Monday, September 25, 2017

Making wimps to promote Global Warming

So our city schools have decided to let out early today.  Why?  Because the weather forecast was for 90 degrees, that's why.

What?  90 degrees?  Well, it is supposed to be by 4:00 (after most schools are over).  It was to be in the mid to high 80s in the afternoon.  So far it's around 81 degrees.  Nonetheless, schools have begun to let out.

The local media is covering this today. At one of the schools, they checked and it was in the high 70s indoors.  There was no air conditioning of course.  Many of the older schools, like the schools I attended (without being let out for high temperatures) are without air conditioning.  I can't imagine letting kids go home because their classrooms are in the high 70s.

Nonetheless, true to form, two of the parents interviewed said this is what we'll get, more extremes, global warming and all.  Except it's not even close.  Assuming it gets to 90, it will still be 3 degrees from the record set for today in 1900.

But kids have been taught to buckle to sizzling 90 degree days when they're stuck in rooms at a sweltering 79 degrees.  Don't overcome.  Don't endure.  Just quit.  No classes.  No after school activities.  And the parents know it's because of global warming, since we've had all this before, but then it wasn't a big deal.  Since it's a big deal now, it's obviously global warming.

NOTE: This was written today at lunch time.  It peaked a 91 degrees.  A whopping 2 degrees short of the record.  And they'er going to do it again.  And the local media speaks of 'heat waves' and 'global warming.'  And no doubt, more parents will concede the point.


  1. I grew up in South Carolina, somewhere that gets hot regularly in the early fall September. Before all the schools had air conditioning (1992 in my district), we were let out of school when the temperature hit 92 degrees. Unairconditioned brick school buildings get very hot very quickly.

    This is nothing new, nor is it part of any global warming conspiracy.

    1. In Ohio, there is no rhyme or reason to the weather. Some Septembers could be quite mild, some very hot, some cold. The records for that time of year was held in 1900. Ironically, it didn't break the record except one day. One day it ended up only getting to the high 80s in several areas. The point is, they pounded and pounded and pounded the unbearable heat when it was no worse than last year in August when they now start schools. This August it was in the low 70s and even 60s during the day. During that time, we were told it was 'seasonably' cool when it was no such thing. That cool of an August, even for Ohio, was quite strange. But when it went to the high 80s and low 90s, it was shutting things down, constant talk about how hot it was, talks of heat wave (it was only a few days) of non-record heat and on and on. It's not hard to see the difference in how it was covered.


    “Since no reply is forthcoming, a little note to the peanut gallery: Regurgitating talking points, and then following up by endlessly avoiding the issues or hurling digs and insults is not constructing a good argument. Since the good Andre, who specializes in this very tactic of pointless rebuttals, dodging the point at hand, and then following it up by either walking away in the face of evidence and not conceding the obvious, or spewing petty insults and accusations while being extraordinarily thin skinned about the same, demonstrates how this is not good arguing, I'll leave the comments but close the post, to avoid further pointless debate. It's typical post-modern progressive arguing. But not good arguing among adults. And that's what I prefer to see.”

    I see the move from Patheos has left you so bored that you need to try to troll me in order to get some attention (did Mark Shea not write a post today?).

    BTW, going back to an old post just to accuse me of dodging questions, ignoring evidence, being then-skinned, etc. (projecting much?) and then immediately closing the comments to prevent rebuttal...very adult behavior! Not sad at all.

    FWIW, no reply was forthcoming for several reasons: 1) your last comment to me raised no questions for me to answer; 2) your last comment to me raised no points that I had not already dealt with; and 3) as was alluded to in my penultimate post, your inability (or refusal) to grasp the points being made left me with no reason to continue the conversation.

    At no point in our discussion did you offer any evidence I could see to support your arguments, other than anecdotes about the temps in Ohio this past August (which don't seem corroborated by actually looking at temp records) and your personal feelings with regards to how meteorologists were discussing climate/weather.

    In contrast, when responding to the two claims commenter Ben made: 1) that there had previously been a “record hurricane drought” and 2) that the media had conspired to downplay it, I listed three devastating hurricanes that occurred during the supposed drought that: 1) gave lie to the notion we had been experiencing a hurricane drought and 2) explained why the media wasn’t covering hurricane drought stories.

    Along the way, I also explained other reasons why, in the larger climate change debate, the whole “record hurricane drought” conceit was foolish to begin with. Not only did I note it was not especially surprising from a statistical perspective, but I also noted that the definition was far too narrow with regards to both: 1) what should be considered a major hurricane; and 2) the requirement that it make US landfall. In addition, I noted that the Atlantic basin itself is responsible for just a small fraction of worldwide tropical cyclones.

