Remember me
▼ Content

What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to



Page 1 of 212>
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to26-05-2019 10:28
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
more CO2 instead of more O2? Back then O2 was 30% compared to 20% today? O2 holds a lot more heat than CO2 and absorbs in the more energetic UV and visible light spectrum compared to CO2 absorbs in the less energies IR spectrum.
27-05-2019 00:48
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
more CO2 instead of more O2? Back then O2 was 30% compared to 20% today? O2 holds a lot more heat than CO2 and absorbs in the more energetic UV and visible light spectrum compared to CO2 absorbs in the less energies IR spectrum.



Are you trying to get ITN or IBDaMann to say that heat is a flow of energy? That doesn't explain why heat is no longer heat content in an atmospheric gas because heat "is". Yet we can't say what "is" is because then we'd need to consider that something has specific attributes of which "is" like "isn't" has no attributes. Kind of funny though how those two parallel computer hackers.
27-05-2019 01:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
James___ wrote:Are you trying to get ITN or IBDaMann to say that heat is a flow of energy? That doesn't explain why heat is no longer heat content in an atmospheric gas because heat "is". Yet we can't say what "is" is because then we'd need to consider that something has specific attributes of which "is" like "isn't" has no attributes. Kind of funny though how those two parallel computer hackers.

If you were to have written the above in English, how would it read?


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
27-05-2019 01:50
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Are you trying to get ITN or IBDaMann to say that heat is a flow of energy? That doesn't explain why heat is no longer heat content in an atmospheric gas because heat "is". Yet we can't say what "is" is because then we'd need to consider that something has specific attributes of which "is" like "isn't" has no attributes. Kind of funny though how those two parallel computer hackers.

If you were to have written the above in English, how would it read?



Так как Ето? Правильно. Почему мне спросили? Я не знаю.
Or if atmospheric O2 increases then the amount of water vapour will decrease. Water vapour IS the no.1 GHG.
Now will you please bugger off you wanker?


And in American English (Engelske) neither you nor ITN have sufficient knowledge of physics and atmospheric chemistry to consider how heat in our atmosphere is influenced.
Edited on 27-05-2019 02:49
27-05-2019 03:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
James___ wrote:Так как Ето? Правильно. Почему мне спросили? Я не знаю.

Because you gibber incoherently when you write. The only thing of which you have an expert understanding is that you don't know much about what you write. You clearly have a dire need to portray yourself as being "smart," hence your compulsion to try to baffle with boolsch't ... but you aren't very good at that either and you end up inadvertently revealing that you are a moron.

I hope I've cleared that up. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Now let's break down the rest of your post:

James___ wrote: Or if atmospheric O2 increases then the amount of water vapour will decrease.

Why do you say that? What science do you have to support your assertion?

James___ wrote: Water vapour IS the no.1 GHG.

What's "greenhouse gas"? There's no mention of it in the body of science.

James___ wrote: Now will you please bugger off you wanker?

In a few minutes, sure.

James___ wrote: And in American English (Engelske) neither you nor ITN have sufficient knowledge of physics and atmospheric chemistry to consider how heat in our atmosphere is influenced.

Which is OK because you're going to teach us what you claim we need to know, right?


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
27-05-2019 03:45
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Так как Ето? Правильно. Почему мне спросили? Я не знаю.

Because you gibber incoherently when you write. The only thing of which you have an expert understanding is that you don't know much about what you write. You clearly have a dire need to portray yourself as being "smart," hence your compulsion to try to baffle with boolsch't ... but you aren't very good at that either and you end up inadvertently revealing that you are a moron.

I hope I've cleared that up. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Now let's break down the rest of your post:

James___ wrote: Or if atmospheric O2 increases then the amount of water vapour will decrease.

Why do you say that? What science do you have to support your assertion?

James___ wrote: Water vapour IS the no.1 GHG.

What's "greenhouse gas"? There's no mention of it in the body of science.

James___ wrote: Now will you please bugger off you wanker?

In a few minutes, sure.

James___ wrote: And in American English (Engelske) neither you nor ITN have sufficient knowledge of physics and atmospheric chemistry to consider how heat in our atmosphere is influenced.

Which is OK because you're going to teach us what you claim we need to know, right?


And yet I am willing to compare you and itn to a couple of Hacker's.
27-05-2019 04:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)

IBdaMann wrote:Which is OK because you're going to teach us what you claim we need to know, right?

James___ wrote:And yet I am willing to compare you and itn to a couple of Hacker's.

James__, you are gibbering. This does not make sense.


Why do you say that increasing atmospheric O2 decreases the amount of water vapour? What science do you have to support your assertion?

What's "greenhouse gas"? There's no mention of it in the body of science.

The above is what we need to know, right? Teach away.


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
27-05-2019 04:42
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Which is OK because you're going to teach us what you claim we need to know, right?

James___ wrote:And yet I am willing to compare you and itn to a couple of Hacker's.

James__, you are gibbering. This does not make sense.


Why do you say that increasing atmospheric O2 decreases the amount of water vapour? What science do you have to support your assertion?

What's "greenhouse gas"? There's no mention of it in the body of science.

The above is what we need to know, right? Teach away.


It doesn't matter. Your friend asserts that atmospheric gases do not have heat content. This precondition negates the possibility of any meaningful dialogue.
Edited on 27-05-2019 04:52
27-05-2019 06:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
James___ wrote: It doesn't matter. Your friend asserts that atmospheric gases do not have heat content. This precondition negates the possibility of any meaningful dialogue.

Of course it matters. Your support for your assertions is that science is somehow wrong and so you are therefore on tap to explain what others "need to know."

You are beginning to sound like another Marxist we encountered "Subduction Zone" who referred to requests to explain as unacceptable "preconditions."

Ergo, we need to add one to the list:

What do you mean by "heat" and by "heat content"?

Why do you say that increasing atmospheric O2 decreases the amount of water vapour? What science do you have to support your assertion?

What's "greenhouse gas"? There's no mention of it in the body of science.

If you don't want to explain to one particular individual then give the board a public explanation.


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
27-05-2019 07:10
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1231)
Just one definition I'm after James. Could you please define "heat content". Ima strugglin a bit with that one. Could you explain in detail please?
27-05-2019 07:27
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just one definition I'm after James. Could you please define "heat content". Ima strugglin a bit with that one. Could you explain in detail please?



Ask ITN. I'll accept whatever answer he gives.
27-05-2019 08:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just one definition I'm after James. Could you please define "heat content". Ima strugglin a bit with that one. Could you explain in detail please?

Ask ITN. I'll accept whatever answer he gives.

This is contradictory. You have declared on several occasions that Into the Night and I don't know what we need to know about this topic. Now you are saying that you are satisfied that Into the Night knows what he needs to know.

Are you now retracting your claim that Into the Night was somehow incorrect?


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
27-05-2019 14:46
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just one definition I'm after James. Could you please define "heat content". Ima strugglin a bit with that one. Could you explain in detail please?

Ask ITN. I'll accept whatever answer he gives.

This is contradictory. You have declared on several occasions that Into the Night and I don't know what we need to know about this topic. Now you are saying that you are satisfied that Into the Night knows what he needs to know.

Are you now retracting your claim that Into the Night was somehow incorrect?



Who are you? I don't know. Who is ITN? I don't know. So why should I care what either of you think? I don't know.

What GasGuzzler missed is that when I started flattering you and Itn, both of you started talking about where I could get Marx's book.
Edited on 27-05-2019 15:13
27-05-2019 18:07
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1231)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just one definition I'm after James. Could you please define "heat content". Ima strugglin a bit with that one. Could you explain in detail please?

Ask ITN. I'll accept whatever answer he gives.

This is contradictory. You have declared on several occasions that Into the Night and I don't know what we need to know about this topic. Now you are saying that you are satisfied that Into the Night knows what he needs to know.

Are you now retracting your claim that Into the Night was somehow incorrect?





Who are you? I don't know. Who is ITN? I don't know. So why should I care what either of you think? I don't know.

