Spendulus
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
 |
February 16, 2014, 06:00:37 PM
Last edit: February 16, 2014, 06:35:44 PM by Spendulus |
|
President Barack Obama offered the desperate farmers and farmworkers of the drought-stricken Central Valley a desultory relief package last week: $1 billion for a "climate resilience fund," plus "summer meals".....
Hey, free food! Attribution of any ill effect on humans from climate to 'climate change', really just the new word for 'global warming', has a remarkable similarity to astrology. All hail myth making! After all .... the science of astrology is settled...The science of phrenology is settled....
http://www.phrenology.org/intro.htmlPiltdown man has proved evilution! The science is settled!http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hoax/Nine planets revolve around the Sun! The science is settled!uh...let's not even go there... http://www.universetoday.com/15568/how-many-planets-are-in-the-solar-system/Regardless, we all agree....THERE'S A CONSENSUS... Onward Plogistons! Who would Deny Plogistonomy?https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Phlogiston_theory.html
The theory holds that all flammable materials contain phlogiston, a substance without color, odor, taste, or mass that is liberated in burning. Once burned, the "dephlogisticated" substance was held to be in its "true" form, the calx.
"Phlogisticated" substances are those that contain phlogiston and are "dephlogisticated" when burned; "in general, substances that burned in air were said to be rich in phlogiston; the fact that combustion soon ceased in an enclosed space was taken as clear-cut evidence that air had the capacity to absorb only a definite amount of phlogiston. When air had become completely phlogisticated it would no longer serve to support combustion of any material, nor would a metal heated in it yield a calx; nor could phlogisticated air support life, for the role of air in respiration was to remove the phlogiston from the body."[5]Giraffes WISHED TO BE TALL!!!!! And so they became.
http://www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html....due to Lysenko's efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lamarckism in favor of natural selection, were sent to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR. Lysenko rose to dominance at a 1948 conference in Russia where he delivered a passionate address denouncing Mendelian thought as "reactionary and decadent" and declared such thinkers to be "enemies of the Soviet people"....
Under Lysenko's guidance, science was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology.......Lysenko's methods were not condemned by the Soviet scientific community until 1965, more than a decade after Stalin's death.
Could something similar happen in the U.S.? ALL HAIL THE CONSENSUS
.... OF THE FEW!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to get the maximum amount of activity points possible, you just need to post once per day on average. Skipping days is OK as long as you maintain the average.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 17, 2014, 12:26:07 AM |
|
.... I program from a Nipa Hut and there is no lawn nor sidewalk rather chaotic natural weeds and mud. So please don't tell me about conversation. Do it. Instead they always want to spend other people's money. Guard your wallet! That is what this thread is about accomplishing.)
A Nipa hut? That's pretty nice, if you have a climate to support it. Here in and around Texas, that wouldn't work too well. Large areas only came to be inhabited after air conditioning. In fact that's true for a wide area Texas - - - > Arizona. Well, unfortunately we are at a moment when solar scientists have issued their warnings, but governments and politicians have not/can not, apparently, listen. http://pjmedia.com/blog/cooling-kills-governments-must-shift-to-cold-preparation/I am not saying that there is any certainty of another Little Ice Age, and nobody can. Only that of the short and medium term possibilities of climate change, this is the most serious and the least (read:zero) prepared for. |
|
|
|
|
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
|
|
February 17, 2014, 05:12:10 PM |
|
Britain's Green Party has called for the ouster of climate change sceptics within the British government, in what critics have called a 'quasi-fascist' move to force the issue. Green Party leader Natalie Bennett, whose party has one Member of Parliament in former leader Caroline Lucas, specifically targeted Conservative government ministers Owen Paterson and Eric Pickles, demanding that those who refuse to accept "the scientific consensus on climate change" should be removed from the positions. Australian-born Bennett told the BBC that "...those are situations that cannot be allowed to continue in government. People need to accept the reality and need to act to take the choices we need to deal with climate change". When asked if her comments were being interpreted correctly, and if she really meant that every senior government adviser, even those not linked to environmental issues, should be removed for their climate change scepticism, Bennett responded, "Yes... we would ask the government to remove them." But her comments have been slated as 'quasi-fascistic' by leading climate change sceptic Dr. Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Peiser, speaking to the Express, said, "[Sacking climate change sceptics] is a quasi-fascist policy. Do they want a ministry of climate change truth to vet every member of the Government? They might have to torture them to find out if they are a sceptic or not. It's a policy you would get in the Soviet Union." Bennett's comments come as Professor Mat Collins, an expert in climate systems at the University of Exeter, dismissed claims that Britain's recent flooding was a result of climate change, but instead a result of the jet stream being stuck further south than usual. Prof. Collins told the Mail on Sunday: "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge." http://youtu.be/DHivCQQShNAhttp://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/17/Greens-want-ouster-of-cabinet-climatesceptics |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 17, 2014, 06:13:46 PM |
|
Britain's Green Party has called for the ouster of climate change sceptics within the British government, in what critics have called a 'quasi-fascist' move to force the issue.....
