Elementary school physics (is that still a thing, or has it been replaced with «science»?) says more energy in the system globally would lead to more evaporation and hence more precipitation; of course, some areas might get less rain and some more, but you'd need a very good reason to believe your area gets a trend opposite to the global vector.
Climate change scientists have admitted that more rain will fall, but they claim it will fall over the oceans where it does us little good. I have no idea how they came to that conclusion.
Kertch reminds me of crap they spouted about wearing masks to walk about in while in restaurants and pubs, if you were sat down though you could take it off because the lurgy couldn’t locate you.
Seem same applies for rain then it’s only going to be able to locate the ocean to pee it down over
This sounds eerily similar to most warming occurring during nighttime, in remote sparsely populated areas, or as 'hidden heat' deep in the oceans,. where it is harder to observe.
Actually I went back and looked to find more details on that claim. As it turns out the extra rain falling over the oceans was predicted by their CLIMATE MODEL. As you said, "science". My model predicts that any model they create is wrong. Funny thing is, my model has been right more than their models. So far I have a 100% track record.
Some climate cultists believe that water is actually disappearing from the earth, never to be seen again.... (I wish I was making it up, but I know someone RL who believes this.)
Well, some water vapor is indeed being broken down in the upper atmosphere, with hydrogen escaping into cold dead space – but amounts are negligible unless we talk about millions of years.
This person actually believes if you drink too much water the earth will run out of water.... I mean - I guess if there were enough humans, all holding enough water at the same time - but I think starvation would reduce the human population long before it could reach that many.
According to the USGS the volume of fresh water in lakes and rivers is only 93,113 cubic km.
There are 8.1 billion people on Earth.
Therefore, currently each person only has 11,495 liters of water available, assuming that those lakes and rivers would not replenish with other sources of water.
But, there are only 14,884 liters of water in total for each liter of fresh water in lakes and rivers.
No possibility of producing desalinated water from desalination plants.
No possibility of purifying grey water.
All of which are possible to do.
The great danger isn't lack of water, but pollution of it with "forever chemicals" like PFAS and worse than that. Some nations, that haven't updated their laws and checks on this (or like China just ignores pollution outright) will have real problems, since many of the worst chemicals damages the ova and sperm of adults, creating a knock-on effect down the generations.
Put fixing that would cut into the profit margin of private corporations, so it won't be done, since the environmentalist movement is fully co-opted by said corporations and has been since the early 1990s.
I don't think there's any convincing her, unfortunately. I take the approach of just laugh. There is some lunacy that just can't be argued with and it's not worth the time.
How can a human(?)/humans produce more water than they consume? Humans don't produce water at all, in any way. They consume water, and they excrete contaminated water.
The only activity that takes water out of the Earth's surface system (including ground water) is when it is used for hydraulic fracturing of tight oil/gas formations (fracking), and not all of the water injected is returned to surface.
As Rikard says above, the human threat to water is pollution.
If you want a flood attenuation dam, build a flood attenuation dam. Equally, if you want a water storage dam, build one. Don’t expect the same dam to fulfil both functions. Both floods and droughts will occur.
IPCC AR6 WG1 Table12.12 says there is no evidence supporting either droughts or flooding beyond natural variability now and by the end of the century.
Sounds like the logic of swedish power company (the former state monopoly one) Vattenfall:
If the dams and their magazines are full, they must raise prices on power since the great amount of accessible power lowers the profit per unit of power ratio.
If the dams and their magazines are low, they must raise prices on power since the low amount of accessible power lowers the profit total from selling power.
Corollary: electricity from polish coal plants is cheaper than from swedish hydropower dams. Therefore, Vattenfall buys power from Poland. The profit margin for swedish hydropower is higher if it is sold to Norway than in Sweden, so the same amounts imported are exported, keeping the market level and the customer hostage.
(Jar Jar Binks-voice)
Is called capitalism, kamerad. Is bestest system evar.
They don't have a monopoly. They just own a lot of shares in a lot of other companies.
Also, since I'm old enough to compare present-day neoliberal capitalist power production, cost/price et cetera with when we had state monopioly handling it, I can tell this:
The state monopoly was objectively better for everyone, especially private companies.
The current capitalist system is only godd for the owners of the corporations dealing in power.
“It is a monopoly, not capitalism. Capitalism is greed *plus competition*. If Vattenfall had a competitor with similar access to natural resources they would have to race to lower prices for the consumer, or face not making any profit at all.
