This should clear up any confusion about climate

GasGuzzler wrote:
A Conservative Review article popped on my phone the other day. It basically said Gretta is done, she's not hot enough, and there's a new climate queen rising in the ranks. Her name is Sophia Kianna. I did not recognize the name, so a quick search revealed this pretty young lady with all the answers to your questions about what climate actually is.

I shit you not, in a short 10 minute speech, she revealed this plethora of climate. I had no idea. Link to the speech is at the bottom. Go ahead and check my work. I may have missed a few. I didn't have any climate friendly barf bags on hand so I decided it wasn't worth the risk to watch again and check my own work. Here goes.

Climate activist
Climate change
Climate policy
Climate movement
Climate organization
Climate crisis
Climate strike
Climate action
Climate emergency
Climate goals
Climate issue
Climate communication
Climate literacy
Climate enthusiasm
Climate refugees
Climate resources
Climate pledge
Climate Cardinals
Climate education
Climate activism
Climate justice
Climate anxiety
Climate disaster

If you que the video to the 5:10 mark, she almost sounds like she's reading from an IBdaMann mockery cheat sheet! Environmental racism is apparently a real problem.

James, I'm so sorry. I know she's a hottie, but she made no mention of ozone depletion. I'm sad for you.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Sophia+Kianni&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS735US735&biw=1093&bih=500&tbm=vid&sxsrf=ALiCzsbHseu3pkYVU0tiFQ7opJ7M9gtKxQ%3A1670640586112&ei=yvOTY8K4BrWtptQP1qadqAg&ved=0ahUKEwjCxbqVhe77AhW1lokEHVZTB4UQ4dUDCA0&oq=Sophia+Kianni&gs_lcp=Cg1nd3Mtd2l6LXZpZGVvEAwyCAgAELEDEJECMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEOgUIIRCgAVDtRFjtRGDlV2gAcAB4AIABXIgBswGSAQEymAEAoAECoAEBwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-video#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:c2875c4d,vid:bzB1yahIuNo

Anyone here that still doesn't think climate need be defined?

Swan wrote:Is the Climate of Panama the same as the climate of Iceland?

Swan wrote:Why are there no alligators endemic to Iceland?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Is the Climate of Panama the same as the climate of Iceland?

Is the global climate the same as the global climate?

Swan wrote:Why are there no alligators endemic to Iceland?

Why are there no alligators native to earth?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Is the Climate of Panama the same as the climate of Iceland?

Is the global climate the same as the global climate?

Swan wrote:Why are there no alligators endemic to Iceland?

Why are there no alligators native to earth?

Time for me to reevaluate the crap I'm spewing

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Is the Climate of Panama the same as the climate of Iceland?

Is the global climate the same as the global climate?

Swan wrote:Why are there no alligators endemic to Iceland?

Why are there no alligators native to earth?

Time for me to reevaluate the crap I'm spewing

I'll say. You might want to ask a few more questions about what you are told to believe before you just blindly believe it.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Is the Climate of Panama the same as the climate of Iceland?

Is the global climate the same as the global climate?

Swan wrote:Why are there no alligators endemic to Iceland?

Why are there no alligators native to earth?

Time for me to reevaluate the crap I'm spewing

I'll say. You might want to ask a few more questions about what you are told to believe before you just blindly believe it.

LOL I have had ass=holes claim that I had no clue before.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Is the Climate of Panama the same as the climate of Iceland?

Is the global climate the same as the global climate?

Swan wrote:Why are there no alligators endemic to Iceland?

Why are there no alligators native to earth?

Time for me to reevaluate the crap I'm spewing

I'll say. You might want to ask a few more questions about what you are told to believe before you just blindly believe it.

LOL I have had ass=holes claim that I had no clue before.

Ah. Pride of illiteracy.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Is the Climate of Panama the same as the climate of Iceland?

Is the global climate the same as the global climate?

Swan wrote:Why are there no alligators endemic to Iceland?

Why are there no alligators native to earth?

Time for me to reevaluate the crap I'm spewing

I'll say. You might want to ask a few more questions about what you are told to believe before you just blindly believe it.

LOL I have had scholars mention that I had no clue before.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Is the Climate of Panama the same as the climate of Iceland?

Is the global climate the same as the global climate?

Swan wrote:Why are there no alligators endemic to Iceland?

Why are there no alligators native to earth?

