50 years of failed eco predictions

Gunga Din is at it again .

He's desperately trawling for climatic anomalies while folks are having a life.


Haw, haw...............................................haw.

Not many Septics have read Kipling.

GUNGA DIN

You may talk o' gin and beer
When you're quartered safe out 'ere,
An' you're sent to penny-fights an' Aldershot it;
But when it comes to slaughter
You will do your work on water,
An' you'll lick the bloomin' boots of 'im that's got it.
Now in Injia's sunny clime,
Where I used to spend my time
A-servin' of 'Er Majesty the Queen,
Of all them black-faced crew
The finest man I knew
Was our regimental bhisti, Gunga Din.
⁠He was "Din! Din! Din!
⁠You limping lump o' brick-dust, Gunga Din!
⁠Hi! slippery hitherao!
⁠Water, get it! Panee lao![1]
⁠You squigy-nosed old idol, Gunga Din."


The uniform 'e wore
Was nothin' much before,
​An' rather less than 'arf o' that be'ind,
For a piece o' twisty rag
An' a goatskin water-bag
Was all the field-equipment e' could find.
When the sweatin' troop-train lay
In a sidin' through the day,
Where the 'eat would make your bloomin' eyebrows crawl,
We shouted "Harry By!"[2]
Till our throats were bricky-dry,
Then we wopped 'im 'cause 'e couldn't serve us all.
⁠It was "Din! Din! Din!
⁠You 'eathen, where the mischief 'ave you been?
⁠You put some juldee[3] in it
⁠Or I'll marrow[4] you this minute
⁠If you don't fill up my helmet, Gunga Din!


⁠'E would dot an' carry one
⁠Till the longest day was done
⁠An' 'e didn't seem to know the use o' fear.
⁠If we charged or broke or cut,
⁠You could bet your bloomin' nut,
⁠'E'd be waitin' fifty paces right flank rear.
​⁠With 'is mussick[5] on 'is back,
⁠'E would skip with our attack,
⁠An' watch us till the bugles made "Retire,"
⁠An' for all 'is dirty 'ide
⁠'E was white, clear white, inside
⁠When 'e went to tend the wounded under fire!
⁠It was "Din! Din! Din!"
⁠With the bullets kickin' dust-spots on the green.
⁠When the cartridges ran out,
⁠You could hear the front-files shout,
⁠"Hi! ammunition-mules an' Gunga Din!"


⁠I sha'n't forgit the night
⁠When I dropped be'ind the fight
⁠With a bullet where my belt plate should 'a' been.
⁠I was chokin' mad with thirst,
⁠An' the man that spied me first
⁠Was our good old grinnin', gruntin' Gunga Din.
⁠'E lifted up my 'ead,
⁠An' he plugged me where I bled,
⁠An' 'e guv me 'arf-a-pint o' water-green:
⁠It was crawlin' and it stunk,
⁠But of all the drinks I've drunk,
⁠I'm gratefullest to one from Gunga Din.
​⁠It was "Din! Din! Din!"
⁠'Ere's a beggar with a bullet through 'is spleen;
⁠'E's chawin' up the ground,
⁠An' 'e's kickin' all around:
⁠For Gawd's sake git the water, Gunga Din!



⁠'E carried me away
⁠To where a dooli lay,
⁠An' a bullet come an' drilled the beggar clean.
⁠'E put me safe inside,
⁠An' just before 'e died:
⁠"I 'ope you liked your drink," sez Gunga Din.
⁠So I'll meet 'im later on
⁠At the place where 'e is gone—
⁠Where it's always double drill and no canteen;
⁠'E'll be squattin' on the coals,
⁠Givin' drink to poor damned souls,
⁠An' I'll get a swig in hell from Gunga Din!
⁠Yes, Din! Din! Din!
⁠You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!
⁠Though I've belted you and flayed you,
⁠By the living Gawd that made you,
⁠You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
 
Yeh, who would have thought Pendleton, Oregon could reach a temperature of 119F in 1898 on the 10th August to be precise. But Prineville did it first, on July 29, in that same year. What’s up with 1898?

You and your damned facts be fusin da dims.
 
The climate change predictions are coming true.
Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy.
There is lots of evidence showing it is correct.
You have to define it first.
The forest fires
Cut your brush back. California used to do this. Now it just burns. Did you know that most wildfire is caused by arsonists or careless people?
and rising water are simply facts.
So you think Noah's ark happened, do you? It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
The increases in storm power were also predicted.
It is not possible to measure 'storm power'. There is no such thing as a quantity.
Who thought Oregon would get a string of 100 plus temperatures.
Me. It's happened before, and will happen again. Meh.
The globe temperature is rising.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


Argument from randU fallacies. Denial of statistical mathematics. Buzzword fallacies. Learn what 'fact' means.
You are just chanting. The Church of Global Warming is a false religion.
 
