Are we all fucked?

[astfgyl]

Thought it was fairly widely known that Ukraine had been at some sort of civil war with the ethnic Russians there but then I didn't really know anything about it other than seeing retrospective reports. Still don't see how that's used to justify invasion now anyway.

We over here then just get the opposite of Russia's claims ie Russia bad Ukraine good but when Russia is the aggressor it's a far easier sell because we all know who invaded who. Never had Putin down as a good guy myself but I have to say the zelensky love parade gives me the no feeling in ways I can't accurately describe all the same. Something feels really off about it.

Wish Russia would pack it in and fuck off but even that looks almost impossible at this stage

[Caomhaoin]

Ya Russia badly misjudged how the west would react.

It's all theatre though, they don't really give a fuck. Crimea was taken over with barely a raised eyebrow, and there have been Russian regulars in Ukraine since 2014. So why all the flags and screeching and sucking Zelenskyy (an odious piece of shit leading the most corrupt country in Europe) 's cock now?

German Panzers fighting Russians? Arming the Ukrainians with high end artillery systems? There is an endgame planned here, and it certainly won't be the 'liberation' of eastern Ukraine.

I wonder what would happen if Spain sent the tanks in to sort out those nippy Catalans. Turkey acts the prick constantly with the Kurds, and nobody really cared when the Russian airforce was pummelling Syrian rebels either. Why's that I wonder?

[Pagan Saviour]

And I have to laugh at the USA - if it were the Middle East they'd have been in there last February.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

It's not the middle east though. No one in the middle east poses a direct threat to the US so there's no reason not to go gung-ho in that region. Except against, say, Iran, but that's because the greatest threat there comes from their allies, i.e. China and especially Russia.

[astfgyl]

Ya Russia badly misjudged how the west would react.

It's all theatre though, they don't really give a fuck. Crimea was taken over with barely a raised eyebrow, and there have been Russian regulars in Ukraine since 2014. So why all the flags and screeching and sucking Zelenskyy (an odious piece of shit leading the most corrupt country in Europe) 's cock now?

German Panzers fighting Russians? Arming the Ukrainians with high end artillery systems? There is an endgame planned here, and it certainly won't be the 'liberation' of eastern Ukraine.

I wonder what would happen if Spain sent the tanks in to sort out those nippy Catalans. Turkey acts the prick constantly with the Kurds, and nobody really cared when the Russian airforce was pummelling Syrian rebels either. Why's that I wonder?

This is close to how I feel about how off it all is.

As an aside I work with a Catalan and when we were first introduced I called her Spanish.

Only once.

[mickO)))]

Have to say I'd like to see Epstein's list all the same, just to see a few lads squirming over it

Saw a bit on the Epstein list last night with Whitney Webb. Nothing significant is going to come out it looks like this release will just be crumbs to make people think they are not hiding anything. Apparently everyone that is on the list has agreed to be named and they have been ready preparing for months with legal people etc for any backlash.
A women who named Alan Dershowitz as being with her on the island when she was underage has come forth and said she got him mixed up with someone else which will also give anyone on the list an easy out as they can just use the same excuse.

[astfgyl]

Have to say I'd like to see Epstein's list all the same, just to see a few lads squirming over it

Saw a bit on the Epstein list last night with Whitney Webb. Nothing significant is going to come out it looks like this release will just be crumbs to make people think they are not hiding anything. Apparently everyone that is on the list has agreed to be named and they have been ready preparing for months with legal people etc for any backlash.
A women who named Alan Dershowitz as being with her on the island when she was underage has come forth and said she got him mixed up with someone else which will also give anyone on the list an easy out as they can just use the same excuse.

I think the whole thing will be a classic example of "too big to fail". If anything like the scale of what's suggested with the calibre of names that have been touted about unofficially, it will be buried deeper than the mother and baby homes

[astfgyl]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

It's not the results that'll have us fucked then, more the interpretation of them and the chosen solutions to said interpretation.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

That article took a very long time to get to this:

But scientists are under pressure to explain why the warming has not exceeded 1998 levels although the decade 2000-2010 was the hottest on record.

