Citizens Climate Lobby Australia

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Citizens Climate Lobby Australia

Page 1 of 2

Citizens Climate Lobby Australia07-06-2020 08:42
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have just joined this mob CCLA.I am going to attend meetings and see what the plan is.My search to find an actual warmazombie may be nearing an end duncan61
07-06-2020 15:07
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Be careful. It's a cult, and they a re really good at reading people. They'll know straight off you aren't a true believer. Then, they set to work, finding their way into your head. Depends on how badly the want and need you. Some are easier to break, than others. They don't usually like going to a lot of trouble for most. Basic, they go the extra mile, for new recruits, who can bring in lots of other new members, provide a path to political or financial resources.
08-06-2020 03:30
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I am seeking true believers to see how they tick.From the photos of the group they appear to be mostly middle to late age women with a sprinkle of old and young men.I will take it easy on them and see what the mission is.To switch to better sources of power and stop burning coal is a good idea regardless of the truth.I am seeking a social group but if I share my opinion I will be outcast for sure
08-06-2020 03:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	duncan61 wrote: I am seeking true believers to see how they tick.From the photos of the group they appear to be mostly middle to late age women with a sprinkle of old and young men.I will take it easy on them and see what the mission is.To switch to better sources of power and stop burning coal is a good idea regardless of the truth.I am seeking a social group but if I share my opinion I will be outcast for sure You can actually observe true believers right here on this forum. Both keepit and tmiddles are true believers. What you will find is the same sort. They are fundamentalists. The very nature of the Church of Global Warming is fundamentalism. When they detect a nonbeliever, they will try to 'bring him into the fold' briefly, then utterly condemn you as if you were Satan himself. 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 08-06-2020 03:59
16-06-2020 14:42
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have just sat in on my first CCLA meeting by zoom link.It was quite good and regardless of the reasoning they just wish to look at renewables and until renewables become market friendly nothing is going to happen so its all good

16-06-2020 16:35
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	duncan61 wrote: I have just sat in on my first CCLA meeting by zoom link.It was quite good and regardless of the reasoning they just wish to look at renewables and until renewables become market friendly nothing is going to happen so its all good Renewables are still kind of young, compared to fossil fuels. There was any real push, or dire interest, until the 1970s, which sort of fizzled out, when it became clear there was no shortage, and we weren't likely to run out anytime soon. Alternative energy sources are really more of a backup plan, and a poor replacement. There is many decades of work invested to improve them, find better technologies, but fossil fuels are still vastly superior, hands down. The only way to get the market to drop a superior product, and start using an inferior one instead, is through a scam. Had renewables shown much promise for replacing fossil fuels, as a superior source of energy, we wouldn't need to be pushed so hard to switch over to lesser technology. Renewables are more of a better than nothing, good enough to get by for a while solution. But there are some serious limits on how fare they can be scaled up, or chained together. The vast number of acres of land needed to power a small community, should really be a red flag for most. But then again, the vast majority, only see the marketing photos, videos, and don't visit in person. The lure of cheap/free energy is strong, and people want to believe it possible. It's just not really practical, or even desirable to cover the land with solar panels and windmill. Just because we can make something work, doesn't make it the best solution to a problem. If you really want to see the value, and what people have to go through with renewables. Look into people living off the grid. There are a lot of resources on the web. True, some people are a little nutty about why, but there really are some places where it's practical, and makes sense. It's not just producing the renewable energy. It's all the different things people need to do to store, and make the most efficient use of the energy they were able to produce. They never get the surplus that we all enjoy. As much energy as we need, on demand. Renewables are very limited, and living off the grid requires a huge reduction in use. It's not a modern convenience, and more work to maintain. Nothing is truly free, same goes with energy. Living off the grid can work, but you have to make a few sacrifices, and give up modern conveniences. It's really not for everybody, definately not progress.
16-06-2020 23:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Oil and natural gas are also renewable forms of energy. Coal we don't know, but it's possible. Charcoal definitely is.
17-06-2020 00:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14408)	duncan61 wrote: I have just sat in on my first CCLA meeting by zoom link.It was quite good and regardless of the reasoning they just wish to look at renewables and until renewables become market friendly nothing is going to happen so its all good I bet they don't classify hydrocarbons as "renewables" ... do they? If not, it's likely because they are simply Marxists trying to destroy "Big Oil" and to destroy the world economy. . 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
17-06-2020 00:57
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Its only been one time so far but my take is they believe the science and it is a feel good exercise to be giving a poop.I intend to ask the odd question and see how I go.
17-06-2020 01:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14408)	duncan61 wrote: ... my take is they believe the science ... You mean that they believe their beliefs are based in some science that they have never seen and that has never been explained to them, yes? I hope you get the opportunity to ask why I or any rational person should believe in whatever buzzword they use. . 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
17-06-2020 02:19
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have just sat in on my first CCLA meeting by zoom link.It was quite good and regardless of the reasoning they just wish to look at renewables and until renewables become market friendly nothing is going to happen so its all good I bet they don't classify hydrocarbons as "renewables" ... do they? If not, it's likely because they are simply Marxists trying to destroy "Big Oil" and to destroy the world economy. . Isn't biodiesel and ethanol hydrocarbons, and renewable energy?
17-06-2020 07:51
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Its going to be good fun but I will have to let the truth out slowly and a bit at a time.Feel free to add to this but my take is they claim CO2 creates warming which is affecting the weather/climate if I can disprove warming the whole rock show is over or am I missing something
17-06-2020 08:03
keepit ★★★★★ (3059)	yes
17-06-2020 13:34
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	yes to the CO2 warming or yes to the warming causing weather changes or yes to the If its not warming then nothing is going to happen
17-06-2020 18:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	HarveyH55 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have just sat in on my first CCLA meeting by zoom link.It was quite good and regardless of the reasoning they just wish to look at renewables and until renewables become market friendly nothing is going to happen so its all good I bet they don't classify hydrocarbons as "renewables" ... do they? If not, it's likely because they are simply Marxists trying to destroy "Big Oil" and to destroy the world economy. . Isn't biodiesel and ethanol hydrocarbons, and renewable energy? Yes. So is oil from oil wells, and natural gas from natural gas wells. 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

17-06-2020 19:44
keepit ★★★★★ (3059)	Duncan, You do realize that CO2 doesn't create heat or energy, rather it retains, or slows the flow of energy back to outer space. Warming is a change in weather and climate.
17-06-2020 21:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: Duncan, You do realize that CO2 doesn't create heat or energy, rather it retains, or slows the flow of energy back to outer space. Not possible. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is not possible to trap heat or light. Mantras 20a2...20b5... keepit wrote: Warming is a change in weather and climate. Weather is always changing. Oftentimes is snows. This is warming??? Climate doesn't change. There are no quantitative values in climate. There is no change possible without quantitative values. A desert climate is still a desert climate. There is no quantitative value. Mantras 22b... No argument presented. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of science. 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 17-06-2020 21:41
17-06-2020 21:56
keepit ★★★★★ (3059)	ITN, I've never heard you say how greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law, the 1st law, or the sb law. Don't try to bs me with rqaa. Noone cares what you or someone else may have said on this subject in the past.
17-06-2020 22:08
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: Duncan, You do realize that CO2 doesn't create heat or energy, rather it retains, or slows the flow of energy back to outer space. Warming is a change in weather and climate. CO2 cannot retain or slow heat. It is not possible to retain/slow heat. tmiddles, however, seems to think that a spaghetti strainer retains water (so long as the faucet is running). What a moron...
17-06-2020 22:09
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: ITN, I've never heard you say how greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law, the 1st law, or the sb law. Don't try to bs me with rqaa. Noone cares what you or someone else may have said on this subject in the past. RQAA.
