Remember me
▼ Content

Man-Made Causes



Page 2 of 6<1234>>>
26-03-2017 20:14
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I'll attack any politically correct speech I wish. The use of the term 'fossil fuels' is a politically correct term to refer to any fuel source that is 'evil', while 'alternative energy' refers to any fuel source that is 'good'.

I'll also happily attack any attempt of the Church of Global Warming to try to rename itself to escape it's past.

As far as falsification of the greenhouse effect goes, it never even gets that far. Greenhouse effect is not externally consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That alone makes the 'theory' of greenhouse effect null and void.

It's problems range from obtaining additional energy from a non-energetic source (carbon dioxide) required to warm the planet surface in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, preventing energy from leaving (the various Magick Blanket and Magick Bouncing Photon theories), which would reduce radiance while increasing temperature, in direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the attempt to warm an already warmer surface using a colder gas, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

As far as the falsification of Global Warming theory, that's easy. There is no available test for falsification. That alone makes the theory a non-scientific one. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to calculate it either. Anyone that claims a global temperature of any kind is just spewing BS.

We have no idea if the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same.

Similarly, we have no idea what the albedo of Earth is, since albedo can change dramatically every few inches on the surface of the Earth. Due to the requirements of Stefan-Boltzmann, albedo must include ALL colors of light, which also shoots down any attempt of the 'Visible Light In, Infrared Light Out' argument.

We also don't have any idea of sea level. Tidal stations and satellites ALL base their references using references on the land surface. This surface moves. The reference for the land surface is sea level, which is what you are trying to measure. Circular references like this mean there is no valid reference. You can't use orbital velocity, since that is affected by things like the solar wind, atmospheric drag (as little of it there is, it is still drag), and variances of mass density across the surface you are orbiting.

We don't have any idea about ice content either. No one is monitoring all ice or glaciers. No one is even close. Lately, we've sent up satellites for this purpose, but they have no historical data and they can't see everything due to cloud cover. Ice is basically the same frequency of sense that liquid water is, you see.

I have my doubts about the CO2 measurements themselves. There are problems with that instrumentation that are NOT being addressed, not the least of which is the very few number of stations even capable of monitoring it. We do not know what the gradient of carbon dioxide density is in the atmosphere. It being such a rare gas, no one has bothered to try to determine it.


If you "attack any politically correct language I wish" you run into the problem that the greenies have built up a language of their own. You know it all a bunch of crap as do I but you simply get yourself ignored as a kook. So argue using their own BS and showing it incorrect all the way.

In my 72 years I haven't seen any rise. And it does appear that low tide is lower than I recall from childhood - insinuating that either the land is rising (most likely) or the sea level is falling.

The little ice age generated a HELL of a lot of ice. If it's melting now so what? You can look around on the web and discover sites that say that the ice in the Antarctic is melting away despite the records showing that it is growing.

We even have sites that claim that Walrus and Polar Bears can't breed except on ice. These people are not sane and don't mind showing it.

My calculations and those of other neutral parties say that there should be a LOT more O2 in the atmosphere than there is and that it isn't growing like it should. So something is rotten in Denmark and we don't know where it's hidden.


You may have read where Greenpeace in a slander defense claimed that their publications were hyperbole and should not be taken literally.
26-03-2017 20:40
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(972)
Frescomexico wrote:
Another problem with alcohol (specifically ethanol) in gasoline is a propensity for vapor lock in fuel lines on hot days.


Entirely true, especially in small carburated engines. Also leaving it sit for greater than 60 days it has turned to varnish.
26-03-2017 22:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Another problem with alcohol (specifically ethanol) in gasoline is a propensity for vapor lock in fuel lines on hot days.


Entirely true, especially in small carburated engines. Also leaving it sit for greater than 60 days it has turned to varnish.


Gasoline does that, not alcohol.

It is EASIER for gasoline to do that when ethanol fuels, because of phase separation that takes place with the incompatible fuels. The alcohol vaporizes away, leaving just the gasoline behind. As the gasoline vaporizes, it turns into varnish.

You can best clean such an engine by that ole' favorite, Carburetor Cleaner. Take the bowl off the carb, clean it out, dump out the bad gas, spray the carb cleaner all around any tubes or passages you can find, put it back together, put in a new spark plug, and the little guy will run just fine.


The Parrot Killer
26-03-2017 22:37
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
samijafri wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
samijafri wrote:
Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming?


How do we know there is any global warming at all?

We don't have sufficient instrumentation to get any idea of global temperature to any degree of useful accuracy.


Dynamic change in climate, melting of glaciers aren't the signs of global warming?
Can't you see that there are billions of cars all over the world which use gasoline and diesel(burning of fossil fuels) which results in Carbon Emissions. There are many example from which we can relate global warming.


There is no global climate. Climate is also not a thing that can 'change'. There is no unit to describe such a change by, since 'climate' refers to unspecified times and regions.

We don't know which glaciers are melting, growing, or just staying the same. No one is recording that, except for a very few glaciers.

Fossils don't burn. Burning oil products like gasoline produces carbon dioxide and water. So what? No one yet has provided a 'greenhouse gas' theory that doesn't violate physical laws. Perhaps you would care to try? What is your theory for how carbon dioxide magickally warms the surface? Do you favor the Magick Blanket theory, or the Magick Bouncing Photon theory?


Don't try to change the language of AGW. Simply prove them wrong.