I don't think they are under pressure to explain that, since they understand probability and statistics. Taking a broader window evens out the averages, so 2000-2010 being the hottest decade on record is a much more significant measurement than any given single year outside of that window being the hottest year (remember all those COVID mortality graphs, 3-day moving average, 7-day moving average; same logic). Hard to know what to say on the matter: it's not good to ask for facts to be redacted, but it's worse that scientific literacy is on average so low that their reasoning, though not right imo, is not without basis.

[astfgyl]

That article took a very long time to get to this:

But scientists are under pressure to explain why the warming has not exceeded 1998 levels although the decade 2000-2010 was the hottest on record.

I don't think they are under pressure to explain that, since they understand probability and statistics. Taking a broader window evens out the averages, so 2000-2010 being the hottest decade on record is a much more significant measurement than any given single year outside of that window being the hottest year (remember all those COVID mortality graphs, 3-day moving average, 7-day moving average; same logic). Hard to know what to say on the matter: it's not good to ask for facts to be redacted, but it's worse that scientific literacy is on average so low that their reasoning, though not right imo, is not without basis.

Don't get me wrong, I thought about the decade Vs year thing too but there's so much conflicting stuff and much of it political from both sides that it's getting impossible to get to the bottom of it so it's like pick a belief and run with it.

Same reason I gave up on the covid argument. It's just mostly beyond me but seemingly beyond many nations and scientific groups too

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

There really isn't much conflicting stuff at the level of measurement and observation. Genuine conflict comes in when people slice up the data to suit and push an agenda. Scientists aren't immune to this kind of behavior, but when they do so they're acting as activists, not scientists. Here's how a scientist looks at the data, in this case comparing record temperatures in 2016 with those in 1998 and commenting on what, if anything, they mean as isolated data points. Spoiler: "not really" anything.

Globally, 2016 edged out 1998 by +0.02 C to become the warmest year in the 38-year satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Because the margin of error is about 0.10 C, this would technically be a statistical tie, with a higher probability that 2016 was warmer than 1998. The main difference was the extra warmth in the Northern Hemisphere in 2016 compared to 1998.

"The question is, does 2016's record warmth mean anything scientifically?" Christy said. "I suppose the answer is, not really. Both 1998 and 2016 are anomalies, outliers, and in both cases we have an easily identifiable cause for that anomaly: A powerful El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event. While El Niños are natural climatic events, they also are transient. In the study of climate, we are more concerned with accurately identifying long-term temperature trends than we are with short-term spikes and dips, especially when those spikes and dips have easily identified natural causes.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170104130257.htm

[The Butcher]

A good question is if you are going to do rolling averages then what time frame is appropriate for climate? A decade? A hundred year rolling average, a thousand year rolling average?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures

Not really seeing where these are saying the temperature hasnt increased - i.e that daily mail thing says it stopped for a period. I think what they did was average a few years(rolling average) and draw a line like this ->


Statistical noise!

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

It is a good question. Depends on the scientific question being asked, right? If you want to try to assess the contribution of man-made activity since the industrial revolution, so say the last ~150 years or so, then a century or anything longer won't tell you much. But if you want to compare the temperature rise in that period to temperature rises within a similar window earlier in history, then a hundred year window would be more appropriate. And moving forward, even if the dominant cause (man-made or natural) of temperature rise remained a bit of a mystery, the more practical question would be whether opposing man-made activities can redress the rise (flatten the curve! ). And for that, you'd be again hoping that ten-year windows could reveal something, since if it takes a hundred years to assess differences, then it will be very difficult to evaluate whether a given strategy is the right one. That challenge might ultimately be insurmountable, but differences observable within 10-year (or 20-year, but definitely less than 100-year) windows is what strategy needs to aim for. At least, that's how I see it, and as I said, that doesn't rule out the potential impossibility of man-made "corrections" having any observable difference.

[astfgyl]

A good question is if you are going to do rolling averages then what time frame is appropriate for climate? A decade? A hundred year rolling average, a thousand year rolling average?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures

Not really seeing where these are saying the temperature hasnt increased - i.e that daily mail thing says it stopped for a period. I think what they did was average a few years(rolling average) and draw a line like this ->


Statistical noise!

They did, but they're all arguing now about how to present what data they have so I dunno. It certainly doesn't feel any warmer here

[astfgyl]

https://www.irishmirror.ie/lifestyle/motoring/drivers-just-discovering-magic-button-29404801

Yeah we're fucked lol