I'd still like one of these clowns to try to define skeptic. Could have a lot of committee meetings about that. Blue Ribbon Panels. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
|
February 17, 2014, 06:42:21 PM
Last edit: February 18, 2014, 09:31:13 PM by AnonyMint |
|
.... I program from a Nipa Hut and there is no lawn nor sidewalk rather chaotic natural weeds and mud. So please don't tell me about conservation. Do it. Instead they always want to spend other people's money. Guard your wallet! That is what this thread is about accomplishing.)
A Nipa hut? That's pretty nice, if you have a climate to support it. Here in and around Texas, that wouldn't work too well. Large areas only came to be inhabited after air conditioning. In fact that's true for a wide area Texas - - - > Arizona. Ditto harsh winters. Those who water their lawns (instead of a garden of rocks) in Texas and Arizona are an example of what I was writing about. I lived in Corpus Christi, TX in 2002. Water in the west is a scarce resource. The Carbon Life Cycle of the earth is a renewable and self-correcting system. The burden-of-proof is on the Malthusians to prove beyond any reasonable doubt otherwise.
Edit: it is ironic that socialists bemoan the Capitalists who capture the government (e.g. big oil companies who help cause AGW in their view), yet then they think somehow they can vote to regulate those Capitalists, but those Capitalists are in control of the voting via their ownership of the major media. Even when socialists get regulation it is always the Capitalists who game the system, e.g. Obama was handing out of carbon tax exclusions to his friends while closing coal generation plants of those who are not his friends. Thus socialism is an insoluble failure by itself. It needs a counter-balancing force otherwise it is entirely gamed and controlled by those who step in to fill the power vacuum.
There are a lot of real problems that engineering and science can solve. These have never been global social engineering projects. Never. It is a shame we waste the resources of smart people, but this is what 200 year peaking $150 trillion debt bubbles do. They always bring out the lunatic Malthusians (go study history) because the white middle class senses there is waste (due to the debt bubble) and technological unemployment (due to the debt bubble preventing humans from adjusting their education, we have a huge liberal arts & business degrees student debt bubble) and wants to blame it on something other than the debt bubble and socialism. Of course most every socialist liberal will then jump on the Malthusian bandwagon for sloppy seconds, thirds, fourths, etc.. I will be laughing (and probably in alternative fits of crying) my head off from 2016 to 2032. The cooling and warming of the earth, such as Ice Ages (even I've seen paintings of skating on the Thames river in London) and warm periods such as when there were vineyards in England, is not something we can realistically "fix" (stop) and we don't even have any proof it needs to be stopped. I know you propagandists will get busy trying to pick holes in that statement, because you are INSANE. Bye. Stay lost from life and I will stay as far away from you as possible. And doing my technological best effort to destroy your ability to tax and confiscate to pay for your nonsense and debt. Why am I angry? Because Socialists want to steal my liberty, my money, and perhaps even my life.
I associate with the economic theory discussed in this thread which calls for anarchism in balance with and constrained by socialism. I believe it is this combination in optimal/neutral equilibrium that is needed to achieve maximal progress and prosperity. Anarchism limits socialism <--> Socialism constrains anarchism It is my opinion that this economic theory is not anarchism. This is something better... this is something new.
Lacking a better term I am calling it neutralism for now. I suppose that would make me a neutralist. I would prefer to call it contentionism to imply there are two opposing forces in play. It is also a new word. That would make me a anarchistic-leaning-contentionist, meaning I admit the necessity of socialism because there can't be a complete elimination of the centralizing power vacuum but I prefer to fight on the side of anarchism. This is a better characterization of my views than minanarchism, which I formerly tentatively used. Neutralism suggests a static where there is no oscillation and upheaval. CoinCube appears to be a socialistic-leaning-contentionist. This is why I can sometimes get irritated, but as you see he forces himself back to center by demanding a realistic cost analysis of such a dubious proposition. So he desires simpler+smaller-scale, socialist solutions to the over concentration of wealth by the power vacuum (e.g. sustenance welfare for destitute), but not at the cost of insanity; whereas I would say private charity instead mostly because I don't trust socialism not to snowball to the extreme. He reins in his desires with analytical objectivity as to the outcomes of extreme socialism (I hope). AGW is extreme, radical socialism for the reason I stated at the top of this post. |
|
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 18, 2014, 12:45:12 PM |
|
A quick update for sea ice extent:
Global Sea Ice is 93,000 sq km below the 1981-2010 mean. That is 0.5% below “normal”
Antarctic Sea Ice is 706,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. That is 25% above ”normal”. Antarctic Sea Ice Extent actually rose 38,000 sq km from day 46 to day 47. Minimum could be near.
Arctic Sea Ice is 799,000 sq km below the 1981-2010 mean. That is 5.25% below “normal”.
Graphs below. Click for bigger....
Could we just imprison for life all producers of spaghetti charts? The world... would be a better place just wait... and see... |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 18, 2014, 01:30:42 PM |
|
Describe an experiment where I could even have the opportunity to definitively proven that AGW is false.
Nonsense. This is not science. It is religion and politics.
You all are insane.
Such an experiment would have to be done from space, would require more than one satellite. It would require very, very sensitive instruments monitoring moment to moment infra red emissions. The goal would be to actually assay the "bottling up of heat" per the supposed "Greenhouse effect". By comparing day to night changes in IR emissions, one could develop a model of response of the atmosphere to heat, and know the rate of change of temperature with outbound emissions. There might be technical reasons why this is impractical or could not be done. However, without it, even the "greenhouse effect" is only a poor conjecture. And you'd need to isolate all other possible complex interaction of variables such as make the sun constant or measure over 1000s of years to statistically isolate the other oscillations we've seen throughout history, etc.. In short, it is impossible. Statistical isolation of other factors is not necessary to accurately measure, and actually develop based on measured signals, a greenhouse theory. And this is the core of the warmies extrapolations. I may not have explained this very well, so let me try again. Scientists know quite well what a co2 molecule does singly or in partial pressure from lab experiments. From this they suggest it is influential in warming an atmosphere. (at this point there is great contention and uncertainty between scientific views, make no doubt about that.) What they do not know is the change in release of infra red energy into space from the upper atmosphere, under conditions of increasing change in co2 and variations in cloud cover. In the real world there is multiple direction cause and effect between variables such as co2, temperature, cloud cover, upper atmosphere energy release to space. There is no simple laboratory independent and dependent variable scenario. However.... Energy in - Energy out = heat balance, ie, temperature |
|
|
|
|
salstimda
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
February 18, 2014, 04:43:36 PM |
|
Describe an experiment where I could even have the opportunity to definitively proven that AGW is false.
Nonsense. This is not science. It is religion and politics.
You all are insane.
Such an experiment would have to be done from space, would require more than one satellite. It would require very, very sensitive instruments monitoring moment to moment infra red emissions. The goal would be to actually assay the "bottling up of heat" per the supposed "Greenhouse effect". By comparing day to night changes in IR emissions, one could develop a model of response of the atmosphere to heat, and know the rate of change of temperature with outbound emissions. There might be technical reasons why this is impractical or could not be done. However, without it, even the "greenhouse effect" is only a poor conjecture. And you'd need to isolate all other possible complex interaction of variables such as make the sun constant or measure over 1000s of years to statistically isolate the other oscillations we've seen throughout history, etc.. In short, it is impossible. Statistical isolation of other factors is not necessary to accurately measure, and actually develop based on measured signals, a greenhouse theory. And this is the core of the warmies extrapolations. I may not have explained this very well, so let me try again. Scientists know quite well what a co2 molecule does singly or in partial pressure from lab experiments. From this they suggest it is influential in warming an atmosphere. (at this point there is great contention and uncertainty between scientific views, make no doubt about that.) What they do not know is the change in release of infra red energy into space from the upper atmosphere, under conditions of increasing change in co2 and variations in cloud cover. In the real world there is multiple direction cause and effect between variables such as co2, temperature, cloud cover, upper atmosphere energy release to space. There is no simple laboratory independent and dependent variable scenario. However.... Energy in - Energy out = heat balance, ie, temperature climate change deniers are even more delusional than creationists |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 18, 2014, 05:07:35 PM
Last edit: February 18, 2014, 05:18:20 PM by Spendulus |
|
climate change deniers are even more delusional than creationists
Pretty funny, 'climate change' propagandists, they beat all for delusions... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/17/time-to-join-preppers-survive-climate-change-apocalypseI do kind of like the idea of being the last one left standing, though, somehow...not sure I like the way the article put it...
Should I take my family (and could I eat them)? |
|
|
|
|
salstimda
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
February 18, 2014, 05:18:37 PM |
|
funny how you call scientists "propagandists", that tells me alot about you |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 18, 2014, 06:32:20 PM |
|
funny how you call scientists "propagandists", that tells me a lot about you funny how you call reporters scientists, then thinking this misrepresentation would be overlooked, use that basis to produce an ad hominem attack. Anyway, you are making me laugh more than the article. Assuming the persons whom I call "propagandists" you call "scientists", then it is scientists posing the question? Should I take my family (and could I eat them)?Now, personally, I think I could do better than that. |
|
|
|
|
salstimda
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
February 18, 2014, 06:42:25 PM |
|
funny how you call scientists "propagandists", that tells me a lot about you funny how you call reporters scientists, then thinking this misrepresentation would be overlooked, use that basis to produce an ad hominem attack. Anyway, you are making me laugh more than the article. Assuming the persons whom I call "propagandists" you call "scientists", then it is scientists posing the question? Should I take my family (and could I eat them)?Now, personally, I think I could do better than that. so for you climate change scientists are no scientists, they are reporters? keep laughing, pal  |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 18, 2014, 07:32:14 PM |
|
funny how you call scientists "propagandists", that tells me a lot about you funny how you call reporters scientists, then thinking this misrepresentation would be overlooked, use that basis to produce an ad hominem attack. Anyway, you are making me laugh more than the article. Assuming the persons whom I call "propagandists" you call "scientists", then it is scientists posing the question? Should I take my family (and could I eat them)?Now, personally, I think I could do better than that. so for you climate change scientists are no scientists, they are reporters? keep laughing, pal Sure, yah...let's have it this way....I'll quote from the source linked to which you say is scientists... ....If you can trust your family, take them, but perhaps make a contingency plan for which one you'll all eat first, and discuss it in secret with the others. (You might also make another plan about who'll be eaten second, and discuss this with whoever's left. If no one discusses eating anyone with you, distrust them all.) If your family includes any young children you are not prepared to eat then your chances of success are more or less zero, but you're probably accustomed to that feeling.Wake up, dude....don't make yourself a fool of a troll. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
|
February 18, 2014, 09:29:44 PM
Last edit: February 19, 2014, 01:18:09 AM by AnonyMint |
|
|
|
|
|
|
practicaldreamer
|
|
February 18, 2014, 11:45:57 PM
Last edit: February 19, 2014, 08:13:46 PM by practicaldreamer |
|
climate change deniers are even more delusional than creationists
+1 - I could weep cold and bitter tears when I read some of the comments/posts on threads such as this. Reminds me of Bill Hicks - he had a great "fuck em" attitude, especially with regard the risks of smoking. He died aged 32. The difference with climate change is that the non smokers are gonna get shafted just the same - the punctual will pay the price for the tardy |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
|
February 19, 2014, 01:42:09 AM |
|
climate change deniers are even more delusional than creationists
+1 - I could weep cold and bitter tears when I read some of the comments/posts on threads such as this. Reminds me of Bill Hicks - had a great "fuck em" attitude, especially with regard the risks of smoking. He died aged 32. The difference with climate change is that the non smokers are gonna get shafted just the same - the punctual will pay the price for the tardy You conflate an individual decision with one that requires us to force everyone on the planet to abandon the Carbon Life Cycle of earth. That is fucking insane but like most religious zealots you don't realize how insane you are. I quote myself in reply: You are thicker than a brick. Don't you realize the Capitalists (such as the major oil companies) own Obama? (you still haven't grasped the power vacuum of democracy) They present you with an false dichotomy illusion (Hegelian dialectic) analogous to the good salesman and bad salesman trick at car dealers. I wasn't lobbied by the oil industry (I even stopped communication with my own father decade or more ago, who was a high ranking oil industry attorney). And you are too thick to understand the logic I have presented to you upthread. I guarantee you that your socialism is going to kill millions more people over the next 20 years than climate will.Your Malthusian fear has never been true in recorded human history. The Malthusians were always wrong. For example, Wikipedia the Luddites. Whereas, government has killed upwards of 250 million at least. It doesn't matter what I write, your mind is not free. It is controlled already. Edit: it is ironic that socialists bemoan the Capitalists who capture the government (e.g. big oil companies who help cause AGW in their view), yet then they think somehow they can vote to regulate those Capitalists, but those Capitalists are in control of the voting via their ownership of the major media. Even when socialists get regulation it is always the Capitalists who game the system, e.g. Obama was handing out of carbon tax exclusions to his friends while closing coal electric generation plants of those who are not his friends. Thus socialism is an insoluble failure by itself. It needs a counter-balancing force otherwise it is entirely gamed and controlled by those who step in to fill the power vacuum.
|
|
|
|
salstimda
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
February 19, 2014, 01:51:04 AM |
|
climate change deniers are even more delusional than creationists
+1 - I could weep cold and bitter tears when I read some of the comments/posts on threads such as this. Reminds me of Bill Hicks - had a great "fuck em" attitude, especially with regard the risks of smoking. He died aged 32. The difference with climate change is that the non smokers are gonna get shafted just the same - the punctual will pay the price for the tardy doh...i really liked bill hicks and what i have heard of him (especially the rollercoaster line), but you are probably right on this |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 19, 2014, 02:12:51 AM |
|
....
Odd how emotional people get about their faith, isn't it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