As I've been saying for several years now, CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas, and just as I said http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf with actual measurements and the math to back it up proves my statement in no uncertain terms.

And the proper corrections to the NOAA data base to properly correct for the temperatures recorded in growing urban areas show that there not only isn't any global warming but that presently we are actually in a cooling phase.


I'll attack any politically correct speech I wish. The use of the term 'fossil fuels' is a politically correct term to refer to any fuel source that is 'evil', while 'alternative energy' refers to any fuel source that is 'good'.

I'll also happily attack any attempt of the Church of Global Warming to try to rename itself to escape it's past.

As far as falsification of the greenhouse effect goes, it never even gets that far. Greenhouse effect is not externally consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That alone makes the 'theory' of greenhouse effect null and void.

It's problems range from obtaining additional energy from a non-energetic source (carbon dioxide) required to warm the planet surface in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, preventing energy from leaving (the various Magick Blanket and Magick Bouncing Photon theories), which would reduce radiance while increasing temperature, in direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the attempt to warm an already warmer surface using a colder gas, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

As far as the falsification of Global Warming theory, that's easy. There is no available test for falsification. That alone makes the theory a non-scientific one. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to calculate it either. Anyone that claims a global temperature of any kind is just spewing BS.

We have no idea if the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same.

Similarly, we have no idea what the albedo of Earth is, since albedo can change dramatically every few inches on the surface of the Earth. Due to the requirements of Stefan-Boltzmann, albedo must include ALL colors of light, which also shoots down any attempt of the 'Visible Light In, Infrared Light Out' argument.

We also don't have any idea of sea level. Tidal stations and satellites ALL base their references using references on the land surface. This surface moves. The reference for the land surface is sea level, which is what you are trying to measure. Circular references like this mean there is no valid reference. You can't use orbital velocity, since that is affected by things like the solar wind, atmospheric drag (as little of it there is, it is still drag), and variances of mass density across the surface you are orbiting.

We don't have any idea about ice content either. No one is monitoring all ice or glaciers. No one is even close. Lately, we've sent up satellites for this purpose, but they have no historical data and they can't see everything due to cloud cover. Ice is basically the same frequency of sense that liquid water is, you see.

I have my doubts about the CO2 measurements themselves. There are problems with that instrumentation that are NOT being addressed, not the least of which is the very few number of stations even capable of monitoring it. We do not know what the gradient of carbon dioxide density is in the atmosphere. It being such a rare gas, no one has bothered to try to determine it.


Well then what's all the shouting about, not to mention throwing money away? Let's live and adapt to the climate as it shows up and get back to doing something productive.
26-03-2017 22:46
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(972)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Another problem with alcohol (specifically ethanol) in gasoline is a propensity for vapor lock in fuel lines on hot days.


Entirely true, especially in small carburated engines. Also leaving it sit for greater than 60 days it has turned to varnish.


Gasoline does that, not alcohol.

It is EASIER for gasoline to do that when ethanol fuels, because of phase separation that takes place with the incompatible fuels. The alcohol vaporizes away, leaving just the gasoline behind. As the gasoline vaporizes, it turns into varnish.

You can best clean such an engine by that ole' favorite, Carburetor Cleaner. Take the bowl off the carb, clean it out, dump out the bad gas, spray the carb cleaner all around any tubes or passages you can find, put it back together, put in a new spark plug, and the little guy will run just fine.


On older carbs yes. Newer ones, the ports are too small, and NEVER had a problem with varnish on regular fuel...only E-10.
Edited on 26-03-2017 22:48
27-03-2017 03:02
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad.
[/color]


Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming.


This poor legislation came about because of perceived dangers of tetraethyl lead, used as a fuel moderator. Alcohol can also moderate fuel, and we used it during the shortages of WW2. Unfortunately, alcohol is hygroscopic, and absorbs moisture from the air. This effectively puts water IN the fuel and can rust fuel system and engine parts. The gaskets used must be compatible with it also, since alcohol dissolves the cork gaskets used on a lot of older cars and aircraft.

The fear of lead spewing from tailpipes (it actually helps to lubricate the engine!) is what scared people, because they didn't realize that lead naturally occurs in the soil anyway.

The salting of lead is so low that you could still eat the dirt beside the freeways in the sixties and not be harmed any lead that was in it.

Lead is not plutonium. But then, a lot of people misunderstand plutonium too, thanks to idiots like Carl Sagan.

I would like to return to tetraethyl lead. It is not hygroscopic, it helps to lubricate the engine, and the amount of lead put out the tailpipe is really not a problem. It does poison the catalytic converter though. THAT device was required by government due to anti-pollution laws, even though they do not reduce pollution.


Returning to tetra ethyl lead is not a good idea for a variety of health reasons summarized below:


http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health
27-03-2017 08:20
jacose_12
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
27-03-2017 08:24
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
The name "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer in that a gas cannot act like glass in a greenhouse preventing convection and only allowing radiation to enter or exit. However, the process called the greenhouse effect in the earth's energy budget does not violate any law of thermodynamics. Energy only travels from a higher temperature to a lower temperature and the process is irreversible.
27-03-2017 18:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
samijafri wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
samijafri wrote:
Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming?


How do we know there is any global warming at all?

We don't have sufficient instrumentation to get any idea of global temperature to any degree of useful accuracy.


Dynamic change in climate, melting of glaciers aren't the signs of global warming?
Can't you see that there are billions of cars all over the world which use gasoline and diesel(burning of fossil fuels) which results in Carbon Emissions. There are many example from which we can relate global warming.