17-06-2020 22:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14408)	keepit wrote: ITN, I've never heard you say how greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law, the 1st law, or the sb law. keepit, this is another stupid thing you are saying. Greenhouse Effect is religious dogma and is therefore not formally defined such that physics can apply to it. Because it is nothing more than religious doctrine, it varies from warmizombie to warmizombie. No warmizombie can define it without violating physics, and they each define it differently, because Greenhouse Effect involves an increase in a temperature without any additional energy, a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics ... and when they are confronted with this egregiousness of this violation, they scramble to fabricate bogus gibber-babble so their WACKY religious dogma can "win" the argument. When you ask how Greenhouse Effect violates physics the obvious question that must be asked is "What is your Greenhouse Effect theory specifically?" At this point you realize the jig is up because you aren't aware of any science supporting your WACKY claims, so you feign indignance and pout and claim "EVASION" and "You are arguing semantics" and "dollars magically disappear when debt is repaid" and whatever you need to say to weasel out of the discussion. ... so let's get to it. To what specific Greenhouse Effect theory are you referring? . 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
17-06-2020 23:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: ITN, I've never heard you say how greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law, the 1st law, or the sb law. Don't try to bs me with rqaa. RQAA. I have already answered your question. * You cannot trap heat. * You cannot trap light. You just attempted to do both. keepit wrote: Noone cares what you or someone else may have said on this subject in the past. You don't get to speak for anyone else but yourself. No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. False representation. 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
17-06-2020 23:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: ITN, I've never heard you say how greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law, the 1st law, or the sb law. keepit, this is another stupid thing you are saying. Greenhouse Effect is religious dogma and is therefore not formally defined such that physics can apply to it. Because it is nothing more than religious doctrine, it varies from warmizombie to warmizombie. No warmizombie can define it without violating physics, and they each define it differently, because Greenhouse Effect involves an increase in a temperature without any additional energy, a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics ... and when they are confronted with this egregiousness of this violation, they scramble to fabricate bogus gibber-babble so their WACKY religious dogma can "win" the argument. When you ask how Greenhouse Effect violates physics the obvious question that must be asked is "What is your Greenhouse Effect theory specifically?" At this point you realize the jig is up because you aren't aware of any science supporting your WACKY claims, so you feign indignance and pout and claim "EVASION" and "You are arguing semantics" and "dollars magically disappear when debt is repaid" and whatever you need to say to weasel out of the discussion. ... so let's get to it. To what specific Greenhouse Effect theory are you referring? . His last attempt was to trap heat and light, essentially using the Magick Blanket Argument again, violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law by ignoring the radiance of gasses in the atmosphere. 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 17-06-2020 23:07
17-06-2020 23:28
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: ITN, I've never heard you say how greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law, the 1st law, or the sb law. keepit, this is another stupid thing you are saying. Greenhouse Effect is religious dogma and is therefore not formally defined such that physics can apply to it. Because it is nothing more than religious doctrine, it varies from warmizombie to warmizombie. No warmizombie can define it without violating physics, and they each define it differently, because Greenhouse Effect involves an increase in a temperature without any additional energy, a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics ... and when they are confronted with this egregiousness of this violation, they scramble to fabricate bogus gibber-babble so their WACKY religious dogma can "win" the argument. When you ask how Greenhouse Effect violates physics the obvious question that must be asked is "What is your Greenhouse Effect theory specifically?" At this point you realize the jig is up because you aren't aware of any science supporting your WACKY claims, so you feign indignance and pout and claim "EVASION" and "You are arguing semantics" and "dollars magically disappear when debt is repaid" and whatever you need to say to weasel out of the discussion. ... so let's get to it. To what specific Greenhouse Effect theory are you referring? . His last attempt was to trap heat and light, essentially using the Magick Blanket Argument again, violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law by ignoring the radiance of gasses in the atmosphere. If we decrease the amount of stratospheric ozone, then a "thinner" blanket is keeping the heat out. A greenhouse is warmer not because of the gases in it but because of the layer around those gases. And with a greenhouse specifically, the barrier changes the wavelength of solar IR just as it does with the glass in an automobile. Why does it get much warmer in a car when the gas inside is the same as the gas outside? I think with you guys ITN, if you have a penis, then you might have something that you can think with. I mean I bet you guys in this forum will sit in a car with the windows rolled up and wonder "Why is it getting warmer when the gases outside of the car are the same?". Right? And yet you'll roll down the window when it's not creating a "greenhouse" effect. And if you turn on the air conditioner, then you are saying a "greenhouse" effect has been created. Will you please quit proving me right? Thank You for your attention to this matter Sir. Your cooperation is very much appreciated. Edited on 17-06-2020 23:29
17-06-2020 23:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: ITN, I've never heard you say how greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law, the 1st law, or the sb law. keepit, this is another stupid thing you are saying. Greenhouse Effect is religious dogma and is therefore not formally defined such that physics can apply to it. Because it is nothing more than religious doctrine, it varies from warmizombie to warmizombie. No warmizombie can define it without violating physics, and they each define it differently, because Greenhouse Effect involves an increase in a temperature without any additional energy, a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics ... and when they are confronted with this egregiousness of this violation, they scramble to fabricate bogus gibber-babble so their WACKY religious dogma can "win" the argument. When you ask how Greenhouse Effect violates physics the obvious question that must be asked is "What is your Greenhouse Effect theory specifically?" At this point you realize the jig is up because you aren't aware of any science supporting your WACKY claims, so you feign indignance and pout and claim "EVASION" and "You are arguing semantics" and "dollars magically disappear when debt is repaid" and whatever you need to say to weasel out of the discussion. ... so let's get to it. To what specific Greenhouse Effect theory are you referring? . His last attempt was to trap heat and light, essentially using the Magick Blanket Argument again, violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law by ignoring the radiance of gasses in the atmosphere. If we decrease the amount of stratospheric ozone, then a "thinner" blanket is keeping the heat out. Ozone is not a thermal barrier nor does it block infrared light. James___ wrote: A greenhouse is warmer not because of the gases in it but because of the layer around those gases. Nope. The walls of a real greenhouse do not warm the gasses in the greenhouse. James___ wrote: And with a greenhouse specifically, the barrier changes the wavelength of solar IR just as it does with the glass in an automobile. Why does it get much warmer in a car when the gas inside is the same as the gas outside? They are warmer because heat is reduced. Convection is inhibited by both cases decoupling heat loss. 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
18-06-2020 00:03
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: ITN, I've never heard you say how greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law, the 1st law, or the sb law. keepit, this is another stupid thing you are saying. Greenhouse Effect is religious dogma and is therefore not formally defined such that physics can apply to it. Because it is nothing more than religious doctrine, it varies from warmizombie to warmizombie. No warmizombie can define it without violating physics, and they each define it differently, because Greenhouse Effect involves an increase in a temperature without any additional energy, a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics ... and when they are confronted with this egregiousness of this violation, they scramble to fabricate bogus gibber-babble so their WACKY religious dogma can "win" the argument. When you ask how Greenhouse Effect violates physics the obvious question that must be asked is "What is your Greenhouse Effect theory specifically?" At this point you realize the jig is up because you aren't aware of any science supporting your WACKY claims, so you feign indignance and pout and claim "EVASION" and "You are arguing semantics" and "dollars magically disappear when debt is repaid" and whatever you need to say to weasel out of the discussion. ... so let's get to it. To what specific Greenhouse Effect theory are you referring? . His last attempt was to trap heat and light, essentially using the Magick Blanket Argument again, violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law by ignoring the radiance of gasses in the atmosphere. If we decrease the amount of stratospheric ozone, then a "thinner" blanket is keeping the heat out. A greenhouse is warmer not because of the gases in it but because of the layer around those gases. And with a greenhouse specifically, the barrier changes the wavelength of solar IR just as it does with the glass in an automobile. Why does it get much warmer in a car when the gas inside is the same as the gas outside? I think with you guys ITN, if you have a penis, then you might have something that you can think with. I mean I bet you guys in this forum will sit in a car with the windows rolled up and wonder "Why is it getting warmer when the gases outside of the car are the same?". Right? And yet you'll roll down the window when it's not creating a "greenhouse" effect. And if you turn on the air conditioner, then you are saying a "greenhouse" effect has been created. Will you please quit proving me right? Thank You for your attention to this matter Sir. Your cooperation is very much appreciated. Think you have been breathing too much ozone... A greenhouse stays warm, because it restricts air flow. The wind outside carries heat away. Same for the car.