Time for me to reevaluate the crap I'm spewing

I'll say. You might want to ask a few more questions about what you are told to believe before you just blindly believe it.

LOL I have had scholars mention that I had no clue before.

What did you learn from them?

Swan wrote:What do you gain by changing my words?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:What do you gain by changing my words?

All the same things you gain by claiming that I deny the Holocaust.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:What do you gain by changing my words?

All the same things you gain by claiming that I deny the Holocaust.

You deny everything that you were not there to see,

Swan wrote:You deny the glacial maximum

Swan wrote: you deny that quantum computers exist

Swan wrote: ... and you deny the holocaust for the same reasons.

Swan wrote: A better question is why do you choose to troll on me continuously instead of making new post and asking new questions?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:What do you gain by changing my words?

All the same things you gain by claiming that I deny the Holocaust.

You deny everything that you were not there to see,

Incorrect. Your inability to support your claims of omniscience concerning the unobserved, distant past does not constitute any denial on my part.

Swan wrote:You deny the glacial maximum

I cannot deny anything that has never been shown to be the case in the first place. You need to support your claims, especially WACKY claims of omniscience.

How do you know there was an ice age beyond your bicycle ride past rocks? How do you know there was a "glacial maximum" that you never seem to be able to specify or to support?

Swan wrote: you deny that quantum computers exist

You believe that physics-defying computers exist, because you are gullible and you were told to believe it by PR departments that wish to artificially elevate stock prices.

Swan wrote: ... and you deny the holocaust for the same reasons.

Your foolish belief that physics-defying computers exist does not compel me to deny anything.

Swan wrote: A better question is why do you choose to troll on me continuously instead of making new post and asking new questions?

The better question is to ask you why you pretend to assign bogus positions to me that I do not have, and to blame me for the stupidity of you claims?

Having said that, the answer to this question is public knowledge, i.e. you will not waver from your attempts to change the topic away from your total inability to support any of your claims. A perusal of all of your posts will reveal that you haven't supported a single claim that you have made ... because you cannot. You will not admit to this. You will only blame others for your inability to support the stupid crap that you are required to regurgitate by the those who do your thinking for you.

Swan wrote:Quantum computers cannot defy physics,

Swan wrote: LOL you think Einstein set everything in stone when his math told him that the universe was not expanding.

GasGuzzler wrote:
A Conservative Review article popped on my phone the other day. It basically said Gretta is done, she's not hot enough, and there's a new climate queen rising in the ranks. Her name is Sophia Kianna. I did not recognize the name, so a quick search revealed this pretty young lady with all the answers to your questions about what climate actually is.

I shit you not, in a short 10 minute speech, she revealed this plethora of climate. I had no idea. Link to the speech is at the bottom. Go ahead and check my work. I may have missed a few. I didn't have any climate friendly barf bags on hand so I decided it wasn't worth the risk to watch again and check my own work. Here goes.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate activist

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate change
Climate policy
Climate movement

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate organization

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate crisis

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate strike

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate action
Climate emergency

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate goals

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate issue

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate communication
Climate literacy
Climate enthusiasm

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate refugees

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate resources
Climate pledge

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate Cardinals

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate education

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate activism
Climate justice

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate anxiety

GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate disaster

GasGuzzler wrote:
Environmental racism

GasGuzzler wrote:
ozone depletion.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Quantum computers cannot defy physics,

Nothing can defy physics. Ergo, your claims of quantum computers that defy physics are bogus.

You refuse to learn the reasons your notion of quantum computing defies physics, mostly because you were told to believe the disinformation your were told to regurgitate. You refuse to learn/understand General Relativity because you don't want to have to accept it, which would force you to realize that your notion of quantum computing is not possible. You refuse to learn/understand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle so that you won't have to accept that your notion of quantum computing is not possible.

Instead, you instantaneously absorb bogus "press releases" by high-tech PR departments ... because that is so much easier and so convenient. It affords you the opportunity to let others do your thinking for you. That's on you.

All of this is all well and good, i.e. you aren't hurting anyone else. The problem is that you actively attack those who have not gullibly fallen for disinformation from thought-masters who control their thinking as you have done. You have nothing else because you cannot possibly support any of the claims you post. You practically beg to be raked over the coals for the stupid things you regurgitate on command.

Swan wrote: LOL you think Einstein set everything in stone when his math told him that the universe was not expanding.

This is another bogus position which you are assigning to me. Einstein set General Relativity in stone by simply publishing it. Now, Einstein is gone but we still have General Relativity set in stone. Instead of regurgitating disinformation about Einstein, you should be discussing General Relativity which, by the way, explains why your notion of quantum computing is not possible. Of course this would require you to learn General Relativity, and you won't. On the other hand, regurgitating disinformation does not require you to understand any science so you will likely continue regurgitating disinformation ... and blaming others (e.g. me) for it.

.

Swan wrote:Actually I said that quantum computers do not defy physics.

gfm7175 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:ozone depletion.

I somehow forgot this one as well. Onto the list it goes.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually I said that quantum computers do not defy physics.

Yes, and I explained why that statement doesn't say anything.

Nothing defies physics.

All that we're left with is "quantum computers don't exist."

Finally we agree.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:What do you gain by changing my words?

All the same things you gain by claiming that I deny the Holocaust.

You deny everything that you were not there to see, you have said so hundreds of times. ...

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:What do you gain by changing my words?

All the same things you gain by claiming that I deny the Holocaust.

You deny everything that you were not there to see,

Incorrect. Your inability to support your claims of omniscience concerning the unobserved, distant past does not constitute any denial on my part.

Swan wrote:You deny the glacial maximum

I cannot deny anything that has never been shown to be the case in the first place. You need to support your claims, especially WACKY claims of omniscience.

How do you know there was an ice age beyond your bicycle ride past rocks? How do you know there was a "glacial maximum" that you never seem to be able to specify or to support?

Swan wrote: you deny that quantum computers exist

You believe that physics-defying computers exist, because you are gullible and you were told to believe it by PR departments that wish to artificially elevate stock prices.

Swan wrote: ... and you deny the holocaust for the same reasons.

Your foolish belief that physics-defying computers exist does not compel me to deny anything.

Swan wrote: A better question is why do you choose to troll on me continuously instead of making new post and asking new questions?

The better question is to ask you why you pretend to assign bogus positions to me that I do not have, and to blame me for the stupidity of you claims?

Having said that, the answer to this question is public knowledge, i.e. you will not waver from your attempts to change the topic away from your total inability to support any of your claims. A perusal of all of your posts will reveal that you haven't supported a single claim that you have made ... because you cannot. You will not admit to this. You will only blame others for your inability to support the stupid crap that you are required to regurgitate by the those who do your thinking for you.

Quantum computers cannot defy physics, ...

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:ozone depletion.

I somehow forgot this one as well. Onto the list it goes.

This weekend I was at a little get-together at which I was discussing the FTX Exchange collapse and the general scam nature of cryptocurrencies when suddenly I got a "... but the ozone hole, that's real, right?"

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually I said that quantum computers do not defy physics.

Yes, and I explained why that statement doesn't say anything.

Nothing defies physics.

All that we're left with is "quantum computers don't exist."

Finally we agree.

Your assumptions are fully based in your belief that the human race understands everything about everything,

Swan wrote: Since physics is the study of everything

Swan wrote: quantum computers are not required to obey laws that are unknown to humanity.

Swan wrote: Back in the 80's [A person] babbled [something erroneous].

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:What do you gain by changing my words?

All the same things you gain by claiming that I deny the Holocaust.

You deny everything that you were not there to see,

Incorrect. Your inability to support your claims of omniscience concerning the unobserved, distant past does not constitute any denial on my part.

Swan wrote:You deny the glacial maximum

I cannot deny anything that has never been shown to be the case in the first place. You need to support your claims, especially WACKY claims of omniscience.

How do you know there was an ice age beyond your bicycle ride past rocks? How do you know there was a "glacial maximum" that you never seem to be able to specify or to support?

Swan wrote: you deny that quantum computers exist

You believe that physics-defying computers exist, because you are gullible and you were told to believe it by PR departments that wish to artificially elevate stock prices.

Swan wrote: ... and you deny the holocaust for the same reasons.

Your foolish belief that physics-defying computers exist does not compel me to deny anything.

Swan wrote: A better question is why do you choose to troll on me continuously instead of making new post and asking new questions?

The better question is to ask you why you pretend to assign bogus positions to me that I do not have, and to blame me for the stupidity of you claims?

Having said that, the answer to this question is public knowledge, i.e. you will not waver from your attempts to change the topic away from your total inability to support any of your claims. A perusal of all of your posts will reveal that you haven't supported a single claim that you have made ... because you cannot. You will not admit to this. You will only blame others for your inability to support the stupid crap that you are required to regurgitate by the those who do your thinking for you.

Quantum computers cannot defy physics, ...

There is no such thing as a 'quantum computer'. Spamming.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually I said that quantum computers do not defy physics.

Yes, and I explained why that statement doesn't say anything.

Nothing defies physics.

All that we're left with is "quantum computers don't exist."

Finally we agree.

Your assumptions are fully based in your belief that the human race understands everything about everything,

This is yet another bogus position which you are assigning to me.

My position is that no one can know everything about nature. This is a conclusion that follows from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem(s).

Your position is that you are omnisicent and that anyone who disagrees with any one of your errors is somehow "denying reality."

Swan wrote: Since physics is the study of everything

Science is not a study. Areas of study typically end in "ology".

Science is the collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Swan wrote: quantum computers are not required to obey laws that are unknown to humanity.

Everything must adhere to physics.

Swan wrote: Back in the 80's [A person] babbled [something erroneous].

So? You're doing the same thing.

.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually I said that quantum computers do not defy physics.

Yes, and I explained why that statement doesn't say anything.

Nothing defies physics.

All that we're left with is "quantum computers don't exist."

Finally we agree.

Your assumptions are fully based in your belief that the human race understands everything about everything,

This is yet another bogus position which you are assigning to me.

My position is that no one can know everything about nature. This is a conclusion that follows from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem(s).

Your position is that you are omnisicent and that anyone who disagrees with any one of your errors is somehow "denying reality."

Swan wrote: Since physics is the study of everything

Science is not a study. Areas of study typically end in "ology".

Science is the collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Swan wrote: quantum computers are not required to obey laws that are unknown to humanity.

Everything must adhere to physics.

Swan wrote: Back in the 80's [A person] babbled [something erroneous].

So? You're doing the same thing.

Well I did [quickly pivot to something totally irrelevant]

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually I said that quantum computers do not defy physics.

Yes, and I explained why that statement doesn't say anything.

Nothing defies physics.

All that we're left with is "quantum computers don't exist."

Finally we agree.

Your assumptions are fully based in your belief that the human race understands everything about everything, which it clearly does not. Since physics is the study of everything and since clearly everything is not known, quantum computers are not required to obey laws that are unknown to humanity.

Swan wrote:
Back in the 80's Carl Sagan babbled that science was coming to a halt because everything was known.

Swan wrote:
LOL, the guys shrinking wires to make better microprocessors did not even have the time for such drivel.

Swan wrote:
Thank God because they invented Super Mario

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:What do you gain by changing my words?

All the same things you gain by claiming that I deny the Holocaust.

You deny everything that you were not there to see,

Incorrect. Your inability to support your claims of omniscience concerning the unobserved, distant past does not constitute any denial on my part.

Swan wrote:You deny the glacial maximum

I cannot deny anything that has never been shown to be the case in the first place. You need to support your claims, especially WACKY claims of omniscience.

How do you know there was an ice age beyond your bicycle ride past rocks? How do you know there was a "glacial maximum" that you never seem to be able to specify or to support?

Swan wrote: you deny that quantum computers exist

You believe that physics-defying computers exist, because you are gullible and you were told to believe it by PR departments that wish to artificially elevate stock prices.

Swan wrote: ... and you deny the holocaust for the same reasons.

Your foolish belief that physics-defying computers exist does not compel me to deny anything.

Swan wrote: A better question is why do you choose to troll on me continuously instead of making new post and asking new questions?

The better question is to ask you why you pretend to assign bogus positions to me that I do not have, and to blame me for the stupidity of you claims?

Having said that, the answer to this question is public knowledge, i.e. you will not waver from your attempts to change the topic away from your total inability to support any of your claims. A perusal of all of your posts will reveal that you haven't supported a single claim that you have made ... because you cannot. You will not admit to this. You will only blame others for your inability to support the stupid crap that you are required to regurgitate by the those who do your thinking for you.

Quantum computers cannot defy physics, ...

There is no such thing as a 'quantum computer'. Spamming.

Say what...

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually I said that quantum computers do not defy physics.

Yes, and I explained why that statement doesn't say anything.

Nothing defies physics.

All that we're left with is "quantum computers don't exist."

Finally we agree.

