Australian fires

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Australian fires > Page 2

Page 2 of 3

05-01-2020 05:25
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Here's an interesting little bit. I didn't fact check. Take it for what it is. https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
05-01-2020 05:27
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: I don't own a copy, nor the patience to sit through. yeah I never saw it. Be a lot morectedeous now. But cataloging missed predictions from noteable sources would be worthwhile. I only just realized something that fits this scenario perfectly: predictions of the biblical end of the world.
05-01-2020 11:48
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	They predicted that forest fires would get worse and they are, The Conservative Government of Australia is one of the world's most hostile to science that's why it failed to invest in fire fighting equipment and is still pushing coal.
05-01-2020 12:18
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	spot wrote: They predicted that forest fires would get worse and they are, The Conservative Government of Australia is one of the world's most hostile to science that's why it failed to invest in fire fighting equipment and is still pushing coal. Higher temps = drier plants = more fire Is certainly logical But only as a proportional change. So we have a claim that a 1/2 degree temperature increase had increased fires without a "by ____%" clarification. If the temp above freezing went from 40C to 40.5C on a hot day in Australia wouldn't that mean a 1/80th increase? That's 1.25% more. That would make sense right?
RE: Help me raise money to fight wildfires in Australia05-01-2020 17:59
citadellouis ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	Hi there, I just wanted to have your attention for a minute to help me raise money to help fight the fires in Australia. I created an online clothing store with quite a few different designs and colours and if you buy anything from there, I will donate 30% of the profit to WIRES (https://www.wires.org.au). You can find all the info about where the money is going on the website. I will be saving up the rest of the profit to make a short film about climate change as I am a filmmaker and I could reach even more people by doing so. Your help would be much appreciated, here is a link to the store : https://teespring.com/stores/the-good-cause-store Thanks, Louis.

05-01-2020 18:42
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	GasGuzzler wrote: Here's an interesting little bit. I didn't fact check. Take it for what it is. https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions And I'm learning calculus so I can make a computer model for natural climate variation. What will help is how much more is known today. BTW, the ozone layer became depleted after those headlines. Maybe that's what got things warming again? I almost forgot, along with a population increase in the billions leading to deforestation on an epic scale. Water and food shortages are still possible. What averted food shortages was fertilizers became better. Iowa agricultural production on a graph showing from 1960 to 2010. A problem was understood and solutions were found. Why understanding challenges the future might pose is important. Iowa agricultural production is an example of that. https://www.extension.iastate.edu/Documents/soils/yieldregression.PDF As things are, wells are going dry west of the Mississippi River. Edited on 05-01-2020 18:59
05-01-2020 20:45
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	With desalination, to raise the temperature of water by 200° F. with a volume of 78 cubic feet or a pipe with a 10 foot diameter and 1 foot deep heating area/volume takes about 27,000 watts of energy. A solar panel generates about 15 watts per square foot. An improved solar panel would allow for flash type desalination with no brine being dumped into the sea. When sea water is flashed into steam it leaves the salt behind. At the same time the steam can preheat sea water so energy requirements would be less. But if 78 cubic feet of water was flashed per second, that's a little over 2 million gallons an hour. Or every hour enough freshwater would be generated to support 18 typical households for 1 year. Just something for people to consider.
05-01-2020 21:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: And I'm learning calculus so I can make a computer model for natural climate variation. I believe I have mentioned this before but I thoroughly applaud your endeavor. This is exactly how I became the IBDaMann that I am today. It's like turning to the dark side of The Force; once you realize that there is no such thing as a global "Climate" to model, your journey towards becoming IBDaMann will be complete. While you seach for the "model" in which to put into code, consider yourself my apprentice, willing or otherwise. I have already foreseen everything you will learn and everything you will realize. Let the frustration FLOW through you and feel the TRUE POWER of actually thinking for yourself. James___ wrote: What will help is how much more is known today. You are using that past participle "known" to deceive yourself into thinking that this is somehow a matter of science. It is not. The dogma has not changed. Read it. The Communist Manifesto James___ wrote: BTW, the ozone layer became depleted after those headlines. You only get one shot at this life. One of your biggest regrets in this Climate-modeling endeavor will be that you wasted however much time you did worrying about, and trying to model, a fictitious "ozone depletion." You will realize that you will never get back all that time you ignored the six pertinent chemistry equations that quite clearly show that if your intention were to deplete the earth's ozone that the only solution you or anyone else could engineer would be to turn off the sun. Tick-tock, tick-tock ... James___ wrote: Maybe that's what got things warming again? Your next regret will be that you allowed others to manipulate you into believing that average global temperatures have changed drastically, that you never required anyone to explain to you the claim that temperatures somehow increased or decreased everywhere at all altitudes and all depths at the same time, as opposed to some regions increasing while others decreased in a balancing out sort of way. You will look at the ice age conditions of Greenland and realize that those conditions are only in Greenland, not to the west or to the east. You will realize that Greenland was once ... green. You will realize that while Greenland descended into its ice age that other places emerged from theirs, with their glaciers disappearing in the process. James___ wrote: I almost forgot, along with a population increase in the billions leading to deforestation on an epic scale. You will realize that no substance can increase the temperature of the earth without adding additional energy ... which will lead to your epiphany that removing a substance from the earth cannot affect temperature either. You will correctly extrapolate that adding biological matter, i.e. humans, to the planet cannot affect its temperature and that removing trees can likewise not affect the earth's temperature. You will wonder what the F you were previously thinking. James___ wrote: Water and food shortages are still possible. Then you will have one of the greatest epiphanies of all. You will realize that water and food shortages are still possible because the totally imaginary cannot have any effect on the totally real. James___ wrote: As things are, wells are going dry west of the Mississippi River. If they are, we can probably agree that no solution will sprout from The Communist Manifesto [find-MODELINGCLIMATE] . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit* A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-01-2020 01:04