What GasGuzzler missed is that when I started flattering you and Itn, both of you started talking about where I could get Marx's book.


WRONG! What I missed was an understanding of what you mean by "heat content".

Oh, and it looks like my signature quote finally showed up. Can I barrow that one for a while IBdaMann? I Love it!


This statement of yours helps you meet your obligation to bash Trump and stick your tongue up Obama's netherpipe in one efficient sentence. Well done.

~IBdaMann~
Edited on 27-05-2019 18:09
27-05-2019 19:22
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just one definition I'm after James. Could you please define "heat content". Ima strugglin a bit with that one. Could you explain in detail please?

Ask ITN. I'll accept whatever answer he gives.

This is contradictory. You have declared on several occasions that Into the Night and I don't know what we need to know about this topic. Now you are saying that you are satisfied that Into the Night knows what he needs to know.

Are you now retracting your claim that Into the Night was somehow incorrect?



Well, right now I'd say that you"re HOT for me.

I mean I'm supposed to feel jilted because now you're acting like you and IBNotDaMann are an item? That's funny but you are the company you keep.




Who are you? I don't know. Who is ITN? I don't know. So why should I care what either of you think? I don't know.

What GasGuzzler missed is that when I started flattering you and Itn, both of you started talking about where I could get Marx's book.


WRONG! What I missed was an understanding of what you mean by "heat content".

Oh, and it looks like my signature quote finally showed up. Can I barrow that one for a while IBdaMann? I Love it!



You didn't miss what I meant by heat content. I never said what it means.
Edited on 27-05-2019 19:38
27-05-2019 20:27
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1231)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just one definition I'm after James. Could you please define "heat content". Ima strugglin a bit with that one. Could you explain in detail please?

Ask ITN. I'll accept whatever answer he gives.

This is contradictory. You have declared on several occasions that Into the Night and I don't know what we need to know about this topic. Now you are saying that you are satisfied that Into the Night knows what he needs to know.

Are you now retracting your claim that Into the Night was somehow incorrect?



Well, right now I'd say that you"re HOT for me.

I mean I'm supposed to feel jilted because now you're acting like you and IBNotDaMann are an item? That's funny but you are the company you keep.




Who are you? I don't know. Who is ITN? I don't know. So why should I care what either of you think? I don't know.

What GasGuzzler missed is that when I started flattering you and Itn, both of you started talking about where I could get Marx's book.


WRONG! What I missed was an understanding of what you mean by "heat content".

Oh, and it looks like my signature quote finally showed up. Can I barrow that one for a while IBdaMann? I Love it!



You didn't miss what I meant by heat content. I never said what it means.


Oh...well then we're still waiting on you.


This statement of yours helps you meet your obligation to bash Trump and stick your tongue up Obama's netherpipe in one efficient sentence. Well done.

~IBdaMann~
27-05-2019 21:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: It doesn't matter. Your friend asserts that atmospheric gases do not have heat content. This precondition negates the possibility of any meaningful dialogue.

Of course it matters. Your support for your assertions is that science is somehow wrong and so you are therefore on tap to explain what others "need to know."

You are beginning to sound like another Marxist we encountered "Subduction Zone" who referred to requests to explain as unacceptable "preconditions."

Ergo, we need to add one to the list:

What do you mean by "heat" and by "heat content"?

Why do you say that increasing atmospheric O2 decreases the amount of water vapour? What science do you have to support your assertion?

What's "greenhouse gas"? There's no mention of it in the body of science.

If you don't want to explain to one particular individual then give the board a public explanation.


Been awhile since I've seen Subduction Zone. Wonder what's become of him? He was from the Seattle area too.

We grow 'em weird here.


The Parrot Killer
27-05-2019 21:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just one definition I'm after James. Could you please define "heat content". Ima strugglin a bit with that one. Could you explain in detail please?

Ask ITN. I'll accept whatever answer he gives.

This is contradictory. You have declared on several occasions that Into the Night and I don't know what we need to know about this topic. Now you are saying that you are satisfied that Into the Night knows what he needs to know.

Are you now retracting your claim that Into the Night was somehow incorrect?


Well, right now I'd say that you"re HOT for me.

I mean I'm supposed to feel jilted because now you're acting like you and IBNotDaMann are an item? That's funny but you are the company you keep.




Who are you? I don't know. Who is ITN? I don't know. So why should I care what either of you think? I don't know.

What GasGuzzler missed is that when I started flattering you and Itn, both of you started talking about where I could get Marx's book.


WRONG! What I missed was an understanding of what you mean by "heat content".

Oh, and it looks like my signature quote finally showed up. Can I barrow that one for a while IBdaMann? I Love it!



You didn't miss what I meant by heat content. I never said what it means.

Okay. By your own admission, it's a meaningless buzzword.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-05-2019 21:10
27-05-2019 22:58
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just one definition I'm after James. Could you please define "heat content". Ima strugglin a bit with that one. Could you explain in detail please?

Ask ITN. I'll accept whatever answer he gives.

This is contradictory. You have declared on several occasions that Into the Night and I don't know what we need to know about this topic. Now you are saying that you are satisfied that Into the Night knows what he needs to know.

Are you now retracting your claim that Into the Night was somehow incorrect?


Well, right now I'd say that you"re HOT for me.

I mean I'm supposed to feel jilted because now you're acting like you and IBNotDaMann are an item? That's funny but you are the company you keep.




Who are you? I don't know. Who is ITN? I don't know. So why should I care what either of you think? I don't know.

What GasGuzzler missed is that when I started flattering you and Itn, both of you started talking about where I could get Marx's book.


WRONG! What I missed was an understanding of what you mean by "heat content".

Oh, and it looks like my signature quote finally showed up. Can I barrow that one for a while IBdaMann? I Love it!



You didn't miss what I meant by heat content. I never said what it means.

Okay. By your own admission, it's a meaningless buzzword.



It is me, isn't it? See what happens when I listen to my American employers? Learning always seemed to be a requirement of employment. They thought that if I learned more, ie., going to school or having interests, that I could become a better American worker.
And with what you guys are wanting to discuss, you wouldn't know the difference between plasma and electromagnetic radiation unless you looked up their definitions online.
And since none of you guys understand what electromagnetic radiation is, kind of makes it a waste of time to try and discuss why that matters.
At the same time you guys attack me for not supporting the IPCC. That means that your attacks are personal. That is unless you guys support the IPCC.
27-05-2019 23:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh, and it looks like my signature quote finally showed up. Can I barrow that one for a while IBdaMann? I Love it!

I'm honored.


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
27-05-2019 23:33
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh, and it looks like my signature quote finally showed up. Can I barrow that one for a while IBdaMann? I Love it!

I'm honored.



D@mn you're a cheap slut if that's all it takes. It's sad he can't even spell borrow. No spell check or just ignored the red lines?
28-05-2019 04:11
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh, and it looks like my signature quote finally showed up. Can I barrow that one for a while IBdaMann? I Love it!

I'm honored.



I know, he's talking about Barrow, Alaska, right? He's Inuit which is kewl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKM5d8sh3MM

I almost missed it because he didn't capitalize (capitalist, America, etc.) the B in Barrow. You guys are like really clever with your word play.
Edited on 28-05-2019 04:12
28-05-2019 19:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh, and it looks like my signature quote finally showed up. Can I barrow that one for a while IBdaMann? I Love it!

It's sad he can't even spell borrow.

Not even. I'm happy to let him barrow it as well.


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
04-06-2019 00:13
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
So many red herrings on this website, and references to Karl Marx.
I don't understand if there is a connection though, or the reasons.
04-06-2019 09:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
keepit wrote:
So many red herrings on this website, and references to Karl Marx.
I don't understand if there is a connection though, or the reasons.


It might enlighten you to read the Communist Manifesto. Then examine the Church of Global Warming and how it proposes to solve the 'crisis'.


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 17:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
So many red herrings on this website, and references to Karl Marx.
I don't understand if there is a connection though, or the reasons.


It might enlighten you to read the Communist Manifesto. Then examine the Church of Global Warming and how it proposes to solve the 'crisis'.


I'll help. These are the top eight priorities as identified in the Manifesto:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.


Please note #1 and #8 combined reduce the population to serfdom while the government becomes the one lord. In the US, this idea reverses the foundational doctrine that the government exists to serve the people to a doctrine of the people existing to serve the government.

Please note that #5 and #6 aim to make the government an omnipotent lord in the same way Christians view God as being their omnipotent Lord whom they exist to serve. Religion anyone? Additionally, I would ask you to look at #6 and then review the text of Net Neutrality and tell me if you see how Net Neutrality would be more appropriately named "The Roadmap for Achieving #6. "

I'm keeping my eye out for how Global Warming might work to eradicate the family:

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.



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
04-06-2019 18:14
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
These issues are above my pay grade.
04-06-2019 19:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
keepit wrote:
These issues are above my pay grade.


Wait...you have a pay grade? What about your argument that puts everyone out of work to save the planet?

You are locked in paradox now. Which is it, dude?


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 19:25
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
It's just a figure of speech Parrot. I can't keep up with your exaggerations.
Mine is the British understated style.
04-06-2019 19:28
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
IBDaMann,
I read the summary of Marxism. Is that practiced to any great degree anywhere?
04-06-2019 19:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
keepit wrote:
It's just a figure of speech Parrot. I can't keep up with your exaggerations.
Mine is the British understated style.


So you are not paid. You receive no money. You produce no service nor manufacture any product.

Which is it, dude? You just locked yourself in another paradox.


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 19:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
keepit wrote:
IBDaMann,
I read the summary of Marxism. Is that practiced to any great degree anywhere?

What rock have you been hiding under?

Elements of Marxism occur in every nation.

Want to see where it's really prevalent? Look at China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, The USSR (and to a great extent, Russia today).


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 19:54
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Elements yes, but different aspects of different govts occur in different countries. That doesn't mean they are Marxist. Socialized medicine occurs but it doesn't mean a country is really socialist. Over half of the health care in the us is paid for by the govt but the us is not socialist or marxist or whatever. Different countries just have different elements.
04-06-2019 20:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
keepit wrote: IBDaMann,
I read the summary of Marxism. Is that practiced to any great degree anywhere?

No. The end-goal of communism (Marxist anarchism) cannot be practiced anywhere because it is a Utopian pipe-dream that cannot work. But we can look at socialism in Venezuela and Cuba and see how that is working out for them. Similarly we can look at Laos and Vietnam.

The inherent problem lies in the erroneous assumption that anyone who comes to power to bring about a socialist revolution will somehow step down and abdicate power to complete that final step of ushering in the communist Utopia. I presume you know what happened in Venezuela. I presume you realize that Communist China is actually Socialist China. I presume you realize the "commies" that we decried during the Soviet Union were actually socialists. Hitler never had any intention of stepping down.

The question you should be asking is "Are there nonetheless attempts to implement it somewhere? The answer is "absolutely!" The European Union is/was an attempt to create a socialist Europe that essentially erases the traditional national boundaries (i.e. traditional borders displayed on maps only as a nostalgic courtesy) and that is governed by a non-elected "board."

Wherever you have attempts to install a Marxist government you will have resistance from people who prefer freedom over being drones in the ant farm.


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
04-06-2019 22:05
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
IBDaMann,
I appreciate your attempts to educate me in these things.
Forgive me for being unsophisticated about communism and socialism.
That said, it seems to me that people are afraid of the words communism and socialism, even when only a part of socialism or communism is being implemented. Parts of communism are here and there and parts of socialism are here and there. To label a nation as such is inaccurate though when only certain aspects are present in that nation.
Any govt has certain aspects of communism and socialism.
It's like being non political and taking certain views independent of a particular political party. Just because a person takes a position that happens to be the same as one or another political party doesn't make them a member of that particular party.
Karl Marx is dead and gone. Let him rest in peace.
04-06-2019 22:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
keepit wrote:
Elements yes, but different aspects of different govts occur in different countries.

Yes they do.
keepit wrote:
That doesn't mean they are Marxist.

Marxist elements is Marxism.
keepit wrote:
Socialized medicine occurs but it doesn't mean a country is really socialist.

No, but it means the medical industry is socialist.
keepit wrote:
Over half of the health care in the us is paid for by the govt but the us is not socialist or marxist or whatever.

WRONG. It is paid for by primarily private individuals, despite the attempts of Obamacare to nationalize the medical insurance industry.

However, programs like Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, ARE socialism. The federal government was never given power by the Constitution to implement these programs. They are unconstitutional.
keepit wrote:
Different countries just have different elements.

I already said this. You are trying to build a false dichotomy fallacy through a divisional error fallacy. You are trying to claim that just because elements of Marxism exists in a country, it isn't Marxist.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-06-2019 22:12
04-06-2019 22:11
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Into the Night,
I understand your opinion of those countries. I think the injustices and inefficiencies are the result of various dictators that didn't manage efficiently. Even though their rules had some similarities to communism or socialism, i wouldn't label them as anything but the victims of poor choices, many poor choices.
Let Karl Marx rest in peace.
04-06-2019 22:17
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Into the Night,
In the US we have VA health system, the active military health system, medicare, medicaid. All of these are paid for by the govt and amount to huge numbers. I don't really understand how Obamacare works.
There are those young people that think it is unjust for the young and healthy to pay for the health care of older and sicker people. If they don't pay though, who is going to pay for their health care when they get old and/or sick?
04-06-2019 22:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
keepit wrote:
IBDaMann,
I appreciate your attempts to educate me in these things.

I doubt you actually do. You keep making insults and arguments of the Stone against what he is saying.
keepit wrote:
Forgive me for being unsophisticated about communism and socialism.

I cannot forgive one who continue to push for communism and socialism.
keepit wrote:
That said, it seems to me that people are afraid of the words communism and socialism, even when only a part of socialism or communism is being implemented.

They should be. It is destructive.
keepit wrote:
Parts of communism are here and there and parts of socialism are here and there.

You are attempting to build the false dichotomy fallacy again.
keepit wrote:
To label a nation as such is inaccurate though when only certain aspects are present in that nation.

False dichotomy fallacy. Divisional error fallacy.
keepit wrote:
Any govt has certain aspects of communism and socialism.

And everywhere it occurs, misery comes along with it.
keepit wrote:
It's like being non political and taking certain views independent of a particular political party. Just because a person takes a position that happens to be the same as one or another political party doesn't make them a member of that particular party.

Divisional error fallacy. If you follow the ideals of a political party, you are following the ideals of a political party. Denying that because you are not an official member makes no difference.
keepit wrote:
Karl Marx is dead and gone. Let him rest in peace.

Presentism fallacy. Karl Marx is dead, but Marxism soldiers on. The Communist Manifesto is still printed and it is still followed.


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 22:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
keepit wrote:
Into the Night,
I understand your opinion of those countries. I think the injustices and inefficiencies are the result of various dictators that didn't manage efficiently.

Because they are using Marxist principles to manage them.
keepit wrote:
Even though their rules had some similarities to communism or socialism,

They ARE communism and socialism. False dichotomy fallacy.
keepit wrote:
i wouldn't label them as anything but the victims of poor choices, many poor choices.

No, they are dictators because gained control away from the people. Those people are now serfs under that dictator. That IS socialism. It IS Marxism.
keepit wrote:
Let Karl Marx rest in peace.

False equivalence fallacy. Karl Marx is not Marxism. His ideals that he published are. Those ideals are still published.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
President Trump makes a personal sacrifice, for the country...211-07-2019 17:29
Early IPCC Reports908-07-2019 07:48
Alaska in desperate need, of air conditioners and sunscreen...1308-07-2019 05:20
Air CO2 capture is corruption031-05-2019 03:36
Air CO2 capture is corruption on the part of Democrats031-05-2019 03:32
▲ 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