Remember me
▼ Content

Trump, Climate Change investigation?



Page 2 of 2<12
18-06-2019 20:00
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(807)
Well, I do believe that we had a warmer climate for a while, much higher levels of CO2 maybe in the 1-3% range, not the pitiful 0.04% we have today. A few one hundreds of a percent, is going to destroy the planet? Al Gore must be a heavy drinker or something. Those massive lizards on display at the museum of natural history had to eat quite a bit, lot of fresh vegetation.

Then it got cold, kind of sudden, them big lizards didn't have a chance to move down here to Florida, didn't survive, just a few alligators, and small lizards. Our species rode out a very long winter in caves, mostly, chipping out hunks frozen, semi-putrefied flesh out of the frozen tundra. Wasn't so bad, after discovering it thaws out quick over fire, if you could find it. Leave it on a little longer, and the smoke help cover the rancid taste. Finally, after thousands of years, it started to warm up again, a lot of the ice melted, and life started to recover. We really like fire though, so many uses, so many things to burn. Strange how we could burn most anything, no big deal. But when we started burning coal and oil, some neanderthals started screaming planet killers. Weird how history works out.

When you use an all inclusive, like all doctors cover-up their mistakes, you should know you are wrong. Doesn't surprise me, coming from James though, considering some of his views about Native Americans, Americans generalized. People are all individuals, just because a man has dark skin doesn't mean he sells drugs and pimps his sister. Speak spanish, snuck over the border, to work on farms cheap, and lay sod. Most doctors do their jobs, fix any mistakes. Surgery is complicated, lot tiny details, not always what they expect, when they got you cut open. Most of the time, they won't know how you body is going to respond to drugs, until they give them to you. They don't always work as expected, some people react badly, unexpected side-effects. What you call mistakes, are things that just happen, and they do their best to deal with it. Most would rather make it right, than have a patient die. Some individuals might do bad things, but you say the entire profession is involved in those same bad acts. I've said it before, your surgery seems to have went fine, you survived, and are physically functional. Surgery can't fix your sitting around feeling sorry for yourself, but they have meds for that now. You've never gotten into what your problem is, that you feel disabled, unable to work. Have ever considered you might have some other medical issue, unrelated to the surgery. Lack of excise, and poor dietary choices can cause some very serious, crippling conditions.
19-06-2019 16:48
James___
★★★★☆
(1349)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, I do believe that we had a warmer climate for a while, much higher levels of CO2 maybe in the 1-3% range, not the pitiful 0.04% we have today. A few one hundreds of a percent, is going to destroy the planet? Al Gore must be a heavy drinker or something. Those massive lizards on display at the museum of natural history had to eat quite a bit, lot of fresh vegetation.

Then it got cold, kind of sudden, them big lizards didn't have a chance to move down here to Florida, didn't survive, just a few alligators, and small lizards. Our species rode out a very long winter in caves, mostly, chipping out hunks frozen, semi-putrefied flesh out of the frozen tundra. Wasn't so bad, after discovering it thaws out quick over fire, if you could find it. Leave it on a little longer, and the smoke help cover the rancid taste. Finally, after thousands of years, it started to warm up again, a lot of the ice melted, and life started to recover. We really like fire though, so many uses, so many things to burn. Strange how we could burn most anything, no big deal. But when we started burning coal and oil, some neanderthals started screaming planet killers. Weird how history works out.

When you use an all inclusive, like all doctors cover-up their mistakes, you should know you are wrong. Doesn't surprise me, coming from James though, considering some of his views about Native Americans, Americans generalized. People are all individuals, just because a man has dark skin doesn't mean he sells drugs and pimps his sister. Speak spanish, snuck over the border, to work on farms cheap, and lay sod. Most doctors do their jobs, fix any mistakes. Surgery is complicated, lot tiny details, not always what they expect, when they got you cut open. Most of the time, they won't know how you body is going to respond to drugs, until they give them to you. They don't always work as expected, some people react badly, unexpected side-effects. What you call mistakes, are things that just happen, and they do their best to deal with it. Most would rather make it right, than have a patient die. Some individuals might do bad things, but you say the entire profession is involved in those same bad acts. I've said it before, your surgery seems to have went fine, you survived, and are physically functional. Surgery can't fix your sitting around feeling sorry for yourself, but they have meds for that now. You've never gotten into what your problem is, that you feel disabled, unable to work. Have ever considered you might have some other medical issue, unrelated to the surgery. Lack of excise, and poor dietary choices can cause some very serious, crippling conditions.



