This was a great article!!! Stupidity knows no political boundaries, nor any boundaries really... I hope that everyone reads all the way to the end. Your point about the "Numbers" and putting them in context is sooooo very important. As a Data Architect who "tells stories" through the numbers, you can tell completely opposing stories from the same data. Context is key and critical. To say that cases are up a HUGE %.. that sounds alarming.. but as you stated...if that % increase is a super low % of the total population then you are not being honest with the facts.. You are creating fear and telling your story a certain way to make YOUR point...
Speaking of numbers and the Delta Variant... If this variant is as contagious as it is reported to be and with just about 60% of the 18+ population immunized and then another 35 million who have had COVID, I seem to remember the "experts" talking about getting to 70% ish level of immunity to STOP the virus with Herd Immunity.. Where did that "science based fact" go?
It is a shame and sad when anyone gets sick or God forbid dies from this Virus, but at this point, and maybe I am wrong, we have hit a point where for the most part it is now the result of your personal choice to NOT take the vaccine if you contract COVID. Yes there are breakthrough cases and yes there are other outlier stories out there.. but if you put them in perspective and context they are super super rate.
Let's get back to normal and all of us live with the consequences of our choices. If there is some portion of our population that are at risk and legitimately can't get the vaccine then lets protect them without creating hysteria and fear and potentially putting us back into lockdowns and mask mandates.
Let the rest of us get back to enjoying our lives, our families and friends without interference from illogical Government Mandates trying to protect those that are making their own choice. I support the ability for people to make their own choice, but I also respect that we all need to live with the consequences of our choice.
Bravo Erick! You are educating the public even as your admonish them,
especially with thought-provoking historical tidbits such as:
"Because the king of England had decided to confiscate the arms so that they could not do to him what Charles the First had happen to him by Oliver Cromwell. So they put it in the English Bill of Rights."
Keep up the good work, with these these exhortation epistles against our present plague of stupidity!
You are spot on regarding herd stupidity. We actually live in the middle of hipsterville. Yesterday my husband told me what he read regarding the restaurant Argosy saying they only want vaccinated patrons. We both thought it was stupid...BUT my response was simply "Well, they are in the right neighborhood for that policy." I may or may not go back there... but it IS their business to run as they see fit. It's actually a pretty nice place. The cocktails used to be really good. But my friend said they are now saying they dont serve old fashions with a marichino cherry and she had to school the waiter and the bar. So...that's more of a deterrent for me! Lol
My body my choice.... well, it IS. I chose to get a vaccine. But my daughter can choose for herself when she is grown and there is more information and time.
...And yes, the progressives conveniently forget that there is a third body involved. It's sad. But it stops them from having any guilt I suppose.
"I saw the ACLU's social media account tweeted out that the Second Amendment is a product of racism and was put there to maintain slaves, which is historically not true."
I have noted that stupidity is particularly rampant whenever the Second Amendment is discussed. The historical fact is that the first gun control laws in American history were passed as racist measures to insure that freed blacks wouldn't get all "uppity" and start bearing guns and all; you know, anything might happen if such folks managed to get their hands on the means to defend themselves:
"The first selectively restrictive gun control legislation was enacted in the pre-Revolution South and primarily aimed at keeping free blacks from owning firearms and maintaining a white monopoly on power. Many different forms of gun control laws were implemented before and after the Revolution to keep firearms out of African-American hands. Even after the Civil War, Black Codes were enacted which ensured that supposedly freed blacks would not have effective means to defend themselves, and would remain an unarmed and subordinate group in society, unable to defend themselves or fight for their legal and constitutional rights.
"By the end of the 19th century, the focus of gun control shifted from predominantly anti-black to anti-immigrant legislation. This was also the first time that gun control was enacted in
the northern United States where there was almost no firearms legislation in place prior to the
late 1800’s. With the arrival of European and other immigrants in the country, anti-immigrant
prejudices arose and anti-immigrant groups did much to associate immigrants with crime."
https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=srhonorsprog It should be noted that many African Americans, aware of this fact, still believe this, and I dare say that they have very good cause to do so. In fact, past racism certainly explains the reticence of African-Americans to get the COVID vaccine; If members of YOUR ethnic group had been subjected to involuntary sterilization or allowed to die from syphilis in the name of scientific research, you, too might have some innate distrust of the medical establishment.
For black folk to be distrustful of the medical establishment because their ancestors were "subjected to involuntary sterilization or allowed to die from syphilis" makes little sense when one considers the number of blacks who are now IN the medical establishment. No people of color were in any position to blow the whistle on this type of thing back then. Here again, the only real answer for not getting vaccinated is stupidity.
Neil, IF a population sees public policy toward it as oriented more in the direction of possible genocidal motives, it will take a LOT of convincing to change the attitudes and decision making process of that population.
Instead of debating when this crap started let's discuss when sanity will return? What will shock the culture back to reality? I'm thinking it won't be a good thing but I could be wrong.
I saw this story earlier today. The restaurant owner is within their "rights" as a business owner to do what they think is best to protect their employees' wellbeing. I also have the right to walk to another establishment. I am vaccinated and did wear a mask to protect myself and my elderly mother. Every day I make decisions about which businesses I will patronize. For example, if a restaurant or store has a sign that says no firearms allowed, I walk away. I carry. I will go to another establishment that respects my eight to carry and protect myself. We make choices everyday for many reasons. I respect this business person's decisions and they should respect mine to walk away.
I agree that progressives throw "racist" at way too many things, but here Erick applies the term "stupid" to far too little of today's thinking on the right. It is "stupid" for anyone to deny climate change when it's 121 degrees in Canada and California now goes up in flames each and every year. It is "stupid" when for the first time in the entire 231-year history of our constitutional republic (a) a losing candidate for President claimed election fraud, (b) power did not change hands peacefully (even the Confederates made no effort to keep Lincoln from taking office), and (c) one draws no connection between the two. It is "stupid" to continue supporting a leader who once called Covid a "hoax" (knowing full well it was not) gets vaccinated himself, then stands silent on the vaccination issue as his followers die.
Turning now to those who refuse to get vaccinated - regardless of party affiliation - "stupid" seems wanting as a description. (1) Even if we don't yet know about the long-term effects of the vaccines, we don't know that about the virus either. (2) We do know that the vaccines won't kill you while the virus just might; and that was before the ascendance of this new variant that NO ONE denies is even more deadly and contagious. I mean, the math on this is really not hard; Alabama's Republican governor basically calling it "common sense." Meanwhile, it so happens that those incapable of this calculation tend also to deny global warming, deny Trump's culpability for January 6th, and to take no note of his failure to speak out on a matter where, in the mere act of doing so, he could literally save lives.
While I might not share your spiritual beliefs, mine put a heavy emphasis on compassion for others. It is therefore with some shame that I acknowledge my inability to feel any for the unvaccinated. Paraphrasing Charles Darwin, any trait not conducive to survival tends to get weeded out over time. Maybe it is just the natural order of things that unduly high levels of stupid in the human genome eventually find a way to their own demise.
Again, it is wrong for me to feel that way, but that is in fact how I feel.
"It is 'stupid' for anyone to deny climate change when it's 121 degrees in Canada and California now goes up in flames each and every year."
Actually, Neil, it just might be if not stupid, then at least spectacularly misinformed when the most likely cause for California's woes is that it, and the entire western U.S., might actually merely be reverting to the long term historical climactic mean:
"California’s current drought is being billed as the driest period in the state’s recorded rainfall history. But scientists who study the West’s long-term climate patterns say the state has been parched for much longer stretches before that 163-year historical period began.
"And they worry that the 'megadroughts' typical of California’s earlier history could come again.
"Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years — compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.
Maybe they haven't; after all, it's so much easier, and supportive of the narrative, to blame man for something which can be accurately laid at the feet of something no one can control, like the way the Earth spins and orbits the Sun:
"Obliquity – The angle Earth’s axis of rotation is tilted as it travels around the Sun is known as obliquity. Obliquity is why Earth has seasons. Over the last million years, it has varied between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees perpendicular to Earth’s orbital plane. The greater Earth’s axial tilt angle, the more extreme our seasons are, as each hemisphere receives more solar radiation during its summer, when the hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun, and less during winter, when it is tilted away. Larger tilt angles favor periods of deglaciation (the melting and retreat of glaciers and ice sheets). These effects aren’t uniform globally -- higher latitudes receive a larger change in total solar radiation than areas closer to the equator.
