Jump to content


Registered User
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SpeedOfHeat last won the day on October 5 2020

SpeedOfHeat had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

SpeedOfHeat's Achievements


SNAP (1/4)



  1. To clarify, people like pawnman aren’t actually bothered by unvaccinated people not wearing masks because it’s unsafe or putting their health at risk. They’re bothered by the act of disobedience. They are “following the rules,” and others aren’t. ...And the others are oftentimes “getting away with it.” And that pisses them off. It is the EXACT same nonsense we’ve all seen with reflective belts downrange. Idiotic mandates to wear them in places/conditions that make no sense (day time, etc.) — and people wearing them simply so they don’t get ‘Chief'd.’ It is not about safety/health. It’s about compliance. And the ones that are most outraged, most vocal, and most willing to elevate the issue are the same ones that are reflective belt nazis: the tools/douches that don’t have anything better to do, or the careerists that are eager to demonstrate their obedience. This is exactly why pawnman framed it the way he did. He didn’t pose it as someone who lied about their vaccination status and infected someone.... causing illness, long-term health complications or perhaps even death. No, ...it was about ‘showing red on IMR’ and ‘Violating SECDEF orders.’
  2. She fought to defend our country and then died attacking it. What a mess.
  3. <sigh> Pawnman, why is the surgeon wearing the mask (Let’s say I’m getting a knee replacement)? Because he’s afraid of getting sick from my knee? No. The surgeon is wearing the mask to protect me, the patient. This aligns with the messaging throughout this thing that wearing a mask is about protecting others. My comment above was about how useful a surgical mask is in protecting the wearer. What the Google machine tells me (via fda.gov) is that an average surgical mask “may help block large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter.“ And that’s my point. In public, especially with social distancing in effect, do you guys frequently encounter “large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter?” Seriously ask yourself. Is that a thing? Are people coughing or sneezing on or near you? I don’t know. I’m just saying that’s not my experience. Yelling, singing, or whistling are also probably good examples, but again, I personally don’t see that in a typical grocery store run. I see a handful of healthy people with no cough or sneeze, adhering to distancing, and yet wearing masks. Do some woodworking with a surgical mask on. Cutting, or especially sanding. You’ll be coughing on saw dust inside of 10 minutes. It does not block fine particles at all. And that’s literal pieces of wood. I found (I think) the article that Slackline references above. It suggest that cloth masks block “some viral particles” and “can reduce the inoculum of the virus which enters the mask,” resulting in a milder or even asymptomatic infection. So you get sick, but not as sick. Fair enough. It’s a short article and there’s no data cited. To me, it is conditions and behavior based. If we are now asserting that a mask can protect the wearer because it blocks “some viral particles,” it seems to me that the emphasis should be on wearing them in the places where there is a real chance of someone else’s spit hitting your face. i.e. while watching a movie on the couch with someone, not while walking down an aisle at Costco.
  4. I think the opposite is occurring, at least right now. Sick people are staying home. Have you seen someone running a fever, or clearly congested, or with a persistent cough at the work place or casually shopping at Costco? My experience has been that anyone who coughs, even once, even into their mask, gets a hairy eyeball. I think very few legitimately sick people are out and about. What we have is sick people at home without masks, getting their family members, or roommates (or nursing home cohabitants/caregivers) sick, and healthy people out of their homes wearing masks, essentially for no reason. We have it all backwards. And to your last comment, about protecting yourself via mask, are you (correctly) wearing an N95 or better? Because the surgical mask or the homemade cotton mask is doing nothing to protect you.
  5. For healthy people? That’s the key distinction. I think we’ve forever turned a page culturally, where we’ve realized it’s smart for SICK people to wear a mask. What most people want to know is when can HEALTHY people, with no symptoms, no cough, no sneezing, no runny nose, etc. stop wearing a mask? It will be a long long time. Which business will be the first? I wonder what the research from large companies is showing, as far as potential customers gained vs customers lost if they drop mask requirements. Moot point for now, I suppose, since we are no where even close.