There is no global climate. Climate is also not a thing that can 'change'. There is no unit to describe such a change by, since 'climate' refers to unspecified times and regions.

We don't know which glaciers are melting, growing, or just staying the same. No one is recording that, except for a very few glaciers.

Fossils don't burn. Burning oil products like gasoline produces carbon dioxide and water. So what? No one yet has provided a 'greenhouse gas' theory that doesn't violate physical laws. Perhaps you would care to try? What is your theory for how carbon dioxide magickally warms the surface? Do you favor the Magick Blanket theory, or the Magick Bouncing Photon theory?


Don't try to change the language of AGW. Simply prove them wrong.

As I've been saying for several years now, CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas, and just as I said http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf with actual measurements and the math to back it up proves my statement in no uncertain terms.

And the proper corrections to the NOAA data base to properly correct for the temperatures recorded in growing urban areas show that there not only isn't any global warming but that presently we are actually in a cooling phase.


I'll attack any politically correct speech I wish. The use of the term 'fossil fuels' is a politically correct term to refer to any fuel source that is 'evil', while 'alternative energy' refers to any fuel source that is 'good'.

I'll also happily attack any attempt of the Church of Global Warming to try to rename itself to escape it's past.

As far as falsification of the greenhouse effect goes, it never even gets that far. Greenhouse effect is not externally consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That alone makes the 'theory' of greenhouse effect null and void.

It's problems range from obtaining additional energy from a non-energetic source (carbon dioxide) required to warm the planet surface in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, preventing energy from leaving (the various Magick Blanket and Magick Bouncing Photon theories), which would reduce radiance while increasing temperature, in direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the attempt to warm an already warmer surface using a colder gas, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

As far as the falsification of Global Warming theory, that's easy. There is no available test for falsification. That alone makes the theory a non-scientific one. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to calculate it either. Anyone that claims a global temperature of any kind is just spewing BS.

We have no idea if the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same.

Similarly, we have no idea what the albedo of Earth is, since albedo can change dramatically every few inches on the surface of the Earth. Due to the requirements of Stefan-Boltzmann, albedo must include ALL colors of light, which also shoots down any attempt of the 'Visible Light In, Infrared Light Out' argument.

We also don't have any idea of sea level. Tidal stations and satellites ALL base their references using references on the land surface. This surface moves. The reference for the land surface is sea level, which is what you are trying to measure. Circular references like this mean there is no valid reference. You can't use orbital velocity, since that is affected by things like the solar wind, atmospheric drag (as little of it there is, it is still drag), and variances of mass density across the surface you are orbiting.

We don't have any idea about ice content either. No one is monitoring all ice or glaciers. No one is even close. Lately, we've sent up satellites for this purpose, but they have no historical data and they can't see everything due to cloud cover. Ice is basically the same frequency of sense that liquid water is, you see.

I have my doubts about the CO2 measurements themselves. There are problems with that instrumentation that are NOT being addressed, not the least of which is the very few number of stations even capable of monitoring it. We do not know what the gradient of carbon dioxide density is in the atmosphere. It being such a rare gas, no one has bothered to try to determine it.


Well then what's all the shouting about, not to mention throwing money away? Let's live and adapt to the climate as it shows up and get back to doing something productive.


In case you hadn't noticed, there is a political reason for all the shouting and pushing to make Global Warming and 'greenhouse effect' a crisis. There is big money in this, and also politically power involved. It is being driven by people that figure they know how to run your life better than you do.


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2017 18:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Another problem with alcohol (specifically ethanol) in gasoline is a propensity for vapor lock in fuel lines on hot days.


Entirely true, especially in small carburated engines. Also leaving it sit for greater than 60 days it has turned to varnish.


Gasoline does that, not alcohol.

It is EASIER for gasoline to do that when ethanol fuels, because of phase separation that takes place with the incompatible fuels. The alcohol vaporizes away, leaving just the gasoline behind. As the gasoline vaporizes, it turns into varnish.

You can best clean such an engine by that ole' favorite, Carburetor Cleaner. Take the bowl off the carb, clean it out, dump out the bad gas, spray the carb cleaner all around any tubes or passages you can find, put it back together, put in a new spark plug, and the little guy will run just fine.


On older carbs yes. Newer ones, the ports are too small, and NEVER had a problem with varnish on regular fuel...only E-10.


The new carbs are smaller, but their ports are the same. Just clean 'em out as I described anyway, it'll help.


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2017 18:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad.
[/color]


Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming.


This poor legislation came about because of perceived dangers of tetraethyl lead, used as a fuel moderator. Alcohol can also moderate fuel, and we used it during the shortages of WW2. Unfortunately, alcohol is hygroscopic, and absorbs moisture from the air. This effectively puts water IN the fuel and can rust fuel system and engine parts. The gaskets used must be compatible with it also, since alcohol dissolves the cork gaskets used on a lot of older cars and aircraft.

The fear of lead spewing from tailpipes (it actually helps to lubricate the engine!) is what scared people, because they didn't realize that lead naturally occurs in the soil anyway.

The salting of lead is so low that you could still eat the dirt beside the freeways in the sixties and not be harmed any lead that was in it.

Lead is not plutonium. But then, a lot of people misunderstand plutonium too, thanks to idiots like Carl Sagan.

I would like to return to tetraethyl lead. It is not hygroscopic, it helps to lubricate the engine, and the amount of lead put out the tailpipe is really not a problem. It does poison the catalytic converter though. THAT device was required by government due to anti-pollution laws, even though they do not reduce pollution.


