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

Amanbir S Grewal wrote:It will need good planning to pursue welfare goals and support private firms,

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

Amanbir S Grewal wrote:belief in science?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amanbir S Grewal wrote:but indirect temperature rises can

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'indirect temperature rise'. Buzzword fallacy. Is this one in your list gfm?

gfm7175 wrote:I'm not sure what a "real" background check is as opposed to a background check.

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

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?

.

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?

.

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.

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.

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.

Amanbir S Grewal wrote:
https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/person/professor-cameron-hepburn
one stop shop for all relief.

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.

.

Amanbir S Grewal wrote:
https://www.desmog.com

Swan wrote:According to the law of averages you should be correct even if just by chance occasionally.

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?

Swan wrote:Marxist would not waste their time here, they hang at farcebook and twatter

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!
.

Swan wrote:Actually about ten people use this page, which might be plenty for you because you need your fingers to count