Are you on medication Harvey? It's difficult to make any sense of what you're saying. Of course as you say, you live alone. Maybe you just like being rude? You're not Don Rickles, you're not funny. Just sad

Do you know what's even sadder? You remind me of my mother. She was American and talked the way you post. Seems to me that the 2 of you have a lot in common.

Edited on 19-06-2019 17:06
20-06-2019 06:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
James___ wrote: It's difficult to make any sense of what you're saying.

Might your lack of English comprehension be the problem? It might explain your overall confusion and inability to grasp simple concepts.

I understood what he wrote.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
20-06-2019 18:21
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(807)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: It's difficult to make any sense of what you're saying.

Might your lack of English comprehension be the problem? It might explain your overall confusion and inability to grasp simple concepts.

I understood what he wrote.


It's more of a confusion of convenience. He can't deal with the truth or the logic, or admit he might be wrong. I think must be getting a lot closer to what's really bother him, the thing he's most afraid to address. You'll notice a pattern to the portions of my comments, that he consistently avoids, and ignores.

Man-made 'greenhouse' gasses just don't fill enough of the atmosphere to have the effects claimed, unless the create a lot of thermal energy, because there are huge areas ( gaps) between these 'special molecules'. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed. Conversion from one form to another is lossy, energy dissipates into other forms, during the process. The only people that buy into the BS, are the ones who see some potential gain from doing so. Most 'deniers' have better things to do, than run around in circles, arguing a non-issue. Seems like a one sided argument, since only the 'believers' feel a need to keep selling there crap, and recruiting new members. The 'deniers' only get involved, when it's infringes on their work, or source of income, new taxes.
20-06-2019 20:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
HarveyH55 wrote:Man-made 'greenhouse' gasses just don't fill enough of the atmosphere to have the effects claimed, unless the create a lot of thermal energy, because there are huge areas ( gaps) between these 'special molecules'.

If CO2 actually had the magickal superpower to violate the 1st LoT and create thermal energy, yes, you are correct that there isn't enough CO2 to have anywhere near the effect claimed.

The earth's surface and the hydrophere absorb the lion's share of incoming solar energy. The atmosphere accounts for a very small portion, and of that CO2 accounts for around only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

We have to assume the 0.04% is too high since the measurements are taken right at a volcano that is spewing out CO2 which practically renders the reading invalid.

However, it isn't such a stretch to understand that someone gullible enough to believe CO2 has the magickal ability to violate the 1st LoT would also be gullible enough to believe that it's insignificant quantity does not prevent it from bringing about a catastrophic demise to all life on the planet.

HarveyH55 wrote: Energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed. Conversion from one form to another is lossy, energy dissipates into other forms, during the process.

No. The 1st LoT is not lossy. When energy "dissipates" it is not destroyed. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... as you stated above.

What you are referring to is the 2nd LoT. Whenever energy changes form, the amount of usable energy decreases (or potentially remains the same, assuming no work is performed).

The 2nd LoT on Politiplex

HarveyH55 wrote: Most 'deniers' have better things to do, than run around in circles, arguing a non-issue.

Correct. Most "deniers" aren't self loathers who need to project their shortcomings onto those they fear. Most "deniers" don't have any compulsion to preach Global Warming.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
20-06-2019 21:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: It's difficult to make any sense of what you're saying.

Might your lack of English comprehension be the problem? It might explain your overall confusion and inability to grasp simple concepts.

I understood what he wrote.

So do I. It's all in one run-on paragraph, but it's readable.


The Parrot Killer
21-06-2019 02:42
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(807)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Man-made 'greenhouse' gasses just don't fill enough of the atmosphere to have the effects claimed, unless the create a lot of thermal energy, because there are huge areas ( gaps) between these 'special molecules'.

If CO2 actually had the magickal superpower to violate the 1st LoT and create thermal energy, yes, you are correct that there isn't enough CO2 to have anywhere near the effect claimed.

The earth's surface and the hydrophere absorb the lion's share of incoming solar energy. The atmosphere accounts for a very small portion, and of that CO2 accounts for around only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

We have to assume the 0.04% is too high since the measurements are taken right at a volcano that is spewing out CO2 which practically renders the reading invalid.

However, it isn't such a stretch to understand that someone gullible enough to believe CO2 has the magickal ability to violate the 1st LoT would also be gullible enough to believe that it's insignificant quantity does not prevent it from bringing about a catastrophic demise to all life on the planet.

HarveyH55 wrote: Energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed. Conversion from one form to another is lossy, energy dissipates into other forms, during the process.

No. The 1st LoT is not lossy. When energy "dissipates" it is not destroyed. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... as you stated above.

What you are referring to is the 2nd LoT. Whenever energy changes form, the amount of usable energy decreases (or potentially remains the same, assuming no work is performed).

The 2nd LoT on Politiplex

HarveyH55 wrote: Most 'deniers' have better things to do, than run around in circles, arguing a non-issue.

Correct. Most "deniers" aren't self loathers who need to project their shortcomings onto those they fear. Most "deniers" don't have any compulsion to preach Global Warming.


The conversion of energy from one form to another, is work, which requires energy in itself. I never said anything about destroying energy, you just don't get a 100% conversion from one form to another, well, maybe on paper it works that way. But then again, so does Global Warming...
21-06-2019 19:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Man-made 'greenhouse' gasses just don't fill enough of the atmosphere to have the effects claimed, unless the create a lot of thermal energy, because there are huge areas ( gaps) between these 'special molecules'.

If CO2 actually had the magickal superpower to violate the 1st LoT and create thermal energy, yes, you are correct that there isn't enough CO2 to have anywhere near the effect claimed.

The earth's surface and the hydrophere absorb the lion's share of incoming solar energy. The atmosphere accounts for a very small portion, and of that CO2 accounts for around only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

We have to assume the 0.04% is too high since the measurements are taken right at a volcano that is spewing out CO2 which practically renders the reading invalid.

However, it isn't such a stretch to understand that someone gullible enough to believe CO2 has the magickal ability to violate the 1st LoT would also be gullible enough to believe that it's insignificant quantity does not prevent it from bringing about a catastrophic demise to all life on the planet.

HarveyH55 wrote: Energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed. Conversion from one form to another is lossy, energy dissipates into other forms, during the process.

No. The 1st LoT is not lossy. When energy "dissipates" it is not destroyed. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... as you stated above.

What you are referring to is the 2nd LoT. Whenever energy changes form, the amount of usable energy decreases (or potentially remains the same, assuming no work is performed).

The 2nd LoT on Politiplex

HarveyH55 wrote: Most 'deniers' have better things to do, than run around in circles, arguing a non-issue.

Correct. Most "deniers" aren't self loathers who need to project their shortcomings onto those they fear. Most "deniers" don't have any compulsion to preach Global Warming.


The conversion of energy from one form to another, is work, which requires energy in itself.
Conversion of energy from one form to another requires no work. One example is the absorption of light and conversion to thermal energy. Another is the emission of light due to thermal energy. Neither of these conversions requires any work.

You can put that light to work, though. You can even use it to push a mass through space. You can use it to transfer thermal energy to some other place (radiant heating). It is the light that is a medium, and a form of energy, but the conversion itself has no energy loss.

It is simply not possible to destroy energy, no matter how hard you try.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I never said anything about destroying energy, you just don't get a 100% conversion from one form to another,

You attempted to destroy a certain amount of energy as 'lost'. That means you are attempting to describe energy that is destroyed.
HarveyH55 wrote:
well, maybe on paper it works that way.
It doesn't matter whether 100% is converted, 50%, or even just 1%. It is the same. What is converted requires no work.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But then again, so does Global Warming...

Global warming doesn't even work on paper. You have to define 'global warming' first before you can have any theory about it.

I think the basic confusion here is what is 'work'?

work = force * distance

Energy is not a force. It can be applied as one, but in and of itself it is not a force.

Gravity is a force. It is not energy.