That said, not every market can have adequate competition for reaping the benefits of true competition, and the exploitation of limited natural resources tasked by a national government is one example. It would be near impossible to have any number of companies try to build their own dams in the small numbers of rivers in the north of Sweden, which makes it one of the few legitimate jobs of government: to let private companies compete for building the best and cheapest hydropower plants for tax payers money, and then provide the tax payers with that power at zero profit to the government.
It used to be almost like that in Sweden, large, nationalized companies running different parts of infrastructure. They were privatized over night in the 90s though, which just turned large monopoly companies under state control into large monopoly companies under private control. That's not capitalism, it's the combination of the worst parts of both capitalism and state control.“
As a connaisseur of puns, I am submitting yours as an early entrant for the 2024 Eugyppius Comments Section Awards (the “Eupies”), in the “Best Pun” category.
Throughout human history, the causes of all famines stem not from adverse weather/crop outcomes, but from political policies that exaggerated their impacts. I would argue that precipitation mismanagement falls into the same category, with Mother Nature serving as the perennial scapegoat. Slightly off-topic, and sorry to direct traffic from eugyppius, but if you have not seen Carlson's interview with Professor Soon (posted yesterday), it is must-watch. Not only is Dr. Soon very amiable, but he skewers both the current Science™ establishment, and the entire notion of CO2 as having anything to do with the fantasy that mankind affects climate in any way. https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1744777758507504061
Farmers are the best experts for predicting weather, they know the sign’s because their livelihoods depend on watching and studying weather patterns.
My father worked as a farm hand as a teenager, he could pick the best weeks to go on holiday, when we’d have a bad winter or good summer.
He said the berries on the trees and the birds reveal so much if you watch and study them.
As farmers feed us I vote that they should be in charge of environmental policies, we’d much safer and it would cost the taxpayers far less for them to run the show.
You don’t destroy the very thing that supports and sustains you, you work with it or suffer the consequences.
My father always said that Mother Earth will win to defend herself, if man has to die then he’ll die whether it be flood famine or drought because he doesn’t respect nature and the planet.
Someone once pointed out to me the typical Bureaucrat/Technocrats flow chart:
1. We must change X to stop Y
2. Maybe we shouldn't make that change, it's a pretty big change and there are possible unintended consequences with changing X. I'm concerned changing X could cause Y.
3. You are asking me to prove changing X won't cause Y? It is impossible to prove X will not cause Y! YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE!!!
4. Oh yes, that proves we must go with option Z which clearly defines the solution as changing X to Y!!!
5. Whoopsies we need to hire more bureaucrats to figure out how to solve for X and Y by eliminating the chance that option Z exacerbates solutions that require changing X to stop Y!
6. Problem fixed we have more options for the next solution in search of a problem!!!
It seems the function of bureaucrats' existence is to continually "improve" the status quo by changing it, which usually means adding to existing regulations, since the present can never be considered perfect. This has been the M.O. of the European Union since its inception, adding thousands of new rules to every member country's legislation and complicating everyone's lives mostly unnecessarily and will continue ad infinitum until........
I’m glad you called them bureaucrats and not experts. I’m done with experts. It’s now ‘show me’ before I’ll listen to anything the experts have to say. At least by identifying the bureaucrats I don’t have any expectations like I once had of the ‘experts’.
"...The belief that order must be intentionally generated and imposed upon society by institutional authorities continues to prevail. This centrally-directed model is premised upon what F.A. Hayek called “the fatal conceit,” namely, the proposition “that man is able to shape the world according to his wishes,” or what David Ehrenfeld labeled “the arrogance of humanism.”
That such practices have usually failed to produce their anticipated results has generally led not to a questioning of the model itself, but to the conclusion that failed policies have suffered only from inadequate leadership, or a lack of sufficient information, or a failure to better articulate rules. Once such deficiencies have been remedied, it has been supposed, new programs can be implemented which, reflective of this mechanistic outlook, will permit government officials to “fine tune” or “jump start” the economy, or “grow” jobs, or produce a “quick fix” for the ailing government school system. Even as modern society manifests its collapse in the form of violent crime, economic dislocation, seemingly endless warfare, inter-group hostilities, the decay of cities, a growing disaffection with institutions, and a general sense that nothing “works right” anymore, faith in the traditional model continues to drive the pyramidal systems.
