This is a good discussion following up on the “midwits” concept.
The 120IQ midwit crowd will be the most enslaved people of all history and all time. At 120IQ the powers that be have found a solution for complete, utter, total, and permanent enslavement. Lower IQ people have both the intuition to detect and higher testosterone levels to rebel against slavery, while higher IQ people have the capacity to perceive invisible walls around them and to scheme liberation from them. At 120IQ you have the perfect Idiocracy, the perfect population of low testosterone betas with no connection to intuition and also no connection to higher intelligence. These are the people who ask for sources and peer-review in regards to whether certain questions can be asked or not. These are the most pointless people in the universe and could just as well be replaced by poorly-written AI software systems without making a difference to humanity at all. They exist solely to be extracted from, solely to be ruled, solely to be slaves. They are the last-man Ignavi perfected. They are a testament to the ridiculousness of human existence, a universal mockery to the idea that humanity deserves anything other than total dissolution, or enslavement, or is capable of anything higher. If humans can become Gods then the 120IQ midwit crowd makes a mockery of what it must mean to be a human-turned-God. The galaxies rotating, the solar systems spinning, the stars burning and bursting, the vast and incomprehensibly magnificent intergalactic voids…what a joke all these things become, what a Clown Show it all is, what a Clown Universe scheme have we here, when one contemplates the 120IQ PhD Professors of science midwit crowd that makes up human academia. The whole place…the universe that is…becomes revolting and disgusting – this apparent magnificence and profundity of the scale of the astronomical cosmos is in fact its opposite: it is all an infinite mockery of human existence for their 120IQ midwit crowd of tenured university academics.
Because how can a person look at this and not see what it is both on its face and in its details:
How can a person look at that and not see that it is a flat Earth with sunshine too cold to create the climate or weather or any warmth on the planet Earth at all? How can a person not see it? And if they do see it, then how can they not comprehend that it is relevant and important? That it is consequential? That is has meaning? That is says things, and states things? That is says things and states things which can be evaluated, rather than simply accepted because “an expert” said it was so?
It is the 120IQ midwits who blindly accept it, who cannot comprehend it, who cannot evaluate it, who cannot imagine that there is any meaning within it at all…other than the meaning of accepting that it is so.
Whoever pulled this off…has made a remarkable statement. Whoever owns this has achieved something in itself worthy of whatever their aims were with it. It is the most remarkable thing which has ever occurred in the historical intellectual tradition: the insertion of blatant flat Earth theory and its attendant irrational consequences into the heart of modern science, celebrated and defended by the academia as the most important contribution to politics which science has ever produced.
Climate of Sophistry 
These are the same people who believe it is right to be arrested for not wearing a mask and the same people in the height of the Spanish Inquisition cheered as innocent people were tortured and killed for public entertainment.
Posting this for others who want some more perspective on the “midwit”.
Whenever I post this picture
I assume people should see the energy doubling, and intuitively know that a higher temperature should not be generated. Sadly, it doesn’t seem to be as obvious as it should be.
There is this theory I’ve heard about evolving to fear social ostrication. You have to go along with the group to keep your survival rate high. This influence is stronger in cold environments. People cut off from the group during the winter don’t make it. So it is better to be wrong and with the group, than be right and die alone in the cold.
So as long as some manufactured opinion can enter the masses, you can play on this instinctual fear of ostrication. Get a few celebrity mouthpieces, pump it through the radio, television, internet.
Once it appears to be public opinion, it will become public opinion.
I’m sure I could poke some holes in this, but something to think about.
P.S. That’s 2 gingers talking in their cars now, lol.
Thanks for the yt link on that!
timothyball@shaw.ca
Book ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
Book “Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
https://www.technocracy.news/dr-tim-ball-on-climate-lies-wrapped-in-deception-smothered-with-delusion/
I wonder if there is a comparison for argreeableness across the races for people with 120IQ.