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: I almost forgot, along with a population increase in the billions leading to deforestation on an epic scale. You will realize that no substance can increase the temperature of the earth without adding additional energy ... which will lead to your epiphany that removing a substance from the earth cannot affect temperature either. . I know you know it already James but we should always counter missinformation. IBD has been debunked in his false take on basic thermodynamics (in my sig). Earth's composition absolutely can change in a way that results in a higher or lower temperature at ground level (what we are concetned with). His claim would mean removing Earths atmosphere entirely "cannot affect temperature ". We of course have our own moon as a reference for how wrong that is. We also have the amazing Venus where temps at night don't even drop. I think his odd argument is supposed to resemble scientific analysis of a closed system (matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed demos) and IBD is pretending the energy in the Earth system is fixed. The correct model is one where the Sun is gushing radiance on Earth, some reflects away, some is absorbed breifly before reradiating into space, and some is absobed long term and is present to increase the mean temp some 30 C at ground level over what we would expect to find from the radiance from the sun with no way to retain thermal energy. The Earth is not part of a closed thermodynamic system at all. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them Edited on 06-01-2020 01:06
06-01-2020 03:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: I know you know it already James but we should always counter missinformation. I know you know it already James__ but tmiddles believes that he should always inject missinformation. tmiddles wrote:His claim would mean removing Earths atmosphere entirely "cannot affect temperature ". That is correct. The average global temperature would not be affected. tmiddles wrote: We of course have our own moon as a reference for how wrong that is. ... because tmiddles believes that he knows the average lunar temperature ... because he is omniscient, you see. I believe he has also declared the earth's average global temperature via fiat. tmiddles wrote: We also have the amazing Venus where temps at night don't even drop. I wonder what makes tmiddles think Venus' nighttime temperatures don't drop anywhere, ever? Oh, that's right ... the passages in Wikipedia that he has underlined. tmiddles wrote: The correct model is one where the Sun is gushing radiance on Earth, some reflects away, some is absorbed breifly before reradiating into space, and some is absobed long term and is present to increase the mean temp some 30 C at ground level over what we would expect to find from the radiance from the sun with no way to retain thermal energy. 1. Gushing. Is that required? Is the sun "gushing" right now? 2. "Some" reflects away? How much? If tmiddles needs to know the earth's emissivity to calculate its temperature, isn't he admitting that he doesn't know either? 3. tmiddles uses the warmizombie term of "re-radiating" because he thinks that the wavelengths absorbed are the same ones radiated, like the earth is a repeater. Too funny. 3. Did tmiddles just rewrite Planck's law to include a "long-term absorption" term? 4. Did tmiddles just claim that we have a certain temperature expectation based on the calculation he cannot perform? tmiddles wrote: The Earth is not part of a closed thermodynamic system at all. Look, tmiddles claims the earth is not part of the universe. What a bonehead. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-01-2020 03:31
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: I almost forgot, along with a population increase in the billions leading to deforestation on an epic scale. You will realize that no substance can increase the temperature of the earth without adding additional energy ... which will lead to your epiphany that removing a substance from the earth cannot affect temperature either. . I know you know it already James but we should always counter missinformation. IBD has been debunked in his false take on basic thermodynamics (in my sig). Earth's composition absolutely can change in a way that results in a higher or lower temperature at ground level (what we are concetned with). His claim would mean removing Earths atmosphere entirely "cannot affect temperature ". We of course have our own moon as a reference for how wrong that is. We also have the amazing Venus where temps at night don't even drop. I think his odd argument is supposed to resemble scientific analysis of a closed system (matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed demos) and IBD is pretending the energy in the Earth system is fixed. The correct model is one where the Sun is gushing radiance on Earth, some reflects away, some is absorbed breifly before reradiating into space, and some is absobed long term and is present to increase the mean temp some 30 C at ground level over what we would expect to find from the radiance from the sun with no way to retain thermal energy. The Earth is not part of a closed thermodynamic system at all. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them One reason why I kept posting in this forum is so people would know there's more than what itn and ibdm say. I usually reference Boltmann's ideal gas law which they ignore. Yet they will say Stefan-Boltzmann constant. I hope people are smart enough to know that energy is always being added to and removed from our atmosphere. So energy in our atmosphere is not being created from nothing. The burning of fossil fuels release energy into our atmosphere as well. They tend to ignore that some things come with their own heat energy.
06-01-2020 03:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: The burning of fossil fuels release energy into our atmosphere as well. It's negligible quantity nonetheless radiates away without impact. ... and which fossils do you believe can be burned as fuel? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-01-2020 03:52
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	James___ wrote: With desalination, to raise the temperature of water by 200° F. with a volume of 78 cubic feet or a pipe with a 10 foot diameter and 1 foot deep heating area/volume takes about 27,000 watts of energy. A solar panel generates about 15 watts per square foot. An improved solar panel would allow for flash type desalination with no brine being dumped into the sea. When sea water is flashed into steam it leaves the salt behind. At the same time the steam can preheat sea water so energy requirements would be less. But if 78 cubic feet of water was flashed per second, that's a little over 2 million gallons an hour. Or every hour enough freshwater would be generated to support 18 typical households for 1 year. Just something for people to consider. Why use solar panels at all? Sun provides heat, and there are options for 'magnifying' it, to get things really hot, even boiling water. Be cheaper, more reliable as well... Solar cookers are kiddie stuff, so you should have no problem finding something. There are solar heaters for homes, and pools as well.
06-01-2020 04:37
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: 1. ...Gushing... No point made IBdaMann wrote: 2. ...tmiddles needs to know the earth's emissivity... I don't to make that point because we are hotter than a black body would be. So hotter than the maximum emissivity which debunks your theory it's only emissvity at play. IBdaMann wrote: 3. ... like the earth is a repeater... Pretty accurate description of matter absorbing and re-radiating energy. Just as molecules are repeaters for electrical and thermal energy in a solid. IBdaMann wrote: 3. ...Planck's law ... You give No explanation, No citiation, I won't bother. You make up your own laws. IBdaMann wrote:4. ...certain temperature expectation based on the calculation... Here you go: https://fr.coursera.org/lecture/global-warming/naked-planet-climate-model-xWZsI IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The Earth is not part of a closed thermodynamic system at all. Look, tmiddles claims the earth is not part of the universe. That the Earth is contained within a Universe we assume to be closed is a useless point to make. You like pretending that Earth's thermodynamics don't include the Sun or the void it radiates into. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them Edited on 06-01-2020 05:03
06-01-2020 05:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: 2. ...tmiddles needs to know the earth's emissivity... I don't to make that point because we are hotter than a black body would be. What a Bozo. There is no subjunctive in science. There is no "would be." Or did you think you could use your omnipotence to declare science to be based on the subjunctive? tmiddles wrote: 3. ... like the earth is a repeater... Pretty accurate description of matter absorbing and re-radiating energy. Nope. That is not what happens. Energy changes form. Different wavelengths are radiated than what were abosorbed. The earth's radiance is simply not equivalent to the sun's radiance. There is no "re-radiance" ... unless you are intentionally trying destroy a discussion. tmiddles wrote: 3. ...Planck's law ... You give No explanation, No citiation, I won't bother. You make up your own laws. Too funny. You expect to be free to rewrite science to conform to your delusions without anyone mentioning anything, and you are genuinely confused when someone does. What a loser. tmiddles wrote: Look, tmiddles claims the earth is not part of the universe. That the Earth is contained within a Universe we assume to be closed is a useless point to make. It's the only point. Your assertion that the earth is not in a closed system is absurd. You don't know what "closed system" means. tmiddles wrote: You like pretending that Earth's thermodynamics don't include the Sun or the void it radiates into. Look everyone, tmiddles doesn't know what constitutes a closed system, but that doesn't stop him from declaring that others are just wrong for disagreeing with his omniscience. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

06-01-2020 05:40
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:There is no "would be." Wrong. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is used to predict what the temperature for a black body would be . IF it were a black body. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: 3. ...Planck's law ... You give No explanation, No citiation, Too funny. Still no explanation and no citation. IBdaMann wrote: It's the only point. Yeah, not very informative. IBdaMann wrote: Look everyone, ... You mean me, James and keepit? You Trolls, ITN and you, won. You drove everyone interesting off the board. Go celebrate. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
06-01-2020 05:54
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: With desalination, to raise the temperature of water by 200° F. with a volume of 78 cubic feet or a pipe with a 10 foot diameter and 1 foot deep heating area/volume takes about 27,000 watts of energy. A solar panel generates about 15 watts per square foot. An improved solar panel would allow for flash type desalination with no brine being dumped into the sea. When sea water is flashed into steam it leaves the salt behind. At the same time the steam can preheat sea water so energy requirements would be less. But if 78 cubic feet of water was flashed per second, that's a little over 2 million gallons an hour. Or every hour enough freshwater would be generated to support 18 typical households for 1 year. Just something for people to consider. Why use solar panels at all? Sun provides heat, and there are options for 'magnifying' it, to get things really hot, even boiling water. Be cheaper, more reliable as well... Solar cookers are kiddie stuff, so you should have no problem finding something. There are solar heaters for homes, and pools as well. I would try explaining it to you but....you didn't understand what I meant when I was talking about GMOs not being organic. Edited on 06-01-2020 05:56
06-01-2020 15:25
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	As if these two clowns are actually interested in having basic physics explained to them. All they want is people not talking about the bush fires in Australia, mission accomplished.
06-01-2020 16:02
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	spot wrote: As if these two clowns are actually interested in having basic physics explained to them. All they want is people not talking about the bush fires in Australia, mission accomplished. When Australia had droughts at the start of the millennium along with more fires, it was because the wind patterns changed. I'm wondering if it's the same thing. Fires in Australia are also different. They have some trees that only drop their seeds after a fire. The wildfires that are now threatening Sydney and other parts of New South Wales, Australia, are burning out of control, despite intensive firefighting efforts. This is from Oct., 2013; Hundreds of homes have been destroyed by fires raging along a 190-mile (306 kilometers) front, and much of the region is blanketed by thick, choking smoke. Dry, windy conditions are expected to worsen through Wednesday (Oct. 23), making the task of battling the infernos even more demanding, according to the AP. The fires are finding fuel in Australia's eucalyptus forests, which many experts blame for feeding wildfires that have blazed through the hills of California and other places where eucalyptus trees — native to Australia but now found throughout the world — have spread as an invasive species. Designed to thrive after fires Like many plants native to fire-prone regions, eucalyptus trees (aka gum trees in Australia) are adapted to survive — or even thrive — in a wildfire. https://www.livescience.com/40583-australia-wildfires-eucalyptus-trees-bushfires.html I've watched a lot of documentaries about Australia so knew that some trees needing fire. Why gum trees are a greater fire hazard is another question.
