Corruption, which party is the greater problem?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Corruption, which party is the greater problem? > Page 6

Page 6 of 6

21-10-2019 18:34
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Harvey, this is for you. After all, we're both Americans and are both warehouse workers. I lost my warehouse position at amazon.com because of my medical problems. For 5 years, from Jan. 2010 until May 2015 they worked with me. I also speak English like you and went to public schools in the US like you. The difference? My service connected hearing loss. It made me a target of people like you so I home schooled myself. If things work out for me it's because I wasn't going to keep other Americans from letting me have a life. Of course Sen. Mitch McConnell told me twice that he opposes change. This perspective hurts Kentucky. At the same it it allows Kentuckians to say if people want them to allow for change, then they need to remain in control of it. Why extremism in conservatism hurts innovation. With that said, this is a freebie for you. I know you won't read this because it won't make any sense to you. You have normal hearing and I don't. Global temperatures during January - August 2011 were the third coldest on record in the lower stratosphere, according to the National Climatic Data Center, and have been generally declining in recent decades. Greenhouse gases also cause stratospheric cooling However, this recovery of the ozone layer is being delayed. A significant portion of the observed stratospheric cooling is also due to human-emitted greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html Why would greenhouse gasses cause stratospheric cooling? Because CFC's, chlorine, bromine, etc. are greenhouse gasses and cause the ozone layer to be depleted. And if you consider John Tyndall's work, ozone absorbs a significant amount of heat. When it does, it transports it away from our atmosphere which is why the lower stratosphere (ozone layer) would be warmer with more ozone. It would be absorbing heat instead of letting it pass into our atmosphere. But since I accept that our climate is changing, that means I say CO2 is causing global warming or climate change, right? This goes back to my mother from Kentucky saying that people don't like to change. Edited on 21-10-2019 18:38
21-10-2019 21:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: ...deleted hypochondria content... ...deleted Holy Quote... Why would greenhouse gasses cause stratospheric cooling? * It is not possible to decrease entropy in any system. No gas or vapor is capable of decreasing the entropy of the atmosphere. James___ wrote: Because CFC's, chlorine, bromine, etc. are greenhouse gasses and cause the ozone layer to be depleted. * the ozone layer is not being depleted. James___ wrote: ...deleted Holy Quote... ozone absorbs a significant amount of heat. Heat is not absorbed. Heat is simply heat. James___ wrote: When it does, it transports it away from our atmosphere Ozone is part of the atmosphere. It does not travel out to space. James___ wrote: which is why the lower stratosphere (ozone layer) would be warmer with more ozone. It isn't. It's colder. James___ wrote: It would be absorbing heat instead of letting it pass into our atmosphere. * It is not possible to reduce entropy in any system. Neither ozone nor oxygen can trap or slow heat. James___ wrote: But since I accept that our climate is changing, Define 'climate change'. James___ wrote: that means I say CO2 is causing global warming or climate change, right? You tell me. Define 'climate change'. James___ wrote: This goes back to my mother from Kentucky saying that people don't like to change. I doubt your mother can define 'climate change' either. 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
22-10-2019 00:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote:This goes back to my mother from Kentucky saying that people don't like to change. ... but they'll vote for a President if that's his slogan? 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
22-10-2019 01:41
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:This goes back to my mother from Kentucky saying that people don't like to change. ... but they'll vote for a President if that's his slogan? Read this. At the same time it won't be a surprise if both get reelected. As for Trump, if he gets reelected that won't be a surprise either. Bevin ran for office after office until he got elected. That's like now Amy McGrath is running for the senate. When she lost to Congressman Barr, all she could say was that she she was both a mother and a marine. And that she would run Washington the Marine way. She's not qualified to hold public office. Should be an easy win for Mitch. Who knows, maybe he'll mention his ties to the Chinese elite and how they have workers rights, they don't have to join a union to work. His wife in her job (.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Chao) she over sees shipping and her family is very friendly with China. Why she's rich. Her family owns a shipping business that seems to be tied in with China. Like Hunter Biden being helped by dad. So much of it in our government. https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article232823032.html If you're wondering, the US has over 340 million people. People want to be noticed/be relevant or matter. When I lived in Seattle, I knew it wasn't a small town. They have today what is known as the Seattle Freeze. People there are active. Want to socialize? Do something like boating, skiing or going running. If not then there was church. Physics makes for a poor social interest. I like it. Read Einstein's biography at 13. Same with Ruth and Gehrig. Earl Combs who played centerfield for them was from Richmond, Ky. I found that last one out by living in Richmond. Still, it seems that Einstein's theories came from his father owning a dyno factory. What generators used to be called. How did they develop their output? And he applied that question to physics. BTW damann, the IPCC essentially saying that ozone depletion and not CO2 was causing climate change was for Harvey. Now he can show where the IPCC disagrees with itself. Myself, I won't go into the politics of why everyone is saying CO2. I know the media answers to it's boards who answer to the shareholders. Kind of why a lot of the material I consider is pretty much ignored by the media. Edited on 22-10-2019 02:33
22-10-2019 04:23
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	I stop buying the Ozone BS back in the 70's... Went from Ice Age to Scorched Earth kind of quick, just from a reduction in CFCs, we still use some of them. What they found, is the Ozone Hole fluctuates naturally, didn't need to be 'fixed'. Partially reducing CO2, isn't going to do anything, except reduce our food supply. There is no 'warming' problem, that needs to be 'fixed'. This is our first major inter-glacial, we only can guess at a few things from past similar events, but weren't able to make any direct observations or measurements, like we do today. We don't actually know what normal should be, so how can we know it needs fixing? Not everything can, or needs to be fixed. Fixing things that aren't broke, is usually a bad idea, specially when you don't fully understand how it works in the first place. The planet is a highly dynamic system, everything is moving, changing, all the time.

