World class pedantic dickweedery
-
@morbiuswilters said:
"111 degrees? Phoenix can't really be that hot, can it? ... Oh my God! It's like standing on the sun!"
We had a lot of laughs at the videos soldiers sent back from Desert Storm: "It's like going straight to hell. Some days the temperature gets up into the upper nineties."
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@da Doctah said:
Phoenix
"111 degrees? Phoenix can't really be that hot, can it? ... Oh my God! It's like standing on the sun!"
"This city should not exist. It is a monument to man's arrogance."
Probably the only part of that show I can ever agree with. Phoenix is worst city.
-
@MiffTheFox said:
Probably the only part of that show I can ever agree with.
You suck. That's one of the greatest shows of all times.
@MiffTheFox said:
Phoenix is worst city.
I've only ever flown through. I did not like the airport. Coming into the airport, it was miles and miles that looked like it had been used to test nuclear bombs, then somebody said "Let's cover this radioactive wasteland with a bunch of hideous, interchangeable, shoddily-constructed McMansions."
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I'm complaining because the climate's going to change no matter what and at this point in time it's a waste of precious resources to fuck around with something nobody understands.
Airplanes have to come back down to the ground eventually, no matter what. However, there's quite a bit of difference between coming down in a neat three-point landing, and coming down in a huge f-ing fireball.
-
@Anonymouse said:
@morbiuswilters said:
I'm complaining because the climate's going to change no matter what and at this point in time it's a waste of precious resources to fuck around with something nobody understands.
Airplanes have to come back down to the ground eventually, no matter what. However, there's quite a bit of difference between coming down in a neat three-point landing, and coming down in a huge f-ing fireball.You did not read the thread, nor did you understand what I said.
Climates change, with or without our help. Our understanding of climate science is so primitive at this point that trying to "do something" is probably just going to fuck things up even worse. To adapt your (weak) analogy: We are 18th century dirt farmers who just found ourselves as the only people on-board an airplane that is possibly very slowly moving towards the ground. You're pulling your hair out and screaming "Oh God, Oh god, we're gonna die! Quick, push those buttons there!! We've got to save ourselves!!!" Meanwhile, I'm saying "Pushing a bunch of random buttons is probably just going to kill us all quicker. Even the best case I can imagine is that we waste a bunch of valuable fuel and, through pure luck, don't make our situation worse, but we probably don't improve it. Instead, I think we should carefully observe what's going on and do our best to understand it, so if we must do something, we can provide clear evidence of what it will do and why it is necessary. What's more, as our knowledge and industrial (okay, analogy straining..) bases expand, when we do need to take action it will be much more efficient."
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Climates change, with or without our help. Our understanding of climate science is so primitive at this point that trying to "do something" is probably just going to fuck things up even worse. To adapt your (weak) analogy: We are 18th century dirt farmers who just found ourselves as the only people on-board an airplane that is possibly very slowly moving towards the ground. You're pulling your hair out and screaming "Oh God, Oh god, we're gonna die! Quick, push those buttons there!! We've got to save ourselves!!!" Meanwhile, I'm saying "Pushing a bunch of random buttons is probably just going to kill us all quicker. Even the best case I can imagine is that we waste a bunch of valuable fuel and, through pure luck, don't make our situation worse, but we probably don't improve it. Instead, I think we should carefully observe what's going on and do our best to understand it, so if we must do something, we can provide clear evidence of what it will do and why it is necessary. What's more, as our knowledge and industrial (okay, analogy straining..) bases expand, when we do need to take action it will be much more efficient."
Sure, we do not have a complete understanding yet how climate works on a global scale, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing and just keep on going as we were while waiting. Doesn't reducing the amount of pollutants we spew into our athmosphere seem to be a good idea on a general basis, on a pure common sense base? How could that actually contribute to making things worse?The only potential problem I see is that things might be overdone. Alarmism leading to wide-spread panic has never constructively helped to further a purpose. I don't expect everyone in the world to become a tree-hugging vegan overnight. But raising awareness of the issue and inciting people to think twice about their habits as consumers, and how they affect themselves, their environment and the future of the planet is something that I really think is a worthwhile goal.
Too bad it just won't work, because people are egotistical assholes who apparently want to drive 5 ton trucks that guzzle 2 gallons per mile to drive to the grocery a 5 minute walk down the street to buy a sixpack of beer. And politicians are clueless idiots who are unable to think in timespans longer than an average electoral period.
