Eat some weed and you can probably translate it. If you figure it out, let me know.
The illusion of nationalism
- Thread starter davidallen
- Start date
A really good watch. At the point we rely on politicians to decide science we are pretty much done as an informed democracy. On climate change the science is clear, what isn't is the appropriate policy response.
Got it... let me express in middle school language.
Should homosexual couples have equal access to legal constructs like the marriage contract?
How often does Tyson fly in an airplane? If the answer is greater than one, he is full of shit. We’ve been over this a hundred times.
And for the 100th time what is full of shit is your proposition ...
Need to pump the numbers so watch this too:
Last edited:
Moving to one of the major cloud providers from your antique on premises data center will increase efficiency, performance, and reduce environmental impact by as much as 50%.
Let me know if I can help you with that...
We are hiring at Pryor Creek... Send me a CV, we'll see if there is anything that is a fit.
https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/inside/locations/index.html
You lefties are shady, so I appreciate you posing your question more directly.
Sure, why the hell not.
You guys say that, but the science isn't actually "clear." That verbiage comes straight from the politics of climate science, not the science itself. When politicians and climate scientists (activists) started using language much like religious people do about god etc, they screwed themselves.
"Denier." "Apocolypse will come unless we..." "Climate change is the earth's retribution against our CO2 sins." "We must tithe trillions the Church of Climate Change so that the mission can continue." "If you don't believe humans cause climate change then you're corrupted by the Petro Devil." "Fires, floods, hurricanes, blizzards, drought, tornadoes are the result of our sins."
It's baffling that seemingly smart people buy into this crap as if science has proven what is claimed, but they do. There's also people that believe that there's some torture chamber in the earth where some guy who's perpetually on fire and has horns is awaiting their wretched soul and they have to obey the rules of the bible to avoid that fate. Weird.
97.1% of how many scientists?
If you sample 50 scientists who are largely in the same academic circle and 48 of them say the science is "clear," does that mean that the other thousands of scientists will say the same thing?
I'm expecting a better argument. 97.1% of how many and who? You've got the number so you just need to get the data that created it. Let's check it out.
Medic, what do you disagree with:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. Human activity has increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere
3. Increased greenhouse gases increase the temperatures at which the earth achieves energy balance (energy in from sun=energy out from radiation)
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. Human activity has increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere
3. Increased greenhouse gases increase the temperatures at which the earth achieves energy balance (energy in from sun=energy out from radiation)
The earth heats. The poles melt. The oceans cool. The earth cools.
It almost like there's a system that's been doing this for eons.
It almost like there's a system that's been doing this for eons.
he didn't say that it would. he was arguing the "common interest" part of DA's definition
Agreed.
Agreed.
And this is where you catch my attention. Note that you posted greenhouse "gases," not just CO2. How much of a role does CO2 play as a heat trapping greenhouse gas vs water vapor, methane, hexafluoroethane, trifluoromethane, sulfur hexafluoride, nitrogen trifluoride, nitrous oxide, tungsten hexafluoride, silicon tetrafluoride, etc?
Take a look at some of those other greenhouse gases, their "life expectancy," how they compare with CO2 in heat trapping capability, what they are used for, where the technologies they are used for appear on the timeline, and how effective we are at measuring their output and atmospheric levels. If you take the time to do that, I think we can have an excellent dialogue about anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases and how much we really know about what we're looking at.
seems pretty compelling when you leave all the political context and other contributing climatological factors out of your 3 point paradigm.
What's the Chomsky crap about control. Paraphrasing. The way to keep the dummies, dummies limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion but let the tards loose within that spectrum.
It plays out here in real time every day.
We argue the same arguments about the same very limited topics.
Obviously, I'm still a dummy too.
same here but I think the critical difference is self awareness that we are partisan dummies.
One more of very interesting significance is the fairly recently "discovered" trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride.
From 2000
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5479/611.full
Why is gravity a fact and not a theory?
Why is photosynthesis a fact and not a theory?
Why is aerodynamic lift a fact and not a theory?
Why is global climate change still a theory and not a fact?
My point being, saying the science is settled is bull shot. It isn't.
Why is photosynthesis a fact and not a theory?
Why is aerodynamic lift a fact and not a theory?
Why is global climate change still a theory and not a fact?
My point being, saying the science is settled is bull shot. It isn't.
I've read that, but thanks for posting it. The scary part of trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride is that it appears to be a byproduct of the manufacture of other HFC gases. So we're producing significant quantities of radiative overachievers and in that process producing the best radiative GHG of them all.
If 97 people told you something, and 3 people representing an opposing industry they are paid by to protect told you different, your conclusion is the 97 are full of sh!t. Got it lol
That's not an accurate representation of where the "97%" came from. The information regarding the origin of the 97% is readily available.
Take the general premise...if 97 people told you something, and 3 people representing the industry they’re paid by tell you the opposite, what does that tell you?