  6. And there you have it ladies and gentlemen. Right on cue. Even when you tell them how predictable and off topic their responses are, they simply can’t help themselves. -Computer modeling has flaws, therefore we can just ignore all the other sources of evidence. “The TACAN is malfunctioning.....<shrug’s shoulder’s> .....I guess there’s just no way we can determine our position on this sortie.” -China -AGW is unprovable -You're a troll -It’s a Religion -Stop freaking out and live your life -Socialism -Scientific data/evidence (ha, just kidding) Lessons learned (or relearned): 1) Dunning-Kruger is real 2) You will not change anyone’s opinion online 3) Critical thinking skills are lacking, even in college graduates And to reiterate one last time, ask yourself periodically over the course of your life about this. Ask if it was shown to be a hoax or that the data was all wrong. The answer will be NO.
  7. —You cannot be Group 1, 2, and 3. They are mutually exclusive by definition. That aside, here’s my response to your points: —It’s the same finality and confidence that’s applied to dozens of scientific discoveries. Ones that you accept without question. The fact that there are tectonic plates, that the earth orbits the sun, and that the earth is round. It is true that the scientific method is open to new discovery and therefore cannot ever claim absolute certainty. But there are things we know.... things like the aforementioned that we accept as scientific fact because they are demonstrable, observable, etc.. There is ongoing research and debate on many aspects of AGW. Some results, findings, and predictions have been and will be proven wrong. That’s fine. Our knowledge and understanding is evolving. But you act like because there are unknowns, doubt, or debate In certain specific areas, that somehow means the ENTIRE phenomenon is invalid. —Type 1. The amount of evidence that global temp is rising is overwhelming. Satellite data is one source. There are dozens others. When you’re flying, you can tell your position by several means: tacan, gps, vor, your eyeballs, etc. Each system has flaws and margins of error, but when viewed in totality leave no reasonable doubt as to your position. The ‘confluence of evidence’ behind climate change is similar. If you don’t know about all the independent fields of study that converge on the same answer, there’s nothing I can do for you. It’s on you to do the reading. Type 2–There’s no scientific ‘theory of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.’ It just is one. We are filling our atmosphere with it (and others), while simultaneously engaging in land clearing and deforestation. Type 3— I can tell this is your go-to “gotcha” on this subject. Except it’s a hypothetical. And a really poor one, because you’ve embedded the only possible answer in the question. If, given your hypothetical, GW is 100% uninfluenced by humans, than of course the answer is that we don’t attempt to fight against it.... you just said we cannot influence it. But more importantly, it’s a poor hypothetical because the evidence demonstrating AGW is so strong. What if.... hear me out now.... hypothetical.... what if the earth is really flat. ...Well, it’s not. It’s just not. So most people won’t waste their time contemplating such a question. — “That’s not science, it’s religion.” Ugh. This is such a tired and predictable trope. This is the denier’s Alamo, where they inevitably retreat to when they’ve exhausted all the other standard logical fallacies. Of course some people blindly tow whatever partisan line their party tells them to, but for people that have actually done the research, it’s not a religion. It’s the opposite. Because there’s so much evidence, there’s no faith required. And you’ll notice that only one side of this conversation ever uses the word “believe/belief.”
  8. The evidence is available to everyone. I'm not going to summarize climate change for you. And for two specific reasons: First, I don't know what group you're in. Group 1, you want me to demonstrate that the earth is warming? No thanks. Group 2, you want me to provide evidence that global warming is anthropogenic? Again, ....read. There are countless books, peer-reviewed scientific journals, articles, videos, periodicals, etc. that are available to everyone. It's 2020. Google it. Type "Climate Change" in to Amazon and order a few books. Start with this one: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1612198023?pf_rd_r=9M7GK2BS4CGF80WE05JP&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee. Also search for references and literature within the DoD. There's tons available. The Navy, Marines, and the Joint Staff are full up on this while the AF in particular is lagging. Some might say that me not laying out the evidence is a cop-out. That's fine. Teach me how algebra works. Teach me meteorology. Or chemistry. On an internet forum. Present evidence, or else it's just "religion." If a flat-earther asks you to present evidence that the earth is in-fact spherical, where do you even begin? Second, I don't have any confidence that it would matter. You've made up your mind, ...and you know it. You think the models are based on 'assumption.' Specifically, you don't think ice core samples are valid, and therefore the main way we derive data dating back to 800,000 yrs is all invalid. That's fine. But you can see why if that's your starting place, it would be a waste of my time to engage and try to prove otherwise. What I will do is to again reiterate that time will serve as the vindicator. (*Although I don't know how old you are. If you're in your 60's or 70's, you'll go to your grave never knowing you were wrong. If you're under 40, and live to US expectancy, my point stands.) See, in you're mind, AGW is wrong, faulty, etc. And under that logic, surely, there will be a time in the not-so-distant future where mankind will discover that all the science and evidence was mistaken. "Oopps! I guess it's just cyclical and 'the earth is gonna earth.'" <sigh> Or better yet, it will be reveled that it was a lie perpetuated by nefarious actors in order to tax people. Well, again, I've got news for you. It's neither. And I encourage you, every 5-10 years, to ask if your ideas on AGW have been shown to be true, or whether AGW is still at the forefront of our discussions on energy, national security, food/water scarcity, migration, etc. Spoiler alert......it's real. 1) I never said we were capable of the "impossible." As far as claiming to be a superpower with global influence, I don't think it's a claim, I think that's a fact, no? As for how long will it last? No idea. .....A very short time if we decide "fvck it," and give up. 2) Don't know. I assume significant changes to the US electrical power grid would be gradual. Phased in? With redundancies and back-ups? To mitigate risk? I'm truly not sure what you're getting at. 3) We don't. We can cede the leadership role. And if the current course continues, we will, in our lifetime. To China. I admit I was raised with a post-war American mindset......I harbor ideas about American exceptionalism and the idea that America "is not just one more indistinguishable entity on the world stage, but that the United States has been essential to the preservation and progress of freedom" and that we have a special role to play in that regard. Increasingly, we hear themes of isolationism these days. I get it. People are tired of endless wars and entanglement abroad. Heavy lies the crown. We can take the crown off, stretch our necks and enjoy the temporary relief, but I'm not so sure we'll like how it feels when another country picks it up and dons it. 4) It won't be the end of life or humanity. Granted, some book titles, news headlines, and politicians speak with that level of sensationalism to grab attention. But few scientists think climate change will 'end humanity.' Also, very few people talk about 'reversing' climate change. The discussion centers around slowing and/or mitigating. But what will it look like? I don't know. Take for example India. The Ganges river is glacial fed, and the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting at an unprecedented rate, giving the 500 million people in the basin below a false impression of the health of the river. Meanwhile, all indications are that it's going to be monsoon-fed only by the turn of the century. And they're already depleting the underground aquifers. Where will those 500 million people go when there's no water? People don't just sit around and wait to die of dehydration. There will be mass migration across ethnic, tribal, religious, and state lines. ....I'm betting there will be some fighting involved. It won't be the end of humanity, but it'll be a mess. Similarly, what happens when the Colorado river dries up? Or when huge portions of Miami are under water? It won't be the end of humanity. It'll just suck. For some more than others.
  9. There are generally three types of climate deniers: Group 1) "climate change is not happening." Group 2) "Ok, climate change is happening, but it's not anthropogenic." Group 3) "climate change is happening, and Ok, is anthropogenic, but...the effects will be minimal , and certainly not worth changing our way of life." --Due to the overwhelming amount of evidence from multiple independent fields of study, Group 1 has thankfully shrunk and most in Group 1 have migrated to Group 2. If someone is still Group 1 at this point, there's nothing you can do for them. It's like chemtrailers or flat-earthers. Evidence is irrelevant to them. --Group 2's popular mantra, echoed by BrickHistory, is (to paraphrase) "the earth goes through cycles. Yes it's currently warming, but it has warmed in the past. We've had ice ages. We've even had periods in earth's history that are warmer than today. Therefore, we can conclude that humans play no (or negligible) part in it." This is the premier example of Dunning-Kreuger. It's a cringeworthy reminder that most people with a strong denial of climate change have literally never bothered to do any research into it at all. How do I know? Because any scientific book, journal, debate, lecture, etc. on the subject will immediately frame the problem in terms of rate of change. No credible scientist disputes that the earth has experienced large variations in climate. The difference now is the rate. It's faster. That's the core assertion. Change that used to take 10's or 100's of thousands of years is now occurring over centuries or decades. Let's say you mow your lawn once every other week. The grass grows, you cut it. Cyclical. What sort of questions would you raise if you found yourself having to mow the grass every day. Or every hour. That's the difference. Not simply that the grass grows and you have to cut it, but that the rate is freakishly fast, and accelerating. So what would you do? You'd try to figure out why. ....did I use a different fertilizer? More water? Did I plant a new type of grass? Is there something in/under the soil? ....You get the point. You would try to isolate the independent variable. When it comes to climate change, there are indeed many natural factors that affect it (solar irradiance, axial tilt, etc.). But those have always existed. And they're measurable. Again, with just a little research you will find that science can easily isolate the variables. Those variables do have an effect, but they do not account for the massive increase in the current rate of climate change. Group 2ers parroting the "Earth goes through natural cycles" are like someone having a really strong opinion on how the KC--NE game will go tomorrow. But as the conversation continues, it becomes clear they've never even heard of Patrick Mahomes or Bill Belichick. They saw a meme, or overhead something they thought sounded clever on TV and want to present it as their own. But they don't actually know anything about the two teams. Or maybe even about football. ....So you cringe, possibly roll your eyes, and go find someone else to talk to. --Group 3ers concede to the overwhelming evidence, but try to minimalize it. Their group is, in my experience, characterized by pessimism, apathy, and defeat. As you've heard here, Group 3ers will say 'China and India are larger carbon emitters.' Or that wind/solar/renewables are expensive and consume energy to build, thus negating the effort. The mantra is essentially, "it's too difficult.....so fvck it." Not the America I know. We are the global leader, the superpower. We have global influence. Other countries do what we do. At least for now. If we would simply lead, others would follow. Likewise, innovation is tough. Maybe solar and wind aren't the end-all, be-all. Or maybe not in their current form. We have to experiment. Risk failure. We have to try. There are dozens of proposed lines of effort out there....we don't need all of them to work. But none will work if we just give up. It's a complex problem, like say, landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth. We could embrace the challenge and see similar results as the space race -- leaps in technological advances, achievement of a common goal, etc. Or we can say 'fvck it, it's too tough for us. Let's let China or the EU figure it out.' For those of you in Group 1, 2, and 3, I will close with this: Climate change is happening and is anthropogenic. There is no question of that basic premise. Donald Trump and Joe Biden and AOC and Nancy and Mitch will all come and go. Even Al Gore will be gone one day. But climate change will be with us for the rest of all our lives. And our children's. It's not going away, and I encourage you each year, or each decade to pause and ask: "Hmmm....is that pesky climate change thing over yet? Did the scientists, who dedicate their lives to understanding this, collecting data and evidence in dozens of fields of study, all over the globe finally realize they were wrong this whole time and that the earth 'just goes through cycles?' Did they finally give up and admit this was a leftist conspiracy and a hoax to drive a carbon tax?" The answer will be No. We can discuss, like ViperMan suggests, the validity of specific policies and proposals and the way forward -- that's where the debate needs to be. But again, for the record, 100%, you will not see anthropogenic climate change just fade into a non-issue or revealed as some sort of elaborate hoax. In your whole life. Regardless of the petty noise and friction and squabbling on the internet, in the media, or even in the halls of congress.
  • Create New...