-
@Anonymouse said:
Doesn't reducing the amount of pollutants we spew into our athmosphere seem to be a good idea on a general basis, on a pure common sense base? How could that actually contribute to making things worse?
That's all true, but we're talking about CO2 here.
-
@da Doctah said:
It's 93 right now in the room where I'm typing this
How does your computer even work!
Maybe I'm spoiled. When my CPU goes to 55+ Celcius I'm like WTF SOO HOTTTTT. Idle temp for my CPU is about 40C, which is 104F.
-
@Anonymouse said:
Doesn't reducing the amount of pollutants we spew into our athmosphere seem to be a good idea on a general basis, on a pure common sense base? How could that actually contribute to making things worse?
What pollutants? CO2? You're begging the question, calling it a pollutant. It may very well be saving us from another ice age.
You're also ignoring the massive economic cost of attempting to curb CO2 emissions. Not just in the West, but in the developing world, where it would mean lives of squalor, disease, heartbreak and death for people who don't have access to cheap energy. And since economies and science must build on what has come before, you're just stunting our progress on those fronts. In 100 years, we might be able to engineer the climate to our liking, but if we hobble ourselves now we might not ever achieve the advances we will one day need. So, yeah, what you're saying carries a massive cost, a lot of risk and a very, very questionable benefit. Those are the hallmarks of a bad decision.
@Anonymouse said:
And politicians are clueless idiots who are unable to think in timespans longer than an average electoral period.
Actually, politicians have been among the most vocal supporters of "doing something, anything" about the climate. The fact that it would give them access to untold power, money and with little accountability is surely just a pleasant side-effect, and in no way is influencing their opinions. Hell, the fact that so many politicians are for it should be a warning that something isn't on the up-and-up.
-
@dhromed said:
How does your computer even work!
It's probably really dry. 93 isn't too bad if it's arid. As for computers, they can handle a lot of heat.
-
I read a YT comment once of someone who measured 90C, so I guess you're right.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@dhromed said:
How does your computer even work!
It's probably really dry. 93 isn't too bad if it's arid. As for computers, they can handle a lot of heat.
My GPU kept breaking the 100 Celsius bareer a few months ago. I thought about using it to make my coffee, but sadly the PC kept turning off before the water would start to boil.
Also, Fahrenheit scale sucks.
-
@dhromed said:
I read a YT comment once of someone who measured 90C, so I guess you're right.
That's probably a bit high for reliable operation. But Google runs their DCs at 80F, and those machines are dense and crank a lot of heat.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
Also, Fahrenheit scale sucks.
I'm not familiar with this usage of the word "sucks." Is that some sort of Polish thing?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Climates change, with or without our help. Our understanding of climate science is so primitive at this point that trying to "do something" is probably just going to fuck things up even worse. To adapt your (weak) analogy: We are 18th century dirt farmers who just found ourselves as the only people on-board an airplane that is possibly very slowly moving towards the ground. You're pulling your hair out and screaming "Oh God, Oh god, we're gonna die! Quick, push those buttons there!! We've got to save ourselves!!!" Meanwhile, I'm saying "Pushing a bunch of random buttons is probably just going to kill us all quicker. Even the best case I can imagine is that we waste a bunch of valuable fuel and, through pure luck, don't make our situation worse, but we probably don't improve it. Instead, I think we should carefully observe what's going on and do our best to understand it, so if we must do something, we can provide clear evidence of what it will do and why it is necessary. What's more, as our knowledge and industrial (okay, analogy straining..) bases expand, when we do need to take action it will be much more efficient."
Reminds me of the recent gun control debate. Even a fair number of the leftists admitted the gun control proposals wouldn't do anything to reduce crime, but we should do it anyway because we must do something!
-
@boomzilla said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
Also, Fahrenheit scale sucks.
I'm not familiar with this usage of the word "sucks." Is that some sort of Polish thing?
"Sucks" as in "I love this random, not-quite-decimal scale which has totally different intervals than Kelvin". Yeah, it's a Polish thing.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
I love this random, not-quite-decimal scale
It's not random. It was designed be roughly in line with human experience. 100 = human temperature, 0 = really fricking cold.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
"Sucks" as in "I love this random, not-quite-decimal scale which has totally different intervals than Kelvin". Yeah, it's a Polish thing.
But it does have the same intervals as the Rankine scale!
