RE: Physics Disproves Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
you're saying you believe opposing studies are false because information from WattsUpWithThat.com has convinced you.
You forgot the $275T that is on the hook for the AGW scam. That funds a lot of pseudoscience. WattsUpWithThat is a site where scientists discuss their research, and it is that discussion that formed the basis of my understanding. That's where I learned about the blatant fraud by Michael Mann, who created the infamous 'hockey stick' graph by cherry picking from various records. That's where I learned about 'emailgate' where the discussions between corrupt researchers faking up such data via email were leaked.
"if you could pick between reality being one where humans can affect world climate and one where we could not, and you did so it would align with your financial and/or political interest, which would you pick and why?"
I'd pick the one where the $275T didn't go to scammers, but instead ended up in the hands of folks seizing the means of production with it to create the blessings of civilization themselves, and cutting off parasitic 'useless eaters' like Yuval Hariri, Kill Gates, John Kerry, and King Charles from their sole source of wealth and power, and that's why. I like all the people I've met that have merit because they carry their weight, and I dislike all the people I've met that suck wealth out of my wallet.
"I am interested in your personal understanding about how GHG makes Earth habitable. could you provide it?"
Water vapor is ~90% of the GHG in Earth's atmosphere. The minor gases like CO2 and methane all together contribute the other ~10% of greenhouse effect. Without the GHG effect Earth would be a ball of ice, much like Europa and other moons and asteroids across the solar system in which liquid water is only in protected regions under the solid crust. Maybe life can exist in such places, but life on Earth in all it's robust fecundity is only possible because of GHG's that keep the temperature warm enough on the surface for all three phases of water to exist.
"...define climate..."
Without searching for a dictionary definition (which I am sure would be a better definition), climate is the long term environmental condition of a planet (specifically Earth, because we don't care about Pluto's climate here), the temperature ranges of it's atmosphere and oceans, and the amounts and types of precipitation and cycles of resources, such as water, carbon, and nitrogen.
Anyway, my personal take on this stuff isn't much use to you. Just read the paper and learn the views of lifelong researchers into these matters. Their personal views are well informed and far more useful.
Edit: I asked you to read the paper from Lindzen and Happer politely. I even said please. In it are the answers to all the questions I have patiently answered from you, which you have asked for some unknown purpose that isn't to get to the truth about Earth's climate, because that is better provided by the linked paper. I have asked you to specifically counter evidence you think is wrong, so that you can correct me and enable me to become right. I love to be corrected because I hate being wrong. I have spent a lot more time answering your questions than you would have spent reading the paper. I have been very respectful of you and bent over backwards to enable you to become better informed about what I believe is a harmful and duplicitous scam that will cause you to suffer terribly in days to come if you don't learn the truth.
Why won't you read the paper? Given the effort of posting, and responding to your questions, I have undertaken, I believe I have shown good faith in our interaction. All I have asked of you is to look at the evidence, which I have provided in the linked paper, so that you can decide for yourself what is true and factual and what is not. I am becoming convinced you have some ulterior motive that has not a thing to do with climate, because I have made learning about climate very easy for you - and you do not, but are doing something else that involves asking me for my personal views.
Until you cite some evidence have substantive criticism I think that you have some other purpose than resolving issues of climate for which you are using me. Today I saved a little bird from a cat, putting it high up on a bird feeder with copious food, and a little bit of water, where it was safe to rest and recover until it flew away.
Take freely of what I have provided you, here where I have given you safe haven to learn it without remonstration. But there is no more I can give you to keep you safe from the vicious predators out there. It is time to fly, my friend.
so first and foremost, you want whatever serves your financial interest the most, and then you want people who act in a way that they are aligned with your view of meritocracy to benefit, and then you want people whose actions go against what's right in your view of meritocracy to be either punished or not have the opportunity to against your view of meritocracy. okay
Nasa says CO2 represents 20% alone, while clouds and water vapor represent 75% combined. Because CO2 traps heat, there's more heat, which means more water vapor, which also means more clouds. This means that an increase in CO2 also leads to an increase in the amount of the rest of GHGs. So more CO2 means more heat across 95% of the GHG board, not just in the CO2 part.
climate means the regional weather patterns of a certain region for at least a 30 years span. how different is this normative definition from what you had in mind, in your opinion?
your personal "take", or rather, your scientifical understanding of this topic is relevant because I wouldn't take you seriously if I noticed you are content with parroting. "flat earth" believers and "we never went to the moon" believers are generally content with parroting. I expect you to either be better than them, or I expect you to be okay with not being taken seriously and to serve as an example of a pattern others shouldn't buy in
If that's what you call not wanting to be robbed, then you're right. Other than that I didn't mention my financial interest at all. You keep trying to fit my personal financial interests into our discussion, and it doesn't belong here. You then go on with (more) mangled grammar to impugn merit. People whose opinions I care about all have merit, and them as don't have merit don't have opinions I care about, for very good reasons. The most obvious feature of your comments is your pejorative intent. Are you a lawyer IRL? Maybe a spook? You have mentioned flat Earth a couple times too, which is something spooks are always pushing.
Here's a thought: quit trying to find (and insinuate, imply, and falsely assert) flaws in my character, and look at the evidence regarding climate I have posted. If you're only here to attack me personally, just go away.
your reply here has mentioned it, so I included it.
I'm here partially to try to enlighten to both you and I as to why you align yourself with this study. I find that it is to rid you of guilt. you want to do good in the world and you want to pursue financial interests. however, if you believe that climate change is real, then you will feel guilt and blame yourself for enabling it through whatever direct and indirect means. so you've grown emotionally attached to this one idea that makes everything fine: both what you believe in and all of your actions. you need this study to be right. there will be existential dread if it is wrong.
all of this speaks positively of your character, except for your self-image, which is about average.
do you think I'm wrong?
it's okay if you think I'm wrong
but this is how your words and actions so far have made me see you
I'm sure you have an opinion of me as well
No, it doesn't. Stop putting words in my mouth.
You're doing it again. I'm pointing to evidence and data that disproves the AGW scam. That's not anything else but that. Quit insinuating, implying, and maligning me and others, and discuss the data and evidence, or go talk to others that want to deprecate dissent and obfuscate facts.
You do it again. Not once have I mentioned financial interests of mine in this discussion, and you continually try to assert that I do. It is now obviously malicious. Quote me when you claim I said something, so I can prove you're wrong.
I have stated climate change is provably real, and that all humanity is incapable of causing it. You must be projecting your reason for such blatant disingenuity, unless you're actually on the take, in which case you're projecting to deflect consequences away from you.
I need civil society to prosper, and the facts in evidence reveal a $275T scam ongoing that will dramatically harm people I care very much about. This study discusses those facts in evidence, so I have posted it to alert people so they can prevent being scammed and enable civil society to prosper. You, as is typical of your claims, insinuate more, that I am psychologically some kind of zealot - but again, that's only another baseless and false claim about me you're making up out of hole cloth to malign me, dissent against the AGW scam, and the authors of the linked paper.
You have proved you have no interest in scientific evidence, but are only interested in derogation of my character. Perhaps you can find some self esteem that isn't derived from putting others down with proper counseling. I don't provide that service here.
I was explaining how I see you based on what you've demonstrated. you're saying you don't agree with it. that's fine.
jesus. just change that sentence to "if you believe that anthropogenic climate change".
man, something is really off with how you read others. if they're not incredibly specific, the conversation is derailed. yeah, you can blame it on them. on me. go ahead.
I don't think that was derogatory. I think it places you in a pretty average position as a human being.
if you mean literal grammar of the english language, I'm doing my best. if you don't then nvm
well, actually,
I like when good logic is used and I'm annoyed when bad logic is used. I saw bad logic in your post so I chased it. this is my actual primary motivator.
later on, I noticed that your leaps in logic and your motivation peak my interest so I chased them. this is my secondary motivator
I also think that this % thing is sabotaging you. Let's say there's this space that holds 1000 people and is filled with 70 talkative men and 30 talkative women. 30% of the population is female. 100% of them are loud. now I include another 30 women. however, there's a rule that whenever women are doublde, so are men. so now I have 60 talkative women and 140 talkative men. the distribution is the same - we still have 30% females. but we have so much more total noise.
if we fill this space with 850 people, there's going to be so much noise that no one will hear each other anymore. the difference from 800 to 850 people might be negligible since there is so much noise already anyway, since they already can't hear each other. so, yes, it's true that if we add 50 people, the difference might be negligible, but if we want them to be able to communicate, we need to start removing people, because they already can't understand each other at this point. note that, because of the aforementioned rule, the very same 30% of them are female at this 850 people stage.
however, we can only add or remove women. we have no control over men joining or leaving. just like adding women makes men join, removing women also makes men leave. so we remove women until, say, there's a total of 600 people. now they can hear each other. the situation has vastly improved, and yet, the distribution is still 70%-30%.
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
View or trade
BEER.Hey @felipejoys, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.View or trade
BEER.Hey @felipejoys, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!Did you know that <a href='https://dcity.io/cityyou can use BEER at dCity game to buy cards to rule the world.
Speaking of too convoluted...
This isn't about the Japanese Kanji for 'noisy'.
IMG source - lelombrik.net
Let's stick to actual evidence instead of complaining about noise.
oh okay... :(
ps: I'm aware of that kanji and it's pretty funny under dark humor. and I actually thought of that kanji myself while writing it and chuckled. I did make sure to say that men are talkative as well to avoid that.