BEWARE THE STUPIDITY CONTAGION
Updated: Apr 18
So this one’s off the COVID topic but germane to the whole COVID thing, as for those of us with even a few functioning neurons know, the whole COVID thing was much more an exercise in propaganda, group-think, mass hysteria, greed, illiteracy, stupidity, and authoritarianism than it was about any kind of truly “existential” threat to the survival of the human species. Just so we’re clear, even if you accept that every “COVID death” was actually due to COVID; you know, except for the car accidents and suicides and murders and 90 year old terminal cancer patients and all, that would mean that the virus that was going to end humanity as we knew it (think back to 2020 or 21...or 22) took about eight one-hundredths of one percent of the world’s population; almost all of whom were already older than the average lifespan of a human being. I realize that may sound cold, but those are the facts. But I digress.
Today we’ll take a look at the next boogeyman coming our way, and this one is COVID on steroids. You know it, you love it; It’s called “climate change” and today’s story should give you reason to look REAL carefully at what the “experts” will be telling us about this “existential” threat. No joke man!
There’s a new “study” circulating (https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/aop/BAMS-D-22-0235.1/BAMS-D-22-0235.1.xml?tab_body=pdf) that “news” organizations (HAHAHAHA) like NPR, NBC, and even an outlet actually called “ScienceDaily” (you can’t make this up), and pretty much every other usual suspect populated by idiots and children pretending to be “reporters” could not wait to shoot into the scare-o-sphere with a headline touting (my bold) “Global warming could be juicing baseball home runs, study finds” or “Spike in major league home runs tied to climate change”
This is pretty rudimentary crap. As always, beware the “qualifiers” like “could be” or “tied to”. Anything “could be”. We saw this sort of thing repeatedly from everybody’s favorite tiny person Anthony Fauci, the king of qualifiers. See, you get to put your “ideas” into the world but since you qualify them, someday when you’re proven ridiculously wrong, you can say “That’s not really what I said.” Idiots like Rachel Maddow aren’t smart enough to understand this so they would just say things in absolutes like "A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else." See she’s an idiot who believes she’s smarter than everyone else in the room but who’s actually so dumb as to believe the "experts" and liars. Except she really didn’t listen to what the “experts” said. Fauci on the other hand said “So even though there are breakthrough infections with vaccinated people, almost always the people are asymptomatic and the level of virus is so low it makes it extremely unlikely — not impossible but very, very low likelihood — that they’re going to transmit it,” Hey remember that story? Good times. But see the difference? One’s an arrogant moron, one’s a lying weasel. Sweet.
Anyway, back to our “study” that says global warming “could be” juicing the ball. Here’s some of what this “study” actually says:
In addition to factors such as the construction of the baseball, performance-enhancing
drugs, advanced technology, analytics, and player training, climate change has been raised as a potential contributor to home run trends…The well-documented rise in home runs (Fig. 1A) has coincided with a long-term increase in gametime temperatures at baseball stadiums (Fig. 1B) and a resulting decrease in air density during games (Fig 1C). These trends have fueled spirited debate among commentators and sportswriters, including controversial arguments concerning the role of global warming (Dykstra, 2012; Samenow, 2012), but a formal analysis linking human-caused climate change and home run totals has not been performed to date.” Well thank God these guys are here to do said analysis!
How these geniuses parsed out “human-caused climate change” is anybody’s guess. I have better things to do (like picking lint out of my belly-button) than trying to figure that out…wait, what’s that? They tell us how they did it? “Here we empirically estimate the relationship between gameday temperatures and home runs across >100,000 Major League Baseball games between 1962-2019 and >220,000 individual batted balls between 2015-2019.” Oh they “estimate”. I wonder exactly what data were used by these authors who wanted to show a relationship between global warming and home runs to show said relationship between global warming and home runs…but it was an “empirical” estimate, so there’s that. If you want to really look behind the curtain of “science” you should read this paper. I dare you. These people make your eight-year-old spinning a yarn about how the dog actually ate all the cookies look like, well, an eight-year-old spinning a yarn. These “scientists”, just like all the COVID “scientists” take making shit up to an art form heretofore unseen.
Anyway, there’s lots of blah, blah, blah but they did give us some pictures. I like pictures.
Well geez, that looks pretty convincing I must say. Except you’re going to have to explain why home runs dropped continuously (fig A) from about 2000 to about 2015 while ballpark temps (fig B) continued to rise and air density (fig C) continued to fall. That little hiccup represents about 25% of their data set, but whatever. Oh, that's right, their "study" only looked at "batted balls between 2015-2019." How convenient that they looked at just five years which conveniently show an upswing in home runs as compared to the downward trajectory of home runs in the previous 15 years.
And then there’s this little inconvenient picture:
I don’t know, maybe temperatures have been falling the last four years (although I’m pretty sure that’s not what we’re constantly told). Maybe the “ideal gas law” (air density goes down as temp goes up. see graphs above) stopped working all of a sudden. Nature can be funny that way I guess. But I find it curious that this “study” was just published this month and yet their data sets conveniently ended in 2019, just as home runs began to drop precipitously. Well isn't that special. By this graph we can see that home runs increased (overall) by about 40% from 2015 to 2019 (their sample period), but then dropped by about 30% over the ensuing three years. Somebody's got some 'splainin to do.
Nevertheless, our friends at NPR tell us “‘Climate change is not just heat waves or hurricanes,’ explains Christopher Callahan, a climate science PhD student at Dartmouth College. ‘It's these subtle changes in our leisure activities that are going to start affecting people more and more in ways that we may not realize yet.’" Ooh, that sounds ominous! But hey, if it adds 30 yards to my tee shot, yay me. And our friends at ScienceDaily tell us “While the researchers attribute only 1% of recent home runs to climate change, they found that rising temperatures could account for 10% or more of home runs by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions and climate change continue unabated.” So in 80 years 10% of major league home runs “could be” (qualifier alert) attributable to climate change. Yeah, like the human race will still be here in 80 years. I thought we were all gonna be underwater by 2100. And by the way, even if that “prediction” comes true, who gives two monkey turds? Is that what all the “climate change” hysteria is about? A couple more home runs in baseball? We already have this issue. It’s called Colorado. Big deal.
The liars and idiots are not restricted to government and medicine. They’re EVERYWHERE and not only should we not be listening to them, we should be laughing them (and the mainstream media) off the stage. Remember, once bitten, twice shy. And foretold is forewarned. Don’t let the lessons you SHOULD HAVE learned from COVID fade into the ether. We’re going to need them.