The reason I like the Fahrenheit scale is that it's close to how I feel temperature:
< 59° - too fucking cold
60° - 69° - cold, but bearable
70° - 79° - perfect
80° - 89° - hot, but bearable
> 90° - too fucking hot
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Our understanding of climate science is so primitive at this point that trying to "do something" is probably just going to fuck things up even worse.
The theory that the CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere is going to lead to ruin is based of computer models. People have built various models, and the only way to get the models to hindcast is to tune them to use CO2 to create feedbacks. When it comes to prediction, however, they are crap. An honest and intelligent scientist would look at this and realize that the models are missing something very important, and so strong claims like, "CO2 is the only possible explanation for what we've seen," could not be justified given what we know.
Instead, they'll take a load of garbage and average them, because everyone knows that blending garbage together makes really good stuff. This makes no sense, but it allows bad statistics to hide the fact of bad models and keeps the research money flowing.
-
@dhromed said:
100 = human temperature
Except it isn't, because somebody after the death of Fahrenheit said "Hm, we should make it so that the boiling point of water is a nice, round number. How about 212?"
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
@dhromed said:
100 = human temperature
Except it isn't, because somebody after the death of Fahrenheit said "Hm, we should make it so that the boiling point of water is a nice, round number. How about 212?"
Yes, but it's still more convenient and focused on human experience rather than the physical properties of water. Metric cheerleaders are really obsessed with freezing and boiling water for some reason.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
@dhromed said:
100 = human temperature
Except it isn't, because somebody after the death of Fahrenheit said "Hm, we should make it so that the boiling point of water is a nice, round number. How about 212?"
Yes, but it's still more convenient and focused on human experience rather than the physical properties of water. Metric cheerleaders are really obsessed with freezing and boiling water for some reason.
Except that both scales use freezing and boiling temperature for they reference point, but while Celsius has them at 0 and 100, Fahrenheit has them at 32 and 212. And I don't see neither the convenience nor the focus - in Celsius, at 0 degrees it starts snowing instead of raining, at 40 degrees body temp I should start looking for the hospital, and at 100 degrees water boils. Simple enough.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
@boomzilla said:
You guys, 100 is a much better number than 212! This argument is so deep and meaningful. Also, red is better than blue, English is better than Spanish, science is better than religion, and Go is better than... the holocaust.@Maciejasjmj said:
@dhromed said:
100 = human temperature
Except it isn't, because somebody after the death of Fahrenheit said "Hm, we should make it so that the boiling point of water is a nice, round number. How about 212?"
Yes, but it's still more convenient and focused on human experience rather than the physical properties of water. Metric cheerleaders are really obsessed with freezing and boiling water for some reason.
Except that both scales use freezing and boiling temperature for they reference point, but while Celsius has them at 0 and 100, Fahrenheit has them at 32 and 212. And I don't see neither the convenience nor the focus - in Celsius, at 0 degrees it starts snowing instead of raining, at 40 degrees body temp I should start looking for the hospital, and at 100 degrees water boils. Simple enough.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
in Celsius, at 0 degrees it starts snowing instead of raining,
Lemme guess, you live somewhere that never gets snow?
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
Except that both scales use freezing and boiling temperature for they reference point
Fahrenheit used a salty mixture for freezing, and nothing for boiling. It's a rather random scale, and it's only luck that makes it somewhat intuitive in communication hotness compared to a human body.
So basically, if you're doing any kind of serious work, use Celcius. Because it's sort of important to know when the most ubiquitous and important liquid in your life is going to up and vaporize or solidify into an unusable state.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
in Celsius, at 0 degrees it starts snowing instead of raining,
Lemme guess, you live somewhere that never gets snow?
Uh, Poland?
-
@dhromed said:
So basically, if you're doing any kind of serious work, use Celcius. Because it's sort of important to know when the most ubiquitous and important liquid in your life is going to up and vaporize or solidify into an unusable state.
That's a bad idea. It would all happen at arbitrary values that I wouldn't be expecting, so I wouldn't be expecting it.
-
@dhromed said:
Because it's sort of important to know when the most ubiquitous and important liquid in your life is going to up and vaporize or solidify into an unusable state.
That's why I use Fahrenheit. Ethanol freezes at negative 173 degrees and vaporizes at positive 173 degrees. Nice and simple.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
in Celsius, at somewhere about 0 degrees the mixed rain and snow becomes more snowy-ish than rainy-ish
Lemme guess, you live somewhere that never gets snow?
There, you pedant. And this year, we've had a fairly white Easter.
So basically, if you're doing any kind of serious work, use Celcius.
If I had it my way, we'd all be using Kelvin. At least it has a sane null point.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
in Celsius, at somewhere about 0 degrees the mixed rain and snow becomes more snowy-ish than rainy-ish
Lemme guess, you live somewhere that never gets snow?
There, you pedant. And this year, we've had a fairly white Easter.
So basically, if you're doing any kind of serious work, use Celcius.
If I had it my way, we'd all be using Kelvin. At least it has a sane null point.
Tell that to the Germans
-
@Ronald said:
Tell that to the Germans
So, if we heat something up to infinity, and then add some more energy, we can achieve negative temperatures? Guess global warming is not that much of a problem if the temperature is going to eventually wrap around like Unix clock anyway.
-
@joe.edwards said:
Go is better than... the holocaust.
We need a name for this adage. I propose "Ben L.'s Reductio ad Holocastium" or "Ben L.'s Wishful Thinking".(I'm assuming joe.edwards doesn't want his name associated with it)
-
@dhromed said:
100 = human temperature, 0 = really fricking cold.
Not quite! 0 was the equilibrium temperature of brine (1:1:1 of ice, water and salt); 32 was 1:1 water and ice; and 96 was human body temperature. This made the difference between body temperature and freezing exactly 64 degrees, which is a multiple of 2--this made it very easy to subdivide a thermometer, since he could just a mark at the halfway point, then halve that, and so on.
Fahrenheit was actually a really clever system when it was devised. It was easy for any scientist to replicate from simple instructions using readily-available materials, and it was easy to do the math since the reference points were based on multiples of 2.
Later, Fahrenheit was re-defined around the freezing and boiling points of water--freezing became 32 and boiling became 212, which is why human body temperature is now 98.6.
For modern engineering and scientific purposes, Kelvin is obviously preferable. But I find Fahrenheit preferable for day-to-day uses.
It's the same with the whole SI system: preferable for science and engineering, and in fact pretty much the only scale used for science and engineering any more. My high-school-level physics classes only ever worked with SI. But for day-to-day usage, I prefer American units. They feel more human-oriented and delightfully historical. They're a little irregular, but that doesn't matter for non-scientific purposes.
I like the cultural and historical continuity American units represent, and I don't understand why people get so pissy about them. First off, it's not hard to maintain two different systems of measurement in your head--one highly technical, one more quotidian. Second, you rarely ever have to convert between the two (either you're doing technical work or you're working in the garden--you're probably not converting between the two). And even if you must convert, it's not hard to ballpark it--2.5cm to the inch, 3.8 liters to the gallon (or pretty much 1 liter to the quart), 1.8 degrees F to the degree C (although you have to add or subtract 32 F, depending on which way you're converting), 1.6km to the mile, 2.2 pounds to the kg.. Pretty easy conversions to do in your head if you don't have a calculator around (and if precision matters, how hard is it to open your smartphone and use the calculator?)
-
@Macijasjmj said:
Filed under: and 0F isn't that cold either
You take that back. 0F is bitterly, horribly cold. Human beings piss in the eye of God when they try to eke out in existence in sub-zero temperatures.
-
@dhromed said:
Uh, Poland?
Yeah, Blakey: didn't you see Schindler's List when all that snow was falling on the Polish death camp Auschwitz?
-
@joe.edwards said:
and Go is better than... the holocaust.
[citation needed]
The Shoah proper only lasted for 5 years or so. Go's already been around longer than that, and shows no signs of being liberated by British forces.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
This made the difference between body temperature and freezing exactly 64 degrees, which is a power of 2--this made it very easy to subdivide a thermometer, since he could just a mark at the halfway point, then halve that, and so on.
FTFY for emphasis, although I'm pretty sure everyone understood what you meant.Thanks for the informative post, by the way. I've never really delved into USian units but sometimes I wish I did. But alas, they won't get much day-to-day use around these parts.
The convertions I have memorized are:
- 1 inch ≃ 2.5cm (=2.52 IRCC*), or 1 inch ≃ one distal thumb phalanx;
- 1 mile ≃ 1600 m (for some kind of mile. Metrical miles were defined to exact equal 1600m, so it seems);
- 1 m ≃ 3 feet.
