Re: Coffee responsible for global warming

["Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb () byrneit net>]

Ah, so despite a tested IQ above 170 (where the curve just ceases to
make any delta relevant), according to you, because I'm a skeptic,
despite the fact that I have a very strong grasp of the physics
involved, I'm a retard.

Good on ya.

Maybe, just maybe, I actually apply the basic scientific process (any
disproof invalidates a hypothesis), risk management (IMNSHO, there are
much greater threats to civilization, chief of which is religious
fundamentalism, and I include "Deep Ecology" and Global Statism in
that), and Occams Razor (the simplest explanation: in this case some
humans want more money and control over other humans; is usually the
right one), and reach a conclusion that is at odds with what the masses
are being sold on.

I host the review site for the HADCRU code. It's absolute garbage.
Several major calculations in it are actual random number generators,
due to assignment of real results to integer variables (FORTRAN is not a
Strong Typing language).

Having read the code which runs the models, I can tell you that I have
absolute certainty that the results are bunk.

If, and when, they produce models subject to peer review, and code open
to review by competent computer scientists, and then run the models on
an auditable platform (such as BOINC, which is much easier, and cheaper,
than the closed incompetent run junk they ran the original set on), I'll
be willing to even listen. 

Until then, what we have in "climate change" is not even as good as fake
AV. At least Fake AV code has a predictable output.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org]
> On Behalf Of Rich Kulawiec
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 2:49 PM
> To: funsec () linuxbox org
> Subject: Re: [funsec] Coffee responsible for global warming
>
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:49:02PM -0700, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> > And we have the opposite sorts of numbers on the west coast.
>
> Yes, and neither is indicative of climate change in either direction,
> which is why my original point had nothing do with that, and was
> instead
> snark directed at the pols crowing over massive snow in DC this
winter.
> As to AGW, I'm sure many people don't have the intellectual capacity
> to grasp it, just as they don't grasp evolution, plate tectonics,
> or other large-scale/long-term phenomena, doubly so those with large
> stochastic components..  They would rather indulge in wishful
thinking,
> religious dogma or political theater than do the hard work of
mastering
> the underpinning science and mathematics, and the even harder work
> of devising and implementing effective strategies to deal with it.
> I'm sure there's a lovely future career for them on the Texas School
> Board or some other organization with an affirmative action hiring
plan
> for primitive subhumans.  (Glen Beck University, perhaps?)  There they
> can wax eloquent about a several-thousand-year-old earth, the
> coexistence
> of human and dinosaurs and other quaint, laughable concepts espoused
> only by inferior people.
>
> Meanwhile, those equipped with functioning analytical minds and
> adequate mathematical literacy [1] have long since noticed that a
> quietly
> disturbing number of climatic predictions labeled as "excessive" or
> "unreasonable" or "alarmist" have already been surpassed.
>
> ---Rsk
>
> [1] I think that approximately the equivalent of a BS in math is
> required to comprehend most of the research, although of course this
> varies.  Some is understandable with only basic calculus while some
> of it requires quite a bit more.
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.