18-06-2020 00:15
keepit ★★★★★ (3059)	ITN, Your post isn't an explanation of how GHG's violate 1st,2nd, or sb law. It is just a reiteration of your claim. Noone else claims this denial of science. Why do you? Edited on 18-06-2020 00:33
18-06-2020 00:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: ITN, Your post isn't an explanation of how GHG's violate 1st,2nd, or sb law. It is just a reiteration of your claim. Noone else claims this denial of science. Why do you? Denial of science. Argument of the stone 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
18-06-2020 00:59
keepit ★★★★★ (3059)	Cop out.
18-06-2020 01:05
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: ITN, Your post isn't an explanation of how GHG's violate 1st,2nd, or sb law. It is just a reiteration of your claim. Noone else claims this denial of science. Why do you? Denial of science. Argument of the stone fallacy. I can translate "stoner". My brother is fluent in speaking "stoned". Denial of science. Argument of the stone fallacy. Take another toke dude. The bong tells us what we weed (marijuana) to know. Edited on 18-06-2020 01:06

18-06-2020 01:16
keepit ★★★★★ (3059)	James, My brother used to say he was "off to see the wizard". For me, it seems to make me make mistakes. I don't even get as high as i used to which may be bad news for me.
18-06-2020 02:15
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: James, My brother used to say he was "off to see the wizard". For me, it seems to make me make mistakes. I don't even get as high as i used to which may be bad news for me. The brain has only so many receptors for THC. Those receptors are not known to bind with any other molecules. It's possible you might need to take a short break or reduce usage for a week or 2 and then see if your results improve. Basically, if you can diet for 2 weeks you might notice improved results. If so, then you'll understand that this is a cyclical thing like climate ripples. I had to get in natural variation Try reducing usage by 3/4 for 2 weeks. And then when returning to normal activity, note the results. If you keep such a log, then you can maximize your results. You'll know when the money you spend on recreation has no benefit. Edited on 18-06-2020 03:04
18-06-2020 03:19
keepit ★★★★★ (3059)	James, I appreciate the advice but in my case i have never used that much marijuana.
18-06-2020 03:33
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: James, I appreciate the advice but in my case i have never used that much marijuana. It's about what you use and not how much. Does age decrease the number of receptors? I don't know. Neural function has been observed. As a result of a scientific consensus, it is about usage and not the amount of usage. Someone with moderate to little usage (such as yourself) would still be influenced by the availability of receptors in the brain. This determines efficiency. Basically, a chronic user (not saying ITN and company here) would need more time for the brain to generate new receptors. With a mild user (such as yourself), a mild fluctuation in the number of receptors would be noticeable. With quantity, usage, etc., average daily usage matters. And when compared to what is "normal" for an individual, that does matter and is why "usage" isn't a single, quantifiable variable. I do know what I posted and I doubt anyone will want to quantify a statement by saying CFM which is not GFM, etc. Kind of why keeping things per individual and what they do. Edited on 18-06-2020 03:37
21-06-2020 04:53
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	We have the Perth zoom link tomorrow night where I will meet my local chapter for the first time.Can we take bets on how long Till I speak and get booted
21-06-2020 08:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14408)	duncan61 wrote: We have the Perth zoom link tomorrow night where I will meet my local chapter for the first time.Can we take bets on how long Till I speak and get booted I'm guessing you won't get booted ... unless you ask why any rational adult should believe in Global Warming ... and then explain how there is no science supporting Global Warming. That's the only way you'll get booted, i.e. demonstrate that you aren't a believer, or that you doubt. . 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
21-06-2020 15:58
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	duncan61 wrote: We have the Perth zoom link tomorrow night where I will meet my local chapter for the first time.Can we take bets on how long Till I speak and get booted They will just love having you, and you'll be the focus of all their attention. Consider how new, true believers are received here. I'm usually embarrassed by the way some members here greet new members. don't think the should be attacked, like they do. But, it's a debate site, and winning the game for some, is all that matters. At your meeting though, they all follow the same scripture, basically agree on everything, and are prepared to convert anyone to their beliefs and values. It's kind of boring, if your group all agree on everything. A new challenge, freshens it up for them, and the potential of recruiting a new member. Just hold on to the things that you know to be true. They will quote a lot of scripture, which almost makes sense, least possible, and they will constantly ask you to agree, and accept, on faith. It can all get very confusing, lot of numbers, most of which, if you think about deeply, you'll realize no one could actual know these things, absolutely, without question. Just speculation, and just because the 'bible' says it so, doesn't really make it so, can be interpreted in many ways.