22-10-2019 04:36
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: I stop buying the Ozone BS back in the 70's... Went from Ice Age to Scorched Earth kind of quick, just from a reduction in CFCs, we still use some of them. What they found, is the Ozone Hole fluctuates naturally, didn't need to be 'fixed'. Partially reducing CO2, isn't going to do anything, except reduce our food supply. There is no 'warming' problem, that needs to be 'fixed'. This is our first major inter-glacial, we only can guess at a few things from past similar events, but weren't able to make any direct observations or measurements, like we do today. We don't actually know what normal should be, so how can we know it needs fixing? Not everything can, or needs to be fixed. Fixing things that aren't broke, is usually a bad idea, specially when you don't fully understand how it works in the first place. The planet is a highly dynamic system, everything is moving, changing, all the time. Ignorant ramblings. I remember the 70's, never heard of no ice age coming. That's just BS that people like you say. The 50's, 60's and 70's had unusual weather because the seasons were so predictable. Remember, I am older than you so I am aware of your false claims. You do need to be in control, don't you? Yet no one can prove anything to you because if they do then you'll lose control to them. Can you do me a favor and say "I Am An American, Why Would I Serve My Country"? Kind of why I call the US aMErica. Notice how it highlights "ME"? Edited on 22-10-2019 04:38
22-10-2019 06:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I stop buying the Ozone BS back in the 70's... Went from Ice Age to Scorched Earth kind of quick, just from a reduction in CFCs, we still use some of them. What they found, is the Ozone Hole fluctuates naturally, didn't need to be 'fixed'. Partially reducing CO2, isn't going to do anything, except reduce our food supply. There is no 'warming' problem, that needs to be 'fixed'. This is our first major inter-glacial, we only can guess at a few things from past similar events, but weren't able to make any direct observations or measurements, like we do today. We don't actually know what normal should be, so how can we know it needs fixing? Not everything can, or needs to be fixed. Fixing things that aren't broke, is usually a bad idea, specially when you don't fully understand how it works in the first place. The planet is a highly dynamic system, everything is moving, changing, all the time. Ignorant ramblings. I remember the 70's, never heard of no ice age coming. It's all over the news records in the mid 70's. James___ wrote: That's just BS that people like you say. No, it's all over the news records in the mid 70's. James___ wrote: The 50's, 60's and 70's had unusual weather because the seasons were so predictable. Irrelevant. James___ wrote: Remember, I am older than you so I am aware of your false claims. Which makes you a liar. It's all over the news records in the mid 70's. James___ wrote: You do need to be in control, don't you? Psychoquackery. James___ wrote: Yet no one can prove anything to you because if they do then you'll lose control to them. Psychoquackery. James___ wrote: Can you do me a favor and say "I Am An American, Why Would I Serve My Country"? Kind of why I call the US aMErica. Notice how it highlights "ME"? Psychoquackery. 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
22-10-2019 07:27
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I stop buying the Ozone BS back in the 70's... Went from Ice Age to Scorched Earth kind of quick, just from a reduction in CFCs, we still use some of them. What they found, is the Ozone Hole fluctuates naturally, didn't need to be 'fixed'. Partially reducing CO2, isn't going to do anything, except reduce our food supply. There is no 'warming' problem, that needs to be 'fixed'. This is our first major inter-glacial, we only can guess at a few things from past similar events, but weren't able to make any direct observations or measurements, like we do today. We don't actually know what normal should be, so how can we know it needs fixing? Not everything can, or needs to be fixed. Fixing things that aren't broke, is usually a bad idea, specially when you don't fully understand how it works in the first place. The planet is a highly dynamic system, everything is moving, changing, all the time. Ignorant ramblings. I remember the 70's, never heard of no ice age coming. It's all over the news records in the mid 70's. James___ wrote: That's just BS that people like you say. No, it's all over the news records in the mid 70's. James___ wrote: The 50's, 60's and 70's had unusual weather because the seasons were so predictable. Irrelevant. James___ wrote: Remember, I am older than you so I am aware of your false claims. Which makes you a liar. It's all over the news records in the mid 70's. James___ wrote: You do need to be in control, don't you? Psychoquackery. James___ wrote: Yet no one can prove anything to you because if they do then you'll lose control to them. Psychoquackery. James___ wrote: Can you do me a favor and say "I Am An American, Why Would I Serve My Country"? Kind of why I call the US aMErica. Notice how it highlights "ME"? Psychoquackery. You're not the Duck, what's your 20? Rings or Saturn? Pretty spaced out 10-4!