    IIRC, the best you were able to do, besides continuously mistaking me for making a broad argument about climate change through damage cost estimates, was to argue that some scientists you had seen on TV were arguing that these hurricanes (and other weather events) proved climate change. Such vague anecdotal accounts aren’t worth arguing with you about when I’ve already shown so many of the problems there are with much more specific claims being made.

    Anywho, hopefully site-traffic / comments pick up for you, and you won’t be reduced to such pitiful cries for attention in the future.

  3. By definition, I don't troll my own blog. Your constant appeal to 'you left me no doubt that you' followed with whatever you can use to avoid the subject at hand is par for the course. If you only used that with me, I'd think more of it. Since I noticed that was a common tactic you use, I realize that's simply your approach to trolling. I noticed that you basically have two types of comments (well, I didn't, but a couple readers sent me links to your comments on other blogs over the year). You either come in and say, in your best sage wise man manner, a variation on 'you have spoken well my child, but I have this against you...' followed by your tutoring the individual on how they argued poorly this way or that. That's for those you agree with. Everyone else you basically do variations on what you do with me. Sometimes, if the gist is agreement, you'll engage. If the individual isn't really challenging you, you can be a pleasant commenter. But otherwise it's the usual. Avoidance, dismissing statements or facts (I stopped looking for evidence when you demanded it when I realized you had no interest in it - if provided, you simply moved on or ignored it). No. You appear happy repeating your talking points. When that doesn't work, and those in question don't immediately acquiesce, then you begin with the usual, most often culminating with name calling or snide put downs. You've often reminded me of a child who insists you're the best kick ball player on the playground. Then when you get up to kick, you immediately get out. Rather than admit others are good, you descend into name calling and wanting to change the rules so you wont' be out. A shame. I've often thought you had things to offer. Because despite it all, you're clearly informed and have a good head on your shoulders. Perhaps a bit of humility on your part might go a long way.

    1. "I noticed that you basically have two types of comments (well, I didn't, but a couple readers sent me links to your comments on other blogs over the year)."

      This made my day. Imagine being an adult and spending your time tattling on other commenters to the teacher. Pathetic.

      PS. Next time Nate emails you about me, you might want to suggest that his obsession is unhealthy at this point.

    2. If it was only Nate, you'd have a point. My shock came at finding out some of the ones who otherwise wouldn't agree with me about the color of an orange were of the same mind. One, apparently, banned you from his site some time ago. I wouldn't do that, of course, holding out hope that you'll join the non-partisan tripe and come to the grown up discussions. It's a hope I had.

    3. "If it was only Nate, you'd have a point."

      My point re: Nate stands, regardless of how many others also went and whined to daddy.

      "My shock came at finding out some of the ones who otherwise wouldn't agree with me about the color of an orange were of the same mind. One, apparently, banned you from his site some time ago."

      Yes, it turns out that you're not the thinnest skin Dave around. You don't have a lot going for you, but at least you're not as pathetic as he is, with all of his "papers" and "debates" he posts.

      PS. IIRC, I was banned from Armstrong's site for failing to condemn somebody on another site who had made some sort of comparison between Charles Manson and Jesus. Not for anything I said or brought up myself. Still, it brings me great joy to know that he was one of the ones tattling.

    4. It wasn't Armstrong. As far as I know, Dave never commented on my site. It was actually someone I thought would - and in fact did - seem to lean more toward your way of thinking. He just apparently thought you to be an incredible bore. As did others. Heck some of them said so in the comments, certainly you noticed. And I can see why. You confuse being able to argue around until someone does something you think validates your own POV with being able to argue a point. Not uncommon on the internet I'll grant, and I'd wager we've all fallen into the trap at one point or another, myself certainly included. What shows your deficiencies isn't the fact that you always argue a certain way, but on those rare occasions when you put down the shtick and actually discuss or debate, you are quite capable of making fine points, fairly representing those you disagree with, and bringing a good insight or two to the table. You did it with me a couple times, and on my blog a few times. It's contrasting those times with your typical MO that shows the problem, at least as far as I can tell.

    5. "It was actually someone I thought would - and in fact did - seem to lean more toward your way of thinking."

      In which case, I can't for the life of me think of who that could be. Both because I rarely comment on like-minded blogs and because I've only been banned from two sites that I know of, neither of which fit that description.

      "He just apparently thought you to be an incredible bore."

      Since I can't remember the blog in question, apparently the feeling was mutual!

      "As did others. Heck some of them said so in the comments, certainly you noticed."

      It's not at all surprising, given that I almost exclusively comment 'in enemy territory', that some people will not like me and/or what I have to say, and it's adorable that you thought I'd care these random people on the internet didn't like me.