Returning to tetra ethyl lead is not a good idea for a variety of health reasons summarized below:


http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health


Lead in gasoline never affected the children or anybody else. Like I said, lead is a known component in the soil anyway. It's always been there naturally.

What causes crime today is simple: poverty, drugs, welfare programs that enable it, catch and release programs for criminals, and the release of mentally ill people on the streets.


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2017 18:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Frescomexico wrote:
The name "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer in that a gas cannot act like glass in a greenhouse preventing convection and only allowing radiation to enter or exit. However, the process called the greenhouse effect in the earth's energy budget does not violate any law of thermodynamics. Energy only travels from a higher temperature to a lower temperature and the process is irreversible.


How does a colder gas heat an already warmer surface?

How do you account for a reduction of radiance while at the same time increasing the Earth's temperature?


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2017 22:40
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The name "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer in that a gas cannot act like glass in a greenhouse preventing convection and only allowing radiation to enter or exit. However, the process called the greenhouse effect in the earth's energy budget does not violate any law of thermodynamics. Energy only travels from a higher temperature to a lower temperature and the process is irreversible.


How does a colder gas heat an already warmer surface?

How do you account for a reduction of radiance while at the same time increasing the Earth's temperature?


The colder gas does not heat the earth's surface any more than an insulator on a hot surface heats that surface. The greenhouse gas acts in a manner similar to an insulator reflecting energy back to the earth until it reaches an equilibrium temperature whereby it overcomes the greenhouse gas and, indirectly radiates to space.

Most scientists don't dispute the reality of the greenhouse effect. The real dispute is whether the effect is significant to the extent that we should radically change our living standards, and deny others less fortunate the opportunity to share in those standards.
27-03-2017 23:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The name "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer in that a gas cannot act like glass in a greenhouse preventing convection and only allowing radiation to enter or exit. However, the process called the greenhouse effect in the earth's energy budget does not violate any law of thermodynamics. Energy only travels from a higher temperature to a lower temperature and the process is irreversible.


How does a colder gas heat an already warmer surface?

How do you account for a reduction of radiance while at the same time increasing the Earth's temperature?


The colder gas does not heat the earth's surface any more than an insulator on a hot surface heats that surface.
Insulators don't heat anything. They reduce heat. That is their purpose.
Frescomexico wrote:
The greenhouse gas acts in a manner similar to an insulator reflecting energy back to the earth until it reaches an equilibrium temperature whereby it overcomes the greenhouse gas and, indirectly radiates to space.

So you are saying you can reduce the radiance and raise the temperature at the same time? Sorry. That directly violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Oh...did I already mention that clouds conduct heat BETTER than dry air?

Frescomexico wrote:
Most scientists don't dispute the reality of the greenhouse effect.

Consensus is not part of science. Consensus is a political or religious term only. I don't care that you think most scientists think a particular way. You don't speak for them anyhow.
Frescomexico wrote:
The real dispute is whether the effect is significant to the extent that we should radically change our living standards, and deny others less fortunate the opportunity to share in those standards.

You still have not described a greenhouse effect that doesn't violate physical laws. Try again. Anything involving the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument is going to be rejected for the same reasons as last time.


The Parrot Killer
28-03-2017 01:24
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The name "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer in that a gas cannot act like glass in a greenhouse preventing convection and only allowing radiation to enter or exit. However, the process called the greenhouse effect in the earth's energy budget does not violate any law of thermodynamics. Energy only travels from a higher temperature to a lower temperature and the process is irreversible.


How does a colder gas heat an already warmer surface?

How do you account for a reduction of radiance while at the same time increasing the Earth's temperature?


The colder gas does not heat the earth's surface any more than an insulator on a hot surface heats that surface.
Insulators don't heat anything. They reduce heat. That is their purpose.
Are you reading? That is exactly what I said.Frescomexico wrote:
The greenhouse gas acts in a manner similar to an insulator reflecting energy back to the earth until it reaches an equilibrium temperature whereby it overcomes the greenhouse gas and, indirectly radiates to space.

So you are saying you can reduce the radiance and raise the temperature at the same time? Sorry. That directly violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.Once again, read. I will paraphrase: the reflected energy heats the earth (this means raises its temperature) until the equilibrium temperature is reached whereby the radiation leaving the earth equals the radiation entering.

Oh...did I already mention that clouds conduct heat BETTER than dry air?

Frescomexico wrote:
Most scientists don't dispute the reality of the greenhouse effect.

Consensus is not part of science. Consensus is a political or religious term only. I don't care that you think most scientists think a particular way. You don't speak for them anyhow.OK, show me a paper disputing the greenhouse effect. Even your own if you have researched it.
Frescomexico wrote:
The real dispute is whether the effect is significant to the extent that we should radically change our living standards, and deny others less fortunate the opportunity to share in those standards.

You still have not described a greenhouse effect that doesn't violate physical laws. Please name the laws that it violates.Try again. Anything involving the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument is going to be rejected for the same reasons as last time.
28-03-2017 01:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The name "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer in that a gas cannot act like glass in a greenhouse preventing convection and only allowing radiation to enter or exit. However, the process called the greenhouse effect in the earth's energy budget does not violate any law of thermodynamics. Energy only travels from a higher temperature to a lower temperature and the process is irreversible.


How does a colder gas heat an already warmer surface?