*I did't recall correctly. It's 2.54
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Not quite! 0 was the equilibrium temperature of brine (1:1:1 of ice, water and salt); 32 was 1:1 water and ice; and 96 was human body temperature.
Got that after reading the wikipage, but as you agree, the usage is largely about ballparking.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Meanwhile, I'm saying "Pushing a bunch of random buttons is probably just going to kill us all quicker. Even the best case I can imagine is that we waste a bunch of valuable fuel and, through pure luck, don't make our situation worse, but we probably don't improve it. Instead, I think we should carefully observe what's going on and do our best to understand it, so if we must do something, we can provide clear evidence of what it will do and why it is necessary. What's more, as our knowledge and industrial (okay, analogy straining..) bases expand, when we do need to take action it will be much more efficient."
Yes, and you've been sitting there continuing to say that since all the people who looked at that idea forty years ago and thought "yes, that's a good idea, we should totes do that" have actually been doing that. And now you won't listen to what they have to say. Which, regrettably for you, makes your opinion on almost any topic worth disregarding; it's quite clear you're completely incapable of paying attention.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
But for day-to-day usage, I prefer American units. They feel more human-oriented and delightfully historical.
In other words, you're a Luddite who fears change.
-
@flabdablet said:
And now you won't listen to what they have to say.
I have listened. But it's still in its infancy and cannot predict its way out of a paper bag (and it's not clear that it's really possible to predict), which is to say that as far as being something to guide economic or energy policy, it's crap.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@dhromed said:
100 = human temperature, 0 = really fricking cold.
Not quite! 0 was the equilibrium temperature of brine (1:1:1 of ice, water and salt); 32 was 1:1 water and ice; and 96 was human body temperature. This made the difference between body temperature and freezing exactly 64 degrees, which is a multiple of 2--this made it very easy to subdivide a thermometer, since he could just a mark at the halfway point, then halve that, and so on.
Fahrenheit was actually a really clever system when it was devised. It was easy for any scientist to replicate from simple instructions using readily-available materials, and it was easy to do the math since the reference points were based on multiples of 2.
Later, Fahrenheit was re-defined around the freezing and boiling points of water--freezing became 32 and boiling became 212, which is why human body temperature is now 98.6.
Sooo... You stuck the thermometer into brine, took a mark, then stuck it up your ass, took a mark, and bisect it? Pretty clever, I admit, but it doesn't matter, since you'll be 1,6 degree off.
It's the same with the whole SI system: preferable for science and engineering, and in fact pretty much the only scale used for science and engineering any more. My high-school-level physics classes only ever worked with SI. But for day-to-day usage, I prefer American units. They feel more human-oriented and delightfully historical. They're a little irregular, but that doesn't matter for non-scientific purposes.
I like the cultural and historical continuity American units represent, and I don't understand why people get so pissy about them. First off, it's not hard to maintain two different systems of measurement in your head--one highly technical, one more quotidian. Second, you rarely ever have to convert between the two (either you're doing technical work or you're working in the garden--you're probably not converting between the two).
It's preferable for science, and just as good for everyday use. It's decimal, which means converting between multiples/fractions of units reduces to moving the decimal point. I'm not really going to defend the decimal system per se (in fact, dozenal is better), but we're using base 10 notation for numbers, for better or for worse, and it's perfectly reasonable (aside from "historical reasons") to use it for units too. And all the prefixes are the same, no matter whether you're talking about length, weight or volume. Imperial, on the other hand? A foot is 12 inches, a yard is 3 feet, a mile is 1760 yards, a fluid ounce is a twentieth of a pint... You have to admit, it's confusing for someone not raised with them.
And it's not like you're never converting between the two. In fact, I do it all the time - since you Americans insist on using the imperial system all over the Internet.
You take that back. 0F is bitterly, horribly cold. Human beings piss in the eye of God when they try to eke out in existence in sub-zero temperatures.
Unless your existence consists largely of running naked around your neighbourhood, I'd say it's tolerable. A common urban legend here says that Fahrenheit set the zero to be the lowest temperature of one winter in Gdansk - I'd say it was a pretty warm winter.
Actually, as a historical curiosity - one winter in the seventeenth century was so cold that the Baltic sea froze completely, and the Swedes managed to rally Poland just walking over the ice.