For instance a black person with 120IQ is more likely to be a conservative, ostracizing themselves from their peers.
But a white person with 120IQ is more likely to be a liberal, or whatever their peers are.
Maybe even adjust for the standard deviation. 105 IQ blacks vs 120 IQ whites.
If any of that makes sense.
Posting this for no particular reason…no reason at all. Classic movie.
LOL that and a good Candy Cain helps America to be great(er).
I think a midwit replied to my comment here…
https://www.space.com/venus-weird-decades-old-cloud.html
Definitely.
I’m still distracted from climate sophistry by pandemic sophistry, but that was an entertaining read about “midwits”.
Cheers Robert!
“Intelligence is a way of acting. If you act intelligently you are smart, regardless of your IQ.” Arthur Jensen.
I can’t believe I just read this. Someone asked, Carbon dioxide is about 1 in 2500 air molecules. What exactly makes it such a powerful driver of climate change that the rest of atmosphere can’t achieve?
The best answer:
William Hoffman, Ph.D. Chemist/Professor/Chemistry Consultant (1974-present)
Answered April 21, 2020 · Author has 5K answers and 995.3K answer views
The answer, of course, is that it can’t.
Fourier looked into it and said it wouldn’t do.
Arrhenius looked into it and gave an incorrect feedback idea to the world. Tyndall looked into it and worked out that in a closed system it could account for 14% of the energy absorbed with 86% due to water vapor. Both scientists relied on radiation measurements and ignored the convection process that dominates the energy handling.
The results of the radiation idea has led to the notion that satellite measurements of radiative loss suffice to support ghg’s as the cause of gw, whereas what they show is the filtering effect of carbon dioxide and water vapor, analogous to measuring the color of the Earth through a tinted filter.
When I first read the explanation of gw from the US Standard Atmosphere and found that on fundamental physics, the primary basis for it was the transformation of water to water vapor and the convective distribution of heat to the atmosphere, I kept a little of the old ghg idea and misunderstood that while CO2 could be dismissed by its tiny level and corresponding tiny heat effect, still wv was a significant ghg. But in doing so I held on incorrectly, and have now come around to an understanding closer to that presented by Nikolov and Zeller https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf, who show that gw is a function almost exclusively of total atmospheric pressure, and that composition of gases plays no significant part. The “greenhouse effect”, long known to be a poor analogy is now to be thoroughly discarded.
It is possible to envision a concordance between USSA and N-Z in my opinion, by accepting that N-Z hypothesis, constructed using only gravity and presence of an atmosphere is a top-down (a “big picture” or overview/model), while USSA provides a mechanistic or bottom-up view or model.
N-Z shows gw for multiple planets correctly, using their pressure model, and has predictions that need to be followed up with data not yet in hand, but it’s worth noting that their model (“Model 12” on p8, Fig 2) shows excellent results for Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Triton, Titan Eq 10 of their paper yield temperatures for Mercury, Callisto, Europa, Pluto also in good agreement with data.
The USSA mechanism depends on gravity and pressure, and the idea of ghg’s is not borne out in detail as I now realize, so that CO2 might account for just 0.017 K, but including water vapor in the same way, only might make about 0.3 K. The energy distribution mechanism is much more a result of evaporation and subsequent expansion.
Between the two, then, the general idea of greenhouse gases having a greenhouse effect is falsified.
Anyone want to double check my math?
The entire atmosphere is 5.1×10^18 kg
1.92810^39 kg/mol is the total molar mass of atmopsheric CO2.
That’s a total of 4.3810^40 molecules of CO2 as opposed to around 1.095×10^44 molecules that aren’t.
I’ll admit advanced math gives me a headache and NPCs although NPCs win in the headache contest.
Checking out that guys channel. I really like this video.
“Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid.”
Just reminded of that quote again. Probably one of my top 3 favorite quotes now.
