Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/12/2020 in Blog Comments

  1. 2 points
    My thought wasn’t directed solely at Brad and not necessarily only about money. Gore and Gore-like people do it to fleece money from the ‘system’ , Hollywood type virtue-signalers are probably motivated by an inherent narcissism. And they need their parrots to help move masses to accept the building of the ‘system’ or even to just be complacent enough to not fight back against the building .
  2. 1 point
    I have been reading Loserthink by Scott Adams. He deals with the very topic under discussion here and spells out the scam I have always sensed and tried to describe as best I could. Scott did a much better job. The gist is that in deciding on whether manmade CO2 causes climate change, we not only get information second hand--after all, very few people make the measurements themselves, therefore most people rely on and pass on what someone says, not what they themselves experienced--we only get to see successes, not failures. And that is very similar to a popular "narrowing down" stock scam. This leads to the blind certainty of the gloom-and-doomers. Here are Scott's words from the book (where he also describes the scam). This is why I believe Brad and William run from answering Jonathan's questions. They are in the sweet spot of the scam targets and that, allied to the social proof and peer pressure of those they read and hang out with who agree with them, makes them certain. They don't need to answer simple questions about climate science and the scientific method and couldn't if they tried--unless they said we need to learn a lot more before we can be certain of any large-scale predictions. And that includes whether man-produced CO2 causes major climate change. Granted, the climate change computer models always fail eventually, at least they have up to now, so that might make it seem like the stocks scam isn't relevant. But short term, scientists stake their reputations on these models and everyone on the manmade climate change side touts how correct they are. And they never say, "Oops," when their climate models blow up. So the public perception is that these models are successful. Sometimes they need to be "refined," but this is tweaking success, not fixing failure. That's the perception. The reality is pure failure. Michael
  3. 1 point
    No, fabricator. I didn't fall for an "illusion" and said nothing about being being dazzled. I dared the conceptually and mechanically inept Jonathan to explain why what happens does happen. He failed. You and Brant also didn't explain why or even feel it was needed. I'm not surprised. None of you saw the significance of the center of the moving coin. Déjà vu. Analysis and Solution Why does the moving coin make two rotations? From start to end the center of the moving coin travels a circular path. The radius of that path is twice either coin's radius. Hence, the circumference of the path is twice either coin's circumference. How much the moving coin rotates around its own center en route, even if none, or in what direction -- clockwise, counterclockwise, or some of both -- has no effect on the length of the path. That the coin rotates twice per the description on Wikipedia makes a distraction.
  4. 1 point
    NOTE FROM MSK: Trolling text removed. Would anybody be concerned if an unseen hand began to remove 'trolling text' ... or 'inappropriate' bits of commentary going forward? The invisible hand guide would be the Objectivist Living rules. Personally, I think such an invisible hand would be wise to "mark" the inappropriate material rather than delete it. Perhaps a spoiler ...
  5. 1 point
    Billy? Are you okay? Still alive? I see that your Twitter account is suspended. What is up with that? J
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    Well, as part of a debate, it is necessary to see where each party doesn't agree. Cause of increasing atmospheric co2 is what?
  8. 1 point
    Atmosphere won't hold much water vapor without non condensing greenhouse gases since the saturation pressure is highly temperature dependent. Remove the non condensing ghg and h2o would condense, rain out, surface would freeze, increasing albedo, reducing the insolation. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-d_599.html
  9. 1 point
    Red herring. We aren't taking about how the climate change before the industrial revolution. I've already covered the mechanisms that lead the planet in and out of ice ages. That mechanism is in the wrong sign (negative) to explain current changes and there is not record of changes happening as abruptly as they currently are. Go back and read what I told you about Milakovitch Cycles. Funny that you didn't think my reply was applicable then.
  10. 1 point
    To call it facts requires you to provide evidence of such happening. I'll wait.
  11. 1 point
    That's become painfully obvious. What science education is coming to that we get something like Brad thinking he's being scientific. Also: Greenhouse gases don't "impede" energy transfer. They act by re-radiation, not by interfering with convection. Also: MSK, I think that TMJ was being facetious. Ellen
  12. 1 point
    I'm not sure about fraction. After all, climate change is supported by numerous overcome from different disciplines -conscilience. Scientists that study the sun have gone on record plenty of times starting that it is not the sun. The rate of warming does not match any changes in output of the sun. For a period, cosmic rays were being thrown around as a possible controller of cloud cover. That has since been debunked. And again, what causes a change in temperature in a system is either changes to the incoming energy or changes to the outgoing energy. You can warm yourself by throwing an extra blanket on you, for example.
  13. 1 point
    How do you know so much while scientists know so little? --Brant
  14. 1 point
    Energy balance of the planet has to do with how well heat moves from source (the sun in this case) to the sink (space). Greenhouse gases impede that movement.
  15. 1 point
    No, I really don't. Whether humans have caused the increase in atmospheric co2 is a key component to whether or not humans are driving global warming. But I guess you know that.
  16. 0 points
    Indeed. From the wiki page that Merlin posted: Counter-intuitive to whom? Counter-intuitive to the visuospatially and mechanically inept, and therefore to everyone? Apparently Merlin finds it paradoxical. Not surprising. J
  17. 0 points
    Oh no! The Coin Rotation “Paradox” 😆 But Merlin, what is there for Jonathan to explain? It is right there in the article, there are two motions involved. That’s why you find it novel and troublesome, because there is so much going on at once and your brain cannot track it all.
  18. 0 points
    Jonathan, I explained it to Merlin, I tried. But as I also explained to Merlin, I didn't think he would get it. He said he did, but then he wrote it up all wrong. And keeps doing it wrong. So I bet he didn't get it. Michael
  19. 0 points
    Jonathan, Not just Orange Man and MSK bad. You left out Scott Adams. Very important. Scott Adams bad. Also, Merlin doesn't need insights. He doesn't even need gotchas. His entire purpose was to provide me with the transcendent spiritual state I just experienced from being in the presence of his superlative soul and prodigious intellect. Michael
  20. 0 points
    Merlin, But obviously that's what happened. Man did you get it. I was a wrong as wrong can be. I am totally gobsmacked by your astuteness. You have shown me the light. I was blind, but now I see. President Trump is a fool and you are not. President Trump is a coward and you are not. President Trump is a hypocrite and you are not. President Trump is stupid and you are not. ergo... Trump supporters are all that and you are not. ergo... You are superior to President Trump and his supporters. Thank God I have lived to witness this on this day. My life is fulfilled. Michael