-
@boomzilla said:
People have built various models, and the only way to get the models to hindcast is to tune them to use CO2 to create feedbacks. When it comes to prediction, however, they are crap.
Why, because they fail to line up with the only tiny subset of the global temperature record your preferred clown can bring himself to look at?
Cherry-picked bullshit as per usual.
-
@flabdablet said:
Cherry-picked bullshit as per usual.
Just to be clear, you say it's cherry-picked because the data comes from 2 weather balloons and 4 satellites?
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
People have built various models, and the only way to get the models to hindcast is to tune them to use CO2 to create feedbacks. When it comes to prediction, however, they are crap.
Why, because they fail to line up with the only tiny subset of the global temperature record your preferred clown can bring himself to look at?
You are a sad and angry little man. Who doesn't know what he's talking about.
When you attempt to predict the temperature, it's important that you predict things in the, you know, future. This is what the various climate models have done (they'll get all pedantic dickweed if you say that, though, and they'll tell you that these are projections, but that ass hattery is irrelevant for our purpose here). So, the graph that I linked shows the relevant time period, which is to say, recent temperatures that we can compare to the models to see how well they did. I guess you could look at the distant past, but you'd have to explain why that's relevant to what the models are predicting. I'm sure there's a climate idiot out there who would be willing to come up with that argument, but no matter what it is, it's wrong.
@flabdablet said:
Cherry-picked bullshit as per usual.
This is super funny. It's like you don't know what else to say, since this is the opposite of cherry picking.
-
@flabdablet said:
Yes, and you've been sitting there continuing to say that since all the people who looked at that idea forty years ago and thought "yes, that's a good idea, we should totes do that" have actually been doing that.
Yes, I'm sure in the last 40 years mankind has mastered understanding the climate. Which is why the hysterics have gotten every prediction on temperature increase wrong. Clearly that is the sign of a mature model: not being able to stand up to the simplest test.
-
@flabdablet said:
@morbiuswilters said:
But for day-to-day usage, I prefer American units. They feel more human-oriented and delightfully historical.
In other words, you're a Luddite who fears change.
Did your dad slam your head on the headboard while he was ass-raping you as a child? I don't know how else someone could end up so stupid.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
Pretty clever, I admit, but it doesn't matter, since you'll be 1,6 degree off.
Wha?
@Maciejasjmj said:
It's decimal, which means converting between multiples/fractions of units reduces to moving the decimal point.
Why do people think this is some benefit? Do you find yourself converting between units a lot? "Yep, just measured the distance to work.. it's two million millimeters! Now, to convert to kilometers.. man, I'm so glad we use SI around here!"
@Maciejasjmj said:
You have to admit, it's confusing for someone not raised with them.
People don't come pre-programmed with any measurement systems. They're all confusing unless you're taught them.
@Maciejasjmj said:
And it's not like you're never converting between the two. In fact, I do it all the time - since you Americans insist on using the imperial system all over the Internet.
This would be like me going to a Polish message board and loudly complaining that nobody's speaking English. I mean, that's exactly the kind of shit I do, but you don't want to be like me, do you?
@Maciejasjmj said:
Unless your existence consists largely of running naked around your neighbourhood, I'd say it's tolerable.
shudder Thank God I don't have to live there. I turn on the heater if it drops below 60.
@Maciejasjmj said:
A common urban legend here says that Fahrenheit set the zero to be the lowest temperature of one winter in Gdansk - I'd say it was a pretty warm winter.
Especially considering Fahrenheit lived during the height of the Little Ice Age, to bring the topic back to natural climate change.
@Maciejasjmj said:
Actually, as a historical curiosity - one winter in the seventeenth century was so cold that the Baltic sea froze completely, and the Swedes managed to rally Poland just walking over the ice.
You mean there was dramatic climate change before there were significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions!?! Quick, somebody call Al Gore, he must be told the truth!
-
@boomzilla said:
the opposite of cherry picking.
Turnip planting? Or would the opposite having nothing to do with horticulture at all?
-
@flabdablet said:
Why, because they fail to line up with the only tiny subset of the global temperature record your preferred clown can bring himself to look at?
Cherry-picked bullshit as per usual.
I do like watching dogmatic minds incapable of critical reasoning being exposed to facts. It's like exposing vampires to sunlight, or Australians to showering. They just sort of explode in a ball of psychotic incoherence.. "But, but, that's can't be what's true! It's not what I believe!!!"
