COVID is just the tip of the scientific climate-change iceberg. Adrift in an accelerating, rising sea of computer-based confirmation bias and settled-by-consensus ‘Science’.
/rant-on
Have you noticed how now, when the $$$ gets involved in terms of cost and grid reliability, how the story is rapidly evolving away from climate change, to green energy, to ‘renewable & clean’ energy? Which when it comes to windmills (on and off shore) and solar cells is far from it. The slogan ‘ban fossil fuels’ get bandied about now with so much pinache and hardly any thought. Elon Musk claims a square of desert 100 miles on the side covered in solar cells and backed up by lithium-ion battery farms could power all of the US grid. Is that as it is today, or when all our vehicles are electric? For how long before it has to be replaced? And how much of China can we continuously strip-mine for the rare Earth elements needed to get us there and keep us there? What happens to the desert creatures within that 10,000 sq. miles, adapted to heat and light, forever shrouded in cool darkness? Do we have a jobs retraining program ready for them? Then there are the dead whales washing ashore by the dozens as off-shore wind projects are being seabed mapped by powerful sonars. Let alone all the thought and environmental impact studies that have gone into what the cyclic vibrations and sound resonances they’ll induce in the ocean waters around them once in operation will do to sea life. Anyone see a problem there? Is this really better?
/rant-off
A next point of attack, for the next generation of assailants, against the continuing industrial revolution, is what I see.
There is nothing that will allow the physical freedoms of action needed for industrializing societies that will ultimately be deemed acceptable. There is no endpoint to such progressions that does not include the Human Extermination Movement.
Science doesn’t need consensus. It needs reproducibility. If you can reproduce the scientist’s results using the same methodology then you’re on the road to good science, which is just a methodology, not a philosophy or religion or whatever people want to make it into to twist to their ends. So sick of all this crap.
Reproducibility! Exactly! They have proven peer review to be a fraud in some cases, and very sloppy in others. A scientist from Stanford wrote a book on this scam, but I can’t remember his name at the moment.
Most computer models (with the exception of one certain epidemiological model I can think of), do, when given the exact same inputs generally derive the exact same outputs. So totally reproducible. That *your* model reproduces reliably results different from *my* model, is *your* problem not *mine*.
Of course, what does experimental observation and error analysis have anything to do with any of this?
Never been a big fan of computer models for anything other than analytical support. I’ve built plenty of computer models when I worked in the financial industry, and they’re nice and all, but they really best support analysis, not replace it. My favorite abuse is still Enron’s mark-to-model, versus actual results. It bears uncanny parallels to other uses we’ve seen of computer models.
Science is part of the Progressive Marxist religion. This is part of their appeal to people who have high IQ but lack the sentience to comprehend they are in a religious movement.
Totalitarianism is always a strong draw for smart people.
COVID is just the tip of the scientific climate-change iceberg. Adrift in an accelerating, rising sea of computer-based confirmation bias and settled-by-consensus ‘Science’.
/rant-on
Have you noticed how now, when the $$$ gets involved in terms of cost and grid reliability, how the story is rapidly evolving away from climate change, to green energy, to ‘renewable & clean’ energy? Which when it comes to windmills (on and off shore) and solar cells is far from it. The slogan ‘ban fossil fuels’ get bandied about now with so much pinache and hardly any thought. Elon Musk claims a square of desert 100 miles on the side covered in solar cells and backed up by lithium-ion battery farms could power all of the US grid. Is that as it is today, or when all our vehicles are electric? For how long before it has to be replaced? And how much of China can we continuously strip-mine for the rare Earth elements needed to get us there and keep us there? What happens to the desert creatures within that 10,000 sq. miles, adapted to heat and light, forever shrouded in cool darkness? Do we have a jobs retraining program ready for them? Then there are the dead whales washing ashore by the dozens as off-shore wind projects are being seabed mapped by powerful sonars. Let alone all the thought and environmental impact studies that have gone into what the cyclic vibrations and sound resonances they’ll induce in the ocean waters around them once in operation will do to sea life. Anyone see a problem there? Is this really better?
/rant-off
A next point of attack, for the next generation of assailants, against the continuing industrial revolution, is what I see.
There is nothing that will allow the physical freedoms of action needed for industrializing societies that will ultimately be deemed acceptable. There is no endpoint to such progressions that does not include the Human Extermination Movement.
Science doesn’t need consensus. It needs reproducibility. If you can reproduce the scientist’s results using the same methodology then you’re on the road to good science, which is just a methodology, not a philosophy or religion or whatever people want to make it into to twist to their ends. So sick of all this crap.
Reproducibility! Exactly! They have proven peer review to be a fraud in some cases, and very sloppy in others. A scientist from Stanford wrote a book on this scam, but I can’t remember his name at the moment.
Most computer models (with the exception of one certain epidemiological model I can think of), do, when given the exact same inputs generally derive the exact same outputs. So totally reproducible. That *your* model reproduces reliably results different from *my* model, is *your* problem not *mine*.
Of course, what does experimental observation and error analysis have anything to do with any of this?
Never been a big fan of computer models for anything other than analytical support. I’ve built plenty of computer models when I worked in the financial industry, and they’re nice and all, but they really best support analysis, not replace it. My favorite abuse is still Enron’s mark-to-model, versus actual results. It bears uncanny parallels to other uses we’ve seen of computer models.
Science is part of the Progressive Marxist religion. This is part of their appeal to people who have high IQ but lack the sentience to comprehend they are in a religious movement.
Totalitarianism is always a strong draw for smart people.
Science is a noun.
What anyone makes of that noun is on them.
Hmm, what would transcience be like?
Or science supremacy?