Most people still cling to the belief that there is something that can be done by political institutions to change such conditions: a new piece of legislation can be enacted, a judicial ruling can be ordered, or a new agency regulation can be promulgated. When a government-run program ends in disaster, the mechanistic mantra is invariably invoked: “we will find out what went wrong and fix it so that this doesn’t happen again.” That the traditional model itself, which is grounded in the state’s power to control the lives and property of individuals to desired ends, may be the principal contributor to such social disorder goes largely unexplored..."
It took them well over a year to get it published. In the abstract they are forced to say, in reference to their own study "correlation does not equal causation", effectively debunking their own work in the abstract!
I cannot recall ever reading that in an abstract especially where more appropriate (like in all of the shitty masking studies or the ridiculous modelling nonsense).
It really is outrageous.
It seems to be getting worse, not better.
These covid / climate cretins are doing their best to make all their worst predictions come true.
This last sentence is the killer keeper for all to distribute!!
"The dam operators, however, kept the spigots closed, because climate change is less a scientific finding than it is a political construct and a para-religious dogma, and as such it proves quite robust to petty things like empirical observations and simple prudence."
The fact that "climate change [has become] less a scientific finding than it is a political construct and a para-religious dogma", is at the root of much of the insanity that seems to afflict the modern world.
Perhaps it was easier when we just burned witches. That insanity was self limiting. Communities eventually ran out of women to burn. The climate that has been changing for five billion years is going to keep changing.
Excellent analysis. Nothing to add. Only that the engineers, with their fancy degrees, are uncapable of independent thinking and swallow the climate hoax hook, line and sinker.
my ex was just a regular electrician hired at the power plant, when they could not find people to work there. One day the engineers had him picked up while on hometime because the control board was out. All the engineers stood there pulling their hairs out. My ex came in and noticed that the board was unplugged.
I am also an engineer, but of a different kind than those employed on your ex's power plant.
When I started working very many years ago, I was the only person in the company that could use computers, so I was unofficially in charge of computer support.
So, I established the following rule:
Before calling me, whoever had a problem had to perform two tasks:
First, to check if the computer, or device, was plugged in and turned on.
If that check worked, to restart the computer or device, possibly by unplugging it first if it did not co-operate.
Similar policy where I once worked. The IT support people would not even write a job ticket unless the complainer verified the device was, A: plugged in, and B: had been re-booted.
haha ! I totally believe you. Infact, I had a problem of the kind 2 years ago. My computer and internet were out. I thought it was a phone problem but it turned out one of the electric inlets was burnt out.
Since I have never worked as an engineer. I used to think that I was a typical engineer, meaning that I used my common sense to solve everyday problems.
Lately I have been working with engineers that have spent their careers as engineers, and I have discovered that I am not so typical after all.
As in many other issues discussed in this site, common sense has almost been abandoned everywhere.
it is a true story. we were married at the time and all the engineers had checked it all out. But they had not checked the plug. And a couple years ago, one of my electric circuits broke. The engineer friend of a friend did not know how to help with that, either.
I didn't doubt you. Your first anecdote has been a staple of comic and/or ironic scenarios since the beginning of technological advance. Truth may be the daughter of time but she's also the mother of hilarity.
I have to disagree, friend. Engineers are often incapable of thinking independently, because the managers and in this case, the politicians, simply won't leave them alone long enough to do so.
CO2 has turned out to be one magical molecule. Drought? Climate change. Floods? Climate change. It's pure neurosis. Cold sweats, hot sweats...fingernail sensitivity!
Remember when that submersible, The Titan, was lost? Practically the entire submariner community tried to talk sense into the Ocean's Gate CEO, who airily dismissed the concerns about his vessel's seaworthiness by saying (paraphrased) "we don't want any of those experienced submariners because those are all old 50-year old white guys; we are smarter than those relics, and we have a brand new way of thinking, so we aren't going to listen to them, for they have nothing to tell us."
For how many centuries have the Germanic peoples used dams to control the waters? Doesn't matter. Now we have a new way of doing things, and the old ones are of no use to us now.
One way you can tell Climate Change is voodoo science is because higher temperatures must involve higher precipitation.
This is a direct consequence of the laws of physics, and it is unescapable.
Regional distribution of precipitation might change and some places could possibly become drier, but in general precipitation should increase everywhere.
You know, if you asked me to play a phrase-association game for Germans, the very last one I'd think of if I even thought of it at all would've been Morons of Expertise. And now here it is right at the top of the list. These worms and termites eating away at the foundations of my worldview are getting seriously annoying now.
This line caught my eye: "Since the eighteenth century, Germans have built an extensive system of dams and reservoirs to ensure that important arteries remain navigable for ship traffic, to store drinking water, to keep the supply to hydroelectric power plants constant and also – crucially – to control flooding." So, for over 200 years, our intellectuals wanted to build machines and structures to protect humans from a dangerous climate. Now come the Warmistas, who claim it's these pro-human actions that cause the climate to be hazardous. It's easy to see why they indulge this bizarre inversion when you realize that, unlike 200 years ago, their concern is not improving the welfare of humans but offering sacrifices to Gaia or some such. Which is the same thing as saying they hate humans.
Once again, I can´t help the feeling that more nefarious schemes are afoot. Consider the lovely Ahrtal. Why is it that our beloved rulers spent gazillions like there´s no tomorrow on jabs, masks, foreign wars and all these other well-known things, but failed to do anything serious about the destruction in the Ahrtal? The sums needed for the Ahrtal are basically a rounding error of the "Sondervermögen". This would´ve been an opportunity to score points with the public with relatively little money and still they - very noticeably - did not do that. If one were conspiratorially inclined, one could perhaps start thinking that it is in fact desired to create FUD about real estate outside the big cities. But surely there must be other, less outlandish explanations, must there be not?
It would be great if we could laugh at the climate change zealots as they remain consistently wrong. However, their idiotic predictions so influence our not so useful idiots, the politicians and bureaucrats, that we keep damaging our food supply, water supply, and economy. If we don't stop them eventually it will mean damage beyond repair.
We had the same issue in my part of northwest England. Works on the reservoirs with automatic overflows installed resulted in erratic increases in river levels as the overflows dumped excess water in the rivers instead of holding it back. A FOI for the data after the 2015 floods showed exactly what you state here - chock full reservoirs. They "forgot" to mention the automatic overflows to the MP I had involved, so I pointed it out. Another smaller flood in 2020 concentrated minds. Anyway, the result is the large overflow has now been permanently blocked and extra capacity to handle storm water has now been installed in the sewage works half a mile from my house. Of course, their actions/inaction had no influence on the flooding at all, don't you know. And the work they have done is nothing to do with the recent flooding either.
The stupid thing is, this kind of thing happens with regularity every 4 years ( the last two were December 2015 and February 2020) because of El Nino. Nobody seems to have noticed that.
Still, we did make some difference even though the water company won't admit it.
> The newspapers do not write of global warming-induced drought anymore; instead, they are singing a new tune about “more frequent periods of prolonged flooding in future winters as a consequence of climate change.”
In my perfect fantasy world, I would force journalists to answer this question, and then hold them to account years later when they predictably broke their own word.
I would ask: Can you give me a list of five things that are definitely _not_ a consequence of climate change
it's an amazing thing, how hard it to see one's own typographical errors. I've been looking at your comment for a solid minute trying to figure out what the problem was. my eyes just deleted the superfluous 'of.' i feel this could be a metaphor for something.
I don't envy the dam operators, having to try to predict what will happen with the weather. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.*
Nevertheless, as you point out in your last paragraph, not leaving any extra capacity at all smacks of politically-driven ideology.
* Yes, the sole reason for this comment is the opportunity to make that joke.
Elementary school physics (is that still a thing, or has it been replaced with «science»?) says more energy in the system globally would lead to more evaporation and hence more precipitation; of course, some areas might get less rain and some more, but you'd need a very good reason to believe your area gets a trend opposite to the global vector.
I get what you're saying, but with the weather, there's so much localization I'm not sure the global factor would be of much use.
However, it does seem incredibly stupid to not even consider "What if we're wrong?" and be at least a little bit prepared for that.
Climate change scientists have admitted that more rain will fall, but they claim it will fall over the oceans where it does us little good. I have no idea how they came to that conclusion.
Kertch reminds me of crap they spouted about wearing masks to walk about in while in restaurants and pubs, if you were sat down though you could take it off because the lurgy couldn’t locate you.
Seem same applies for rain then it’s only going to be able to locate the ocean to pee it down over
This sounds eerily similar to most warming occurring during nighttime, in remote sparsely populated areas, or as 'hidden heat' deep in the oceans,. where it is harder to observe.
Raffinierte ist die Frau Erwärmung!
edit: Grammatik
'Science'.
Actually I went back and looked to find more details on that claim. As it turns out the extra rain falling over the oceans was predicted by their CLIMATE MODEL. As you said, "science". My model predicts that any model they create is wrong. Funny thing is, my model has been right more than their models. So far I have a 100% track record.
