And The Consensus Is…

Posted in Politics, Society, The Environment on August 22nd, 2015

Climate Consensus - Warmists are bad at mathClimate Consensus – Warmists Are Bad At Math

Of course, to be heartlessly fair, this a breakdown of a large swath of the scientific community. If one limited the polling to only “Climatologists,” the consensus of belief-in-detail in Anthropogenic Climate Change with CO2 emissions as the sole or primary cause is over 95%. Hence, most of the queried scientists aren’t properly certified to have or espouse an opinion, not being “Climatologists.”

Yet, to once again be heartlessly fair, Climatology is nothing be a degree in Geology with a handful of extra credit hours attached to it is a degree that was created by the Warmists themselves a decade or so ago. As it teaches the revealed truth of Global Warming as a postulate and scientific truth, of course those degree holders are in orthodox consensus; they wouldn’t be able to be published otherwise and would perish. Hence, their magisterium is invalid and unfounded upon anything but fiat.

Eppure Si Raffredda

Yeah, the Warmists are quite bad at math…and Economics, Political Science, and History – and obviously have zero understanding of even the basics of Chaos Theory. They are, however, quite good at Theater Arts and fairly good at creative Theology and Divinity.

Related Reading:

Creative Cursing: A Mix 'n' Match Profanity Generator
Reality TV (Polity Key Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies)
The Official Dictionary of Sarcasm Postcards: 45 Cards for Those of Us Who Are Better and Smarter Than the Rest of You
CO2 in Seawater: Equilibrium, Kinetics, Isotopes, Volume 65 (Elsevier Oceanography Series)
Secrets of Mental Math: The Mathemagician's Guide to Lightning Calculation and Amazing Math Tricks

You Have To Believe

Posted in Politics on April 5th, 2015

Much of life and almost all of geopolitics and diplomacy is based upon faith. The actors involved has to believe that others will hold at least somewhat true to their word. The question, sometimes an existential question, is how much can one rationally believe.

Which is easier to believe in, the truthfulness of the raghead ayatollas or the Easter Bunny
Which Is Easier To Believe In?

Well, which is easier to believe in, that the Ayatollahs ruling Iran will allow their semi-secular puppet government that we’re negotiating a nuclear deal with to abide by their word to “The Great Satan” or the Easter Bunny?

Of course, Obama says, “If Iran cheats, the world will know it.” In this, I think the boy is right though, himself, less than truthful through misdirection and omission.

Tel Aviv Being Nuked
If Iran Cheats, The World Will Know It

Yeah, If Iran cheats, the world will know it…when Hamas, Hezbollah, or some other Iranian proxy detonates a nuclear weapon in Tel Aviv. And that, Ladies, Gentleman, and any of you Libtards who might be reading this, is far, far easier to believe in than either the Ayatollahs’ honor or the Easter Bunny.

Related Reading:

Lies (The David Chance Series Book 3)
Nuclear Weapons Encyclopedia: The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (Glasstone and Dolan Reference on Atomic Explosions), Nuclear Matters Handbook (Practical Guide to American Nuclear Delivery Systems)
Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore
Vix Reynard and the League of Astonishing Vermin (UDig)
Hezbollah and Hamas: A Comparative Study

But Whose Truths?

Posted in Politics, Society, Technology on March 9th, 2015

Google modifies, tweaks, and just plain changes its search algorithm on a regular basis, most often to disrupt the effectiveness of Search Engine Optimization (SEO) efforts. Now, however, a Google research team is trying to change  the algorithm, to measure the “trustworthiness” of a page, rather than its reputation across the web.

The system – which is has not yet gone live – counts the number of “incorrect” facts within a page to determine its ranking in search results instead of its reputation or popularity, as measured by incoming links, across the web.

Google Cuff Censors
Google – The Internet’s Gatekeeper

This, of course, begs the questions of whose facts? Whose truths? Who will decide what is innacurate and, hence, to be downlisted and effectively censored by Google?

Google’s answers are that facts that the web unanimously agrees upon are considered to be a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that dissent from this consensus by containing contradictory information are to be bumped down the rankings, effectively censoring them by removing them from the bulk of the web’s users.

So, insofar as the internet’s greatest gatekeeper, Google is concerned, consensus reality will be the only reality. And, of course, Google will be the arbiter of that consensus.

I guess, if Google’s plan is allowed to be implemented, nobody will read where you wrote, “And yet it moves.

Related Reading:

Elements: A Visual Exploration of Every Known Atom in the Universe
Myths & Legends: An illustrated guide to their origins and meanings
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
Seeing Patients: Unconscious Bias in Health Care
Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong