Dangerously Cold Record Low Temps

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Agreed. That's my whole issue; it's not whether or not it's happening, it's what people, Democrats, think that they therefore have a mandate to do about it ...

dunno if you're familiar with jordan peterson - he's a clinician psychologist with a keen analytical mind, approaches a problem from a scientific perspective - his take on it is one that should be considered:
start at 1:17 if you're impatient:
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
dunno if you're familiar with jordan peterson - he's a clinician psychologist with a keen analytical mind, approaches a problem from a scientific perspective - his take on it is one that should be considered:

Peterson is an interesting guy. He's done some good academic work, regarding the sociology of extremism. I'm not so convinced his modern revival of Jungian trait theory, which derives from eugenic beliefs, is of any value.

Notable trait-based theorists are Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton.

Their ideas, published in the mid-1800s, did much to establish and reinforce popular support for trait-based leadership thinking then, and for many years afterwards.

Trait theory can be traced to Francis Galton's (cousin of Charles Darwin) infamous work, hereditary genius, published in 1869. In this book - most well known as being the foundations of eugenics - Galton hypothesised two important notions with regards to leadership:

1. That it's a unique ability, possessed by certain extraordinary individuals, and their opinions and decisions are capable of bringing about radical changes.

2. These unique attributes are part of their genetic makeup; therefore, leadership is hereditary.

Galton and Carlyle both suggested that some people were "natural born leaders", inheriting the talents required to lead groups of individuals.

The general acceptance of trait-based leadership theory remained virtually unchallenged for around a hundred years, when in the mid 20th century more modern ways of researching leadership started uncovered inconsistencies in the trait-based ideas. However, new thinkers during the early 1980s led to a revival, and a new form of Trait Theory.

https://www.businessballs.com/leadership-models/trait-theory-carlyle-and-galton/

Peterson was a serious academic with rock-solid credentials and academic publications within his discipline. He has a PhD from McGill University, one of Canada’s best universities, taught and researched at Harvard University, and was a tenured Professor at the University of Toronto...

Peterson is a social conservative of a particular type. He’s Christian. He thinks men are inherently different than women and that is a positive versus merely interesting thing. He has a theory of masculinity, which is patriarchal in nature. He has a strong belief — see his lobster metaphor — that humans are inherently and innately hierarchical and that men should be more dominant. He’s on record as espousing enforced monogamy. He refuses to use gender-neutral pronouns. Some social conservatives find his stance appealing; some social conservatives don’t. Therein lies another divide.

https://medium.com/s/story/jordan-p...his-weaknesses-not-his-strengths-d385e7bb9856

Here is the complete list of Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life:

Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
Make friends with people who want the best for you
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Tell the truth — or, at least, don’t lie
Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
Be precise in your speech
Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street


Which resonates well with me; my Mom told me almost all of these things, although she advised me to be precise in speech and writing, and advised me to be kind to animals generally.


Nevertheless, he has some interesting idea on why people go off the deep end politically.

Why have people from different cultures and eras formulated myths and stories with similar structures? What does this similarity tell us about the mind, morality, and structure of the world itself? From the author of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos comes a provocative hypothesis that explores the connection between what modern neuropsychology tells us about the brain and what rituals, myths, and religious stories have long narrated. A cutting-edge work that brings together neuropsychology, cognitive science, and Freudian and Jungian approaches to mythology and narrative, Maps of Meaning presents a rich theory that makes the wisdom and meaning of myth accessible to the critical modern mind.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780203902851

Some might dismiss this as so much Jungian myth-peddling, but the Briggs/Meyers inventory is certainly useful for many people, in determining things like effective study. In particular, NT people find the usual educational system to be difficult.

At the beginning of each school year, I had students take the inventory and score themselves, suggesting that they not show me the results. I then went over learning strategies for them, suggesting that they try the ones indicated for their personality type. It seemed to work well.

ISFJs do great in the "tradiional" education system (most teachers are ISFJs) while INTPs and ENTPs are put off by the same sort of teaching. SFs are best served by the "you have to lay the foundation before you build the house" approach, while NTs do well to skip to the back of the chapter, read the summary, and then go back and filling the concept with detail.

It's a useful framework, but one shouldn't build a grand theory of mind and behavior on it. And Peterson seems to have done that.

He's not overtly sympathetic to the alt-right, which has appropriated some of his ideas that are superficially compatible with misogynistic ideologies.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Because there is no record of a "global temperature" and the estimates of what the global temperature might have been are extrapolated from the United States temperature readings.


Climate change

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists. While he agrees that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas",[55] he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:

The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in ...[55]



Freeman Dyson - smarter than the average bear - lots of youtube vids about him
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
Genuine original switched from global temperature rise to United States temperature rise. Why?

Because there is no record of a "global temperature" and the estimates of what the global temperature might have been are extrapolated from the United States temperature readings.

That's what those guys told you, but as you now realize, they lied to you:
used_stations.gif


If you thought about it, that would mean the reported global averages would closely follow the reported United States Averages. But they don't. Does it make you angry? Angry enough to start thinking for yourself?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You have a role to play here, too, Stripe.
Trying to hold you to a sensible train of thought is a full-time job.
Not everyone is data-oriented, and it's not unreasonable for us to see alternative facts offered for those inclined to such things.
"Alternative facts." :rotfl:

I'm afraid those are just called "facts."

God bless your crabby little heart.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Peterson ... work ... derives from eugenic beliefs.