"Earth’s axis is currently tilted 23.4 degrees, or about half way between its extremes, and this angle is very slowly decreasing in a cycle that spans about 41,000 years. It was last at its maximum tilt about 10,700 years ago and will reach its minimum tilt about 9,800 years from now. As obliquity decreases, it gradually helps make our seasons milder, resulting in increasingly warmer winters, and cooler summers that gradually, over time, allow snow and ice at high latitudes to build up into large ice sheets. As ice cover increases, it reflects more of the Sun’s energy back into space, promoting even further cooling." https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Yes, the climate is changing. The as yet unanswered question is, "Why is it changing?"
I hope you can forgive me for the tone of my last two responses. As I said in my original comment, I find myself in a far less understanding mood than I try to maintain. I respond again to offer what I think is a much more reasoned answer to the points you raise.
You have offered alternative explanations for the climate change that we are seeing. Were that all that global warming proponents were doing, your explanations might quite reasonably be viewed as being no less plausible than theirs. What bolster climate experts' view of what is happening is that THEY PREDICTED IT. If there is anyone out there who, for the last thirty years, has been warning of potentially catastrophic climate changes due to long-term climate patterns or the way the earth spins and orbits the sun, then please do tell.
Apology accepted, Neil. I know just how easy it is to get carried away by a spirited debate. In the online world, as opposed to the "real" one, the anonymity accorded by being online easily leads to the occasional moment when emotion overrules better judgement - a failing of which I have myself committed on more than one occasion. A since deceased online friend of old had a "Social Media Poster's Prayer" she either wrote or discovered somewhere which is good guidance for all of us, both on and offline. It goes, "Lord, help me keep my words soft and sweet, for tomorrow I may have to eat them." That said, let me try to answer some points you raised in your several posts.
Climate change alarmists, who lead the organized advocacy of the anthropogenic (man caused) global warming hypothesis, have posited that the weather is warming, storms such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards have increased in number and gotten worse, and that the sea levels are increasing at an unnatural and catastrophic rate. Let's look at each of these: 1) The weather in places IS warming, but long term observations indicate that it's because overnight lows, not daytime highs, are warming, thus affecting the averages. 2) Storms: The 2014 U.S. National Climate Assessment said, “There has been no significant trend in the global number of tropical cyclones nor has there been any trend identified in the number of U.S. land-falling hurricanes.” There is evidence that property damage from hurricanes is increasing, just as is property damage from wildfires. Those increases ARE due to human activity, namely that very wealthy people build in areas subject to hurricanes and wildfires, using Federally subsidized property insurance to cover their losses. The closer to nature one lives, the more likely you'll be filing that insurance claim. It's Econ 101, Neil: You get more of what you subsidize, and vice versa. Modern environmentalists have successfully prevented the use of fire to clear underbrush and thin forests. However, the native tribes used regular fires to do just that. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/fire/fire-06.htm If modern day firea are worse, it's largely because we mismanage, not manage, Federal lands, which add up to about 70% of the Western states by area. 3) Sea level rise: Present trends have shown a rise of 7 inches over the last 100 years. This rate seems constant, and has not increased in that time. But considering that the Earth is 4.3 billion years old, our sample size is just too small to draw any accurate conclusions.
As I had pointed out before, the Milankovitch cycles show that as obliquity of the Earth's tilt decreases, the climate grows milder. This IS settled science, is inevitable, and needs to be taken into account - but isn't - by present day scientists and in particular the climate change alarmists, who are really after a centralized governmental control over everything, and in particular a "carbon tariff" to impose some sort of imaginary "equity" in the global economy - which would, in my view, instead destroy that economy. Finally, the computer models used to predict all these dire outcomes can't possibly account for all the variables in the Earth's climate; complexity theory tells us that we have nowhere near the level of computational power to make more than a rudimentary guess at what may happen say, 200 years from now. To posit that we can using today's technology is to display a level of hubris which I find both breathtaking and alarming.
Paul, a disturbing thought just occurred to me in the aftermath of the U.N. report on climate change just being reported. Our argument concerned which was the more likely explanation for the warming of the planet, that attributing it to greenhouse gases or the "obliquity" factor that you have described. What I think we overlooked is the possibility that BOTH factors are at play.
I'm starting to get the sense that you know more about this subject than I have given you credit for. All I can say, my friend, is that I sure hope I'm wrong and you're right.
Wait . . . . Maybe the scientists predicting climate change never heard of long-term climate patterns? Maybe they (SCIENTISTS, mind you) have failed to take into account things like the spin of the earth and the heating effect . . . of the sun?
I can't believe I even responded to this nonsense.
The overwhelming majority of climatologists say fossil fuels are to blame. They accurately determined that chlorofluorocarbons ("CFC's") were the cause of a hole in the ozone layer many years ago, but maybe scientists have gotten a lot stupider since then.
"The overwhelming majority of climatoligists" are who, exactly? Can you provide a number for that overwhelming majority as a ratio to the total number of climatologists? Likely not. This is something our media loves to do. Journalist: "The vast majority of people this reporter talked to think (fill in the agenda talking point)." It's an easy way of falsely weighting a story without all the work required to quote actual facts. Oh, and one other point: How are we going to correct climate change caused by fossil fuels?? Oh yes, MONEY. I don't see how that could possibly motivate a false narrative.
If the existence of a profit motive is reason to suspect a false narrative, is it not then possible that the folks pushing the narrative that people are lying to you (e.g., Fox News), are lying to you?
The same cabal of corrupt, somehow-getting-paid-to-say-this scientists told us there was a hole in the ozone layer and how to fix it. They were right. More recently, the same cabal warned us about Covid, too many of us adopted the same skepticism you are displaying here and with just 4 percent of the world's population, we suffered nearly 25 percent of the world's Covid deaths: They were right again. Now, decades since the cabal began warning us of climate change, California goes up in flames every year and it's 121 degrees in Canada, and you're raising (dare I say it?) stupid questions like "Can you give me the scientists' names" and "Couldn't they be in on the take?"
OTOH, your brushstroke goes pretty wide and has some contradictory data - there *have* been a few deaths resulting from reaction to these vaccines, particularly J&J (which I got, btw - one and done!). Is certainly a small per-capita immunization number but is >0. So might want to stop short of "We do know that the vaccines won't kill you while the virus just might".
Another OTOH, a LOT of people survived COVID (including my 26 year old son, and I think myself last year). That data did not fit the left's narrative. Rather than trumpeting per-capita numbers like we do the flu, data was presented in pure numbers of (assumed) COVID sufferers and deaths as a staggering and frightening picture. Stats can support any argument given a presupposition and a clever statistician.
I am not arguing that mindlessly resisting vaccination is not, well, mindless. I am arguing that broad rhetoric with obviously proven inaccuracy belongs a tool of the left, recommend we avoid it on this side of the aisle.
I agree with your thoughts regarding all the stupid reactions by those on both the right and the left. One suggestion though on the perspective on hospitalizations in San Francisco would be to report total COVID hospitalizations in all the hospitals that serve the 4.7 million people, not just the one 700 bed hospital. I suspect it's still very insignificant, but it might be a better way to assess it. Keep up the good work!
When did people become stupid? I'd say it increased exponentially as Trump survived the primaries. I didn't think he had a chance...next thing you know he's still here. Remember how the left thought if they talked tough, like Trump, they'd be like trump? Nope, they sounded like idiots...still do. A problem is, no matter how juvenile we see the left act...sometimes throwing it back at them feels good, even if it doesn't really help.
This was a great article!!! Stupidity knows no political boundaries, nor any boundaries really... I hope that everyone reads all the way to the end. Your point about the "Numbers" and putting them in context is sooooo very important. As a Data Architect who "tells stories" through the numbers, you can tell completely opposing stories from the same data. Context is key and critical. To say that cases are up a HUGE %.. that sounds alarming.. but as you stated...if that % increase is a super low % of the total population then you are not being honest with the facts.. You are creating fear and telling your story a certain way to make YOUR point...
Speaking of numbers and the Delta Variant... If this variant is as contagious as it is reported to be and with just about 60% of the 18+ population immunized and then another 35 million who have had COVID, I seem to remember the "experts" talking about getting to 70% ish level of immunity to STOP the virus with Herd Immunity.. Where did that "science based fact" go?
It is a shame and sad when anyone gets sick or God forbid dies from this Virus, but at this point, and maybe I am wrong, we have hit a point where for the most part it is now the result of your personal choice to NOT take the vaccine if you contract COVID. Yes there are breakthrough cases and yes there are other outlier stories out there.. but if you put them in perspective and context they are super super rate.
Let's get back to normal and all of us live with the consequences of our choices. If there is some portion of our population that are at risk and legitimately can't get the vaccine then lets protect them without creating hysteria and fear and potentially putting us back into lockdowns and mask mandates.
Let the rest of us get back to enjoying our lives, our families and friends without interference from illogical Government Mandates trying to protect those that are making their own choice. I support the ability for people to make their own choice, but I also respect that we all need to live with the consequences of our choice.
Bravo Erick! You are educating the public even as your admonish them,
especially with thought-provoking historical tidbits such as:
"Because the king of England had decided to confiscate the arms so that they could not do to him what Charles the First had happen to him by Oliver Cromwell. So they put it in the English Bill of Rights."
Keep up the good work, with these these exhortation epistles against our present plague of stupidity!
You are spot on regarding herd stupidity. We actually live in the middle of hipsterville. Yesterday my husband told me what he read regarding the restaurant Argosy saying they only want vaccinated patrons. We both thought it was stupid...BUT my response was simply "Well, they are in the right neighborhood for that policy." I may or may not go back there... but it IS their business to run as they see fit. It's actually a pretty nice place. The cocktails used to be really good. But my friend said they are now saying they dont serve old fashions with a marichino cherry and she had to school the waiter and the bar. So...that's more of a deterrent for me! Lol
My body my choice.... well, it IS. I chose to get a vaccine. But my daughter can choose for herself when she is grown and there is more information and time.
...And yes, the progressives conveniently forget that there is a third body involved. It's sad. But it stops them from having any guilt I suppose.
"Herd stupidity"; I love it!
Erick, you wrote:
"I saw the ACLU's social media account tweeted out that the Second Amendment is a product of racism and was put there to maintain slaves, which is historically not true."
I have noted that stupidity is particularly rampant whenever the Second Amendment is discussed. The historical fact is that the first gun control laws in American history were passed as racist measures to insure that freed blacks wouldn't get all "uppity" and start bearing guns and all; you know, anything might happen if such folks managed to get their hands on the means to defend themselves:
"The first selectively restrictive gun control legislation was enacted in the pre-Revolution South and primarily aimed at keeping free blacks from owning firearms and maintaining a white monopoly on power. Many different forms of gun control laws were implemented before and after the Revolution to keep firearms out of African-American hands. Even after the Civil War, Black Codes were enacted which ensured that supposedly freed blacks would not have effective means to defend themselves, and would remain an unarmed and subordinate group in society, unable to defend themselves or fight for their legal and constitutional rights.
"By the end of the 19th century, the focus of gun control shifted from predominantly anti-black to anti-immigrant legislation. This was also the first time that gun control was enacted in
the northern United States where there was almost no firearms legislation in place prior to the
late 1800’s. With the arrival of European and other immigrants in the country, anti-immigrant
prejudices arose and anti-immigrant groups did much to associate immigrants with crime."
https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=srhonorsprog It should be noted that many African Americans, aware of this fact, still believe this, and I dare say that they have very good cause to do so. In fact, past racism certainly explains the reticence of African-Americans to get the COVID vaccine; If members of YOUR ethnic group had been subjected to involuntary sterilization or allowed to die from syphilis in the name of scientific research, you, too might have some innate distrust of the medical establishment.
For black folk to be distrustful of the medical establishment because their ancestors were "subjected to involuntary sterilization or allowed to die from syphilis" makes little sense when one considers the number of blacks who are now IN the medical establishment. No people of color were in any position to blow the whistle on this type of thing back then. Here again, the only real answer for not getting vaccinated is stupidity.
Neil, IF a population sees public policy toward it as oriented more in the direction of possible genocidal motives, it will take a LOT of convincing to change the attitudes and decision making process of that population.
But not everything you say is necessarily true either, Erick. It's your opinion and I accept it as that.
I do agree with you though, when did stupid start getting worse. It is out of control but then again you just can't fix stupid.
"Can you not just think for yourself and have some level of principle and value without being caught up in a herd mentality?"
According to Fauci, isn't herd mentality a key aspect how we get to herd immunity ;-)
Ignorance is Strength!
