Redoubtably

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

@realChasDarwin @CupoJoeBlow @GT270913 @NdabaningiMoyo @medialens The Dansgaard Oeschgler events occurred 25 times in the last 100k years with warming up to 10 degrees in 50 years - about 20 times faster than current

Forests didn’t have A/C then either

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

True

Now explain why the 20 best countries in the world for human rights of women, gays, and ethnic minorities are all culturally Christian

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

Good point

Applying Occam’s razor (the simplest, most likely explanation is probably the correct one) immediately leads to DEI

If this had been an isolated incident, your point holds. But it isn’t.

Police forces have been using DEI training for several years, essentially treating people differently based on race (dressed up and sold as cultural sensitivity and dealing with institutional racism)

The Uk police arrest more people for hate speech than any country in the world, including Russia

There are many many examples, so your argument is correct but your conclusion is not

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

You both talk a lot of sense, and on this one you are each 50% correct

Aspects of Islam are undoubtedly incompatible with the west, and it is primarily, but not exclusively leftist doctrine which provided the Trojan horse allowing fundamentally anti western views not just to establish themselves, but to recruit generations of progressive advocates for them

It is quite astonishing that leftists will defend jihadi fundamentalists, despite them being amongst the worse abusers of human rights in history

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

@AstroMikeMerri @1000Frolly @grok please verify the reasoning of the previous post

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

That is not the same graph, updated to 2025, which is what it purports to be at first glance, and what is a reasonable criticism

It is an anomaly graph specifically tuned to highlight recent warming by using a recent 30 year baseline (1961 to 1990)

Using exactly the same methodology in 1740 with a baseline 1690 to 1720 would yield a very similar shaped anomaly graph, entirely due to natural variation

We can see that it is currently the warmest it has been for several hundred years, on both graphs. The 1st is the more useful for understanding climate context , which evolves over long timescales, and in which we expect to see changes over centuries. ie on the upslope of warming , on average every year will be the hottest for a certain measure of time

The first graph does not appear to show any thing urgently catastrophic , but the second, while correct, is specifically tuned to do just that, by using a methodology which, when applied to other periods would show similar results, but which could only be natural variation

This is a classic example of how the alarmist narrative tries to claim the science, without being completely transparent about methods

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

It has everything to with DEI policies

Universities have been churning out graduates steeped in intersectionality, critical race theory, etc for decades, who now occupy a high % of management across all our institutions, public and private, media, police and judiciary, political, educational, business and military. It has done untold damage and increased polarisation

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

@grok @AstroMikeMerri @1000Frolly Why 1961 to 1990 baseline rather than any other 30 year period since 1659 ?

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

@archer_rs @grok please verify or falsify the point made about circularity risk and its impact on predictive value, using small words that @archer_rs can understand

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

If you lack the discernment to recognise the difference between doubting agw and questioning alarmism you really should ask for your money back from whoever educated you

If you were educated you would recognise the inherent limitations that the tuning and predictions of climate models have - the risk of circular reasoning due to assumptions and estimations of the cause and extent of previous forcings. If these estimations are mistaken or even slightly wrong, despite correlation with actual temperatures, the predictive value of the models would be somewhere on a scale between complete garbage and high uncertainty. This is not to deny agw; it is questioning the predictive value of the modelling.

@grok please verify or falsify the above statement concerning circularity risk in climate complex modelling

Also, well educated people tend not to be arrogant

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

@Miles_Vor1962 @simonmaechling @grok please verify or falsify the previous post, quoting sources for @Miles_Vor1962

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

The calculations take account of this, and the different methods of coding deaths. Even with these adjustments there is an up to 10 x difference in a bad year

And actually the population living in hot areas is around the same - about 150 million, which is where most of the deaths occur in both

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

There absolutely is a thing called a buffer zone. It is what was foreseen by UN resolution 1701 from 2006. Israel withdrew and Hezbollah were to disarm, supervised by UNIFIL. Instead the opposite happened because UNIFIL had no right to intervene or stop anything - result; further Hezbollah entrenchment, thousands more indiscriminate rocket attacks - rinse and repeat, guaranteeing a worse situation down the road.

Militarising civilian areas is a warcrime precisely because it removes normal civilian protections. Israel are simply applying the only solution possible, definitely worse for the local civilian population than if Hezbollah had abided by 1701 when it was agreed and Israel kept their side and withdrew

How many thousands of rockets and attacks do you think Israel should tolerate ?

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

@grok @AstroMikeMerri @georgehlowrey @AstroMikeMerri comments/critique of this conclusion/method welcome

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

@grok @AstroMikeMerri @georgehlowrey So in summary, if the estimations used for the historical forcings are wrong, or even slightly mistaken, the models, despite showing correlation, are somewhere on a scale between complete garbage and high uncertainty

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

@grok @AstroMikeMerri @georgehlowrey Outline the potential risks of such an approach in a bounded chaotic system operating with multiple factors over many timescales, and its impact on certainty

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

@grok Do a deep dive to pHD level using only first principles reasoning, logic, observable data and repeatable experiment, specifically to consider and evaluate the following : Are there any assumptions in the tuning and predictions of the complex models which can be considered circular reasoning ?

[Redoubtably @Redoubtably10]

Precisely, but we don’t - we invest mostly in mitigation, trying to change the weather, which so far has produced precisely zero evidence that it is making a blind bit of difference other than slowing adaptation, deindustrialing, and punishing the poorest by denying them the cheap energy the west took for granted