Some climate cultists believe that water is actually disappearing from the earth, never to be seen again.... (I wish I was making it up, but I know someone RL who believes this.)
Well, some water vapor is indeed being broken down in the upper atmosphere, with hydrogen escaping into cold dead space – but amounts are negligible unless we talk about millions of years.
This person actually believes if you drink too much water the earth will run out of water.... I mean - I guess if there were enough humans, all holding enough water at the same time - but I think starvation would reduce the human population long before it could reach that many.
The concern of this person is justified.
According to the USGS the volume of fresh water in lakes and rivers is only 93,113 cubic km.
There are 8.1 billion people on Earth.
Therefore, currently each person only has 11,495 liters of water available, assuming that those lakes and rivers would not replenish with other sources of water.
But, there are only 14,884 liters of water in total for each liter of fresh water in lakes and rivers.
In summary, the situation is dramatic.
That is assuming some things:
No wells reaching the aquifers.
No possibility of producing desalinated water from desalination plants.
No possibility of purifying grey water.
All of which are possible to do.
The great danger isn't lack of water, but pollution of it with "forever chemicals" like PFAS and worse than that. Some nations, that haven't updated their laws and checks on this (or like China just ignores pollution outright) will have real problems, since many of the worst chemicals damages the ova and sperm of adults, creating a knock-on effect down the generations.
Put fixing that would cut into the profit margin of private corporations, so it won't be done, since the environmentalist movement is fully co-opted by said corporations and has been since the early 1990s.
How can we make her (?) understand humans actually produce more water than they consume? and to give her (?) an excuse to eat more carbs? :)
I don't think there's any convincing her, unfortunately. I take the approach of just laugh. There is some lunacy that just can't be argued with and it's not worth the time.
How can a human(?)/humans produce more water than they consume? Humans don't produce water at all, in any way. They consume water, and they excrete contaminated water.
The only activity that takes water out of the Earth's surface system (including ground water) is when it is used for hydraulic fracturing of tight oil/gas formations (fracking), and not all of the water injected is returned to surface.
As Rikard says above, the human threat to water is pollution.
Climate change is a social concept
If you want a flood attenuation dam, build a flood attenuation dam. Equally, if you want a water storage dam, build one. Don’t expect the same dam to fulfil both functions. Both floods and droughts will occur.
IPCC AR6 WG1 Table12.12 says there is no evidence supporting either droughts or flooding beyond natural variability now and by the end of the century.
Sounds like the logic of swedish power company (the former state monopoly one) Vattenfall:
If the dams and their magazines are full, they must raise prices on power since the great amount of accessible power lowers the profit per unit of power ratio.
If the dams and their magazines are low, they must raise prices on power since the low amount of accessible power lowers the profit total from selling power.
Corollary: electricity from polish coal plants is cheaper than from swedish hydropower dams. Therefore, Vattenfall buys power from Poland. The profit margin for swedish hydropower is higher if it is sold to Norway than in Sweden, so the same amounts imported are exported, keeping the market level and the customer hostage.
(Jar Jar Binks-voice)
Is called capitalism, kamerad. Is bestest system evar.
If they still have an effective monopoly, it's not capitalism.
They don't have a monopoly. They just own a lot of shares in a lot of other companies.
Also, since I'm old enough to compare present-day neoliberal capitalist power production, cost/price et cetera with when we had state monopioly handling it, I can tell this:
The state monopoly was objectively better for everyone, especially private companies.
The current capitalist system is only godd for the owners of the corporations dealing in power.
Why capitalism? Why not greed? Some or most people are very greedy and it isn’t important where they are in Sweden or in the Soviet Union.
Capitlism is greed made into an ideology.
“It is a monopoly, not capitalism. Capitalism is greed *plus competition*. If Vattenfall had a competitor with similar access to natural resources they would have to race to lower prices for the consumer, or face not making any profit at all.
That said, not every market can have adequate competition for reaping the benefits of true competition, and the exploitation of limited natural resources tasked by a national government is one example. It would be near impossible to have any number of companies try to build their own dams in the small numbers of rivers in the north of Sweden, which makes it one of the few legitimate jobs of government: to let private companies compete for building the best and cheapest hydropower plants for tax payers money, and then provide the tax payers with that power at zero profit to the government.