The 120IQ academia group is a result of indoctrination in belief in the experts. If you believe your teaches and regurgitate what they tell you, you get good grades and advance. After spending considerable time and money, by the end of the process you believe you are knowledgable and smart and do not recognize either the magnitude of your ignorance nor your inability to think independently.
Well said!
Test your midwits…
This test is designed to see who thinks like they do, not how smart you actually are.
Joseph,
I’d respond once to him and see if he wants a conversation or a confrontation. Kloko Loko:
I had a little spat with him under my comment.
Just a well poisoner.
It was th his video. He is going on every video.
Agreed, contrary little imp.
Have muted them and removed comments…just an insane person saying nothing in complicated ways.
Just for the flip of it I looked at the Sahara for the “w/o GHGs analogy”, the average would actually be around 5 Celsius w/o water vapor. Day=40C/Night=0C/Average=20C as opposed to 15C.
Funny, averages don’t depict any significant difference in the actual temps. Huge difference between 40C and freezing.
Trump Supporters Boo Speaker At Ohio Rally For Promoting Wearing Masks
https://outline.com/6YMN3z
Alright I read this and all I get out of it is them using the “radative forcing” trick to claim GHGs cause warming by deliberately obstructing the difference between thermal energy and thermal heat.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/20/15/3982/31416/Comparison-of-Spectrally-Resolved-Outgoing
That is exactly what they do.
https://operationq.pub/
New Q website?
Does IQ measure intelligence?
Canadian psychologist Otto Klineberg (1971) found when he gave a standard IQ test to Yakima Native American children living in Washington State, USA. The test involved timing how long it took the children to place different shaped wooden blocks in the appropriate shaped holes in a wooden frame. These children could only achieve low scores, but Klineberg argued that this was because their culture, unlike Western culture, did not place a high value on speed, and that the IQ test had an inherent ‘Western culture’ bias.
OK, it’s a psychologist researcher and I usually wouldn’t trust what these people say any further than I can spit but this appears to be the exception that proves the rule… well that’s what my biases lead me to believe. And these days belief and empathy matter so much 🙂
Asians do better on “western bias” IQ test.
better than whites that is, on average.
boomie789,
“Asians do better on “western bias” IQ test.”
But what is also sought is whether or not Westerners would do better on an “Asian bias” IQ tests (on average)? 🙂
Or maybe not.
Enter your comment here…
Japanese typically are brought up in a far greater work environment from a very young age where the mind is optimum for learning as opposed to current liberal America and the active drive to make adolescent dimwits.
The Japanese fellow who taught me stir fry in a restaurant I worked at grew up in restaurant work, even as a child he worked. In school the disciplines to overcome “feelings” and train your mind would never be allowed here in the US.Academia was like a military school back then in his youth.
It’s no wonder they dominated the tech age for decades.
So when I first read this it sounded like he was right and then the second time I noticed the slip of hand. When I first read it at a glance it sounded like he agreed with me the Earth warms the atmosphere but he just made it sound like that’s what he was saying. Once again, claiming the atmosphere is a self heater. Or perhaps he simply misspoke or I over analyzed?
“You can´t warm something up with cold air. Insulating effects come from reduction of heat absorption, you have to minimize heat absorption in surroundings to retain heat. The atmosphere increases heat absorption by adding convection, conduction and radiative absorption compared to in vacuum where you have only radiative heat loss. The atmosphere cools the earth surface more than without an atmosphere, but it also redistributes heat also reducing maximum temperature. An incandescent filament in vacuum runs hotter than with gas surrounding it.”
I put a a post up here the other day and I think WP ate it it was about a PhD chemist who agreed with the GHGE being bunk. A rare gem among idiots.
I think it is pretty easy to observe the intelligence difference between groups.
Is it a coincidence that the two groups who do well on IQ test also have the most advanced societies?
Also you can look at SAT scores and college admission.
To say this is cultural, is the same as when liberals claim math is racist.