So tell us how you can define the earth and its atmosphere as a black body,
They are mass. RQAA.
apply Stefan-Boltzmann and claim changes of temperature at the earth's surface violate Stefan-Boltzmann.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No, the temperature of Earth (whatever it is) does not violate SB.
Watts per square meter can only occur on the surface of a black body.
WRONG. You are trying to eliminate the emissivity constant.
It tells us nothing of the temperature within the black body.
Doesn't have to.
The minute you split the Earth up into its component parts then Stefan-Boltzmann only applies the the parts.
The minute you combine the parts, Stefan-Boltzmann only applies to the whole and no longer to the parts.
False equivalence fallacy. You cannot compare two systems as if they were the same system.
It only applies to the surface of any mass since it is 'R' is radiance in watts per square area
You are arguing the temperature AT THE SURFACE, dumbass.
ROFLMAO. I want to see where any statistics course requires you only use published data to make a calculation.
Statistical math isn't a course. It is a branch of mathematics.
Next you'll be telling us that algebra can only use numbers published in Pravda.
Mockery.
I am curious what you think Hadcrut or GISTEMP is 'predicting' when they statistically calculate the current and past daily temperature of the earth.
They aren't predicting. YOU are.
The datasets are published and available.
Biased and insufficient data.
Your refusal to look for them does not make them disappear.
Biased and insufficient data.
The methods uses and margin of error are also published.
The method is. The method shows the data is biased. The margin of error is not part of data. It is a calculated value. Math error: failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. You are probably confusing tolerance with margin of error. This is common among the illiterate.
Your refusal to look for them does not make them disappear.
I have looked at them. The data is insufficient and biased.
I find this one rather ironic after you have spent all this time arguing you can't normalize the data.
Never made any such argument. Pay attention.
It seems you don't even understand what you write.
Inversion fallacy.
So let me get this straight. You are claiming that in order to do any time series with data, one must collect all the data at the exact time?
You must collect each sample at an exact time for something like the temperature of Earth. Storms move. Air moves. Earth spins and is lit by the Sun on only one side at a time. The Moon moves.
Do you not know how time works? Could you be any more idiotic?
Base rate fallacy. You cannot measure a 'change' without measuring at least two absolute measurements. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Basically you are saying if I want to see the temperature changes over 24 hours, I would have to take the temperature every hour at exactly noon? That would be the only way to take the readings simultaneously. You do like to prove you are an idiot.
Base rate fallacy.
Or if I want to find the daily high temperature in Phoenix and Tokyo on Oct 12, 2021, the only way I could do that is take the reading at 3PM Phoenix Time and 7AM in Tokyo so I am taking them at the exact same time? You do like to prove you are a complete and total idiot, don't you.
Base rate fallacy.
It seems you didn't bother to actually look at the data.
I did. It is biased and insufficient.
Not only that, you don't know how to read the data since you don't understand what the data includes but instead have made a straw man argument against what you want to pretend the data is.
Fallacy fallacy. Random numbers are not data.
 
ok? so your saying that whatever bullshit science you throw at me now can change. Which is fine. But it can change so much that it would miss an ice age. or it would miss islands sinking but are still here?

Lets say I need to choose a number between 1 and a 100. If science could narrow my choices to the range of 40 -50 or 60-70 then that would be useful as the range i now need to pick from is only 10 numerals.

If however science is going to say "well the number can be anything from 1-100" then whats the fucking use of it? I might as well just get a fortune teller.

Im not saying science has to be 100% correct. But at least can you make sure you are at least in the right century when you predict an ice age?

Science, being a set of falsifiable theories, will never describe the entire universe. We already HAVE an entire universe.
 
The climate change predictions are coming true.
Are they now??

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

There is lots of evidence showing it is correct.
You have yet to even define what "climate change" IS... You can't evidence a buzzword; it is meaningless.

The forest fires and rising water are simply facts.
Forest fires and rising water happens all the time. You also seem to ignore all the forests which AREN'T on fire and all of the FALLING water levels. The creek by my house was down to a mere piss trickle, the lowest that I remember ever seeing it during my lifetime, until we finally got some storms to bring in some rain.

Forest fires come and go. Water levels rise and fall. Big flippin' deal......

The increases in storm power were also predicted.
WTF do you mean by "increases in storm power"?? Compared to WHAT?? Why is one point in time more significant than another point in time? ---- It's just weather dude. It happens.

Who thought Oregon would get a string of 100 plus temperatures.
Oregon experiences such temperatures from time to time. So?? It's happened here in Wisconsin before too.

The globe temperature is rising.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any useful accuracy. We don't have enough thermometers, nor can we feasibly space them out evenly (since they need to be serviced and we need road access to them to service them).
 
if it was sure but in my hypothetical it was 1-100.

My main point is these predicitons are so bad that if the range of the problem is -1000000 to + 1000000 like you said Science would still present me a choice between -1000000 and + 1000000 which makes it useless.

Math error: Boundary shift.
 
Second, the islands are not sinking, just as Miami is not sinking,. The water is rising as more glaciers melt thus causing flooding. Here in Oregon we have lost over half of our glaciers.
It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no valid reference point. I live near Oregon. The glaciers are still there. Go in the winter, when you can see them.
Third, perhaps you really need to look at what is happening globally. Floods, and fires, along with diseases, and then there is the loss of animal life.
All animals die. Get a clue.
Floods and fire are normal events. Get a clue.
Disease is a normal event. Get a clue.
Science cannot do it all, and has never claimed it could. Some people do learn, others just follow.
...deleted Holy Link...

There is no science here. No theory of science is being discussed at all here. Religion is not science. The Church of Green and the Church of Global Warming are fundamentalist style religions.
 
anomalies are cherry picking.

Fallacy fallacy. Primavera was showing an exception to the theory that high temperature have never been seen before, such as the high temperatures experienced across the West near the summer solstice.
Showing such an exception is a perfectly valid argument.
 
Fallacy fallacy. Primavera was showing an exception to the theory that high temperature have never been seen before, such as the high temperatures experienced across the West near the summer solstice.
Showing such an exception is a perfectly valid argument.

I don't think you get where im coming from.
 
Back
Top