Global Warming: A Degenerate Science for a Degenerate Age

Aaron Clarey wrote an excellent post on the facility of present-day political argument, about how the – generally “Leftist” or “Progressive” arguments (though there are a few Conservative arguments in there as well) – are a foot deep, and a mild wide; easy to disprove, but infinite in their variety.  Any given one can be torn apart in five-minutes, but for each Hydra head you lop-off, two more show up in its place.

I was thinking about global warming.  Not from a scientific or political perspective, but a psychological one.  Namely,

“How dumb are these people not to see it for the scam it is?”

Really?  Global warming?  Based on computer models that keep failing, constantly get proven wrong, from avowed socialist scientists, and (surprise, surprise) the only solution seems to be higher taxes and more government spending?

Anthropic Global Warming, the CO2 “Greenhouse” effect, can be easily euthanized with bullet-points:

  • It predicts a “run-away” effect from increasing CO2: rather than algorythmic increase (straight-line), it says that increasing CO2 will create an exponential “Foom!” turning the Earth into Venus.
  • Millions of years ago, giant dinosaurs wandered the planet because of abundant vegetation.
  • Higher-temperatures and higher-CO2 levels are what enabled this prodigious plant growth.
  • The world of the dinosaurs did not “Foom!” into Venus.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Though of course, as per Clarey’s article, there are a million more “Climate Change” arguments waiting for their chance at bat, and your pitching arm is going to tire out before they run out of new batters.  Argue with these people?  You might as well try to punch-out the sea.

What really strikes me about these arguments, however, isn’t the fact that they’re so obviously, idiotically wrong – it’s the moral vulgarity which goes into generating them in the first place.  Take the following video*:

 Here’s an idea: humanity’s greatest scientific achievement is the discovery of Global Warming!

Now at first it might seem that identifying that the globe is getting warmer is some sort of trivial thing; all you do is record the temperatures every day, average them, compare them… No big deal!  #Scienced!  But is it really that easy?

Besides the sheer amount of data, imagine how different it all must be.  The methods for recording this stuff change about as often as the weather.

We turn massive amounts of weather data into climate information… Though admittedly not as sexy as the moon landing, the Internet, or the sequencing of the human genome, climate science and the discovery of Global Warming seems in perfect company.

And here we see the foul rot at the core of this anti-intellectualism.

In those ancient eras, before we killed God and added the Zombie Virus to our water supply, our accomplishments were amazing physical feats, standing-out from, and transforming the world.  Semaphores, intercontinental railways, flight, and architecture – the bold and definite statements of Man taking his rightful place in the world.

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

But in this era of the mass man, the democratic man, the degenerate man** – what is our crowning achievement?  A science of the feminine imperative, a science where we harmonize conflicting information, fitting all into a group-consensus, coming up with styles and stories which we call Models and Knowledge, demanding that All Conform to it under threat of Expulsion.

This is not science; this is fashion.  And what is fashion, aside from the obsession of desperate housewives?

Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.
~Oscar Wilde

What a perfect description of the sort of filth that make up “arguments” in these foul days.

* Funny how the ADHD-riddled presentation also fits in with my argument about moral degeneracy, ain’t it?
** Unashamedly stolen quote from Ryan Faulk.

Share Button

Davis M.J. Aurini

Trained as a Historian at McMaster University, and as an Infantry soldier in the Canadian Forces, I'm a Scholar, Author, Film Maker, and a God fearing Catholic, who loves women for their illogical nature.

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. mts1 says:

    What amazes me, as I read archaeological articles, on how we’re finding all sorts of articles from 1500-2000 years ago due to the melting of bogs as well as Alpine slopes, uncovering what were once settlements. Just last week they pulled a 1700 year old “tunic” (really, sweater) from a glacier that looks like it came from Old Navy or The Gap last week. Now, it’s supposed to be evil corporations and their carbon emissions causing this warmth, but back then, what made these areas inhabitable in the first place, when there were no carbon emissions from coal power, or factories? B-b-but, science! This article holds all sorts of contradictory conclusions in mind:
    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/pre-viking-tunic-found-glacier-warming-trend-aids-archaeology-1C9000836

    We can’t predict how many hurricanes to expect for the year, or a decent week long forecast, but we know global warming. In spite of all the bottles and cans we’ve put into orbit to witness weather, my uncle’s maxim from the 1970’s still holds. He, who piloted his fishing boat on the Great Lakes, and for whom knowledge of the weather was life or death, said, “The NOAA forecast is dead naughts for FOUR hours. Beyond that, you’re on your own, and you better know how to read the wind and the sky anyway.”

    You’d be better off studying solar activity via tree rings, or volcano eruptions. They do more change than the steel mills.

  2. Jeremy says:

    This is actually the most offensive part of that faggots speech, and yes, he’s a faggot. There is no other word for someone so insipid in mind and desiring of approval.

    Today we have enough computing power to turn it (massive amounts of data) into something sensible and useful we create realistic models and simulation that themselves create climate knowledge not just a mishmash of climate data we turn massive amounts of weather data into climate information, information which is useful not only because it makes scientific impacts but also cultural and political ones.

    Just, wow.
    So, he presumes that numerically solving PDE’s with what are effectively simulations which diverge so quickly from reality they are only useful for about 4-5 days of forecasting the weather are “climate information” that has so much relevance it is valid to use it to make political points.

    He’s a poisonous religious and political zealot that knows not what he says, and yes, he’s a total faggot. He hasn’t thought for himself once in his pathetic life. He has no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and he is spouting nothing but lies in an attempt to propagandize as many votes out of the plebes as possible.

    I would pity him if I did not hate his lying tongue so much.

  3. David says:

    You know, as good a post as this is, I’ve gotta disagree with the comments.
    I’ll start with this quote (which I have less problem with than what follows):
    “The NOAA forecast is dead naughts for FOUR hours. Beyond that, you’re on your own, and you better know how to read the wind and the sky anyway.”

    Well yeah, that was probably true. It’s not like it’s now perfectly accurate for the next week, but through analysis of data and new models (which have replaced deprecated old models which have been thrown out because they’ve been improved upon) it’s a hell of a lot more accurate than it used to be. That’s science. It tends to change and improve over time as we prove and disprove various assumptions and hypotheses. For something like climate science, it will never be a straight “A + B in equals C out” kinda relationship because there are way too many factors (and this is where I hate the political bullshit and rhetoric that gets wrapped around it where you get people like Al Gore pretending that it’s a simple dumbed down formula for documentaries like “An Inconvenient Truth”).

    At least that was based on some [somewhat simplified and expired] wisdom. But this quote:

    “Just, wow.
    So, he presumes that numerically solving PDE’s with what are effectively simulations which diverge so quickly from reality they are only useful for about 4-5 days of forecasting the weather are “climate information” that has so much relevance it is valid to use it to make political points.

    He’s a poisonous religious and political zealot that knows not what he says, and yes, he’s a total faggot. He hasn’t thought for himself once in his pathetic life. He has no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and he is spouting nothing but lies in an attempt to propagandize as many votes out of the plebes as possible.”

    Seriously? You jump from the inability of PDEs to accurately solve 4-5 days of forecasting (which, judging by the forecasts I’ve used over this past summer, they’ve tended to do a decent job at) to he’s a poisonous religious faggot and political zealot? Do you sense the irony (namely on the zealot point)? Yeah, he’s naive and bounces between his points way too quickly. Would I trust him as my goto meteorologist? Hell no. So not only is your analysis of his point a red herring (he’s not talking about predicting the next few days weather, the models change over a larger timescale and lose their predictive power, instead looking at overall trends and averages in the past, extrapolating them to the future, and then analyzing data as time goes on to see if it matches up), but you politicize it and add a healthy dose of poison faster than he ever did – and that’s saying something with the way he bounces around like he did.

  4. Jeremy says:

    Seriously? You jump from the inability of PDEs to accurately solve 4-5 days of forecasting …Do you sense the irony (namely on the zealot point)?

    You must demonstrate my zealotry before accusing me of it. You of course entirely avoided the quote I made of him from the video, wherein he jumps from data, to computer simulation, to calling the results of a simulation “information”. There’s nothing more absurd than this. Any computer programmer worth his salt will tell you that simulations of things as complicated as the climate aren’t good for shit, yet he calls the results of questionable data being fed into questionable simulations some form of “information”. You’re retarded if you think that doesn’t deserve to be called out for it’s sheer audacity of imbecility.

    So not only is your analysis of his point a red herring (he’s not talking about predicting the next few days weather, the models change over a larger timescale and lose their predictive power, instead looking at overall trends and averages in the past, extrapolating them to the future, and then analyzing data as time goes on to see if it matches up)

    A red herring? Calling out his absurd jumps is a red herring? I am somehow distracting you from the main point by pointing out the absurdity of calling the results of climate simulations from data that deserves serious questioning a “red herring” when I’m directly attacking his primary point? Do you understand the meaning of the term “red herring” ?? Or do you deliberately screw up your pedantry for laughs?

    As to your ridiculous talking point about predictive power changes over timescale, you don’t understand climate one bit. Climate, true climate, is a random walk. The conditions at each step influence the direction of the next. There is no guarantee of any predictive power beyond a very short time-frame unless you can literally know all future influences down to timescales of seconds.

  5. JWA says:

    Something I never see mentioned but that is central to the global warming dogma and debunking it is the fact that, as a whole, mankind produces only a small percentage of co2 on earth. Innumerate animals, volcanoes and bacteria dwarf our measly combustion of organic matter. Any increase or decrease in “carbon emissions” is meaningless.

  1. September 17, 2013

    […] Global Warming is religion […]