The Green Leap Forward

[Hastur]

It's all a bunch of bullshit. They have some shoddy simulations that can't even predict the past properly and because of that, we will have to sacrifice our independence and resources to a global government. Great.

Did you know their climate models don't even account for clouds because they are so "hard to predict"?

[Fife]

Just enough to be dangerous. No lie, Chemistry was the hardest course I had in college, proudest C I've ever gotten.

Carbon is the most versatile element - it binds with nearly anything. That’s why it’s the basis of nearly all organic life. There are deep sea creatures that are Silicon-based, but very few of them.

You’re right that it’s stupid to blame “carbon” itself, as it’s not a problem until it combines with Oxygen. A problem for us to breathe, and a problem for heat-trapping. Great for photosynthesis though.

Also, Hydrogen is by far the most common element in the universe. Just not on earth. Nitrogen makes up 70% of our atmosphere.

Don't you wish you had gone to class more often now, Carlus?

Thankfully, the Green New Deal protects all of our precious silicon-based species. At least the ones who know some English.

[Fife]

What's the goal of the Green Leap Forward? You don't have to guess, they'll tell you.

Ocasio-Cortez: People Maybe Shouldn’t Reproduce Due To Climate Change

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggested on Sunday night that people should consider not having children due to climate change because there is a "scientific consensus" that life will be hard for kids.

"Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don't turn this ship around and so it's basically like, there's a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult," Ocasio-Cortez said while chopping up food in her kitchen during an Instagram live video. "And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, 'Is it okay to still have children?'"

[Speaker to Animals]

The problem from a scientific perspective is that they misuse simulations and models. Their models are the objects of their "science", which is nonsensical.

In cognitive science and artificial intelligence, we create models based on theories of human cognition. Then we run the models in simulations to collect data. The object is to see if the data from the models match real empirical data collected in human experiments. The closer the data is to human data, the closer the model actually describes the aspects of cognition that are being predicted and observed.

Where we go off the deep end is in creating cognitive models not so much to predict how humans behave but, rather, to try to solve complex problems in novel ways. But even there, we are not saying this cognitive model describes how humans do it, just that it works.

Climate scientists, on the other hand, are studying their models as if the models are the ends of their research. The models constantly fail to match real world data. They cannot plug in data from some past date, run the model, and get an output that in any way matches what actually happened. Even then, I suspect modeling something as complex as the Earth's climate is so fraught with variables and complexity that it's all too easy to simply use some kind of statistical modeling that doesn't actually constitute a scientific model. You can create "models" that simply use statistics based on past data to try to predict future trends. People do that in financial markets all the time. It's not a scientific model, however, because from a scientific perspective there is no real model.

I think a more interesting approach would be to first build deep learning networks that are essentially autoencoders and pattern recognition systems that sift through the data to discover all the weird correlations and relationships. That approach, while not modeling per se, could at least help you figure out how all the variables relate. With those relationships, you can identify which ones we already understand and then get to work figuring out the whys of the relationships we do not understand. That will get you closer to a more accurate model than this.

[Hastur]

Those so-called climate scientists are totally out of their dept. What we see is the result of funding research on the base of a certain expected outcome. If all climate researchers know what results will guarantee future funding and what results will lead to them being defunded, what results are we likely to get? Why can't people understand this? Why are people so willing to believe in these doomsday prophets with so little evidence? I just don't get it.

[C-Mag]

Just enough to be dangerous. No lie, Chemistry was the hardest course I had in college, proudest C I've ever gotten.

Carbon is the most versatile element - it binds with nearly anything. That’s why it’s the basis of nearly all organic life. There are deep sea creatures that are Silicon-based, but very few of them.

You’re right that it’s stupid to blame “carbon” itself, as it’s not a problem until it combines with Oxygen. A problem for us to breathe, and a problem for heat-trapping. Great for photosynthesis though.

Also, Hydrogen is by far the most common element in the universe. Just not on earth. Nitrogen makes up 70% of our atmosphere.

Don't you wish you had gone to class more often now, Carlus?

Thankfully, the Green New Deal protects all of our precious silicon-based species. At least the ones who know some English.

Actually caught all that the first week of class, even hungover that shit is still lurking in my 19 year old memory.


SF makes my point. Control Carbon, Control the world.

Like I said, Belichick level diabolical.

[Smitty-48]

Those so-called climate scientists are totally out of their dept. What we see is the result of funding research on the base of a certain expected outcome. If all climate researchers know what results will guarantee future funding and what results will lead to them being defunded, what results are we likely to get? Why can't people understand this? Why are people so willing to believe in these doomsday prophets with so little evidence? I just don't get it.

Malthusians gonna Malthusian, who knew?

Malthus + Marx = Climate Change.

[kybkh]

Those so-called climate scientists are totally out of their dept. What we see is the result of funding research on the base of a certain expected outcome. If all climate researchers know what results will guarantee future funding and what results will lead to them being defunded, what results are we likely to get? Why can't people understand this? Why are people so willing to believe in these doomsday prophets with so little evidence? I just don't get it.

Malthusians gonna Malthusian, who knew?

Malthus + Marx = Climate Change.

Will Helicopters prove as pivotal in the Venezuelan conflict as they were in Vietnam or do we just use drones as recon units?

Is the Osprey more of a cargo bird than a combat chopper?

[Smitty-48]

Will Helicopters prove as pivotal in the Venezuelan conflict as they were in Vietnam or do we just use drones as recon units?

Is the Osprey more of a cargo bird than a combat chopper?

Helicopters weren't pivotal in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese didn't have any.

The Osprey is more of a Rube Goldberg Device.

[Speaker to Animals]

Yeah, I'd rather not use Ospreys to drop Marxists. Too risky for the good guys.