06-01-2020 19:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: I almost forgot, along with a population increase in the billions leading to deforestation on an epic scale. You will realize that no substance can increase the temperature of the earth without adding additional energy ... which will lead to your epiphany that removing a substance from the earth cannot affect temperature either. . I know you know it already James but we should always counter missinformation. IBD has been debunked in his false take on basic thermodynamics (in my sig). Earth's composition absolutely can change in a way that results in a higher or lower temperature at ground level (what we are concetned with). His claim would mean removing Earths atmosphere entirely "cannot affect temperature ". We of course have our own moon as a reference for how wrong that is. We also have the amazing Venus where temps at night don't even drop. I think his odd argument is supposed to resemble scientific analysis of a closed system (matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed demos) and IBD is pretending the energy in the Earth system is fixed. The correct model is one where the Sun is gushing radiance on Earth, some reflects away, some is absorbed breifly before reradiating into space, and some is absobed long term and is present to increase the mean temp some 30 C at ground level over what we would expect to find from the radiance from the sun with no way to retain thermal energy. The Earth is not part of a closed thermodynamic system at all. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them One reason why I kept posting in this forum is so people would know there's more than what itn and ibdm say. I usually reference Boltmann's ideal gas law which they ignore. Yet they will say Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The ideal gas law doesn't apply here. That's why it's being ignored. The ideal gas law is not the Stefan-Bolzmann law. James___ wrote: I hope people are smart enough to know that energy is always being added to and removed from our atmosphere. So energy in our atmosphere is not being created from nothing. The ONLY way to increase the temperature of Earth (or anything) is to add MORE energy to it. Where is all that additional energy coming from, James? James___ wrote: The burning of fossil fuels release energy into our atmosphere as well. Fossils don't burn. Anything we burn just comes from the Sun or the Earth anyway. They haven't changed. James___ wrote: They tend to ignore that some things come with their own heat energy. Heat is not energy. Heat has no temperature. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-01-2020 19:20
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	James___ wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: With desalination, to raise the temperature of water by 200° F. with a volume of 78 cubic feet or a pipe with a 10 foot diameter and 1 foot deep heating area/volume takes about 27,000 watts of energy. A solar panel generates about 15 watts per square foot. An improved solar panel would allow for flash type desalination with no brine being dumped into the sea. When sea water is flashed into steam it leaves the salt behind. At the same time the steam can preheat sea water so energy requirements would be less. But if 78 cubic feet of water was flashed per second, that's a little over 2 million gallons an hour. Or every hour enough freshwater would be generated to support 18 typical households for 1 year. Just something for people to consider. Why use solar panels at all? Sun provides heat, and there are options for 'magnifying' it, to get things really hot, even boiling water. Be cheaper, more reliable as well... Solar cookers are kiddie stuff, so you should have no problem finding something. There are solar heaters for homes, and pools as well. I would try explaining it to you but....you didn't understand what I meant when I was talking about GMOs not being organic. GMO = Genetically Modified Organism, it's just as much organic, as any other living thing. It's like there is the 'bad' manmade CO2, and the naturally occurring CO2 (good). Chemically, they are exactly the same.
06-01-2020 19:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: 1. ...Gushing... No point made Argument of the stone fallacy. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: 2. ...tmiddles needs to know the earth's emissivity... I don't to make that point because we are hotter than a black body would be. No, it isn't. You cannot make energy out of nothing. There is no 'should be' in science. tmiddles wrote: So hotter than the maximum emissivity which debunks your theory it's only emissvity at play. No, it isn't. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: 3. ... like the earth is a repeater... Pretty accurate description of matter absorbing and re-radiating energy. Just as molecules are repeaters for electrical and thermal energy in a solid. There is no sequence. You are attempting to suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law for some moment in time. Not possible. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: 3. ...Planck's law ... You give No explanation, No citiation, I won't bother. You make up your own laws. Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR problem. You are currently attempting to add a time term to the Stefan-Boltzmann law and introduce a sequence. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:4. ...certain temperature expectation based on the calculation... Here you go: ...deleted Holy Link... False authority fallacy. You can't just ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law or the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics. The ONLY authoritative reference on any of these law are the theories themselves. The equations have been given to you multiple times, yet you still ignore them, deny them, or try to change them. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: The Earth is not part of a closed thermodynamic system at all. Look, tmiddles claims the earth is not part of the universe. That the Earth is contained within a Universe we assume to be closed is a useless point to make. You like pretending that Earth's thermodynamics don't include the Sun or the void it radiates into. Irrelevant. The 2nd law of thermodynamics also works for the Universe as a system (at least for the Universe that we can see). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-01-2020 19:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:There is no "would be." Wrong. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is used to predict what the temperature for a black body would be . IF it were a black body. WRONG. You are now attempting to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law by removing the emissivity term again. YOU CANNOT JUST CHANGE THE EQUATION. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: 3. ...Planck's law ... You give No explanation, No citiation, Too funny. Still no explanation and no citation. None needed. RQAA tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: It's the only point. Yeah, not very informative. Argument of the Stone fallacy. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Look everyone, ... You mean me, James and keepit? You Trolls, ITN and you, won. You drove everyone interesting off the board. Go celebrate. So you're not interesting, eh? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-01-2020 09:11
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: ....it's just as much organic, as any other living thing. It's like there is the 'bad' manmade CO2, and the naturally occurring CO2 (good). Chemically, they are exactly the same. Harvey words have multiple definitions. Pretending someone was not using the definition they intended is just a delberate attempt to missread them. "Organic" is as specific as "Kosher". Look it up if you're curious. No it does not mean carbon based in Jame's post or in mine. But you all knew that. dictionary.com anytime you guys need it.