How do you account for a reduction of radiance while at the same time increasing the Earth's temperature?


The colder gas does not heat the earth's surface any more than an insulator on a hot surface heats that surface.
Insulators don't heat anything. They reduce heat. That is their purpose.
Are you reading? That is exactly what I said.Frescomexico wrote:
The greenhouse gas acts in a manner similar to an insulator reflecting energy back to the earth until it reaches an equilibrium temperature whereby it overcomes the greenhouse gas and, indirectly radiates to space.

So you are saying you can reduce the radiance and raise the temperature at the same time? Sorry. That directly violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.Once again, read. I will paraphrase: the reflected energy heats the earth (this means raises its temperature) until the equilibrium temperature is reached whereby the radiation leaving the earth equals the radiation entering.

Oh...did I already mention that clouds conduct heat BETTER than dry air?

Frescomexico wrote:
Most scientists don't dispute the reality of the greenhouse effect.

Consensus is not part of science. Consensus is a political or religious term only. I don't care that you think most scientists think a particular way. You don't speak for them anyhow.OK, show me a paper disputing the greenhouse effect. Even your own if you have researched it.
Frescomexico wrote:
The real dispute is whether the effect is significant to the extent that we should radically change our living standards, and deny others less fortunate the opportunity to share in those standards.

You still have not described a greenhouse effect that doesn't violate physical laws. Please name the laws that it violates.Try again. Anything involving the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument is going to be rejected for the same reasons as last time.


I have specified the laws of physics your argument for 'greenhouse effect' violates and why. Do you think you can just suspend them on convenience?

You are still reducing radiance to increase the temperature. Not gonna happen. The Stefan-Boltzmann law says so. There is NEVER a case where radiance and temperature move in opposite ways, even for a moment. There is no sequence. No sequence can override S-B, even for a moment.

I don't need to quote a paper. These are laws of physics currently accepted everywhere. They have been examined and re-examined and no falsification has been found yet for them.

Any idiot can write a paper. He can even get it published. No paper can override what science is or ignore the requirements placed upon a theory because of what science is.

Data is not science. People are not science. Consensus is not science. A scientist is not science. Science is just the theories themselves. They stand on their own themselves. I do not need 'sources' or 'papers' or any other 'proof'.

You STILL have not satisfied the requirements of S-B, the 2nd LoT, or the 1st LoT with your greenhouse gas theory. Care to try again?


The Parrot Killer
28-03-2017 03:25
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Into the Night,
You seem to so set on being contrary that you read things into my comments that are not there. I am NOT reducing radiation while increasing temperature. The earth's temperature is increasingly due to both solar radiation and greenhouse effect and therefore the earth radiates an increasing amount of energy to space. There is no violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, so there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics. And finally the total entropy of the earth is increasing irreversibly, so there is no violation of the second law.

If you want to manufacture comments so you can disagree with them, go ahead. Just don't attribute them to me.
28-03-2017 20:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night,
You seem to so set on being contrary that you read things into my comments that are not there.
Oh...they're there all right. You just deny they are there.
Frescomexico wrote:
I am NOT reducing radiation while increasing temperature. The earth's temperature is increasingly due to both solar radiation and greenhouse effect and therefore the earth radiates an increasing amount of energy to space.

Your model of greenhouse effect reduces the radiance of the Earth. That is the effect of 'trapping' IR photons. You use this model to increase the temperature of the Earth. That violates Stefan-Boltzmann.
Frescomexico wrote:
There is no violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Yes there is. Deny it all you want, as long as you use the Magick Bouncing Photon theory of greenhouse effect, you are violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Frescomexico wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed,
Then the Earth cannot warm...period.
Frescomexico wrote:
so there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
You are warming the Earth by using a non-energic source. That is creating energy out of nothing.
Frescomexico wrote:
And finally the total entropy of the earth is increasing irreversibly, so there is no violation of the second law.
You are attempting to warm the Earth by using a colder gas. That is in violation of the 2nd LoT. That is decreasing entropy. You might as well as try to make hot coffee with an ice cube.
Frescomexico wrote:
If you want to manufacture comments so you can disagree with them, go ahead. Just don't attribute them to me.

You made them. I attribute them to you.


The Parrot Killer
28-03-2017 22:27
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night,
You seem to so set on being contrary that you read things into my comments that are not there.
Oh...they're there all right. You just deny they are there.
Frescomexico wrote:
I am NOT reducing radiation while increasing temperature. The earth's temperature is increasingly due to both solar radiation and greenhouse effect and therefore the earth radiates an increasing amount of energy to space.

Your model of greenhouse effect reduces the radiance of the Earth. That is the effect of 'trapping' IR photons. You use this model to increase the temperature of the Earth. That violates Stefan-Boltzmann.
Frescomexico wrote:
There is no violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Yes there is. Deny it all you want, as long as you use the Magick Bouncing Photon theory of greenhouse effect, you are violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Frescomexico wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed,
Then the Earth cannot warm...period.
Frescomexico wrote:
so there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
You are warming the Earth by using a non-energic source. That is creating energy out of nothing.
Frescomexico wrote:
And finally the total entropy of the earth is increasing irreversibly, so there is no violation of the second law.
You are attempting to warm the Earth by using a colder gas. That is in violation of the 2nd LoT. That is decreasing entropy. You might as well as try to make hot coffee with an ice cube.
Frescomexico wrote:
If you want to manufacture comments so you can disagree with them, go ahead. Just don't attribute them to me.

