Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc. Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses. The skeptics never address this. Never. Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.
Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases? Yep. So darn it - those skeptics never address it. They stick to using scientific terms and constructs. Yeah. Let's hear about that radiosity. But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject. But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance? Makes no sense. Oh. Wait. It's WARMIST talking. Yeah, I understand now. Lol...
measurable properties of gasses....
The skeptics never address this.... What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address? My impression is zero. ) Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades? If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity? I'm listening... little man. Absorption and emission lines from gases create the radiation spectrum. View a star through a gas cloud, the spectrum will have missing lines. View the same cloud from the side, they will be emitted as spectral lines. You appear to be struggling to find words to describe the phenomena called an atmospheric greenhouse effect. http://www.coyoteblog.com/the-basics-of-the-greenhouse-gas-effect. Does not seem like you grasped that. I could have described the process, but I was wishing to use a single word to refer to it. It seems like radiosity isn't used in that context by anything I see, but the concepts are very similar to a lay person. None the less, you seem to understand the above to some extent. So what part of the cause do you disagree with? |
|
|
|
Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc. Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses. The skeptics never address this. Never. Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.
Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases? Yep. So darn it - those skeptics never address it. They stick to using scientific terms and constructs. Yeah. Let's hear about that radiosity. But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject. But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance? Makes no sense. Oh. Wait. It's WARMIST talking. Yeah, I understand now. Lol...
measurable properties of gasses....
The skeptics never address this.... What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address? My impression is zero. ) Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades? If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity? I'm listening... little man. |
|
|
|
oh, You Asked for a Global Conspiracy? You mean that you presented a straw man argument. We've all seen that done before. It gets you laughed at.
See bolded above. Answers itself.
Next. Paragraph with key words Narcissist, history, marxist conspiracy, meta-critique, "deep ties to oil and gas." Sounds like a bullshit paradigm.
I notice you delicately tiptoe around any and all hard science. That's quite revealing.
[Lunatic rambling snipped to keep on subject.]
Now, let's have a moment of truthiness. What's your problem exactly with "Deep ties to oil and gas?"
Lets address this right here. If you don't understand an argument that does not make it a strawman. Whose fault is it for not understanding? It could be either of us. Let me try again. Global warming skeptics/deniers claim that it is all a big money driven ploy because the scientists need jobs. Something like that. I simply ask for one example of history where this has been true. Where such an overwhelming ratio of actual scientists agree on something that is wrong, just because they need money/funding. Coming up with the piltdown man or what have you is fine, but you seem to not understand the difference in magnitude and why those examples are laughable. Eugenics?? ooook. My problem with "deep ties to oil and gas" is that is shows an IMMEDIATE and DIRECT conflict of interest. Scientists have looked for the truth even when it isn't popular. That is what Western science is built upon. Yes, you will be able to find countless counter-examples but NEVER an example of a conspiracy anywhere near the magnitude of what we see with the consensus on global warming. It also isn't even strictly about money. It is about wanting to not see themselves as the asshole thats fucking over the rest of the world. If one has a conscious and exists off an industry that fucks over the climate then they will always want to see themselves as not being a piece of shit. (Global warming isn't a reversible thing like a standard poison. THis will be changing the climate for the forseeable future. It is a problem of a different class.) So there are other huge biases going on. It would be far more respectable if he was someone motivated by truth and not vested interests. I'm not sure where you get I am ducking the hard science or whatever you said. (don't care to reread your nonsense too much). That is a common claim. I would like to read 1 source that has been written/reviewed and explains why the precepts of global warming are false. I'm far too smart to entertain the notion that I can do all the research myself. So yes I am ducking it to some extent. One last thing - Don't get so angry you break your keyboard showing everyone you are an "independent thinker".
Global warming skeptics/deniers claim...I don't think you even know what "global warming skeptics/deniers claim." Your ignorance is being revealed each time you type. Global warming isn't a reversible thing like a standard poison. This will be changing the climate for the forseeable future. It is a problem of a different class.My refutation of the 2006 estimates of co2 sensitivity refute your ridiculous alarmist beliefs. I'm not sure where you get I am ducking the hard science ....I'm far too smart....yes I am ducking it ....How about that. You want to state truths about the science but duck and dodge learning or reading or thinking about the science.
I would like to read 1 source that has been written/reviewed and explains why the precepts of global warming are false. Nobody's stopping you except the illusions in your own head. Why not start with three Big Lies? A. There was no Medieval Warm Period. B. There was no Little Ice Age. C. Climate over the last one or two thousand years, graphed, has a hockey stick shape. And then there's that RADIOSITY, man. Oh YEAH. Do you light up green in the dark? The new greenie RADIOSITY? Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc. Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses. The skeptics never address this. Never. Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'. I'm not sure what you're going on about the big three lies. One can look around to ample evidence of global warming coming about and it is about right on schedule with the majority of projections. More strawman bullshit. I would like to see it laid out why global warming is made up, starting with the theories on what causes global warming. I never see this. Yet these same clowns will brow-beat everyone over some bits and pieces which they claim are true. (They may well be.) The weed smoking reference is you floundering about. Weren't you the one going on about the ad hominem attacks? |
|
|
|
oh, You Asked for a Global Conspiracy? You mean that you presented a straw man argument. We've all seen that done before. It gets you laughed at.
See bolded above. Answers itself.
Next. Paragraph with key words Narcissist, history, marxist conspiracy, meta-critique, "deep ties to oil and gas." Sounds like a bullshit paradigm.
I notice you delicately tiptoe around any and all hard science. That's quite revealing.
[Lunatic rambling snipped to keep on subject.]
Now, let's have a moment of truthiness. What's your problem exactly with "Deep ties to oil and gas?"
Lets address this right here. If you don't understand an argument that does not make it a strawman. Whose fault is it for not understanding? It could be either of us. Let me try again. Global warming skeptics/deniers claim that it is all a big money driven ploy because the scientists need jobs. Something like that. I simply ask for one example of history where this has been true. Where such an overwhelming ratio of actual scientists agree on something that is wrong, just because they need money/funding. Coming up with the piltdown man or what have you is fine, but you seem to not understand the difference in magnitude and why those examples are laughable. Eugenics?? ooook. My problem with "deep ties to oil and gas" is that is shows an IMMEDIATE and DIRECT conflict of interest. Scientists have looked for the truth even when it isn't popular. That is what Western science is built upon. Yes, you will be able to find countless counter-examples but NEVER an example of a conspiracy anywhere near the magnitude of what we see with the consensus on global warming. It also isn't even strictly about money. It is about wanting to not see themselves as the asshole thats fucking over the rest of the world. If one has a conscious and exists off an industry that fucks over the climate then they will always want to see themselves as not being a piece of shit. (Global warming isn't a reversible thing like a standard poison. THis will be changing the climate for the forseeable future. It is a problem of a different class.) So there are other huge biases going on. It would be far more respectable if he was someone motivated by truth and not vested interests. I'm not sure where you get I am ducking the hard science or whatever you said. (don't care to reread your nonsense too much). That is a common claim. I would like to read 1 source that has been written/reviewed and explains why the precepts of global warming are false. I'm far too smart to entertain the notion that I can do all the research myself. So yes I am ducking it to some extent. One last thing - Don't get so angry you break your keyboard showing everyone you are an "independent thinker". |
|
|
|
People involved in crypto-currencies are an interesting lot but they all have a huge bias against accepted reality. It is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. I'm not saying they're anymore 'wrong' than the average Joe, but their biases in this regard are far beyond the average Joe.
Finding a hive of climate science deniers on here should be of no surprise to anyone.
Yes, not terribly surprising. Many of us here on the bitcointalk.org forum questioned and researched the highly propagandized 'understandings' of the fiat monetary systems and that is why we are here. It is a proclivity which correlates to the questioning of other similarly propagandized 'understandings' implanted to achieve a designed effect among the plebs. Usually associated with lining the pockets of a select few at the top. You can look around and see many changes already in play from global warming and we're just getting started. Critical thought and fighting against group think is an admiral and desired trait. That doesn't mean you can blindly apply it. Once you do that, you're no better than the group-thinkers. I have yet to be aware of any sort of global conspiracy amongst actual scientists to refer to historically for comparison. (Actual scientists = those who do science for the sake of furthering humanity's understanding) Scientists are the one group of people we can trust in a general sense. They're aware of their own biases far more than any other group. .... Well, let's see. I have my handy textbook from the early 1900s with a complete chapter on Piltdown man. I guess we can trust that, right? And we can certainly trust all the progressive ideas from the 1920s and 1930s about Eugenics. How about Lysenko? Oh, you probably never heard of him. Now go back to your condescending lecturing. No, wait a minute. It just happens that ten years ago I was telling similar people with rocks for brains that the evidence seemed to indicate climate sensitivity was considerably lower than they thought science said it was. They called me a Denier. But I was right, and they were wrong. So maybe you should STFU? My experience is that people that make glossy, broad brush statements, particularly about "groups" as you do with your keen vision, in fact know very little, which is the reason they stick with broad statements. If you would like to defend estimates of climate sensitivity from objective sources from 2006, be my guest. However, I rather think you don't even know what the term means, how it is derived and used, or what relevance it has for the subject at hand. Mild, diffuse forms of ad hominem are still ad hominem, and are still a way to lose the argument. I asked for a global conspiracy. Yes, one can go through and find instances where scientists have been wrong. You still didn't find one example of a global conspiracy amongst all scientists that is anywhere like we see with the agreement on global warming. No one ever attacks the basic science dealing with the radiosity of CO2 and other gasses. Never. If you guys had a legitimate point, you would. I was getting into it with some narcissist who went to Columbia with a history degree. His thing was it some was some marxist conspiracy. At first he appealed to science, but then I asked for 1 decent meta-critique of what the issues with global warming science are. He then started googling with some random webpage. It was beyond lol. Turned out he has deep ties to oil and gas. You can trust the scientific community far more than any other community except perhaps those with MDs. There are reasons for this which I don't need to go into for anyone because most have functional brains. You pointing out a few counter-examples does not really mean anything. You did far more ad hominem attacking than I did, but your dysfunctional brain with all of its horrible biases fails in making this apparent to you. |
|
|
|
|
Like someone else said. GO with Linux. Be a man.
Outside of that you should look into a graphical keyboard. Although I suppose it depends on where they hook into the keyboard. If they specifically read the hardware keyboard device then you'd be covered. If they hook into some keyboard abstraction then no you wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Reading back a few pages this whole thread is more or less a series of strawmen laid out to try and justify an otherwise untenable position.
|
|
|
|
Who should do the curating of the internet? People like you?
You ask these unrelated random questions but I feel inclined to answer them, police officers and free will be dammed! The 'internet' is a bunch of privately owned sites. Policy should be up to whoever owns the site in question. Reddit is good because there are so many communities, but I'd prefer a series of privately held forums. Reddit is good because it keeps you from having to read the worst postings. Reddit is bad because it is rule by the majority. While I believe in global warming, (lol duh) I don't believe in the majority subjugating the minority. You guys and the anti-vaccine crowd should be able to post your stuff somewhere just not wherever you desire. Bitcointalk is pretty cool in that regard and here we are. |
|
|
|
People involved in crypto-currencies are an interesting lot but they all have a huge bias against accepted reality. It is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. I'm not saying they're anymore 'wrong' than the average Joe, but their biases in this regard are far beyond the average Joe.
Finding a hive of climate science deniers on here should be of no surprise to anyone.
Should people voicing a different opinion than yours be banned from the internet? Nope. I preferred the internet 20 years ago when it was very select, but there is no going back now. In general I am against censoring, but people have a right to not have to read nonsense, just like many other rights. 20 years ago only the bourgeois had access to the internet through a paid portal like compuserve, via a paid land line. Now with a dumb phone and $10 prepaid card you have access to information, stupid facebook, etc. Why would anyone want this kind of elitism back among us? No one is forcing you to participate in this thread. Yet you are so used to a life of servitude you cannot understand why a police officer can't help you not have the free will to not reply... Strange, but...I love it when they start projecting on others about their 'servitude etc'. My internet access was through fraudulent university access and I borrowed my first modem. I prefer an internet full of the geekiest of the geeks and not others. The internet didn't appeal to those who were not driven out of curiosity. There are reasons people like reddit etc with all their upvoting/censoring aka "curating". That reason is there is a ton of crap. Seriously though, no idea what you mean by the rambling stuff about police officers, free will, and replying or not replying in this thread. I replied to this thread quite a bit a couple years ago. I still remember some of the posters. Wilikinson, Spendulus ... still going at it. I'll move on shortly. I just like kicking and pissing on antbeds. |
|
|
|
People involved in crypto-currencies are an interesting lot but they all have a huge bias against accepted reality. It is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. I'm not saying they're anymore 'wrong' than the average Joe, but their biases in this regard are far beyond the average Joe.
Finding a hive of climate science deniers on here should be of no surprise to anyone.
Yes, not terribly surprising. Many of us here on the bitcointalk.org forum questioned and researched the highly propagandized 'understandings' of the fiat monetary systems and that is why we are here. It is a proclivity which correlates to the questioning of other similarly propagandized 'understandings' implanted to achieve a designed effect among the plebs. Usually associated with lining the pockets of a select few at the top. You can look around and see many changes already in play from global warming and we're just getting started. Critical thought and fighting against group think is an admiral and desired trait. That doesn't mean you can blindly apply it. Once you do that, you're no better than the group-thinkers. I have yet to be aware of any sort of global conspiracy amongst actual scientists to refer to historically for comparison. (Actual scientists = those who do science for the sake of furthering humanity's understanding) Scientists are the one group of people we can trust in a general sense. They're aware of their own biases far more than any other group. A lot of the guys on here will never see a conspiracy they didn't like. If most scientists are doing this for money, they're really going about getting rich in a stupid/inefficient way. <scratches head> |
|
|
|
People involved in crypto-currencies are an interesting lot but they all have a huge bias against accepted reality. It is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. I'm not saying they're anymore 'wrong' than the average Joe, but their biases in this regard are far beyond the average Joe.
Finding a hive of climate science deniers on here should be of no surprise to anyone.
Should people voicing a different opinion than yours be banned from the internet? Nope. I preferred the internet 20 years ago when it was very select, but there is no going back now. In general I am against censoring, but people have a right to not have to read nonsense, just like many other rights. |
|
|
|
The actual satellite data sets show no statistically significant warming. In lay terms, that means no trend. What's your definitition of "statistically significant" ? Since the start of the satellite measurements the temperature has risen about 1 degree Celsius, 0.4 degree of you don't count the current El Nino. You can tell Spendulus is a deluded schmuck. Say something really basic, then follow up with 'in lay terms'. The fact is, 'statistically significant' is a subjective term. People who are smart enough and trained appropriately are able to see outside the biases of their little mammalian brains. I know it is sexy to think you're the on the right side with your version of the truth, but delusions are just another inescapable part of man and his ego. |
|
|
|
|
People involved in crypto-currencies are an interesting lot but they all have a huge bias against accepted reality. It is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. I'm not saying they're anymore 'wrong' than the average Joe, but their biases in this regard are far beyond the average Joe.
Finding a hive of climate science deniers on here should be of no surprise to anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
ETH seems over priced still. Who wants to sell BTC? Not many. BTC will go up til we're past the halvening and ETH will go down.
|
|
|
|
|
The answer depends on their age ?
400k ~ 20 is doing well.
400k ~ 60 is meh.
|
|
|
|
|
So the hostile takeover guys were able to cause the price increase and it has never corrected?
|
|
|
|
Congrats on keeping this project alive, guys.
I have a web application that I wish to poll the balance of a NEM address. Usually you can do this via an API somewhere, but the blockexplorer's don't have an API available that I have seen. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to easily do this?
You can do this via the API: http://bob.nem.ninja/docs/#requesting-the-account-dataThis is exactly what I want to do,but I do not wish to maintain a NEM wallet/node. I was hoping for a place that had this sort of thing running that is publicly available? theres a list of nodes on that page with public IP's. you should be able to query those nodes without problem. if you need to access information that you need the private key for, you might have to run ncc locally, connect to a remote nis and query the blockchain via Ncc. not 100% on the details but i think thats right I tried and get this... {"timeStamp":32002963,"error":"Bad Request","message":"address must be valid","status":400} http://127.0.0.1:7890/account/get?address=TALICELCD3XPH4FFI5STGGNSNSWPOTG5E4DS2TOSThe above doesn't work and I tried pulling accounts out of the explorer. THe ones starting with an N and a few dashes. I tried removing the dash. What would be a valid address for the above API call to work?
You're using a testnet address (starting with "T") and your node is prob on the mainnet. No. Please reread what I said. Can someone give me the URL to a valid lookup that works? All I want is one NEM account having the account read via the API. I could try it again, but that seems pointless. Below is one example of what I have tried and no it is not a testnet. http://45.32.146.181:7890/account/get?address=NCYTL6-4ZHYFV-DCZY4H-LDA4FI-JZHGHS |
|
|
|
Congrats on keeping this project alive, guys.
I have a web application that I wish to poll the balance of a NEM address. Usually you can do this via an API somewhere, but the blockexplorer's don't have an API available that I have seen. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to easily do this?
You can do this via the API: http://bob.nem.ninja/docs/#requesting-the-account-dataThis is exactly what I want to do,but I do not wish to maintain a NEM wallet/node. I was hoping for a place that had this sort of thing running that is publicly available? theres a list of nodes on that page with public IP's. you should be able to query those nodes without problem. if you need to access information that you need the private key for, you might have to run ncc locally, connect to a remote nis and query the blockchain via Ncc. not 100% on the details but i think thats right I tried and get this... {"timeStamp":32002963,"error":"Bad Request","message":"address must be valid","status":400} http://127.0.0.1:7890/account/get?address=TALICELCD3XPH4FFI5STGGNSNSWPOTG5E4DS2TOSThe above doesn't work and I tried pulling accounts out of the explorer. THe ones starting with an N and a few dashes. I tried removing the dash. What would be a valid address for the above API call to work? |
|
|
|
Congrats on keeping this project alive, guys.
I have a web application that I wish to poll the balance of a NEM address. Usually you can do this via an API somewhere, but the blockexplorer's don't have an API available that I have seen. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to easily do this?
You can do this via the API: http://bob.nem.ninja/docs/#requesting-the-account-dataThis is exactly what I want to do,but I do not wish to maintain a NEM wallet/node. I was hoping for a place that had this sort of thing running that is publicly available? |
|
|
|
|
Congrats on keeping this project alive, guys.
I have a web application that I wish to poll the balance of a NEM address. Usually you can do this via an API somewhere, but the blockexplorer's don't have an API available that I have seen. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to easily do this?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