It used to be almost like that in Sweden, large, nationalized companies running different parts of infrastructure. They were privatized over night in the 90s though, which just turned large monopoly companies under state control into large monopoly companies under private control. That's not capitalism, it's the combination of the worst parts of both capitalism and state control.“
As a connaisseur of puns, I am submitting yours as an early entrant for the 2024 Eugyppius Comments Section Awards (the “Eupies”), in the “Best Pun” category.
Awww
Drat! You beat me to it. 😆
These subhumans are not ideologues, they're predators... and they're aiming their vicious knives at our throats.
Throughout human history, the causes of all famines stem not from adverse weather/crop outcomes, but from political policies that exaggerated their impacts. I would argue that precipitation mismanagement falls into the same category, with Mother Nature serving as the perennial scapegoat. Slightly off-topic, and sorry to direct traffic from eugyppius, but if you have not seen Carlson's interview with Professor Soon (posted yesterday), it is must-watch. Not only is Dr. Soon very amiable, but he skewers both the current Science™ establishment, and the entire notion of CO2 as having anything to do with the fantasy that mankind affects climate in any way. https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1744777758507504061
Farmers are the best experts for predicting weather, they know the sign’s because their livelihoods depend on watching and studying weather patterns.
My father worked as a farm hand as a teenager, he could pick the best weeks to go on holiday, when we’d have a bad winter or good summer.
He said the berries on the trees and the birds reveal so much if you watch and study them.
As farmers feed us I vote that they should be in charge of environmental policies, we’d much safer and it would cost the taxpayers far less for them to run the show.
Best idea I’ve heard on the subject. Farmers are some of our best ecologists because their livelihood demands it.
You don’t destroy the very thing that supports and sustains you, you work with it or suffer the consequences.
My father always said that Mother Earth will win to defend herself, if man has to die then he’ll die whether it be flood famine or drought because he doesn’t respect nature and the planet.
Go farmers!
Someone once pointed out to me the typical Bureaucrat/Technocrats flow chart:
1. We must change X to stop Y
2. Maybe we shouldn't make that change, it's a pretty big change and there are possible unintended consequences with changing X. I'm concerned changing X could cause Y.
3. You are asking me to prove changing X won't cause Y? It is impossible to prove X will not cause Y! YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE!!!
4. Oh yes, that proves we must go with option Z which clearly defines the solution as changing X to Y!!!
5. Whoopsies we need to hire more bureaucrats to figure out how to solve for X and Y by eliminating the chance that option Z exacerbates solutions that require changing X to stop Y!
6. Problem fixed we have more options for the next solution in search of a problem!!!
It really bothers me that I understood that.
Do you think I might be coming down with a case of bureaucratitis?
I'd rather experience perpetual water boarding
It seems the function of bureaucrats' existence is to continually "improve" the status quo by changing it, which usually means adding to existing regulations, since the present can never be considered perfect. This has been the M.O. of the European Union since its inception, adding thousands of new rules to every member country's legislation and complicating everyone's lives mostly unnecessarily and will continue ad infinitum until........
I’m glad you called them bureaucrats and not experts. I’m done with experts. It’s now ‘show me’ before I’ll listen to anything the experts have to say. At least by identifying the bureaucrats I don’t have any expectations like I once had of the ‘experts’.
yup!
"...The belief that order must be intentionally generated and imposed upon society by institutional authorities continues to prevail. This centrally-directed model is premised upon what F.A. Hayek called “the fatal conceit,” namely, the proposition “that man is able to shape the world according to his wishes,” or what David Ehrenfeld labeled “the arrogance of humanism.”
That such practices have usually failed to produce their anticipated results has generally led not to a questioning of the model itself, but to the conclusion that failed policies have suffered only from inadequate leadership, or a lack of sufficient information, or a failure to better articulate rules. Once such deficiencies have been remedied, it has been supposed, new programs can be implemented which, reflective of this mechanistic outlook, will permit government officials to “fine tune” or “jump start” the economy, or “grow” jobs, or produce a “quick fix” for the ailing government school system. Even as modern society manifests its collapse in the form of violent crime, economic dislocation, seemingly endless warfare, inter-group hostilities, the decay of cities, a growing disaffection with institutions, and a general sense that nothing “works right” anymore, faith in the traditional model continues to drive the pyramidal systems.
Most people still cling to the belief that there is something that can be done by political institutions to change such conditions: a new piece of legislation can be enacted, a judicial ruling can be ordered, or a new agency regulation can be promulgated. When a government-run program ends in disaster, the mechanistic mantra is invariably invoked: “we will find out what went wrong and fix it so that this doesn’t happen again.” That the traditional model itself, which is grounded in the state’s power to control the lives and property of individuals to desired ends, may be the principal contributor to such social disorder goes largely unexplored..."