    6. I'll take his word, though I only have his word to go with. Mind you, I only know people from the comments. They could be Russian spies for all I know. Nonetheless, it was clear his point to me - falsely stated or otherwise - was what others said to me via emails, or on the threads themselves. I think the point is, you seem a descent fellow (and a good dad, which is always a bonus point in my book). You do argue well, and make good points, when that is your goal. You get me to thinking, and get me to thinking how I present my thoughts. Which is why I blog. Unfortunately, you often use other 'tactics' of the troll when defending issues (often in the political realm/certain key issues), and that's a shame. Toward the end, you were the poison I mentioned. When you and anyone began a thread, even though it happened less and less, page views on that post dried up. In the early days, you were my golden prize, we would have dozens of comments back and forth, or you and someone else would, and page views would be off the charts. Not toward the end. And that was a shame. And it was more than telling.

    7. It seems like you're never the problem. You get banned from other sites - it's because they're thin skinned and can't handle your deft arguments. Others get banned and it's a deeply revealing character flaw.

      "In the early days, you were my golden prize, we would have dozens of comments back and forth, or you and someone else would, and page views would be off the charts. Not toward the end. And that was a shame. And it was more than telling."

      Ah yes, your site starts to tank and its my fault. Nothing to do with the content devolving into regurgitating the same old "this is why the Dems lost" crap, or the mutual masturbation thing you have going on with other conservative Catholic bloggers. Definitely couldn't be because people started to realize that you and your circle of friends weren't really interested in good-faith dialogue, so much as airing the same old white male grievances you can easily find on a hundred other blogs.

      Yeah, I was the problem :)

    8. I don't like people to ban people period. I didn't say they were right or wrong to ban you. I merely pointed out the person explained why, which fit along with what most others who complained had to say. I don't ban people, unless they make some form of personal or physical threat. That's me. Those who ban? Yeah, unless it was some egregious thing (insulting family or making threats) I think are being thin skinned.

      As for never being the problem? Hardly:

      "I'd wager we've all fallen into the trap at one point or another, myself certainly included."

      That's true. More than once readers have posted variations on 'What the hell are you talking about, Dave?' Heck, Nate has done that before, calling me out, saying I'm not making my point well, or that I'm wrong.

      But they typically do so in order to 1) make sure they understand my point (often by repeating what they *think* I'm saying, just to make sure - not starting out with an accusation). And 2) they then accept when I've explained myself and move on working with the point at hand.

      And no, it's not your fault it started to tank. You weren't the only one. But posts where you were dominant in the comments began to drop in page views. Early on, that wasn't the case. But as time went on, I did the math (numbers crunchers should appreciate this): several who call out your approach by name, and watching page views drop where you are the main commenter, it's likely more than a coincidence.

    9. I would be remiss if I failed to wish a Merry Christmas and happy holidays to my favorite troll. I'll admit, you brought a certain level of panache to the often maligned practice of trolldom. Have a fine New Year, wherever you've gone.

    10. Ah Dave, what a fine example of the Christmas Spirit. I hope it's merely a sign of you becoming as bored with your blogging as the rest of us, and not of deeper problems at home.

    11. The wish was sincere, as was the compliment. Of course you're a troll. Everyone can see it. But, as I said, a giant among trolls, if you'll pardon the terms.

    12. Wrapping 'Merry Christmas' around 'you troll' is plainly neither sincere nor complimentary. Everyone can see it.

      Sigh. Is Shea on a holiday break? Has the Traditional Catholic Bloggers circle-jerk lost all its allure? Are the holidays at Maison Griffey so dull that interaction with me is what you yearn for?

    13. I believe Mark's computer broke and that's why he was silent for a bit. Plus Christmas and all. Same here. Though again, the wish was sincere. You're a troll, it's not an insult, it's a fact. But a troll who isn't the usual type. Sometimes you weren't a troll, and that was the best, because you typically had interesting points to make. Nonetheless, I could take the troll part as well, and sincerely wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

  4. Oh, and the fact remains it was pointless to bring up financial cost. That was on you, not Ben.

    1. Hih, i never knew i was mentioned on this page. Good to know i got under andre's skin.

    2. Yeah. Andre was the worst kind of Troll because clearly he was intelligent and had a lot to offer. Sometimes he actually just commented, and those were interesting and insightful. But too often he went into his Troll mode, and that became the problem. I kept trying to debate in good faith, and that's where things went sour for my posts. At one point even other Patheos contributors and visitors mentioned I was feeding the trolls too often. A shame. Again, he was clearly intelligent but, alas, too swept up in the whole millennial age of 'post-Truth win at all costs and confuse it with being right' shtick. Though in no way should we assume Andre was the only one, just the epitome of.


Let me know your thoughts