13-07-2020 17:19
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Had my zoom meeting with the perth crowd.The electric car progress was good listening
13-07-2020 22:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: Cop out. Void argument 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
13-07-2020 22:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	duncan61 wrote: Had my zoom meeting with the perth crowd.The electric car progress was good listening Electric cars have definitely made good advancements, thanks to the lighter lithium batteries. They are essentially a glorified electric golf cart, however, with all of its attendant problems. Their advantage is that they have very good traction in snow, so long as their low clearance isn't compromised (high centering, pushing the snow instead of rolling over it, etc). A single charge gives them a range similar to the range of a gasoline car on one tankful. Unfortunately, it takes six to eight hours to charge one of these things for that kind of range. That essentially make it a hotel stop at each 'fillup'. A gasoline car, on the other hand, can be fueled and back on the road in minutes. The rate of charge can never really be reduced. It's a function of the internal resistance of the battery, as well as the current carrying capabilities of the connection itself. You have to ram all those joules back into the battery, and you can only do it so fast. To refuel in minutes like a gasoline car, an electric car is just going to have to move that many joules of energy. There is no shortcut. Joules are joules, and you need X amount to move a given weight at a given speed down the road. You can shove watts by using higher current or higher voltage. Higher current means the wire, connection plugs, etc. would have to be so large that you couldn't lift it. Higher voltage means that handling the device is inherently very dangerous, as arcing and flashover through the one connecting the charging system becomes a real possibility. Insulation at such voltages is expensive, and may not be available at all. It's why you don't go climbing an 800kv powerline tower. For a user to be handling a fueling connection in the kV range is problematic. Besides, the battery itself can't take that kind of abuse. They must be charged at a voltage level just higher than the static unloaded battery voltage (determined by the work functions of the differing conductors and connecting cells in series or parallel). Charging cells in wired in series means that all cells must be matched, or one cell will tend to hog the charge, leaving the other discharged and acting mostly as a resistor rather than a battery cell. The additional electricity to charge a large fleet of cars has to be generated somewhere. In most parts of the world, that is done by coal or oil. This is why I describe electric cars as coal-fired cars. They are not a source of power. They must be charged. So the electric car has its advantages and disadvantages. The smugness of many people that drive them is quite misplaced (and rude). They are expensive as well. They are not practical for long haul trucking (or even most trucking). There is a reason many people still prefer the gasoline golf carts, just as they prefer gasoline or diesel cars, and why probably won't see an electric tractor anytime soon. Even electric forklifts have a very limited range and time in service before they require a charge. They are useful in indoor spaces however, since there is no exhaust. They are, however, essentially a rolling battery to do it (an advantage in forklifts! You WANT the weight!). 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 13-07-2020 23:00

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate Citizens Climate Lobby Australia:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Citizens Climate Lobby Australia	17	17-01-2022 22:01
Citizen's Climate Lobby Australia (CCLA)	19	04-08-2020 16:25
Climate change an 'existential security risk' to Australia, Senate inquiry says	1	19-05-2018 23:35
Australia looks set for drought	0	13-11-2014 18:46