Jump to content

Rubus Leucodermis

Members
  • Posts

    10441
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Rubus Leucodermis

  1. Now within 72 hours and the models all basically agree on a rain event. Safe to say it’s happening.
  2. Likin’ the trend of me being in the yellow. Would be sweet to score an inch or more!
  3. The marine layer is a form of temperature inversion, and forecast models in general struggle with inversions. They struggle with foggy wintertime inversions, too. Virtually all of our badly busted high temperature forecasts are caused by models failing to properly model inversions.
  4. I’m pretty close to the doomer end of the spectrum and even I don’t believe that. (And yes, I know there are people saying it. I wince inwardly whenever I hear it.) Humans have proven to be such an adaptable weed species that I have a very hard time imagining all of us dying out due to human-caused climate change.
  5. “It’s not ‘cancel culture’ when MY SIDE is doing the cancelling!” And yes, Captain Obvious, I know who Tailgunner Joe was.
  6. That's nucking futs. Maoism has an almost vanishingly small number of fans in the USA. The principles of fascism, by contrast, are actually strong within the American right, particularly so since the dawn of the Trump Era (and no doubt latently so before then, given how quickly Trump got political support).
  7. P.S. I am totally in favor of school children being exposed to criticisms of socialism, too. And criticisms of critical race theory. Like I said, anything worthwhile should be able to withstand questioning. I don’t want people to agree with me simply because they were brainwashed into it.
  8. Ah, critical race theory, the bete noire of the American right. I sure hope that people are being taught to question capitalism. Anything worth keeping should be able to withstand questioning. Anything held to be beyond questioning, is something I would suspect should particularly be questioned, because society is probably trying to indoctrinate people into unquestioning support for it. Likely because it benefits the few and is to the detriment of the masses being indoctrinated.
  9. (Bummed to be merely in the green and not the blue.) (Excited to be in the gray.) Can sure tell who’s an optimist and who’s a pessimist tonight!
  10. And I have now said enough (heck, maybe more than enough) and will only be posting on weather topics in this forum from this point forward (at least that is my intent).
  11. Because voting for Trump to take a stand against wokeness and continually harping on the factual inaccuracy of the left while remaining silent about that of the right are signs of being an absolute flaming liberal. Silly me.
  12. I will take SciAm over some right-leaning guy on the Internet that tries to pass himself off as objective any day, TYVM.
  13. Nothing. My bad, you are clearly an impartial arbiter of truth, without bias.
  14. Take it up with SciAm, they reported it, and I regard them as a typically reliable source. Corporations have tried to hush up a lot of things. Go research the tobacco and asbestos industries sometime.
  15. 78.8˚F after a max of 79.2˚F. Another 80-burger denied!
  16. More cancel culture. https://www.wesh.com/article/desantis-anheuser-busch-lgbtq-bud-light/44609992
  17. I tend to share your dislike of formal, organized religions, but it does seem to really work for some folks (including my sister). More power to them; those who want church should be free to have it (and no, they are not all reactionaries). Just keep the State out of it. As far as I go, physicist Richard Feynman summarized it perfectly: “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”
  18. I'm not so sure, it depends on how much lack of truthfulness is intrinsically harmful to political rhetoric. From what I have seen, not much. If factual accuracy was of prime importance in politics, politics would be so vastly different as to be virtually indistinguishable (and it would have damaged the political fortunes the denier camp vastly more than it has).
  19. Oh, please, the "other side" has been denying anthropogenic climate change for decades, well before it became a pet cause of the environmental movement. It goes back at least to Exxon covering up their own internal report showing it was an issue. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ One side: 2+2=-367 Other side: actually, 2+2=5 Tim, Phil, etc: Look what you did! you made the first side lie! I will now tirelessly report about every inaccuracy you make.
×
×
  • Create New...