Your assumptions are fully based in your belief that the human race understands everything about everything,

This is yet another bogus position which you are assigning to me.

My position is that no one can know everything about nature. This is a conclusion that follows from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem(s).

Your position is that you are omnisicent and that anyone who disagrees with any one of your errors is somehow "denying reality."

Swan wrote: Since physics is the study of everything

Science is not a study. Areas of study typically end in "ology".

Science is the collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Swan wrote: quantum computers are not required to obey laws that are unknown to humanity.

Everything must adhere to physics.

Swan wrote: Back in the 80's [A person] babbled [something erroneous].

So? You're doing the same thing.

.

Well I did...

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:ozone depletion.

I somehow forgot this one as well. Onto the list it goes.

This weekend I was at a little get-together at which I was discussing the FTX Exchange collapse and the general scam nature of cryptocurrencies when suddenly I got a "... but the ozone hole, that's real, right?"

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:ozone depletion.

I somehow forgot this one as well. Onto the list it goes.

This weekend I was at a little get-together at which I was discussing the FTX Exchange collapse and the general scam nature of cryptocurrencies when suddenly I got a "... but the ozone hole, that's real, right?"

The so-called 'ozone hole' is not 'ozone depletion', which tends to reference the ozone layer and not the 'hole'.

This naturally occurring 'hole' in the winter of a pole simply occurs because there is no sunrise, and therefore no sunshine to produce ozone.

The buzzword 'ozone depletion' does properly exist on gfm's list.
Another that should probably be on there is 'ozone hole expansion', which attempts to fear monger that the 'hole' is going to expand out across the entire globe.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:ozone depletion.

I somehow forgot this one as well. Onto the list it goes.

This weekend I was at a little get-together at which I was discussing the FTX Exchange collapse and the general scam nature of cryptocurrencies when suddenly I got a "... but the ozone hole, that's real, right?"

How about the coral bleaching? Real, right?

IBdaMann wrote:
All that we're left with is "quantum computers don't exist."

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'quantum computer'.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
All that we're left with is "quantum computers don't exist."

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'quantum computer'.

Another addition to the list.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually I said that quantum computers do not defy physics.

Yes, and I explained why that statement doesn't say anything.

Nothing defies physics.

All that we're left with is "quantum computers don't exist."

Finally we agree.

Your assumptions are fully based in your belief that the human race understands everything about everything,

This is yet another bogus position which you are assigning to me.

My position is that no one can know everything about nature. This is a conclusion that follows from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem(s).

Your position is that you are omnisicent and that anyone who disagrees with any one of your errors is somehow "denying reality."

Swan wrote: Since physics is the study of everything

Science is not a study. Areas of study typically end in "ology".

Science is the collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Swan wrote: quantum computers are not required to obey laws that are unknown to humanity.

Everything must adhere to physics.

Swan wrote: Back in the 80's [A person] babbled [something erroneous].

So? You're doing the same thing.

Well I did [quickly pivot to something totally irrelevant]

Did you ever plan on supporting any of your claims instead of regurgitating what you are required to post?

.

Swan wrote: LOL, you are the fuc-up on the internet because I do not support any of my claims

Swan wrote: nor am I required to support anything I claim

Swan wrote: I can literally sit here and laugh my ass off at the bogus positions I assign to you

Swan wrote: The FACT is that you are too dumb to be allowed to be in the same room with a classified quantum computer

Swan wrote: Quantum computing is one of my Son's Navy cryptography classes.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: LOL, you are the fuc-up on the internet because I do not support any of my claims

It's just that you blame others for the stupidity of your claims. You go so far as to assign bogus positions to me just so you have something to attack as you change the subject away from your complete lack of support for your claims.

Once again, you have never supported any of your claims.

Swan wrote: nor am I required to support anything I claim

That's what I've been saying.

Swan wrote: I can literally sit here and laugh my ass off at the bogus positions I assign to you

I get it. You are easily amused ... by yourself.

Swan wrote: The FACT is that you are too dumb to be allowed to be in the same room with a classified quantum computer

There are no quantum computers, classified or otherwise. What does that mean exactly for me to be in a room with something that doesn't exist?

Swan wrote: Quantum computing is one of my Son's Navy cryptography classes.

Nope. Too funny! I know your son's training curriculum better than you do.

.

Swan wrote: LOL I am not required to prove that quantum computers are real,

Swan wrote: See you lose not when I fail to prove,