The genetic fallacy. Darwinists love that one. I think they are fooled by the name. It's either that or it's the only way they can correctly be said to have invoked the word. :chuckle:

Ah, you saw it on You Tube, so it must be true.

And again. The genetic fallacy is when you believe an idea is not worthy because of where it came from.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
Peterson is an interesting guy. He's done some good academic work, regarding the sociology of extremism. I'm not so convinced his modern revival of Jungian trait theory, which derives from eugenic beliefs, is of any value.

And again. The genetic fallacy is when you believe an idea is not worthy because of where it came from.

I'm merely noting that connection between trait theory and eugenics:

Notable trait-based theorists are Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton.

Their ideas, published in the mid-1800s, did much to establish and reinforce popular support for trait-based leadership thinking then, and for many years afterwards.

Trait theory can be traced to Francis Galton's (cousin of Charles Darwin) infamous work, hereditary genius, published in 1869. In this book - most well known as being the foundations of eugenics - Galton hypothesised two important notions with regards to leadership:

1. That it's a unique ability, possessed by certain extraordinary individuals, and their opinions and decisions are capable of bringing about radical changes.

2. These unique attributes are part of their genetic makeup; therefore, leadership is hereditary.

Galton and Carlyle both suggested that some people were "natural born leaders", inheriting the talents required to lead groups of individuals.

The general acceptance of trait-based leadership theory remained virtually unchallenged for around a hundred years, when in the mid 20th century more modern ways of researching leadership started uncovered inconsistencies in the trait-based ideas. However, new thinkers during the early 1980s led to a revival, and a new form of Trait Theory.

https://www.businessballs.com/leadership-models/trait-theory-carlyle-and-galton/

As I said, Peterson has done some good work, but trait theory remains connected to the idea of eugenics, that genes are more significant than upbringing in a person's worth. Peterson, as far as his work in the literature is concerned, is not as wedded to trait theory as the alt-right would like to imagine he is.

He is probably not who you think he is...

“I had outgrown the shallow Christianity of my youth by the time I could understand the fundamentals of Darwinian theory”

Jordan Peterson The Culture of Narcissism pp195-196

Jung wasn't completely wrong; his notion of personality types has been pretty well verified in practical terms; one can use that knowledge to good effect for example, in learning.

I believe Peterson still believes he is a Christian, and he might be. But not the "shallow Christian" he was prior to learning about science, whatever that means. How learning about Darwin might make one a "deeper Christian" is a little unclear.

God bless your crabby little heart.

Well thank you, Stripe. I know you care enough about God to not use that phrase as a polemic. I can always use a blessing. It's a pleasure to see that from you, particularly since our interactions haven't always been so friendly.

Well done.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
dunno if you're familiar with jordan peterson - he's a clinician psychologist with a keen analytical mind, approaches a problem from a scientific perspective - his take on it is one that should be considered:
start at 1:17 if you're impatient:
Not bad. He didn't mention any other issue that instead ought to occupy our interest, since climate change to him is insoluble for us anyway. I said it before, and I stand by it: All our energy, effort, time, and focus, spent on addressing climate change, would be better invested in preparing for a bolide impact event, something that all scientists unanimously agree will happen sometime, they just can't say when.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event
Everybody now knows that the biggest threat to life on earth is being drilled by a meteor. Until we address this possibility, which scientists say is bound to happen some time, I have zero energy for addressing climate change. :idunno: Once we have an answer to the meteor threat, which is real, scientists say, then let's concern ourselves with climate change.
Here is an excerpt from the link above, just to underscore what I've already said:
Wikipedia 5 February 2019 said:
In April 2018, the B612 Foundation reported "It’s 100 per cent certain we’ll be hit [by a devastating asteroid], but we’re not 100 per cent certain when." Also in 2018, physicist Stephen Hawking, in his final book Brief Answers to the Big Questions, considered an asteroid collision to be the biggest threat to the planet. In June 2018, the US National Science and Technology Council warned that America is unprepared for an asteroid impact event .... According to expert testimony in the United States Congress in 2013, NASA would require at least five years of preparation before a mission to intercept an asteroid could be launched.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Barbarian observes:
It's a pity he doesn't think.

Peterson ... work ... derives from eugenic beliefs.
Repeating a logical fallacy is no way to retract it. :nono:

I'm merely noting that connection between trait theory and eugenics:
So you've got a Darwinist who you think derives his ideas from eugenics-linked thinking. It's no wonder you're still unable to engage rationally.

You're so muddled.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Our energy, effort, time, and focus, spent on addressing climate change, would be better invested in preparing for a bolide impact event, something that all scientists unanimously agree will happen sometime.

While I agree that carbon legislation is a massive fraud and utterly wasteful, and impact preparation would be worthwhile in its place, there is a minor difference of opinion I have.

The probability of a bolide impact is decreasing with time.

Eventually we will reach a point when we could all but rule it out.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
4:06 increased child(hood) nutrition in developing countries
4:55 to increase the total sum of human brainpower
Oh. I didn't think that ending world hunger was actually still a thing. I thought he was being rhetorical, but you're right, I missed it.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
While I agree that carbon legislation is a massive fraud and utterly wasteful, and impact preparation would be worthwhile in its place, there is a minor difference of opinion I have.

The probability of a bolide impact is decreasing with time.

Eventually we will reach a point when we could all but rule it out.
Are you talking about eschatology, or something else?
 
Top