- Butler Shaffer
We need to set the shelves of regulations, and the people that wrote and enforce them, on fire.
Norman Fenton commented recently on a lockdown paper he recently authored with Soon https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/lockdowns-and-vaccines-had-no-impact? (Sorry eugypius for the link but I'm sure Norman is a friend of the blog).
It took them well over a year to get it published. In the abstract they are forced to say, in reference to their own study "correlation does not equal causation", effectively debunking their own work in the abstract!
I cannot recall ever reading that in an abstract especially where more appropriate (like in all of the shitty masking studies or the ridiculous modelling nonsense).
It really is outrageous.
It seems to be getting worse, not better.
These covid / climate cretins are doing their best to make all their worst predictions come true.
The Carlson-Soon interview is a must a must-see.
My thesis coordinator during a prof-student mixer over a few beers said his model is perfect. The results are from who funds his research.
Fascinating interview, ... still processing it.
This last sentence is the killer keeper for all to distribute!!
"The dam operators, however, kept the spigots closed, because climate change is less a scientific finding than it is a political construct and a para-religious dogma, and as such it proves quite robust to petty things like empirical observations and simple prudence."
The fact that "climate change [has become] less a scientific finding than it is a political construct and a para-religious dogma", is at the root of much of the insanity that seems to afflict the modern world.
Perhaps it was easier when we just burned witches. That insanity was self limiting. Communities eventually ran out of women to burn. The climate that has been changing for five billion years is going to keep changing.
Excellent analysis. Nothing to add. Only that the engineers, with their fancy degrees, are uncapable of independent thinking and swallow the climate hoax hook, line and sinker.
my ex was just a regular electrician hired at the power plant, when they could not find people to work there. One day the engineers had him picked up while on hometime because the control board was out. All the engineers stood there pulling their hairs out. My ex came in and noticed that the board was unplugged.
I am also an engineer, but of a different kind than those employed on your ex's power plant.
When I started working very many years ago, I was the only person in the company that could use computers, so I was unofficially in charge of computer support.
So, I established the following rule:
Before calling me, whoever had a problem had to perform two tasks:
First, to check if the computer, or device, was plugged in and turned on.
If that check worked, to restart the computer or device, possibly by unplugging it first if it did not co-operate.
That cut my unpaid work by 99%.
Similar policy where I once worked. The IT support people would not even write a job ticket unless the complainer verified the device was, A: plugged in, and B: had been re-booted.
So glad to hear it.
I devised the rule by myself, but I am not surprised that it was used elsewhere.
I guess it confirms my point. Common sense is what you need to navigate the World.
And sadly, to quote my Grandfather, "Common sense - - isn't".
So true.
In Spain we say, "Common sense is the most uncommon sense" ("El sentido común es el menos común de los sentidos")
haha ! I totally believe you. Infact, I had a problem of the kind 2 years ago. My computer and internet were out. I thought it was a phone problem but it turned out one of the electric inlets was burnt out.
Since I have never worked as an engineer. I used to think that I was a typical engineer, meaning that I used my common sense to solve everyday problems.
Lately I have been working with engineers that have spent their careers as engineers, and I have discovered that I am not so typical after all.
As in many other issues discussed in this site, common sense has almost been abandoned everywhere.
so true. If we could just inject everyone with common sense ! but I guess that is something you have or you have not.
I had some friends who started an IT support firm called RTFM Consulting. Back when there were manuals.
You discovered solutions to all PEBKAC errors (problem exists between keyboard and chair)
And you let him go... XD
well there were a few other flaws LOL
God help us all that this is a true story.
it is a true story. we were married at the time and all the engineers had checked it all out. But they had not checked the plug. And a couple years ago, one of my electric circuits broke. The engineer friend of a friend did not know how to help with that, either.
Engineers. Sometimes, too smart by half.
I didn't doubt you. Your first anecdote has been a staple of comic and/or ironic scenarios since the beginning of technological advance. Truth may be the daughter of time but she's also the mother of hilarity.
I have to disagree, friend. Engineers are often incapable of thinking independently, because the managers and in this case, the politicians, simply won't leave them alone long enough to do so.
CO2 has turned out to be one magical molecule. Drought? Climate change. Floods? Climate change. It's pure neurosis. Cold sweats, hot sweats...fingernail sensitivity!
Remember when that submersible, The Titan, was lost? Practically the entire submariner community tried to talk sense into the Ocean's Gate CEO, who airily dismissed the concerns about his vessel's seaworthiness by saying (paraphrased) "we don't want any of those experienced submariners because those are all old 50-year old white guys; we are smarter than those relics, and we have a brand new way of thinking, so we aren't going to listen to them, for they have nothing to tell us."
For how many centuries have the Germanic peoples used dams to control the waters? Doesn't matter. Now we have a new way of doing things, and the old ones are of no use to us now.
One way you can tell Climate Change is voodoo science is because higher temperatures must involve higher precipitation.
This is a direct consequence of the laws of physics, and it is unescapable.
Regional distribution of precipitation might change and some places could possibly become drier, but in general precipitation should increase everywhere.
And guess what
More humidity in the atmosphere cools it
Its a self controlling system where everything is self contained except for sun anomalies
You know, if you asked me to play a phrase-association game for Germans, the very last one I'd think of if I even thought of it at all would've been Morons of Expertise. And now here it is right at the top of the list. These worms and termites eating away at the foundations of my worldview are getting seriously annoying now.
This line caught my eye: "Since the eighteenth century, Germans have built an extensive system of dams and reservoirs to ensure that important arteries remain navigable for ship traffic, to store drinking water, to keep the supply to hydroelectric power plants constant and also – crucially – to control flooding." So, for over 200 years, our intellectuals wanted to build machines and structures to protect humans from a dangerous climate. Now come the Warmistas, who claim it's these pro-human actions that cause the climate to be hazardous. It's easy to see why they indulge this bizarre inversion when you realize that, unlike 200 years ago, their concern is not improving the welfare of humans but offering sacrifices to Gaia or some such. Which is the same thing as saying they hate humans.
Once again, I can´t help the feeling that more nefarious schemes are afoot. Consider the lovely Ahrtal. Why is it that our beloved rulers spent gazillions like there´s no tomorrow on jabs, masks, foreign wars and all these other well-known things, but failed to do anything serious about the destruction in the Ahrtal? The sums needed for the Ahrtal are basically a rounding error of the "Sondervermögen". This would´ve been an opportunity to score points with the public with relatively little money and still they - very noticeably - did not do that. If one were conspiratorially inclined, one could perhaps start thinking that it is in fact desired to create FUD about real estate outside the big cities. But surely there must be other, less outlandish explanations, must there be not?
they do not see the forest because of the trees or so?
It would be great if we could laugh at the climate change zealots as they remain consistently wrong. However, their idiotic predictions so influence our not so useful idiots, the politicians and bureaucrats, that we keep damaging our food supply, water supply, and economy. If we don't stop them eventually it will mean damage beyond repair.
"climate change is less a scientific finding than it is a political construct and a parareligious dogma". exactly right.
We had the same issue in my part of northwest England. Works on the reservoirs with automatic overflows installed resulted in erratic increases in river levels as the overflows dumped excess water in the rivers instead of holding it back. A FOI for the data after the 2015 floods showed exactly what you state here - chock full reservoirs. They "forgot" to mention the automatic overflows to the MP I had involved, so I pointed it out. Another smaller flood in 2020 concentrated minds. Anyway, the result is the large overflow has now been permanently blocked and extra capacity to handle storm water has now been installed in the sewage works half a mile from my house. Of course, their actions/inaction had no influence on the flooding at all, don't you know. And the work they have done is nothing to do with the recent flooding either.
The stupid thing is, this kind of thing happens with regularity every 4 years ( the last two were December 2015 and February 2020) because of El Nino. Nobody seems to have noticed that.
Still, we did make some difference even though the water company won't admit it.
> The newspapers do not write of global warming-induced drought anymore; instead, they are singing a new tune about “more frequent periods of prolonged flooding in future winters as a consequence of climate change.”
In my perfect fantasy world, I would force journalists to answer this question, and then hold them to account years later when they predictably broke their own word.
I would ask: Can you give me a list of five things that are definitely _not_ a consequence of climate change
oopsy. 'was forced to release vast of quantities of water downstream'
it's an amazing thing, how hard it to see one's own typographical errors. I've been looking at your comment for a solid minute trying to figure out what the problem was. my eyes just deleted the superfluous 'of.' i feel this could be a metaphor for something.
I do my best proofreading AFTER I hit Send or Submit.
😵💫