Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals are slowly turning this into a communists country. Read up on communism.
05-23-2016, 06:25 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Can someone explain to me why science class should be teaching something other than science? I'd welcome an alternative theory that is actually supported by evidence, but that's not what the science deniers have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuptag
We have turned essentially into the commies - thought crimes, re-distribution of wealth, and cowardly leaders afraid of the people.
Meanwhile over in Russia, Putin holds an annual press conference that runs past 3 hrs on average. Seemed a lot less scripted than any of Obama's.
"17 Dec 2015 07:12
That’s it, the marathon is over: 3 hours 10 mins."
Hah. Putin's annual Q&A is notorious for being a highly scripted event. It's nothing more than a bunch of pre-screened softball questions with a few "tough" ones thrown in to make the whole charade seem legit.
Give me an example of an empirical finding that would totally falsify it.
Quote:
- The average global temperature has increased by about 1.0C since 1850. Natural forcings alone cannot account for this increase.
Your argument seems to be, "Humans have caused emissions to go up in the last 166 years, and the temperature has increased by 1 degree centigrade; therefore we have a crisis."
We've had ice ages and warm periods going in cycles on this planet for as long as humans have existed -- how is a small temperature rise a crisis?
If this is a crisis, should we have forced birth control in the Third World -- which is where all the human population growth is occurring?
If the answer to that is "no," then what is your solution?
Going back to horses and buggies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
.....Less energy going out than coming in- it's basic physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
"...... it's basic physics".
And what basic physics do you know? What was the most advanced physics class that you took in college?.....
97% of CO2 is not man-made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
So what 'advanced classes' in atmospheric physics did you take in college? Do you have a PhD in atmospherics physics?....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
What classes did I take in college related to physics?
Physics I and II
Electromagnetism
Optics
Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Field Theory
Plasma Physics
You are exposing your complete ignorance of physics, as you presume that CO2 "traps" heat and keeps it near the earth's surface, but have no idea over which wavelengths of IR radiation is absorbed (and or released) by CO2 and at what distances from the earth.
Here is a little information to read, as you obviously have no clue as to how any gas (let alone CO2) is affected by radiation (of which IR radiation is a part of "black body" radiation emitted from the surface of the earth.
Read a little- come back to me when you have actually taken some courses in physics and have a clue as to what you are talking about-
It is simply amazing that one with no knowledge of physics or science, no publications in the scientific literature, no academic appointments, and no editorial review posts would presume supreme knowledge of physics. It is arrogance and absolute ignorance rolled into one.
Well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robeaux
*sigh*
First, NO ONE is denying climate change.
Why the changing narrative? What happened to "global cooling"? Then "global warming"? Yes, the climate has changed, it has for billions of years, no one says it isn't/hasn't.
Second, you warmers don't realize that when you use the "flat earthers" meme, you're insulting yourself. The "flat earthers" of the past were the ones saying "the science is settled, the earth is flat" and not allowing any debate.
There is 0 absolute proof that humans are causing any substantial changes to the climate, so the debate is NOT over.
Exactly.
Last edited by dechatelet; 05-24-2016 at 01:28 AM..
I find this scary. I thought book control was the job for communist countries. How can a person learn to discern what is good and bad or right or wrong or truth or lie if they are not allowed to experience all theories? We will have a generation of brain dead humans coming from this type of total control.
Yep, Hugo Chavez sounded a lot like Hillary and Bernie and you see where that got them.
Can someone explain to me why science class should be teaching something other than science? I'd welcome an alternative theory that is actually supported by evidence, but that's not what the science deniers have.
The science has to be there in order for someone to deny it.
What classes did I take in college related to physics?
Physics I and II
Electromagnetism
Optics
Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Field Theory
Plasma Physics
You are exposing your complete ignorance of physics, as you presume that CO2 "traps" heat and keeps it near the earth's surface, but have no idea over which wavelengths of IR radiation is absorbed (and or released) by CO2 and at what distances from the earth.
Here is a little information to read, as you obviously have no clue as to how any gas (let alone CO2) is affected by radiation (of which IR radiation is a part of "black body" radiation emitted from the surface of the earth.
Read a little- come back to me when you have actually taken some courses in physics and have a clue as to what you are talking about-
It is simply amazing that one with no knowledge of physics or science, no publications in the scientific literature, no academic appointments, and no editorial review posts would presume supreme knowledge of physics. It is arrogance and absolute ignorance rolled into one.
So a basic first year general physics course for non-physicists and no 'advanced degrees in physics' or any atmospheric physics at all. So about the same as me way back when. Unlike you though, I've at least read a few textbooks on atmospheric physics in the past few years. And unlike you, I'm not claiming to be an 'expert' - I'll leave that to actual atmospheric physicists. Your personal uneducated opinions counter all known atmospheric physics.
LOLOLOL!!! You linked to a ridiculous pseudoscience conspiracy blog by someone who supposedly specialises in "yeast and mushroom physiology" and has no background at all in physics yet claims all physicists are wrong, and you expect to be taken seriously? (edited to add, I'm just reading some of Gary's blog nonsense claims and am getting cramps from laughing so much. What a tool! )
Go read a textbook on atmospheric physics and maybe you'll finally realise just how ignorant and ridiculous your posts are on this topic.
I find this scary. I thought book control was the job for communist countries. How can a person learn to discern what is good and bad or right or wrong or truth or lie if they are not allowed to experience all theories? We will have a generation of brain dead humans coming from this type of total control.
We already have that.
I had lost most of my confidence in public schools 30 years ago when my kids were in school. Today, all doubt has been removed. They are accelerating our demise.
So a basic first year general physics course for non-physicists and no 'advanced degrees in physics' or any atmospheric physics at all.
He listed several courses for serious physics students (courses you have apparently never taken), not "non-physicists."
Quote:
Unlike you though, I've at least read a few textbooks on atmospheric physics in the past few years.
Well, that really settles it!
You have no basic science education, but you've "read stuff."
Quote:
And unlike you, I'm not claiming to be an 'expert'
Where did he claim to be an "expert."?
He didn't.
Put words in people's mouths much?
He obviously has a much BETTER science background than you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
I gave you a page full of findings. Were you squeezing your eyes shut to avoid them? You certainly avoided addressing any of them.
Were you squeezing your eyes shut in order to not read and answer my very clear question: What empirical finding would falsify your claims about "climate change"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
How about you give us examples?
How about you answer my question, which I have repeated above?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