07-01-2020 15:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: Harvey words have multiple definitions. ... and you like to ensure no one is clear on which meaning is being used. You would rather have your teeth pulled without anesthesia than to define your terms. You are clarity-intolerant. You take regular ambiguity injections. You can't stand it when others seek to get the semantics straight. tmiddles wrote: Pretending someone was not using the definition they intended is just a delberate attempt to missread them. Pretending that others are pretending is just a deliberate attempt to maintain the ambiguity and to ultimately destroy the conversation. tmiddles wrote: "Organic" is as specific as "Kosher". Look it up if you're curious. Yes, it means "carbon based." Science has this one covered. Pretending that science illiteracy must necessarily trump science is a typical Marxist ploy to disrupt conversations. tmiddles wrote: No it does not mean carbon based in Jame's post or in mine. Then define your terms in advance and don't blame others for asking. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-01-2020 17:43
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Harvey words have multiple definitions. ... and you like to ensure no one is clear on which meaning is being used... From 6 days ago: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: sigh.... Dictionary again sigh ... intentional ambiguity just to kill discussions. Not at all everyone here including you knows what James meant. You're just Trolling as usual. Like when you and ITN pretend not to know what fossil fuels are. Just another day of you guys jousting with the dictionary. organic [ awr-gan-ik ] pertaining to, involving, or grown with fertilizers or pesticides of animal or vegetable origin, as distinguished from manufactured chemicals: organic farming; organic fruits. Not that any of you needed help in knowing the intended meaning in Jame's post. No one who has been to a grocery store would. IBdaMann wrote: Yes, it means "carbon based." ...a typical Marxist ploy... No context and the dictionary are not "Marxist ploys" IBD. In fact there are 14 meanings, both distinct and nuanced, for the use of "organic" as an adjective (linked above) that are prevalent enough to make it into the dictionary. Organic food being distinguished from non-organic food is #11 for dictionary.com. If anyone else who is sane reads this and wonders why I bother. This board is entirely unmoderated I'm sorry to say. We are overrun by two Trolls that harass every post primarily with stupid challenges to the dictionary. I just want to ensure that now and again the full stupidity of this angle is exposed. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them Edited on 07-01-2020 17:50
07-01-2020 18:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: ....it's just as much organic, as any other living thing. It's like there is the 'bad' manmade CO2, and the naturally occurring CO2 (good). Chemically, they are exactly the same. Harvey words have multiple definitions. Pretending someone was not using the definition they intended is just a delberate attempt to missread them. 'Organic' as in 'organic chemistry' has only one definition. tmiddles wrote: "Organic" is as specific as "Kosher". Look it up if you're curious. It has nothing to do with blessing it using a rabbi or any other priest. That has more to do with 'organic' food vs 'normal' food. The only different is the priest. (All food is organic). tmiddles wrote: No it does not mean carbon based in Jame's post or in mine. Organic chemistry is chemistry relating to compounds of carbon, other than simple salts. tmiddles wrote: But you all knew that. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. tmiddles wrote: dictionary.com anytime you guys need it. Dictionaries don't define words. False authority fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-01-2020 18:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Harvey words have multiple definitions. ... and you like to ensure no one is clear on which meaning is being used... From 6 days ago: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: sigh.... Dictionary again sigh ... intentional ambiguity just to kill discussions. Not at all everyone here including you knows what James meant. You're just Trolling as usual. Like when you and ITN pretend not to know what fossil fuels are. Just another day of you guys jousting with the dictionary. organic [ awr-gan-ik ] pertaining to, involving, or grown with fertilizers or pesticides of animal or vegetable origin, as distinguished from manufactured chemicals: organic farming; organic fruits. Not that any of you needed help in knowing the intended meaning in Jame's post. No one who has been to a grocery store would. Contextomy fallacy. Distortion. You are misquoting Jamie now out of context. IBdaMann wrote: Yes, it means "carbon based." ...a typical Marxist ploy... No context and the dictionary are not "Marxist ploys" IBD.[/quote] Your constant context shifting (a fallacy) and quoting dictionaries as an authoritative source to justify your redefinition fallacies IS a Marxist ploy, dude. tmiddles wrote: In fact there are 14 meanings, both distinct and nuanced, for the use of "organic" as an adjective (linked above) that are prevalent enough to make it into the dictionary. Dictionaries don't define any word. tmiddles wrote: Organic food being distinguished from non-organic food is #11 for dictionary.com. All food is organic. The label 'organic food' is just the same as 'kosher food' but blessed by a different priest. tmiddles wrote: If anyone else who is sane reads this and wonders why I bother. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. tmiddles wrote: This board is entirely unmoderated I'm sorry to say. Nope. Folks have been thrown off this board. You don't get to speak for Branner either. tmiddles wrote: We are overrun by two Trolls that harass every post primarily with stupid challenges to the dictionary. Inversion fallacy. tmiddles wrote: I just want to ensure that now and again the full stupidity of this angle is exposed. You have been exposed for a long time. RDCF. Inversion fallacy. YALIF. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-01-2020 19:44
L8112 ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Harvey words have multiple definitions. ... and you like to ensure no one is clear on which meaning is being used... From 6 days ago: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: sigh.... Dictionary again sigh ... intentional ambiguity just to kill discussions. Not at all everyone here including you knows what James meant. You're just Trolling as usual. Like when you and ITN pretend not to know what fossil fuels are. Just another day of you guys jousting with the dictionary. organic [ awr-gan-ik ] pertaining to, involving, or grown with fertilizers or pesticides of animal or vegetable origin, as distinguished from manufactured chemicals: organic farming; organic fruits. Not that any of you needed help in knowing the intended meaning in Jame's post. No one who has been to a grocery store would. IBdaMann wrote: Yes, it means "carbon based." ...a typical Marxist ploy... No context and the dictionary are not "Marxist ploys" IBD. In fact there are 14 meanings, both distinct and nuanced, for the use of "organic" as an adjective (linked above) that are prevalent enough to make it into the dictionary. Organic food being distinguished from non-organic food is #11 for dictionary.com. If anyone else who is sane reads this and wonders why I bother. This board is entirely unmoderated I'm sorry to say. We are overrun by two Trolls that harass every post primarily with stupid challenges to the dictionary. I just want to ensure that now and again the full stupidity of this angle is exposed. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them The parrot is a creature that camouflages itself by mimicking the sounds of large animals too large for the cats. thats why they sound like they can say words. The parrot killer, is actually a parrot, which is in line with how everything he says is the exact opposite of true. He says words but that is the extent of his scope: a mouth...and anyone who has the misfortune of hearing the inert firing of neurons in his incapacitated brain, manifested as various grunts and wails, or letters on a screen. Have you ever seen him make any attempt at rational conversation, without derailing it using non-sequiturs and fallacies? the gist being: anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, any evidence that invalidates his beliefs is dismissed without thought. genetic monkeys like Into The Night mimick the verbiage of the local environment of people they think are validating their cognitive voodoo. thats why they almost sound like they are speaking. the line-by-line dissecting, obsessive compulsive response to anyone who invalidates his cognitive crap, is genetic monkey panic, a literal fight or flight response straight from his amygdala. To have his beliefs threatened is no different than having someone hold a gun to his head. Point here is, don't waste your time 'debating', there is nothing to debate.
07-01-2020 19:47
L8112 ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Harvey words have multiple definitions. ... and you like to ensure no one is clear on which meaning is being used... From 6 days ago: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: sigh.... Dictionary again sigh ... intentional ambiguity just to kill discussions. Not at all everyone here including you knows what James meant. You're just Trolling as usual. Like when you and ITN pretend not to know what fossil fuels are. Just another day of you guys jousting with the dictionary. organic [ awr-gan-ik ] pertaining to, involving, or grown with fertilizers or pesticides of animal or vegetable origin, as distinguished from manufactured chemicals: organic farming; organic fruits. Not that any of you needed help in knowing the intended meaning in Jame's post. No one who has been to a grocery store would. IBdaMann wrote: Yes, it means "carbon based." ...a typical Marxist ploy... No context and the dictionary are not "Marxist ploys" IBD. In fact there are 14 meanings, both distinct and nuanced, for the use of "organic" as an adjective (linked above) that are prevalent enough to make it into the dictionary. Organic food being distinguished from non-organic food is #11 for dictionary.com. If anyone else who is sane reads this and wonders why I bother. This board is entirely unmoderated I'm sorry to say. We are overrun by two Trolls that harass every post primarily with stupid challenges to the dictionary. I just want to ensure that now and again the full stupidity of this angle is exposed. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them don't waste your time 'debating', there is nothing to debate. Edited on 07-01-2020 19:53

07-01-2020 23:06
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	L8112 wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Harvey words have multiple definitions. ... and you like to ensure no one is clear on which meaning is being used... From 6 days ago: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: sigh.... Dictionary again sigh ... intentional ambiguity just to kill discussions. Not at all everyone here including you knows what James meant. You're just Trolling as usual. Like when you and ITN pretend not to know what fossil fuels are. Just another day of you guys jousting with the dictionary. organic [ awr-gan-ik ] pertaining to, involving, or grown with fertilizers or pesticides of animal or vegetable origin, as distinguished from manufactured chemicals: organic farming; organic fruits. Not that any of you needed help in knowing the intended meaning in Jame's post. No one who has been to a grocery store would. IBdaMann wrote: Yes, it means "carbon based." ...a typical Marxist ploy... No context and the dictionary are not "Marxist ploys" IBD. In fact there are 14 meanings, both distinct and nuanced, for the use of "organic" as an adjective (linked above) that are prevalent enough to make it into the dictionary. Organic food being distinguished from non-organic food is #11 for dictionary.com. If anyone else who is sane reads this and wonders why I bother. This board is entirely unmoderated I'm sorry to say. We are overrun by two Trolls that harass every post primarily with stupid challenges to the dictionary. I just want to ensure that now and again the full stupidity of this angle is exposed. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them The parrot is a creature that camouflages itself by mimicking the sounds of large animals too large for the cats. thats why they sound like they can say words. The parrot killer, is actually a parrot, which is in line with how everything he says is the exact opposite of true. He says words but that is the extent of his scope: a mouth...and anyone who has the misfortune of hearing the inert firing of neurons in his incapacitated brain, manifested as various grunts and wails, or letters on a screen. Have you ever seen him make any attempt at rational conversation, without derailing it using non-sequiturs and fallacies? the gist being: anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, any evidence that invalidates his beliefs is dismissed without thought. genetic monkeys like Into The Night mimick the verbiage of the local environment of people they think are validating their cognitive voodoo. thats why they almost sound like they are speaking. the line-by-line dissecting, obsessive compulsive response to anyone who invalidates his cognitive crap, is genetic monkey panic, a literal fight or flight response straight from his amygdala. To have his beliefs threatened is no different than having someone hold a gun to his head. Point here is, don't waste your time 'debating', there is nothing to debate. Umm, not to dis agree with you but you might be wrong about this; "To have his beliefs threatened is no different than having someone hold a gun to his head." The world changed and some have great difficulty in accepting it. Some can't adapt to an ever changing world while remaining true to who they are. It creates an internal conflict which can't be resolved because in them the yin (day) and the yang (night) are not able to peacefully exist.
07-01-2020 23:46
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: ....it's just as much organic, as any other living thing. It's like there is the 'bad' manmade CO2, and the naturally occurring CO2 (good). Chemically, they are exactly the same. Harvey words have multiple definitions. Pretending someone was not using the definition they intended is just a delberate attempt to missread them. "Organic" is as specific as "Kosher". Look it up if you're curious. No it does not mean carbon based in Jame's post or in mine. But you all knew that. dictionary.com anytime you guys need it. Not everybody is Jewish, or know many practicing Jews. Kosher means 'clean', though I still don't know the specifics, or even really care enough to look it up. A religious thing, not of my faith. Same goes for a lot of climate change stuff. I usually go with the scientific/medical definitions, over political/religious.
07-01-2020 23:48
L8112 ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	James___ wrote: L8112 wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Harvey words have multiple definitions. ... and you like to ensure no one is clear on which meaning is being used... From 6 days ago: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: sigh.... Dictionary again sigh ... intentional ambiguity just to kill discussions. Not at all everyone here including you knows what James meant. You're just Trolling as usual. Like when you and ITN pretend not to know what fossil fuels are. Just another day of you guys jousting with the dictionary. organic [ awr-gan-ik ] pertaining to, involving, or grown with fertilizers or pesticides of animal or vegetable origin, as distinguished from manufactured chemicals: organic farming; organic fruits. Not that any of you needed help in knowing the intended meaning in Jame's post. No one who has been to a grocery store would. IBdaMann wrote: Yes, it means "carbon based." ...a typical Marxist ploy... No context and the dictionary are not "Marxist ploys" IBD. In fact there are 14 meanings, both distinct and nuanced, for the use of "organic" as an adjective (linked above) that are prevalent enough to make it into the dictionary. Organic food being distinguished from non-organic food is #11 for dictionary.com. If anyone else who is sane reads this and wonders why I bother. This board is entirely unmoderated I'm sorry to say. We are overrun by two Trolls that harass every post primarily with stupid challenges to the dictionary. I just want to ensure that now and again the full stupidity of this angle is exposed. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them The parrot is a creature that camouflages itself by mimicking the sounds of large animals too large for the cats. thats why they sound like they can say words. The parrot killer, is actually a parrot, which is in line with how everything he says is the exact opposite of true. He says words but that is the extent of his scope: a mouth...and anyone who has the misfortune of hearing the inert firing of neurons in his incapacitated brain, manifested as various grunts and wails, or letters on a screen. Have you ever seen him make any attempt at rational conversation, without derailing it using non-sequiturs and fallacies? the gist being: anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, any evidence that invalidates his beliefs is dismissed without thought. genetic monkeys like Into The Night mimick the verbiage of the local environment of people they think are validating their cognitive voodoo. thats why they almost sound like they are speaking. the line-by-line dissecting, obsessive compulsive response to anyone who invalidates his cognitive crap, is genetic monkey panic, a literal fight or flight response straight from his amygdala. To have his beliefs threatened is no different than having someone hold a gun to his head. Point here is, don't waste your time 'debating', there is nothing to debate. Umm, not to dis agree with you but you might be wrong about this; "To have his beliefs threatened is no different than having someone hold a gun to his head." The world changed and some have great difficulty in accepting it. Some can't adapt to an ever changing world while remaining true to who they are. It creates an internal conflict which can't be resolved because in them the yin (day) and the yang (night) are not able to peacefully exist. your mouth is moving, or hands are typing, but like IBD and ITN, nothing is being said.
08-01-2020 00:39
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	L8112 wrote: Have you ever seen him make any attempt at rational conversation, without derailing it using non-sequiturs and fallacies? ITN/IBD are here to shut down discussion. Sad but true. They should have been instructed by a moderator to be respectful of the board long ago but we don't have a moderator James___ wrote: "To have his beliefs threatened is no different than having someone hold a gun to his head." The world changed and some have great difficulty in accepting it. Well said. They are highly motivated. Why else would they spend so much time talking about something they claim doesn't exist? Would you find someone who didn't believe in Chupacabra as one of the most prolific posters on the Chupacabra-Debate.com forum? Nope The irony is they are terrified because they know they are wrong. Deep down they believe in global warming far more than I do. HarveyH55 wrote:I usually go with the scientific/medical definitions, over political/religious. Problem is it's not about what definition you like but the one intended by the speaker/writer. That's how language works. I'm not saying you don't get that you're well aware the dictionary looms far too large as an issue here due to the efforts of ITN/IBD. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
08-01-2020 00:41
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	L8112 wrote: your mouth is moving, or hands are typing, but like IBD and ITN, nothing is being said. You should know who you are talking to first. ITN is Native American. Many Native Americans don't fit in with modern America because of their beliefs. How do they go to work for Microsoft or IBM and still retain the beliefs of their forefathers? Your response was insulting and lacking in substance. Are you aware that the palm parrot in Australia drums to attract a mate? It takes a piece of a branch and beats it against a tree. It's true. I heard that drumming appeals to the opposite sex. This is personal. I used to think you were okay but now I don't. With me, I am about getting climate change right. CO2 isn't the primary cause and for some in here, if they understood it then they would have a good reason to be upset with the IPCC. But they don't understand it. As for ITN, we don't like each other. That also is true. He's Native American while I am descended from a Native American Chief. My father is also from Norway. So to him I represent all of the bad things that happened to Native Americans. And to me, Americans don't like me either so he's just another American. A parrot parroting people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6eazyHa33M or do people parrot parrots https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQeC_6bOFqs Or are birds just birds but of a different feather? Please vote on which bird you like best
09-01-2020 19:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	L8112 wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Harvey words have multiple definitions. ... and you like to ensure no one is clear on which meaning is being used... From 6 days ago: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: sigh.... Dictionary again sigh ... intentional ambiguity just to kill discussions. Not at all everyone here including you knows what James meant. You're just Trolling as usual. Like when you and ITN pretend not to know what fossil fuels are. Just another day of you guys jousting with the dictionary. organic [ awr-gan-ik ] pertaining to, involving, or grown with fertilizers or pesticides of animal or vegetable origin, as distinguished from manufactured chemicals: organic farming; organic fruits. Not that any of you needed help in knowing the intended meaning in Jame's post. No one who has been to a grocery store would. IBdaMann wrote: Yes, it means "carbon based." ...a typical Marxist ploy... No context and the dictionary are not "Marxist ploys" IBD. In fact there are 14 meanings, both distinct and nuanced, for the use of "organic" as an adjective (linked above) that are prevalent enough to make it into the dictionary. Organic food being distinguished from non-organic food is #11 for dictionary.com. If anyone else who is sane reads this and wonders why I bother. This board is entirely unmoderated I'm sorry to say. We are overrun by two Trolls that harass every post primarily with stupid challenges to the dictionary. I just want to ensure that now and again the full stupidity of this angle is exposed. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them The parrot is a creature that camouflages itself by mimicking the sounds of large animals too large for the cats. thats why they sound like they can say words. The parrot killer, is actually a parrot, which is in line with how everything he says is the exact opposite of true. He says words but that is the extent of his scope: a mouth...and anyone who has the misfortune of hearing the inert firing of neurons in his incapacitated brain, manifested as various grunts and wails, or letters on a screen. Have you ever seen him make any attempt at rational conversation, without derailing it using non-sequiturs and fallacies? the gist being: anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, any evidence that invalidates his beliefs is dismissed without thought. genetic monkeys like Into The Night mimick the verbiage of the local environment of people they think are validating their cognitive voodoo. thats why they almost sound like they are speaking. the line-by-line dissecting, obsessive compulsive response to anyone who invalidates his cognitive crap, is genetic monkey panic, a literal fight or flight response straight from his amygdala. To have his beliefs threatened is no different than having someone hold a gun to his head. Point here is, don't waste your time 'debating', there is nothing to debate. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are not debating anything. You spent your entire post trying to insult me! Indeed, there is NO thread in this post. People like YOU are just trying to insult me! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 09-01-2020 19:35
11-01-2020 04:42
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: L8112 wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Harvey words have multiple definitions. ... and you like to ensure no one is clear on which meaning is being used... From 6 days ago: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: sigh.... Dictionary again sigh ... intentional ambiguity just to kill discussions. Not at all everyone here including you knows what James meant. You're just Trolling as usual. Like when you and ITN pretend not to know what fossil fuels are. Just another day of you guys jousting with the dictionary. organic [ awr-gan-ik ] pertaining to, involving, or grown with fertilizers or pesticides of animal or vegetable origin, as distinguished from manufactured chemicals: organic farming; organic fruits. Not that any of you needed help in knowing the intended meaning in Jame's post. No one who has been to a grocery store would. IBdaMann wrote: Yes, it means "carbon based." ...a typical Marxist ploy... No context and the dictionary are not "Marxist ploys" IBD. In fact there are 14 meanings, both distinct and nuanced, for the use of "organic" as an adjective (linked above) that are prevalent enough to make it into the dictionary. Organic food being distinguished from non-organic food is #11 for dictionary.com. If anyone else who is sane reads this and wonders why I bother. This board is entirely unmoderated I'm sorry to say. We are overrun by two Trolls that harass every post primarily with stupid challenges to the dictionary. I just want to ensure that now and again the full stupidity of this angle is exposed. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them The parrot is a creature that camouflages itself by mimicking the sounds of large animals too large for the cats. thats why they sound like they can say words. The parrot killer, is actually a parrot, which is in line with how everything he says is the exact opposite of true. He says words but that is the extent of his scope: a mouth...and anyone who has the misfortune of hearing the inert firing of neurons in his incapacitated brain, manifested as various grunts and wails, or letters on a screen. Have you ever seen him make any attempt at rational conversation, without derailing it using non-sequiturs and fallacies? the gist being: anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, any evidence that invalidates his beliefs is dismissed without thought. genetic monkeys like Into The Night mimick the verbiage of the local environment of people they think are validating their cognitive voodoo. thats why they almost sound like they are speaking. the line-by-line dissecting, obsessive compulsive response to anyone who invalidates his cognitive crap, is genetic monkey panic, a literal fight or flight response straight from his amygdala. To have his beliefs threatened is no different than having someone hold a gun to his head. Point here is, don't waste your time 'debating', there is nothing to debate. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are not debating anything. You spent your entire post trying to insult me! Indeed, there is NO thread in this post. People like YOU are just trying to insult me! Before someone can insult you, you need to be someone. Can you define yourself without using buzzwords and fallacies?
11-01-2020 05:02
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Are there any air quality monitoring stations near Australia? Was wondering how much CO2 those wildfires are producing. Last year, California and Brazil both had record breaking acres burned as well. Arson seem to be getting blamed for some of the massive fires, fairly consistently as well. 186 arrest for suspected arson, in the Australian fires, so far. There was only one arrest in a California fire last year, but didn't follow closely, ashamed to consider it part of our country. There were arson investigations in Brazil, but not sure of any arrests. Has Al Gore resorted to climate-terrorism? Are these paid arsonists, ore do they do it for the thrills? Certainly not doing the environment any favors. Least Australia will have fewer of those giant, deadly poisonous spiders wondering around.
11-01-2020 05:09
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote:Has Al Gore resorted to climate-terrorism? Maybe Obama did it personally. Does he have an alibi? Or Hunter Biden is down there with a flame thrower full of Ukrainian gas. So many possibilities when ridiculous sh#t is added to the list.
11-01-2020 06:25
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: Are there any air quality monitoring stations near Australia? Was wondering how much CO2 those wildfires are producing. Last year, California and Brazil both had record breaking acres burned as well. Arson seem to be getting blamed for some of the massive fires, fairly consistently as well. 186 arrest for suspected arson, in the Australian fires, so far. There was only one arrest in a California fire last year, but didn't follow closely, ashamed to consider it part of our country. There were arson investigations in Brazil, but not sure of any arrests. Has Al Gore resorted to climate-terrorism? Are these paid arsonists, ore do they do it for the thrills? Certainly not doing the environment any favors. Least Australia will have fewer of those giant, deadly poisonous spiders wondering around. Are you on medication? Your post is not lucid. It lacks clarity. Poisonous spiders, Al Gore an eco-terrorist. And this matters because? Are you generating random thoughts and then linking them? The wild fires in Brazil are because of clearing land for agriculture. A booming world population wants to eat. You do, right? Where do you think your food comes from? The store? It does. And where does the store get it from? You simply have no idea, do you? With California. It's ground has dried out because of agricultural production. Food grows, trees burn. Something has to give, right? Of course you and many Americans could go on a diet. But being fat and stupid is your right, right? Right! BTW, if you read anything you would know that Australians have been saying since 2013 that eucalyptus trees are a fire hazard in both Australia and California. You are aware of this, right? Right! And Harvey55, this link is to an article from 2013, please read if you are able. Voting for Trump doesn't seem to guarantee literacy. And if you're on medication, please come down (get sober) before posting. https://www.livescience.com/40583-australia-wildfires-eucalyptus-trees-bushfires.html It's not personal Harvey. When posting, take a moment to think about what you want to say. Maybe wait a while. As is the case in here, most people post while they are reacting to what someone posted. It's an idiosyncratic response. They're not thinking but merely reacting to stimuli. A reply or response happens after someone has given thought to what they read. People don't do this because their minds are already made up. And the fires you referenced in Brazil, California and Australia could all have different causes. But to understand that would require you to learn more about them. This obviously did not happen. Edited on 11-01-2020 06:45

Page 2 of 3

Join the debate Australian fires:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Australian bushfires	2	16-02-2020 07:34
Trump Fires More Undocumented Workers	2	03-01-2020 04:24
Record Australian heat shows soaring cost of climate change	1	26-02-2019 18:16
Proffessor Brian Cox vs Conspiracy theorist Australian Senator	142	11-12-2018 20:27
Is This Helping To Increase The Severity of Fires In California ?	12	23-12-2017 23:45