22-10-2019 11:30
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	James, you are about the same age as my oldest brother, who served in the Marines, straight out of high school, who never left the country during his service. My second oldest went Air Force, and also never left the country. We weren't at war, or involved in any heavy conflicts. The military was a job operatunity, and little likelihood of combat. Your service doesn't mean quite as much as you imply. Not everybody who signs up, ever go into combat. Like everything else, you try to squeeze more sympathy out of something, that actual exists. I don't know what your service entailed, or your job assignments, but unlike they included active combat. Possible, but unlikely. Your gullible, in that you believe everything you read, is scientific fact, where it's speculation, a hypothesis, at best. I've got a pretty good imagination too, but I don't lose track of reality. Anybody ever drill a hole to the center of the earth, and get a sample of that molten iron core?
22-10-2019 17:25
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: James, you are about the same age as my oldest brother, who served in the Marines, straight out of high school, who never left the country during his service. My second oldest went Air Force, and also never left the country. We weren't at war, or involved in any heavy conflicts. The military was a job operatunity, and little likelihood of combat. Your service doesn't mean quite as much as you imply. Not everybody who signs up, ever go into combat. Like everything else, you try to squeeze more sympathy out of something, that actual exists. I don't know what your service entailed, or your job assignments, but unlike they included active combat. Possible, but unlikely. Your gullible, in that you believe everything you read, is scientific fact, where it's speculation, a hypothesis, at best. I've got a pretty good imagination too, but I don't lose track of reality. Anybody ever drill a hole to the center of the earth, and get a sample of that molten iron core? You're sad Harvey. The kinetic energy associated with gravity is known to be the square root of G = the universal gravitational constant, G = 6.673x10(-11) N∙m2/kg2 times the mass of the planet divided by the distance from the center of the planet/star. Our space program has had satellites orbit other planets which would have verified this. Kind of why the deeper into our planet someone drills like for water, the hotter it gets. You need to learn how to do something other than look for someone to harass. Then again you like Trump. Edited on 22-10-2019 17:44
22-10-2019 19:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: The kinetic energy associated with gravity is known to be the square root of G = the universal gravitational constant, G = 6.673x10(-11) N∙m2/kg2 times the mass of the planet divided by the distance from the center of the planet/star. James, gravity can certainly accelerate a mass, but gravity itself has no associated kinetic energy. Any given mass has kinetic energy proportional to the square of its velocity, specifically: Kinetic_Energy = (1/2) * Mass * Velocity^2 James___ wrote: Our space program has had satellites orbit other planets which would have verified this. You are speaking in the subjunctive. You can't make a valid argument with "would have." . 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
22-10-2019 23:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: James, you are about the same age as my oldest brother, who served in the Marines, straight out of high school, who never left the country during his service. My second oldest went Air Force, and also never left the country. We weren't at war, or involved in any heavy conflicts. The military was a job operatunity, and little likelihood of combat. Your service doesn't mean quite as much as you imply. Not everybody who signs up, ever go into combat. Like everything else, you try to squeeze more sympathy out of something, that actual exists. I don't know what your service entailed, or your job assignments, but unlike they included active combat. Possible, but unlikely. Your gullible, in that you believe everything you read, is scientific fact, where it's speculation, a hypothesis, at best. I've got a pretty good imagination too, but I don't lose track of reality. Anybody ever drill a hole to the center of the earth, and get a sample of that molten iron core? The bit melted. 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

Page 6 of 6

Join the debate Corruption, which party is the greater problem?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Ding Dong the skanky old queen is dead, party at every Irish pub on Earth	0	11-09-2022 19:06
The Biden's are literally CCP (Chink Communist Party) members.	0	08-09-2022 15:35
party	7	14-02-2022 21:45
The Republican Party Is Horny	2	27-02-2021 21:05
The USA Patriot Group Must Setup New Party To Educate People & Win The Game	0	14-02-2021 09:24