This type of scientific reasoning reminds me of this gem from Mark Twain.
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long. . . . There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
And they keep on coming in bigger and bigger swarms.
Pointing out errors in locust flight patterns as we swat them is self-deluding.
Asymmetric warfare to national defeat by bugs.
An exercise in human futility, not pest control.
Barney Fife had the better way: "We've got to NIP IT IN THE BUD, Andy!"
How to do that? Hell, I don't know.
Curse the darkness? Light one little candle? Avoid the toxic cesspool of K-16 public education? Make your kids leave home and go to work at age 18? Leave them no inheritance if they vote DemocRat?
This is like the "study" I just read that said it was actually safer for bicyclists to not stop at stop sighs than to stop, because there were "23% fewer" accidents over 6 years in places where cyclists could do the "Idaho stop." I'm still trying to figure out the safety mechanism here.
As a cyclist in the city for 15 years, this makes sense. The reason is that you want to go through an intersection when the cars are not. I.e. you want to be able to go through at any time when there are no cars, and you have more control when the bike is moving; sometimes, stopping is sub-optimal. As a cyclist, you are slow, clumsy and less aware of your surroundings when starting from a standstill position.
I realized that's exactly what I do on my bike as well, usually, if traffic is light. After much reading of the original sources, I finally figured out that they were comparing the "Idaho stop" to Not Stopping At All -- just blowing through. The idea was to "reward" cyclists who stop at a red lights by then "allowing" them to go, or to let them just slowly "yield" at a stop sign. And some cyclists, it was conjectured, may choose to cycle on smaller roads with more "stop" signs than on larger roads with more red lights, which could also be safer. I blame the Boston Herald for presenting the whole issue without any background, and the City Council who turned this into a Social Justice Issue. https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/07/15/somerville-city-council-wants-police-to-focus-less-on-cyclists-who-run-red-lights/
That’s pretty hysterical Science. Reminds me of al old website (maybe it’s still around) where you could plug in different variables and see the correlations...like Golf Course Total Revenue vs Suicides By Hanging...and “prove” all kinds of fun things. Science!
I have this feeling they test for a large variety of ills but only publish the one that happens to generate a correlation (and slight at that).
Reminds me of the financial advisor trick: 1) create various lists of stock picks and mail picks to 10000s of targets, 2) keep track of which lists were successful and follow up with those that received those lists, 3) "see what a successful forecaster I am", 4) harvest suckers.
Anything which requires numbers to be significant is for that very reason insignificant. -S. Kierkegaard paraphrase from memory
Don't be afraid of their numbers Briggs, rather be encouraged. Consensus is the proof of their weakness.
As for their science, a correlation without a credible mechanism is just noise. Two better theories occur to me. One, there is nothing much to see up North so people are more indifferent about whether they can see or not. Missing out on the beauty of Dixieland, even in her much diminished state these days calls for instant intervention. Two, warmer regions in the continental U.S. are typically downstream. It's all the crap we dump in the water.
Science has come home to where it hatched from in the first place. And it had to, all historical processes evolve in circular fashion. Doom's Day may be near.
50-60 is that annoying range when you're finally leaving behind winter and you want it to be nice enough to go do things outside but the weather refuses to play along so you end up wearing shorts and a tee and freezing your ass off trying to golf or whatever, so yeah I get it
It gets weirder by the day. Climate change can be blamed for anything now. Falling testosterone? Climate change! Increased incidences of depression? Climate change! Can't get laid? Climate change! Rinse and repeat.
This type of scientific reasoning reminds me of this gem from Mark Twain.
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long. . . . There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Fighting locust hordes with fly swatters!
More of them than us.
And they keep on coming in bigger and bigger swarms.
Pointing out errors in locust flight patterns as we swat them is self-deluding.
Asymmetric warfare to national defeat by bugs.
An exercise in human futility, not pest control.
Barney Fife had the better way: "We've got to NIP IT IN THE BUD, Andy!"
How to do that? Hell, I don't know.
Curse the darkness? Light one little candle? Avoid the toxic cesspool of K-16 public education? Make your kids leave home and go to work at age 18? Leave them no inheritance if they vote DemocRat?
Only Hispanic men, apparently, are strong enough to withstand the dreaded 50-60 range!
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king... ('Unless the average temperature is between 50 and 60'...)
imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cat_proximity.png
This is the word of $cience™. Thanks be to $cience™ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is like the "study" I just read that said it was actually safer for bicyclists to not stop at stop sighs than to stop, because there were "23% fewer" accidents over 6 years in places where cyclists could do the "Idaho stop." I'm still trying to figure out the safety mechanism here.
As a cyclist in the city for 15 years, this makes sense. The reason is that you want to go through an intersection when the cars are not. I.e. you want to be able to go through at any time when there are no cars, and you have more control when the bike is moving; sometimes, stopping is sub-optimal. As a cyclist, you are slow, clumsy and less aware of your surroundings when starting from a standstill position.
I realized that's exactly what I do on my bike as well, usually, if traffic is light. After much reading of the original sources, I finally figured out that they were comparing the "Idaho stop" to Not Stopping At All -- just blowing through. The idea was to "reward" cyclists who stop at a red lights by then "allowing" them to go, or to let them just slowly "yield" at a stop sign. And some cyclists, it was conjectured, may choose to cycle on smaller roads with more "stop" signs than on larger roads with more red lights, which could also be safer. I blame the Boston Herald for presenting the whole issue without any background, and the City Council who turned this into a Social Justice Issue. https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/07/15/somerville-city-council-wants-police-to-focus-less-on-cyclists-who-run-red-lights/
That’s pretty hysterical Science. Reminds me of al old website (maybe it’s still around) where you could plug in different variables and see the correlations...like Golf Course Total Revenue vs Suicides By Hanging...and “prove” all kinds of fun things. Science!
Spurious correlations is the site. Marvelous stuff.
Climate “scientists” certainly do “push out” something on a daily basis.
I have this feeling they test for a large variety of ills but only publish the one that happens to generate a correlation (and slight at that).
Reminds me of the financial advisor trick: 1) create various lists of stock picks and mail picks to 10000s of targets, 2) keep track of which lists were successful and follow up with those that received those lists, 3) "see what a successful forecaster I am", 4) harvest suckers.
Along those lines https://frederickrsmith.substack.com/p/climate-change-control-of-the-peoples-ef0
I should probably not be so flippant. Did they happen to suggest the mechanism that would allow the eyes to track the average annual temperature?
Anything which requires numbers to be significant is for that very reason insignificant. -S. Kierkegaard paraphrase from memory
Don't be afraid of their numbers Briggs, rather be encouraged. Consensus is the proof of their weakness.
As for their science, a correlation without a credible mechanism is just noise. Two better theories occur to me. One, there is nothing much to see up North so people are more indifferent about whether they can see or not. Missing out on the beauty of Dixieland, even in her much diminished state these days calls for instant intervention. Two, warmer regions in the continental U.S. are typically downstream. It's all the crap we dump in the water.
Science has come home to where it hatched from in the first place. And it had to, all historical processes evolve in circular fashion. Doom's Day may be near.
50-60 is that annoying range when you're finally leaving behind winter and you want it to be nice enough to go do things outside but the weather refuses to play along so you end up wearing shorts and a tee and freezing your ass off trying to golf or whatever, so yeah I get it
Unbelievable! 😂😂😂
It gets weirder by the day. Climate change can be blamed for anything now. Falling testosterone? Climate change! Increased incidences of depression? Climate change! Can't get laid? Climate change! Rinse and repeat.