Light is energy. It is not a force. It can be directed to cause a force.

Magnetic fields are a force. They are not energy.

Electricity is energy. It is not a force. I can be directed to cause a force.

Kinetic energy is energy. It is not a force. It can be directed to cause a force (through Newton's law F=mA).

Chemical energy, which is potential energy, is not a force. You can use it to lift an object though, by directing some of it into your hand, forcing an object upward against gravity or to throw a ball. That is work. it is converting chemical energy into kinetic energy, which can accelerate that mass (your hand). You can transfer that kinetic energy into the ball or other object) to produce work, but neither the chemical energy nor the kinetic energy itself is work, nor the conversion from one to the other.

The concept of 'work' can be a bit confusing, simply because 'force' and 'energy' seem to be connected or even the same thing, but they aren't.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-06-2019 19:59
21-06-2019 20:36
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(102)
Force has no sequitur meaning without energy. Similarly, your way of thinking about them as separate things has no meaning. Can you give me a definition of what force is without its relation to mass? Can you give me a definition for what mass is without its relation to gravity? Can you give the the definition of space without its relation to time? Your entire mode of thinking is completely non-sequitur and back asswards.

The total energy of say a falling object, is given by:
E=U+KE, assuming no internal energy. Or E=mgh+1/2mv^2
defining the direct relationship between the energy of a system and the force, in this case gravity.
21-06-2019 22:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
L8112 wrote:
Force has no sequitur meaning without energy.

Nonsense statement. Try English. I believe you are trying to say that force is energy. It is not.
L8112 wrote:
Similarly, your way of thinking about them as separate things has no meaning.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. I just gave the meaning.
L8112 wrote:
can you give me a definition of what force is without its relation to mass?

Sure. Magnetic (or electrostatic) force, which binds atoms and molecules. The Strong force, which binds nuclei together. The Weak force, which allows for fission to occur.
L8112 wrote:
Can you give me a definition for what mass is without its relation to gravity?

No. The force of gravity is the result of the presence of mass.
L8112 wrote:
Can you give the the definition of space without its relation to time?

Sure. The first three dimensions, commonly called X, Y, and Z.
L8112 wrote:
Your entire mode of thinking is completely non-sequitur and back asswards.

Bulverism fallacy.
L8112 wrote:
The total energy of say a falling object, is given by:
E=U+KE, assuming no internal energy.

No, that is also including any internal energy.
L8112 wrote:
Or E=mgh+1/2mv^2
defining the direct relationship between the energy of a system and the force, in this case gravity.

No, this equation is simply a restatement of E=U+K. It is only describing the energy in a mass, how potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy and back again.

Gravity is but one force, and is associated with the presence of mass.


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2019 03:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
L8112 wrote: Force has no sequitur meaning without energy.

You gibber:

Mass x Acceleration = Force

Force x Distance = Work (Energy)

Work / Time = Power

I can discuss both Mass and Acceleration without discussing energy, ergo I can discuss Force without discussing Energy.

Only when I start to discuss Force over Distance must I engage in the semantic of Energy.

L8112 wrote: Similarly, your way of thinking about them as separate things has no meaning.

Your way of thinking of them as the same thing is completely erroneous.

L8112 wrote:Can you give me a definition of what force is without its relation to mass?

Boy did you just shift the goalposts to an entirely different field.

L8112 wrote: Can you give me a definition for what mass is without its relation to gravity?

Yes. Mass = Energy / Speed_of_Light^2

L8112 wrote:Can you give the the definition of space without its relation to time?

Yes. My simple definition, which works for most practical purposes, involves only three independent axes.

L8112 wrote:Your entire mode of thinking is completely non-sequitur and back asswards.

I can't think of anything for which you have been correct.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Trump, Climate Change investigation?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Trump Friend Jeffrey Epstein316-07-2019 20:39
President Trump makes a personal sacrifice, for the country...211-07-2019 17:29
Third Term for Trump?226-06-2019 00:22
As a CO2 lover, I'd like to see Trump and Democrat congress win 2020 election1021-06-2019 22:08
Trump Administration's Attempts to Limit Climate Change Science 'Like Designing Cars Without Seat128-05-2019 20:13
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact