Remember me
▼ Content

But Global Warming is Good for Us, isn't it?



Page 2 of 2<12
02-06-2022 22:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Amanbir S Grewal wrote:It will need good planning to pursue welfare goals and support private firms,

Welfare is not a goal. The elimination of welfare is the goal. Supporting private firms is how the goal is achieved.

Amanbir S Grewal wrote:we'll try to deduce that from the data we get.

"We" aren't getting any "the data." There is no "the data."

Amanbir S Grewal wrote:belief in science?

Nope. Acceptance of science and of rational bases.

Amanbir S Grewal wrote:the violations of physics will have to be explained through physics itself.

Violations of physics are indicated, they are not explained. One does not "explain" a violation of physics, one points it out.

A violation is a violation. The unambiguous nature of science makes it easy to discern the violations.

Amanbir S Grewal wrote:CO2 is not a pollutant but ...

Why did you include the conjunction "but" right there?

CO2 is neither poison nor pollution, period, end of sentence.

CO2 is a life-essential compound, period, end of sentence.

If CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, all plant life would die and then all other life would follow suit, period, end of sentence.

Amanbir S Grewal wrote: ... we will have to be patient with any conclusions of its other effects.

The chemical properties of CO2 do not require any patience. We already have plenty of knowledge concerning CO2 and we don't really need much more at the present time.

Amanbir S Grewal wrote:Plants and CO2 have a complex relationship.

It is actually very, very simple.

Amanbir S Grewal wrote:the earth is NOT cooling for ANY reason right now.

You do not know this, so why are you claiming this?

You sound like you are trying to convince those on this board that you know things that you do not actually know. It's like you want us to think that you are omniscient somehow.

I'm not buying it.

You also sound like you royally suck at physics. I'm right, aren't I?

Just tell me what parts confuse you and I'll explain.

.
Amanbir S Grewal wrote:Direct CO2 and vapour pressure relationships are not well known ...

Yes, they are exactly understood. It's called the Ideal Gas law.



Amanbir S Grewal wrote:but indirect temperature rises can

There is no such thing as an "indirect temperature rise". In fact, that was a pretty stupid comment. You should try thinking these things through before you just vomit them onto the board.


Amanbir S Grewal wrote:Maybe the [undefined] effect on pollinators will happen slowly and over a very long period of time?

It sounds like your science is clear and unambiguous on this. You get bonus points for the absolute certainty with which you are making these concrete predictions.

... or maybe there isn't any effect in the first place. There certainly isn't any that you have shown.

Amanbir S Grewal wrote: if the composition of rainfall water changes due to atmospheric changes, then yes, the ocean will receive more acid rainfall water via the rivers.

if evaporation continues to occur on planet earth, then yes, the ocean will continue to become increasingly alkaline via evaporation.

Oh look! Evaporation continues to occur on planet earth. Wow! Who would have guessed?

Amanbir S Grewal wrote: ... cooling and warming on the whole make up the problem of Climate Change.

There is no such thing as a global climate, there is no Climate Change and there is no problem.

I don't know if any ever told you but temperature has changed from night to day back to night again ... on a daily basis ... for a rather long time ... and it has never been a problem. I don't know why you think the earth's rotation has somehow become a problem all of a sudden.

I don't know if any ever told you but temperature has changed from Spring to Summer to Autumn to Winter back to Spring ... on an annual basis ... for a rather long time ... and it has never been a problem. I don't know why you think the earth's revolving around the sun has somehow become a problem all of a sudden.

Amanbir S Grewal wrote:number of species is not the measure here ...

It is exactly the measure you were shooting for. You were trying to hype your fear-mongering via the sheer number of species that have recently gone extinct.

So answer my question. How many species have become extinct over the history of planet earth? ... just so we can accurately gauge your lame attempt at fear mongering.

Be forewarned, if you ever bring up the topic of extinct species within the context of why we should somehow panic and fear over your religion's boogey man, I will insist that you put it all into an accurate context of the total number of species that have come and gone. Make sure to keep that figure at the ready.

Amanbir S Grewal wrote:as much is the value of even one species sometimes say for example the polar bear.




Amanbir S Grewal wrote:It is very wrong to ASK business people for their capital into a problem that affects everyone

It is very wrong to lie about the existence of a problem.

There is no problem. You are pulling it out of your azz. It is very wrong to require people to pay you money based on a lie.

If you aren't going to unambiguously define this "problem" because of which we are supposed to panic and fear and to crap in our britches, then shut the fuUqq up about it. You are lying. You are a liar. I hate liars.

Amanbir S Grewal wrote: ...but if you can invent a smart business plan for the problem

OK, your turn ... it's time for you to unambiguously define this supposed problem.

The floor is yours.

.
03-06-2022 16:21
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3132)
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'indirect temperature rise'. Buzzword fallacy. Is this one in your list gfm?

It is now. Thank you for noting it. 285 unique entries and rapidly climbing... It won't be long before they break the "300 barrier".


Edit: 286 unique entries... I just came across someone on another forum making reference to something called a "real background check". I'm not sure what a "real" background check is as opposed to a background check. This falls along the line of someone making reference to "real" socialism and "real" communism (IOW, it hasn't been properly implemented yet). Those buzzwords are also on my list.
Edited on 03-06-2022 16:43
03-06-2022 17:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
gfm7175 wrote:I'm not sure what a "real" background check is as opposed to a background check.

A "real" or background check uses floating point operations whereas a standard background check is discrete.

example:

double realBackgroundCheck = 4.7;
int regularBackgroundCheck = 5;

public void performBackgroundCheck ( double background ) { .. }
public void performBackgroundCheck ( int background ) { .. }

gfm7175 wrote: This falls along the line of someone making reference to "real" socialism and "real" communism

That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

example:

public static final long scotsmanCount = 200000;
private boolean [] scotsman = new scotsman [scotsmanCount];
for (boolean scot : scotsman) scotman [scot] = false;
// no "true" scotsman

Would you like another cup of Java?

.
03-06-2022 18:26
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2481)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:I'm not sure what a "real" background check is as opposed to a background check.

A "real" or background check uses floating point operations whereas a standard background check is discrete.

example:

double realBackgroundCheck = 4.7;
int regularBackgroundCheck = 5;

public void performBackgroundCheck ( double background ) { .. }
public void performBackgroundCheck ( int background ) { .. }

gfm7175 wrote: This falls along the line of someone making reference to "real" socialism and "real" communism

That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

example:

public static final long scotsmanCount = 200000;
private boolean [] scotsman = new scotsman [scotsmanCount];
for (boolean scot : scotsman) scotman [scot] = false;
// no "true" scotsman

Would you like another cup of Java?

.


No thanks. I choked on the first cup.


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
03-06-2022 21:27
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3132)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:I'm not sure what a "real" background check is as opposed to a background check.

A "real" or background check uses floating point operations whereas a standard background check is discrete.

example:

double realBackgroundCheck = 4.7;
int regularBackgroundCheck = 5;

public void performBackgroundCheck ( double background ) { .. }
public void performBackgroundCheck ( int background ) { .. }

gfm7175 wrote: This falls along the line of someone making reference to "real" socialism and "real" communism

That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

example:

public static final long scotsmanCount = 200000;
private boolean [] scotsman = new scotsman [scotsmanCount];
for (boolean scot : scotsman) scotman [scot] = false;
// no "true" scotsman

Would you like another cup of Java?

.

Slow down there, or else I'll have to start calling you IBJAVAdaHutt...
03-06-2022 21:34
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3132)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:I'm not sure what a "real" background check is as opposed to a background check.

A "real" or background check uses floating point operations whereas a standard background check is discrete.

example:

double realBackgroundCheck = 4.7;
int regularBackgroundCheck = 5;

public void performBackgroundCheck ( double background ) { .. }
public void performBackgroundCheck ( int background ) { .. }

gfm7175 wrote: This falls along the line of someone making reference to "real" socialism and "real" communism

That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

example:

public static final long scotsmanCount = 200000;
private boolean [] scotsman = new scotsman [scotsmanCount];
for (boolean scot : scotsman) scotman [scot] = false;
// no "true" scotsman

Would you like another cup of Java?

.


No thanks. I choked on the first cup.

I don't blame you. I choked on the first cup as well.

IBJAVAdaHutt needs to remember that I am a rural Midwesterner, from the Dairy State mind you, who much prefers to have a nice cold cup of milk.
04-06-2022 05:09
James_
★★★☆☆
(918)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'indirect temperature rise'. Buzzword fallacy. Is this one in your list gfm?

It is now. Thank you for noting it. 285 unique entries and rapidly climbing... It won't be long before they break the "300 barrier".


Edit: 286 unique entries... I just came across someone on another forum making reference to something called a "real background check". I'm not sure what a "real" background check is as opposed to a background check. This falls along the line of someone making reference to "real" socialism and "real" communism (IOW, it hasn't been properly implemented yet). Those buzzwords are also on my list.



We can discuss your right. However we cannot discuss the right of the deceased.
04-06-2022 08:40
Amanbir S Grewal
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
why is the Nordhaus parametric so American and why is the Stern parametric so Anglo-Saxon?

are the child actually revealing the traditional village set-up for Mr. Alexander Balkan to ponder upon or are they Christian and brilliant?

Vasco Goa met some women at a bar and then it was one great party.....he does not drink and he does not party!
Edited on 04-06-2022 08:42
04-06-2022 09:12
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(835)
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html

Snow 0.96 - 0.98
Soil 0.90 - 0.95

Remember the story about cold winters creating more ice and snow which will reflect more and more heat and the earth would eventually turn into a giant iceball. Well, I may be bad at math but 0.98 is a bigger number than 0.95, so the whole theory goes down the toilet with it.
Do not buy what mainstream pushes at you . Most of it is garbage.
04-06-2022 09:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Xadoman wrote:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html

Snow 0.96 - 0.98
Soil 0.90 - 0.95

Remember the story about cold winters creating more ice and snow which will reflect more and more heat and the earth would eventually turn into a giant iceball. Well, I may be bad at math but 0.98 is a bigger number than 0.95, so the whole theory goes down the toilet with it.
Do not buy what mainstream pushes at you . Most of it is garbage.

Unfortunately, what you are regurgitating is garbage as well. Your understanding of black body science isn't much better than your gambling choices.

Emissivity applies to a body of matter, not to a substance. What you are describing above is radiativity that is being called "emissivity." You should review Kirchhoff's law. All radiativity values, and thus absorptivity values as well, have a corresponding wavelength parameter. Only the overall emissivity of a body of matter (Stefan-Boltzmann) has no wavelength parameter because emissivity is the integral over all wavelengths.

Ergo, if it is a body of matter, it is emissivity for all wavelengths.
If it is a substance, it is that substance's radiativity for a given wavelength.

So Xadoman, do not buy what mainstream pushes at you . Most of it is garbage.

.
09-06-2022 08:41
Amanbir S Grewal
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/person/professor-cameron-hepburn

one stop shop for all relief.
09-06-2022 10:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Amanbir S Grewal wrote:
https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/person/professor-cameron-hepburn
one stop shop for all relief.


This Cameron Hepburn dude appears to be a schiester.



Environmental Economics? Really?

CO₂RE Greenhouse Gas Removal Hub? Really?

.
21-06-2022 14:48
Amanbir S Grewal
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
https://www.desmog.com
Edited on 21-06-2022 14:52
21-06-2022 15:28
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html

Snow 0.96 - 0.98
Soil 0.90 - 0.95

Remember the story about cold winters creating more ice and snow which will reflect more and more heat and the earth would eventually turn into a giant iceball. Well, I may be bad at math but 0.98 is a bigger number than 0.95, so the whole theory goes down the toilet with it.
Do not buy what mainstream pushes at you . Most of it is garbage.

Unfortunately, what you are regurgitating is garbage as well. Your understanding of black body science isn't much better than your gambling choices.

Emissivity applies to a body of matter, not to a substance. What you are describing above is radiativity that is being called "emissivity." You should review Kirchhoff's law. All radiativity values, and thus absorptivity values as well, have a corresponding wavelength parameter. Only the overall emissivity of a body of matter (Stefan-Boltzmann) has no wavelength parameter because emissivity is the integral over all wavelengths.

Ergo, if it is a body of matter, it is emissivity for all wavelengths.
If it is a substance, it is that substance's radiativity for a given wavelength.

So Xadoman, do not buy what mainstream pushes at you . Most of it is garbage.

.


According to the law of averages you should be correct even if just by chance occasionally. That said you are not in any way average for a human, however in a flea circus you might be a star
21-06-2022 17:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Amanbir S Grewal wrote:
https://www.desmog.com


Your point? You seem to like to just post random URLs.


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
21-06-2022 17:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:According to the law of averages you should be correct even if just by chance occasionally.

So you think that those who always get it wrong are doing so intentionally. I agree.

Marxists are liars. They spread disinformation.

Would you care to guess how I sniff out Marxists?
21-06-2022 20:04
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:According to the law of averages you should be correct even if just by chance occasionally.

So you think that those who always get it wrong are doing so intentionally. I agree.

Marxists are liars. They spread disinformation.

Would you care to guess how I sniff out Marxists?


Marxist would not waste their time here, they hang at farcebook and twatter
21-06-2022 22:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:Marxist would not waste their time here, they hang at farcebook and twatter

Plenty of Marxists come here to preach. It's a regular stream. They often claim that they are here only to learn, and others barge in claiming to be PhDs is some branch of science, fictitious or otherwise, and are lying.

Once here, they get peppered with questions they did not anticipate, being accustomed to facebook and twatter. Since they are all uniformly illiterate in science and math, they have no response beyond broadcasting their scientific and mathematical illiteracy.

Then I become the target of their ire as they seek to "discredit" me by looking for some example, no matter how small, of something that I got wrong. They usually get desperate and begin assigning bogus positions to me which they proceed to attack, as though I had actually held those bogus positions.

Finally, they play the "sour grapes" card and claim this website is "being ruined" by a lack of focused censorship.

Then they leave ... temporarily ... and return after they believe that sufficient time has elapsed for everyone to forget how their tired, error-filled arguments have already been rebutted many times ... so they can make those tired, erroneous arguments once again.

squeal-over was just the latest. Don't forget tmiddles, Pete Rogers, DRKTS, trafn, Ceist, Subduction Zone, and the extensive list of others.

As crazy as you are, you are an honest crazy. You aren't intentionally trying to confuse people into ushering in an omnipotent, tyrannical government as your primary agenda.

In that regard, you're not a piece of schytt as Marxists tend to be. Now, your advocacy for the execution of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die might be a different story, but we can discuss that after you report back your experience with the Global Climate enema.

Enjoy!
.
Attached image:

22-06-2022 01:11
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Marxist would not waste their time here, they hang at farcebook and twatter

Plenty of Marxists come here to preach. It's a regular stream. They often claim that they are here only to learn, and others barge in claiming to be PhDs is some branch of science, fictitious or otherwise, and are lying.

Once here, they get peppered with questions they did not anticipate, being accustomed to facebook and twatter. Since they are all uniformly illiterate in science and math, they have no response beyond broadcasting their scientific and mathematical illiteracy.

Then I become the target of their ire as they seek to "discredit" me by looking for some example, no matter how small, of something that I got wrong. They usually get desperate and begin assigning bogus positions to me which they proceed to attack, as though I had actually held those bogus positions.

Finally, they play the "sour grapes" card and claim this website is "being ruined" by a lack of focused censorship.

Then they leave ... temporarily ... and return after they believe that sufficient time has elapsed for everyone to forget how their tired, error-filled arguments have already been rebutted many times ... so they can make those tired, erroneous arguments once again.

squeal-over was just the latest. Don't forget tmiddles, Pete Rogers, DRKTS, trafn, Ceist, Subduction Zone, and the extensive list of others.

As crazy as you are, you are an honest crazy. You aren't intentionally trying to confuse people into ushering in an omnipotent, tyrannical government as your primary agenda.

In that regard, you're not a piece of schytt as Marxists tend to be. Now, your advocacy for the execution of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die might be a different story, but we can discuss that after you report back your experience with the Global Climate enema.

Enjoy!
.

Actually about ten people use this page, which might be plenty for you because you need your fingers to count
22-06-2022 04:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:Actually about ten people use this page, which might be plenty for you because you need your fingers to count

Dude, I have long since learned to effectively use my toes as well, doubling my counting capacity. It won't be so easy to overwhelm me as you might have previously thought.


.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate But Global Warming is Good for Us, isn't it?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Big Tech Companies Make The China Great Internet Firewall Look Like A Good Angel702-12-2021 08:05
Virus Is Good For Life But Stupid Uneducated People Make It Look Bad119-06-2021 10:48
Good News! There's No Censorship!203-02-2021 21:43
Not such good news3201-07-2020 21:37
good news and speculation1219-06-2020 07:38
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact