I went to the soapbox to find lively conversation and found crickets
-
Foothill wrote:
It's time to go back to reporting the facts and without personal bias or opinions.
If it is reporting, it is biased. And if it is a Hollywood-movie, the bad guys are Russian, with a "Poeshkin" as the leader, or they're arabs. In what era did we have news that was only based on facts?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
I think a certain person may have discovered that global warming is a reality. :rolleyes:
-
I cannot honestly say if we ever had an era of unbiased reporting but I'm not 200 years old and read it all to know either.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
I can. Everything written down was written by biased men, because we are. We have had "education" to offset that.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
I can. Everything written down was written by biased men, because we are. We have had "education" to offset that.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
What boggles me is that some reporters and media pundits rave about certain facts and then completely ignore or even dispute other facts. You cannot cherry pick which facts you want to believe. If scientifically proven facts go against your beliefs or personal narrative, than perhaps your beliefs are wrong and you need to admit that.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
-
I would love to discuss that subject but first we have to agree on a definition of "Global Warming" before a productive discussion of the subject can commence.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
-
What boggles me is that some reporters and media pundits rave about certain facts and then completely ignore or even dispute other facts. You cannot cherry pick which facts you want to believe. If scientifically proven facts go against your beliefs or personal narrative, than perhaps your beliefs are wrong and you need to admit that.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Foothill wrote:
You cannot cherry pick which facts you want to believe. If scientifically proven facts go against your beliefs or personal narrative, than perhaps your beliefs are wrong and you need to admit that.
Go tell that to my Catholic brothers :thumbsup: And yes, the US can push whatever narrative they like, and they do. Governing isn't science, it is politics, psychology and managing perception :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Well, there are things that we know for certain. 1. The mean yearly temperature of the atmosphere has been increasing over the last two decades. 2. The mean yearly temperature of ocean surface water has been increasing over the last two decades. Those are the facts. Everything else is speculation.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
-
Well, there are things that we know for certain. 1. The mean yearly temperature of the atmosphere has been increasing over the last two decades. 2. The mean yearly temperature of ocean surface water has been increasing over the last two decades. Those are the facts. Everything else is speculation.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
How do you define something that does not exist?
It is our third heat wave here (usually we get one). In 2015, golf courses re-open on Dec. 24, a thing never saw before. I don't know if GW exists, but there sure are more evidence for it than the existence of God.
-
Been a little quiet in here the last couple of days. Seems a little odd.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
-
Been a little quiet in here the last couple of days. Seems a little odd.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Ya, ain't it kinda nice! No one grinding an axe!
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Ah yes, MM said it so it must be the truth.
Hey! That's me and I said no such thinh. He's fatboy.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
I thought my emoji was enough to signify that I was being ironic.
Alannis? Is that you?
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
How do you define something that does not exist?
It is our third heat wave here (usually we get one). In 2015, golf courses re-open on Dec. 24, a thing never saw before. I don't know if GW exists, but there sure are more evidence for it than the existence of God.
The Centrist wrote:
I don't know if GW exists,
Of course he does, he just retired 10 years ago.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
A single experiment is not enough to "prove" that CAGW is not real. Knowing you, it is a biased and cherry-picked piece of text, funded by some large corporation :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
This one is. It shows an increase in out going long wave radiation as the surface warmed. This means the warming at the surface is not coming from retained long wave radiation, the mechanism by which the greenhouse works. Energy in = Energy out + Energy stored. The sole energy source is the sun. If Energy out and Energy stored (surface temp) have gone up, then it can only have come from the sun. ( Disclaimer: This doesnt mean that CO2 isnt a GH gas, and doesnt mean mankind has had some effect on temperature)
-
Do you understand what it shows? ERBE shows increasing out going long wave radiation in line with time (and an increase in surface temperatures) Climate models propose that the surface is warmed because CO2 traps long wave radiation resulting in a reduction in out going long wave. ERBE shows climate models are wrong, and that since the sun is the sole energy source, the warming must have come from an equal increase in incoming solar radiation.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Ah yes, MM said it so it must be the truth.
Hey! That's me and I said no such thinh. He's fatboy.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
This one is. It shows an increase in out going long wave radiation as the surface warmed. This means the warming at the surface is not coming from retained long wave radiation, the mechanism by which the greenhouse works. Energy in = Energy out + Energy stored. The sole energy source is the sun. If Energy out and Energy stored (surface temp) have gone up, then it can only have come from the sun. ( Disclaimer: This doesnt mean that CO2 isnt a GH gas, and doesnt mean mankind has had some effect on temperature)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The sole energy source is the sun.
So, no warmth from the earths core? No chemical warmth, like from a forestfire? No more volcanoes?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
If Energy out and Energy stored (surface temp) have gone up, then it can only have come from the sun.
Yes, brilliant. You are implying that the sun did not change :) That's correct, it hasn't. What has changed is the blanket around the earth that filters away a part.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
( Disclaimer: This doesnt mean that CO2 isnt a GH gas, and doesnt mean mankind has had some effect on temperature)
It means I'm talking to a sofist, as described by Socrates :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The sole energy source is the sun.
So, no warmth from the earths core? No chemical warmth, like from a forestfire? No more volcanoes?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
If Energy out and Energy stored (surface temp) have gone up, then it can only have come from the sun.
Yes, brilliant. You are implying that the sun did not change :) That's correct, it hasn't. What has changed is the blanket around the earth that filters away a part.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
( Disclaimer: This doesnt mean that CO2 isnt a GH gas, and doesnt mean mankind has had some effect on temperature)
It means I'm talking to a sofist, as described by Socrates :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Geothermal heat flux is small, about a watt, and constant so it can be ignored.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You are implying that the sun did not change
WTF? You have something weird between your ears. The exact opposite is what I am saying.
-
Geothermal heat flux is small, about a watt, and constant so it can be ignored.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You are implying that the sun did not change
WTF? You have something weird between your ears. The exact opposite is what I am saying.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
WTF? You have something weird between your ears. The exact opposite is what I am saying.
We already know it is not one of the suns' natural cycles :) Anything else? --edit And keep it simple, I just woke up and coffee is not yet done :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.