Instead of debating when this crap started let's discuss when sanity will return? What will shock the culture back to reality? I'm thinking it won't be a good thing but I could be wrong.
I saw this story earlier today. The restaurant owner is within their "rights" as a business owner to do what they think is best to protect their employees' wellbeing. I also have the right to walk to another establishment. I am vaccinated and did wear a mask to protect myself and my elderly mother. Every day I make decisions about which businesses I will patronize. For example, if a restaurant or store has a sign that says no firearms allowed, I walk away. I carry. I will go to another establishment that respects my eight to carry and protect myself. We make choices everyday for many reasons. I respect this business person's decisions and they should respect mine to walk away.
I agree that progressives throw "racist" at way too many things, but here Erick applies the term "stupid" to far too little of today's thinking on the right. It is "stupid" for anyone to deny climate change when it's 121 degrees in Canada and California now goes up in flames each and every year. It is "stupid" when for the first time in the entire 231-year history of our constitutional republic (a) a losing candidate for President claimed election fraud, (b) power did not change hands peacefully (even the Confederates made no effort to keep Lincoln from taking office), and (c) one draws no connection between the two. It is "stupid" to continue supporting a leader who once called Covid a "hoax" (knowing full well it was not) gets vaccinated himself, then stands silent on the vaccination issue as his followers die.
Turning now to those who refuse to get vaccinated - regardless of party affiliation - "stupid" seems wanting as a description. (1) Even if we don't yet know about the long-term effects of the vaccines, we don't know that about the virus either. (2) We do know that the vaccines won't kill you while the virus just might; and that was before the ascendance of this new variant that NO ONE denies is even more deadly and contagious. I mean, the math on this is really not hard; Alabama's Republican governor basically calling it "common sense." Meanwhile, it so happens that those incapable of this calculation tend also to deny global warming, deny Trump's culpability for January 6th, and to take no note of his failure to speak out on a matter where, in the mere act of doing so, he could literally save lives.
While I might not share your spiritual beliefs, mine put a heavy emphasis on compassion for others. It is therefore with some shame that I acknowledge my inability to feel any for the unvaccinated. Paraphrasing Charles Darwin, any trait not conducive to survival tends to get weeded out over time. Maybe it is just the natural order of things that unduly high levels of stupid in the human genome eventually find a way to their own demise.
Again, it is wrong for me to feel that way, but that is in fact how I feel.
You applied the word stupid to people who know that much of what you said is utter nonsense.
"It is 'stupid' for anyone to deny climate change when it's 121 degrees in Canada and California now goes up in flames each and every year."
Actually, Neil, it just might be if not stupid, then at least spectacularly misinformed when the most likely cause for California's woes is that it, and the entire western U.S., might actually merely be reverting to the long term historical climactic mean:
"California’s current drought is being billed as the driest period in the state’s recorded rainfall history. But scientists who study the West’s long-term climate patterns say the state has been parched for much longer stretches before that 163-year historical period began.
"And they worry that the 'megadroughts' typical of California’s earlier history could come again.
"Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years — compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.
“ 'We continue to run California as if the longest drought we are ever going to encounter is about seven years,' said Scott Stine, a professor of geography and environmental studies at Cal State East Bay. 'We’re living in a dream world.' ” https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/
And that 121 degrees in Canada? No wait, let me guess: The scientists predicting climate change never heard of long-term climate patterns.
Maybe they haven't; after all, it's so much easier, and supportive of the narrative, to blame man for something which can be accurately laid at the feet of something no one can control, like the way the Earth spins and orbits the Sun:
"Obliquity – The angle Earth’s axis of rotation is tilted as it travels around the Sun is known as obliquity. Obliquity is why Earth has seasons. Over the last million years, it has varied between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees perpendicular to Earth’s orbital plane. The greater Earth’s axial tilt angle, the more extreme our seasons are, as each hemisphere receives more solar radiation during its summer, when the hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun, and less during winter, when it is tilted away. Larger tilt angles favor periods of deglaciation (the melting and retreat of glaciers and ice sheets). These effects aren’t uniform globally -- higher latitudes receive a larger change in total solar radiation than areas closer to the equator.
"Earth’s axis is currently tilted 23.4 degrees, or about half way between its extremes, and this angle is very slowly decreasing in a cycle that spans about 41,000 years. It was last at its maximum tilt about 10,700 years ago and will reach its minimum tilt about 9,800 years from now. As obliquity decreases, it gradually helps make our seasons milder, resulting in increasingly warmer winters, and cooler summers that gradually, over time, allow snow and ice at high latitudes to build up into large ice sheets. As ice cover increases, it reflects more of the Sun’s energy back into space, promoting even further cooling." https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Yes, the climate is changing. The as yet unanswered question is, "Why is it changing?"
I hope you can forgive me for the tone of my last two responses. As I said in my original comment, I find myself in a far less understanding mood than I try to maintain. I respond again to offer what I think is a much more reasoned answer to the points you raise.
You have offered alternative explanations for the climate change that we are seeing. Were that all that global warming proponents were doing, your explanations might quite reasonably be viewed as being no less plausible than theirs. What bolster climate experts' view of what is happening is that THEY PREDICTED IT. If there is anyone out there who, for the last thirty years, has been warning of potentially catastrophic climate changes due to long-term climate patterns or the way the earth spins and orbits the sun, then please do tell.
Apology accepted, Neil. I know just how easy it is to get carried away by a spirited debate. In the online world, as opposed to the "real" one, the anonymity accorded by being online easily leads to the occasional moment when emotion overrules better judgement - a failing of which I have myself committed on more than one occasion. A since deceased online friend of old had a "Social Media Poster's Prayer" she either wrote or discovered somewhere which is good guidance for all of us, both on and offline. It goes, "Lord, help me keep my words soft and sweet, for tomorrow I may have to eat them." That said, let me try to answer some points you raised in your several posts.
You asked about the various cycles of the Earth's motion which can affect climate. These are known as the Milankovitch Cycles, and are the result of work undertaken by the Serbian astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch, who began investigating the cause of Earth's ancient ice ages in the early 1900s. He first published his work in the 190s, so the cycles aren't exactly new research. https://www.livescience.com/64813-milankovitch-cycles.html#:~:text=What%20Are%20the%20Milankovitch%20Cycles%3F%201%20Eccentricity.%20The,reason%20that%20we%20experience%20seasons.%203%20Precession.%20
Climate change alarmists, who lead the organized advocacy of the anthropogenic (man caused) global warming hypothesis, have posited that the weather is warming, storms such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards have increased in number and gotten worse, and that the sea levels are increasing at an unnatural and catastrophic rate. Let's look at each of these: 1) The weather in places IS warming, but long term observations indicate that it's because overnight lows, not daytime highs, are warming, thus affecting the averages. 2) Storms: The 2014 U.S. National Climate Assessment said, “There has been no significant trend in the global number of tropical cyclones nor has there been any trend identified in the number of U.S. land-falling hurricanes.” There is evidence that property damage from hurricanes is increasing, just as is property damage from wildfires. Those increases ARE due to human activity, namely that very wealthy people build in areas subject to hurricanes and wildfires, using Federally subsidized property insurance to cover their losses. The closer to nature one lives, the more likely you'll be filing that insurance claim. It's Econ 101, Neil: You get more of what you subsidize, and vice versa. Modern environmentalists have successfully prevented the use of fire to clear underbrush and thin forests. However, the native tribes used regular fires to do just that. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/fire/fire-06.htm If modern day firea are worse, it's largely because we mismanage, not manage, Federal lands, which add up to about 70% of the Western states by area. 3) Sea level rise: Present trends have shown a rise of 7 inches over the last 100 years. This rate seems constant, and has not increased in that time. But considering that the Earth is 4.3 billion years old, our sample size is just too small to draw any accurate conclusions.
As I had pointed out before, the Milankovitch cycles show that as obliquity of the Earth's tilt decreases, the climate grows milder. This IS settled science, is inevitable, and needs to be taken into account - but isn't - by present day scientists and in particular the climate change alarmists, who are really after a centralized governmental control over everything, and in particular a "carbon tariff" to impose some sort of imaginary "equity" in the global economy - which would, in my view, instead destroy that economy. Finally, the computer models used to predict all these dire outcomes can't possibly account for all the variables in the Earth's climate; complexity theory tells us that we have nowhere near the level of computational power to make more than a rudimentary guess at what may happen say, 200 years from now. To posit that we can using today's technology is to display a level of hubris which I find both breathtaking and alarming.
Paul, a disturbing thought just occurred to me in the aftermath of the U.N. report on climate change just being reported. Our argument concerned which was the more likely explanation for the warming of the planet, that attributing it to greenhouse gases or the "obliquity" factor that you have described. What I think we overlooked is the possibility that BOTH factors are at play.
I'm starting to get the sense that you know more about this subject than I have given you credit for. All I can say, my friend, is that I sure hope I'm wrong and you're right.
Wait . . . . Maybe the scientists predicting climate change never heard of long-term climate patterns? Maybe they (SCIENTISTS, mind you) have failed to take into account things like the spin of the earth and the heating effect . . . of the sun?
I can't believe I even responded to this nonsense.
The overwhelming majority of climatologists say fossil fuels are to blame. They accurately determined that chlorofluorocarbons ("CFC's") were the cause of a hole in the ozone layer many years ago, but maybe scientists have gotten a lot stupider since then.
"The overwhelming majority of climatoligists" are who, exactly? Can you provide a number for that overwhelming majority as a ratio to the total number of climatologists? Likely not. This is something our media loves to do. Journalist: "The vast majority of people this reporter talked to think (fill in the agenda talking point)." It's an easy way of falsely weighting a story without all the work required to quote actual facts. Oh, and one other point: How are we going to correct climate change caused by fossil fuels?? Oh yes, MONEY. I don't see how that could possibly motivate a false narrative.
If the existence of a profit motive is reason to suspect a false narrative, is it not then possible that the folks pushing the narrative that people are lying to you (e.g., Fox News), are lying to you?
The same cabal of corrupt, somehow-getting-paid-to-say-this scientists told us there was a hole in the ozone layer and how to fix it. They were right. More recently, the same cabal warned us about Covid, too many of us adopted the same skepticism you are displaying here and with just 4 percent of the world's population, we suffered nearly 25 percent of the world's Covid deaths: They were right again. Now, decades since the cabal began warning us of climate change, California goes up in flames every year and it's 121 degrees in Canada, and you're raising (dare I say it?) stupid questions like "Can you give me the scientists' names" and "Couldn't they be in on the take?"
There's a reason we have "Darwin Awards" ;-)
OTOH, your brushstroke goes pretty wide and has some contradictory data - there *have* been a few deaths resulting from reaction to these vaccines, particularly J&J (which I got, btw - one and done!). Is certainly a small per-capita immunization number but is >0. So might want to stop short of "We do know that the vaccines won't kill you while the virus just might".
Another OTOH, a LOT of people survived COVID (including my 26 year old son, and I think myself last year). That data did not fit the left's narrative. Rather than trumpeting per-capita numbers like we do the flu, data was presented in pure numbers of (assumed) COVID sufferers and deaths as a staggering and frightening picture. Stats can support any argument given a presupposition and a clever statistician.
I am not arguing that mindlessly resisting vaccination is not, well, mindless. I am arguing that broad rhetoric with obviously proven inaccuracy belongs a tool of the left, recommend we avoid it on this side of the aisle.
Wow, going on for a long time.
I still want the "People Are Stupid" coffee mug....and maybe a bumper sticker. And a yard sign. Etc.
The stupid with not inherit the earth.
I agree with your thoughts regarding all the stupid reactions by those on both the right and the left. One suggestion though on the perspective on hospitalizations in San Francisco would be to report total COVID hospitalizations in all the hospitals that serve the 4.7 million people, not just the one 700 bed hospital. I suspect it's still very insignificant, but it might be a better way to assess it. Keep up the good work!
Yup, there's "Lies, d*mn lies and statistics"
Amen brother. All the stupid is why I'm politically homeless and might be for a very long time.
The Nazgul in Mordor didn't ride horses...they rode "fell beasts". Did you mean the "Forces of Mordor"?
Other than that...great article.
Well, as the famous comedian Ron White says "You can't fix stupid".....
When did people become stupid? I'd say it increased exponentially as Trump survived the primaries. I didn't think he had a chance...next thing you know he's still here. Remember how the left thought if they talked tough, like Trump, they'd be like trump? Nope, they sounded like idiots...still do. A problem is, no matter how juvenile we see the left act...sometimes throwing it back at them feels good, even if it doesn't really help.