You made them. I attribute them to you.

Them's fighting words!!
28-03-2017 22:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night,
You seem to so set on being contrary that you read things into my comments that are not there.
Oh...they're there all right. You just deny they are there.
Frescomexico wrote:
I am NOT reducing radiation while increasing temperature. The earth's temperature is increasingly due to both solar radiation and greenhouse effect and therefore the earth radiates an increasing amount of energy to space.

Your model of greenhouse effect reduces the radiance of the Earth. That is the effect of 'trapping' IR photons. You use this model to increase the temperature of the Earth. That violates Stefan-Boltzmann.
Frescomexico wrote:
There is no violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Yes there is. Deny it all you want, as long as you use the Magick Bouncing Photon theory of greenhouse effect, you are violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Frescomexico wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed,
Then the Earth cannot warm...period.
Frescomexico wrote:
so there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
You are warming the Earth by using a non-energic source. That is creating energy out of nothing.
Frescomexico wrote:
And finally the total entropy of the earth is increasing irreversibly, so there is no violation of the second law.
You are attempting to warm the Earth by using a colder gas. That is in violation of the 2nd LoT. That is decreasing entropy. You might as well as try to make hot coffee with an ice cube.
Frescomexico wrote:
If you want to manufacture comments so you can disagree with them, go ahead. Just don't attribute them to me.

You made them. I attribute them to you.

Them's fighting words!!


If you say so. I imagine the whole Global Warming thing has started more than a few bar fights.


The Parrot Killer
30-03-2017 02:47
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad.
[/color]


Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming.


This poor legislation came about because of perceived dangers of tetraethyl lead, used as a fuel moderator. Alcohol can also moderate fuel, and we used it during the shortages of WW2. Unfortunately, alcohol is hygroscopic, and absorbs moisture from the air. This effectively puts water IN the fuel and can rust fuel system and engine parts. The gaskets used must be compatible with it also, since alcohol dissolves the cork gaskets used on a lot of older cars and aircraft.

The fear of lead spewing from tailpipes (it actually helps to lubricate the engine!) is what scared people, because they didn't realize that lead naturally occurs in the soil anyway.

The salting of lead is so low that you could still eat the dirt beside the freeways in the sixties and not be harmed any lead that was in it.

Lead is not plutonium. But then, a lot of people misunderstand plutonium too, thanks to idiots like Carl Sagan.

I would like to return to tetraethyl lead. It is not hygroscopic, it helps to lubricate the engine, and the amount of lead put out the tailpipe is really not a problem. It does poison the catalytic converter though. THAT device was required by government due to anti-pollution laws, even though they do not reduce pollution.


Returning to tetra ethyl lead is not a good idea for a variety of health reasons summarized below:


http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health


Lead in gasoline never affected the children or anybody else. Like I said, lead is a known component in the soil anyway. It's always been there naturally.

What causes crime today is simple: poverty, drugs, welfare programs that enable it, catch and release programs for criminals, and the release of mentally ill people on the streets.


Here are some more references on the fact that lead poisoning affects children's IQ :

http://californiahealthline.org/news/lead-poisonings-lifelong-toll-includes-lowering-social-mobility-researchers-find/
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/28/521644395/study-suggests-childhood-exposure-to-lead-can-blunt-iq-for-decades
http://www.vocativ.com/415361/lead-lower-iq-income-flint/
http://time.com/4713970/childhood-lead-exposure-iq/

I could cite more, but you get the idea. Sometimes I think some of the respondents on this blog encountered lead as a child.
Edited on 30-03-2017 03:02
30-03-2017 03:22
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(972)
Into the Night wrote:
What causes crime today is simple: poverty, drugs, welfare programs that enable it


Bingo!
30-03-2017 04:51
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What causes crime today is simple: poverty, drugs, welfare programs that enable it


Bingo!


I live in a small village in Mexico. Most of the people here are incredibly poor, but there is not a lot of crime here or drug use. These people generally work hard at whatever jobs they can find. My point is poverty per se does not engender crime.
30-03-2017 05:12
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(972)
Frescomexico wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What causes crime today is simple: poverty, drugs, welfare programs that enable it


Bingo!


I live in a small village in Mexico. Most of the people here are incredibly poor, but there is not a lot of crime here or drug use. These people generally work hard at whatever jobs they can find. My point is poverty per se does not engender crime.

Notice welfare programs in red? We here in the US have a bad habit of believing that throwing money at poverty will solve the problem. In reality it makes it worse. Those poor people in your village that work hard and are honest...what would they be in Mexico with the same economic opportunity that we have here? Likely realizing their full potential with a decent income. But when people become addicted to the gov handout, they become entitlement minded. Why make $70 a day busting your ass when you can make $50 a day doing nothing? ...and when it's not enough they scream, because the gov "doesn't care about the poor man".
Now they have the "right" to break laws and cause trouble because the gov did them wrong.
Edited on 30-03-2017 05:16
30-03-2017 08:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What causes crime today is simple: poverty, drugs, welfare programs that enable it


Bingo!


I live in a small village in Mexico. Most of the people here are incredibly poor, but there is not a lot of crime here or drug use. These people generally work hard at whatever jobs they can find. My point is poverty per se does not engender crime.

Notice welfare programs in red? We here in the US have a bad habit of believing that throwing money at poverty will solve the problem. In reality it makes it worse. Those poor people in your village that work hard and are honest...what would they be in Mexico with the same economic opportunity that we have here? Likely realizing their full potential with a decent income. But when people become addicted to the gov handout, they become entitlement minded. Why make $70 a day busting your ass when you can make $50 a day doing nothing? ...and when it's not enough they scream, because the gov "doesn't care about the poor man".
Now they have the "right" to break laws and cause trouble because the gov did them wrong.

That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.
30-03-2017 11:32
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What causes crime today is simple: poverty, drugs, welfare programs that enable it


Bingo!


I live in a small village in Mexico. Most of the people here are incredibly poor, but there is not a lot of crime here or drug use. These people generally work hard at whatever jobs they can find. My point is poverty per se does not engender crime.

Notice welfare programs in red? We here in the US have a bad habit of believing that throwing money at poverty will solve the problem. In reality it makes it worse. Those poor people in your village that work hard and are honest...what would they be in Mexico with the same economic opportunity that we have here? Likely realizing their full potential with a decent income. But when people become addicted to the gov handout, they become entitlement minded. Why make $70 a day busting your ass when you can make $50 a day doing nothing? ...and when it's not enough they scream, because the gov "doesn't care about the poor man".
Now they have the "right" to break laws and cause trouble because the gov did them wrong.

That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


I agree. With TV and internet available, it is difficult to watch the "good life" and not ask "Why not me?" Also in the USA, there are generations of families on welfare who know no other way.
Edited on 30-03-2017 11:38
30-03-2017 14:36
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(972)
Surface Detail wrote:
That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


Really? Singapore? Where it's mandatory death by hanging for 14g of heroin.

Why do you suppose strong central gov is associated with poverty?
30-03-2017 15:25
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Frescomexico wrote: I agree. With TV and internet available, it is difficult to watch the "good life" and not ask "Why not me?"

Spot & Frescomexico got the right ideas. But its not only the long-term poverty stricken that know the complete inadequate humanities of the rich in society. Tho trade unions helped to establish a strong middle class in europe & the U.S., rich society propaganda has strongly deflated union power. Increasingly, what used to be strong working middle class, are people ALREADY ENTRENCHED IN POVERTY. Working in close proximity to the rich, the worker poor understand. But richness is its own blindfold, as the rich fail to see their actions scrape the wealth earned by the poor into their rich pockets. These are the reasons that millionaires are now called billionaires, with no wealth left over for the middle class, strong percentages of the middle class have now fallen into poverty & new definitions of poverty include the prematurely dead.
///////
.... it was perfect starvation. They had planned to starve us to death. (Franck Buckles)
Edited on 30-03-2017 15:33
30-03-2017 16:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


Really? Singapore? Where it's mandatory death by hanging for 14g of heroin.

Why do you suppose strong central gov is associated with poverty?

Eh? Singapore is one of the richest (per capita) countries in the world, as well as having a low crime rate.
30-03-2017 16:22
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(972)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


Really? Singapore? Where it's mandatory death by hanging for 14g of heroin.

Why do you suppose strong central gov is associated with poverty?

Eh? Singapore is one of the richest (per capita) countries in the world, as well as having a low crime rate.


Too many thoughts at the same time....guess I threw out Singapore because they have a huge income gap with nearly 20% at "relative poverty" and 8-9% absolute poverty. There is no freedom of speech or press or political party. There are very few criminals because they're dead.
30-03-2017 16:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


Really? Singapore? Where it's mandatory death by hanging for 14g of heroin.

Why do you suppose strong central gov is associated with poverty?

Eh? Singapore is one of the richest (per capita) countries in the world, as well as having a low crime rate.


Too many thoughts at the same time....guess I threw out Singapore because they have a huge income gap with nearly 20% at "relative poverty" and 8-9% absolute poverty. There is no freedom of speech or press or political party. There are very few criminals because they're dead.

Yeah, that's sort of my point. As I said, low crime countries tend to have low income inequality and/or authoritarian governments. Personally, I think the former approach is to be preferred.
30-03-2017 16:45
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(972)
society propaganda has strongly deflated union power.


BS. The unions have deflated themselves with greed and they are the biggest exporter of blue collar jobs.

These are the reasons that millionaires are now called billionaires, with no wealth left over for the middle class


Left over wealth? You live in the most free and richest country in the world. It is no ones job to leave you some wealth. It is your job (choice?/freedom? right?)to go get some.
30-03-2017 17:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad.
[/color]


Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming.


This poor legislation came about because of perceived dangers of tetraethyl lead, used as a fuel moderator. Alcohol can also moderate fuel, and we used it during the shortages of WW2. Unfortunately, alcohol is hygroscopic, and absorbs moisture from the air. This effectively puts water IN the fuel and can rust fuel system and engine parts. The gaskets used must be compatible with it also, since alcohol dissolves the cork gaskets used on a lot of older cars and aircraft.

The fear of lead spewing from tailpipes (it actually helps to lubricate the engine!) is what scared people, because they didn't realize that lead naturally occurs in the soil anyway.

The salting of lead is so low that you could still eat the dirt beside the freeways in the sixties and not be harmed any lead that was in it.

Lead is not plutonium. But then, a lot of people misunderstand plutonium too, thanks to idiots like Carl Sagan.

I would like to return to tetraethyl lead. It is not hygroscopic, it helps to lubricate the engine, and the amount of lead put out the tailpipe is really not a problem. It does poison the catalytic converter though. THAT device was required by government due to anti-pollution laws, even though they do not reduce pollution.


Returning to tetra ethyl lead is not a good idea for a variety of health reasons summarized below:


http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health


Lead in gasoline never affected the children or anybody else. Like I said, lead is a known component in the soil anyway. It's always been there naturally.

What causes crime today is simple: poverty, drugs, welfare programs that enable it, catch and release programs for criminals, and the release of mentally ill people on the streets.


Here are some more references on the fact that lead poisoning affects children's IQ :

...deleted California propaganda 'study'...
...deleted NPR propaganda...
...deleted fake news site...
...deleted reference to Time magazine...

I could cite more, but you get the idea. Sometimes I think some of the respondents on this blog encountered lead as a child.


You can cite liberal crap all day long. It doesn't make it true.


The Parrot Killer
30-03-2017 17:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Frescomexico wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What causes crime today is simple: poverty, drugs, welfare programs that enable it


Bingo!


I live in a small village in Mexico. Most of the people here are incredibly poor, but there is not a lot of crime here or drug use. These people generally work hard at whatever jobs they can find. My point is poverty per se does not engender crime.


It does when it is a form of imprisonment.

You must understand that a lot of poverty in the United States is just slaves on cotton plantations again, but this time in the inner city. It is caused by racist programs created by the government.


The Parrot Killer
30-03-2017 17:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What causes crime today is simple: poverty, drugs, welfare programs that enable it


Bingo!


I live in a small village in Mexico. Most of the people here are incredibly poor, but there is not a lot of crime here or drug use. These people generally work hard at whatever jobs they can find. My point is poverty per se does not engender crime.

Notice welfare programs in red? We here in the US have a bad habit of believing that throwing money at poverty will solve the problem. In reality it makes it worse. Those poor people in your village that work hard and are honest...what would they be in Mexico with the same economic opportunity that we have here? Likely realizing their full potential with a decent income. But when people become addicted to the gov handout, they become entitlement minded. Why make $70 a day busting your ass when you can make $50 a day doing nothing? ...and when it's not enough they scream, because the gov "doesn't care about the poor man".
Now they have the "right" to break laws and cause trouble because the gov did them wrong.

That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


How typical of you, quoting supposed crime rates reported by strong central governments (aka ones that have a strong power of propaganda), that ignores the crime imposed upon victims by the elite.


The Parrot Killer
30-03-2017 17:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What causes crime today is simple: poverty, drugs, welfare programs that enable it


Bingo!


I live in a small village in Mexico. Most of the people here are incredibly poor, but there is not a lot of crime here or drug use. These people generally work hard at whatever jobs they can find. My point is poverty per se does not engender crime.

Notice welfare programs in red? We here in the US have a bad habit of believing that throwing money at poverty will solve the problem. In reality it makes it worse. Those poor people in your village that work hard and are honest...what would they be in Mexico with the same economic opportunity that we have here? Likely realizing their full potential with a decent income. But when people become addicted to the gov handout, they become entitlement minded. Why make $70 a day busting your ass when you can make $50 a day doing nothing? ...and when it's not enough they scream, because the gov "doesn't care about the poor man".
Now they have the "right" to break laws and cause trouble because the gov did them wrong.

That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


I agree. With TV and internet available, it is difficult to watch the "good life" and not ask "Why not me?" Also in the USA, there are generations of families on welfare who know no other way.


Coveting is coveting, no matter where it occurs. You do realize, don't you, that many other nations have TV and internet.


The Parrot Killer
30-03-2017 17:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


Really? Singapore? Where it's mandatory death by hanging for 14g of heroin.

Why do you suppose strong central gov is associated with poverty?


He is ignoring crime by the elite.


The Parrot Killer
30-03-2017 17:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


Really? Singapore? Where it's mandatory death by hanging for 14g of heroin.

Why do you suppose strong central gov is associated with poverty?

Eh? Singapore is one of the richest (per capita) countries in the world, as well as having a low crime rate.


WRONG.

The United States is the richest in the world, both per capita and total.


The Parrot Killer
30-03-2017 17:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


Really? Singapore? Where it's mandatory death by hanging for 14g of heroin.

Why do you suppose strong central gov is associated with poverty?

Eh? Singapore is one of the richest (per capita) countries in the world, as well as having a low crime rate.


Too many thoughts at the same time....guess I threw out Singapore because they have a huge income gap with nearly 20% at "relative poverty" and 8-9% absolute poverty. There is no freedom of speech or press or political party. There are very few criminals because they're dead.

Yeah, that's sort of my point. As I said, low crime countries tend to have low income inequality and/or authoritarian governments. Personally, I think the former approach is to be preferred.


That's because you're a socialist.


The Parrot Killer
30-03-2017 17:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


Really? Singapore? Where it's mandatory death by hanging for 14g of heroin.

Why do you suppose strong central gov is associated with poverty?

Eh? Singapore is one of the richest (per capita) countries in the world, as well as having a low crime rate.


WRONG.

The United States is the richest in the world, both per capita and total.

Hmm, you appear to be illiterate as well as signed up to every conspiracy theory under the sun.
Page 2 of 6<1234>>>





Join the debate Man-Made Causes:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The case against man made climate change, condensed - 23 mins121-12-2017 18:50
Man-made global cooling006-12-2017 17:57
How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God1420-11-2017 21:54
US report contradicts Trump team: Warming mostly man-made7018-11-2017 08:59
Natural CO2 vs man made CO2-is there a difference?4528-02-2017 21:56
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact