblefucked into being correct about something. 

27 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Now, that doesn't mean the evidence is wrong or that the beliefs are wrong. It just means that people are ultimately products of their tribes. That's why Bill Nye does what he does.

Sometimes humans can get past that and do real science. And that's a beautiful thing. But the facts of human psychology mean this sort of thing is an absolute breeding ground for groupthink and cult-like behavior, and that sort of shit is anathema to good science.

By hating these idiots so much on every other issue, it must be impossible to accept that they can be right about something huh? 

59 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yes, I get that. That doesn't address the Lintel at all.

I thought you wanted to know why it is believed that its human CO2 emissions that are behind elevated CO2 levels. 

So you wanted something like this?

Quote

 

Wait, so you're going to try to school me on this, but then roll your eyes and act as though you've never heard of "correlation does not equal causation".

 

I'm going to springboard off this glib response into a more general point that isn't directed at you specifically. Let's assume for a minute that everything the climate change folks say is correct (and I fully accept that it might be). OK, so then WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? After decades of our society successfully teaching people science, the climate change cadre has decided "you know what? Fuck all the previous methods of teaching, we should just be condescending assholes to everyone, and mock them instead of addressing their questions directly. We should just tell them they don't believe in science at all, and compare them to fringe whackjobs like flat earthers in an attempt to shame them back in line. This sounds like a good strategy."

My sarcasm is that the leap in logic needed to say an increase in a gas known to increase temperature will increase temperature isn't a leap at all. Saying its just a correlation is just dismissing. 

Quote

So there's no real Lintel, is what I'm hearing.

I didn't watch Lindy's video. So I don't know what you mean at the time. I still don't know exactly what he means when he's going on about there's no linkage between CO2 and warming temperatures. 

Quote

 

So then the solution should be to plant more trees, not waste money on solar.

That would help, but having the world's entire plant biomass increase CO2 uptake by ~8% seems rather daunting in my opinion. 

Quote

I mean, there's lots of reasons for smart people to be skeptical, and here's another good one: If we want to reduce carbon, why don't we work on breeding thirstier trees and planting them? Shouldn't we be working with the logging companies giving them tax incentives to plant forests instead of funding solar and wind power scams like Solyndra?

These are good opinions. 

Quote

Another reason for smart people to be skeptical: I grew up hearing about how the climate changed over the past billion years, and about how it used to be much, much hotter in the past and biodiversity was correspondingly higher. So what's the problem?

Having modern ecosystems and human civilization to adapt to Miocene conditions within a century or so seems problematic. 

Quote

 

Now, this isn't a point of persuasion, but it's a reason for a smart non-expert to doubt the climate change narrative, so why do fucking climate change proponents treat everyone on the other side as if they have mental deficiencies?

Its a tactic that's carried over from the evolution vs creationist debate that has become habitual. 

Quote

 

Doesn't look like a rapid change to me, even by the worst reputable predictions. It's supposed to be like 3 degrees increase by the end of the century or something? And the models appear to be exaggerating pretty bad, so it'll probably be a lot less than that. Considering we are at the tail end of the Ice Age, it's pretty hard for most smart people who are non-experts to see what there is to be worried about.

As I noted, the 3 degrees is a conservative estimate based solely off CO2 emissions and doesn't touch on all those feedback loops that aren't that well understood, from my understanding, regarding how much warming they'll cause. Besides a moderate 3 degree increase would put us about where the Eemian interglacial was at its absolute peak where sea levels were 20 feet higher than today and when hippos thrived in the Thames. 

Quote

 

Yeah, and my worry is that we'll never figure this shit out because this issue has become politicized to the point of it being a fucking cult. If you want to solve this problem, get rid of the cult first.

Agreed. 

Quote

 

Do you really need me to say "fuck the House of Saud"?

 

I say it every 5 times a day 

Quote

And my issue is that there seems to be no way to disentangle the science from the scam right now. I think whatever true core science there is to climate change has already lost. Science has become corrupt, I think that's true, and we're seeing a rejection of its corrupt part. But I don't think you can really separate it. There will need to be some sort of reinvention in the scientific community where the heretics are purged and a new order is established before we'll see any real progress here.

I think you can tell the difference when you get to know their opinions about nuclear energy and GMOs. How many actual geochemists, climatologists, etc do you see on TV talking about this? None. You get fucking Bill Nye and you get rather poorly written articles in pop science magazines/websites. It's honestly not that different from most other fields of science in that regard. 

12 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

The best arguments on the "hoax/scam" side don't deny this. However, look at how much of global CO2 emissions are human generated. It's a tiny fraction of the overall total (most is emitted from the sea).

The concern is that carbon sinks aren't able to take up that CO2 due to warming and thus accelerate warming. The Ocean is the largest carbon sink and takes in gigatons more CO2 than it emits. The problem is that human activities has thrown the sink/source equilibrium out of whack so now the atmosphere is taking in more of the share of CO2 because as temperatures increase, the oceans lose their properties as good carbon sinks. 

12 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

And ice cream consumption matches up with shark attacks, as Moore argued.

 

Totally. 

12 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Oh, really? Please, show me a compelling source that illustrates this! I mean, that. Because you know what, I'm not an expert, and so I've asked a bunch of climate change proponents for Lloyd's Lintel, and gotten exactly jack and squat, besides offers for me to go fuck myself.

Yeah, it was sorta figured out in 1956. 

Carbon 14  and 13 ratios are decreasing and thus the source for the extra carbon in the atmosphere is from an old and organic source. That suggests fossil fuels are driving the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.  

12 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Um... You know that greenhouses are... Green, right? Like, even the most extreme climate change predictions say we're going to warm by a few degrees over the next hundred years, which sounds pretty green to me.

Depends where you live and how bad desertification/deforestation is in whatever region you're living in. 

12 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Very long term, maybe it's a problem, sure. But that's very long term. Contrast that with the "in the next ten years [fifteen years ago]" alarmism.

 

I DON'T know what's really happening. And you know what, I don't think anyone does. Why? Because whatever is really going on, whether it's a real problem in the near term or not, it appears for all the world as if this has become a scam. It smells like a scam, looks like a scam, acts like a scam, and upon close dissection appears to be a scam. I am sure real scientists and (occasionally) real science is involved. But overall, I can only consider it a scam.

Which doesn't even mean its doomsday predictions are necessarily wrong. What it means is that because there is a scam going on, which is promoted by powerful individuals and organizations, real science and therefore real prevention measures are impossible.

I can see being skeptical about alarmism, though I can't see how a new climate regime being rapidly changed within a century's time can be harmless. There's plenty of worry about regarding positive feedback loops arising such as permafrost melting that will release methane that will warm the atmosphere even more. I touched on the oceans losing their ability to be carbon sinks earlier which is another feedback loop and you've also touched on the increased temperatures means increased water vapor (another greenhouse gas) feedback loop, the melting of ice is another feedback loop because ice reflects a good bit of solar radiation, but dark substrates such as the ocean or rocks will absorb heat and thus you'll get even more warming. This is what the alarmist sentiment is about, and the science behind how these feedback loops work are solid. 

I've tried to look for negative feedback loops associated with CO2 induced warming and I can't find anything.

 Many IPCC reports just focus on warming from CO2 emissions and not the warming that caused by these feedback loops as well, and thus there's been plenty of criticism that climate change projections, which often look at the end of the century, only show a rise in temperature of only a couple of degrees. Hell, even the sea level rise projections are just based off of thermal expansion and don't include ice melt.  

The powerful individuals and organizations... is an argument that goes both ways. 

Plenty of organizations, people, companies, etc are using global warming as a tool for their scams. It's disheartening for me as there's plenty of research papers documenting the potential negative effects of global warming and the most obvious solution is still demonized. 

The most idiotic claim in this is the idea that CO2 has nothing to do with temperature. 

It's been understood since the mid-1800s that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Its not magic, its the physical properties of CO2 molecules that interact with long-wave radiation that the earth gives off and radiates that back. CO2 actually does match up well with temperature once you also include that the ancient sun was less irradiant. CO2 has doubled in the atmosphere, and its isotopic signature shows that it is from fossil fuel emissions. 

It's fine to debate how bad climate change will be, but this guy's "we don't know how the climate works, but doubling CO2 will surely make things better" is rather disappointing. I was expecting something more. Something not retarded. 

I just come back to Nixon's madman theory when it comes to his rhetoric with hostile states. 

To be honest though, it is hard to tell if the madman is an act or not. 

Some Houthi propaganda