Hi CD,
Your belief that the Earth warms the air is based on the fallacy that because oxygen and nitrogen don’t absorb visible light that are not absorbing radiated energy from the sun. The ionosphere, oxygen atom, and ozone molecules are proof that these gases do absorb radiated energy (uv) from the sun and convert it to kinetic energy. The atmosphere is heated by the uv coming from the sun not the Earth.
Pulled out the Hoffman quote CD.
The Earth warms the air by contact (convection, conduction, etc.). And yes there is direct heating by the Sun too.
Hi Joe,
Visible light is emitted by the sun’s surface while the x-rays and uv that heat the atmosphere come from solar flares. During a solar minimum the visible light remains constant while the shorter wavelengths are greatly reduced. The Earth cools because the atmosphere is no longer heating it. If you read my article in PSI “On the Physics of Climate Change” it shows how the laws of thermodynamics dictate how the atmosphere heats the Earth, not the Earth heats the atmosphere.
Herb, not only visible light is emitted by the sun’s photosphere. It emits in UV too at all times. Although sure there might be variability at the shorter wavelengths.
The atmosphere is generally cooler than the surface hence it does not heat the surface. The main heating of the atmosphere obviously comes from convection/conduction from sunlight-heated surface to air. Some from direct heat by sunlight too. Not sensible to discount that heating from the surface to air…and definitely strange to invert the direction of heat flow to claim “the atmosphere heats the Earth”. Not sure how you got to post that (reverse heat flow) on PSI…but its too bad they don’t have the personnel to weed out such contributions.
“The Earth cools because the atmosphere is no longer heating it.”
Inundated…just fn inundated…
“the laws of thermodynamics dictate how the atmosphere heats the Earth, not the Earth heats the atmosphere”
Riiiiight…because the Sun would not have to exist as it does for this to be true….the sun doesn’t heat the surface of the Earth and the surface of the Earth doesn’t heat the atmosphere….riiiiight….no: the sun heats the atmosphere with UV and x-rays and then THIS makes the cooler atmosphere heat the Earth to a warmer temperature than the atmosphere and we can forget about all of the other energy/heat emitted by the sun entirely…just entirely forget about all other solar energy as it is and what it does…
You pathetic idiots.
UV and X-Rays are almost all absorbed in the upper atmosphere that much I knew, which is why when Solar Flares reduce, the Stratosphere cools but that has very little solar to surface warming effect on the planet.
Most of the upper atmosphere solar irradiation is reflected and some absorbed. If it were not so then UV and X-Rays ( gamma/cosmic waves?) would reach the surface and life would not be grande for humans in daylight hours.
Humans would have to be a nocturnal species or completely covered form head to toe during the day.
The effective blackbody of the planet reducing, is a direct result of the reduction is solar flares, isn’t it?
Hi Joe,
Spoken like a true expert who knows all the answers. You believe the thermometer. I believe the universal gas law.
You know Joseph, your AP knowledge would be invaluable on Quora and from time to time slip in some of that gw truth where applicable 🙂 .
https://www.quora.com/q/rqyoejugoendhuwb/people
“Spoken like a true expert”
Oh so because one of the main points of the GHE fraud is that we should not trust the (sold out moronic) “experts”, then, when someone with actual expertise makes a sensible statement or rebuttal, then we can dismiss them out of hand for acting like an expert, not for their content, so that we may then continue with non-expert claims of reverse heat flow just as produced by the original (sold out moronic) accepted experts.
Your computer program is so FN retarded…you guys are just SO fn retarded and moronic. You’re all set for decompilation…SOON, idiots…
You guys see this shite? Can you believe how their retarded program works?! lololol
Hi Joe,
No Joe.I do not claim reverse heat flow. I claim that the objects higher in the atmosphere have more kinetic energy than the objects lower in the atmosphere and the heat flows down. The UGL says the greater the kinetic energy of gas molecules in an unconfined gas the less dense it becomes, just like the atmosphere. It takes 450,000 joules/mole to split an oxygen molecule into oxygen atoms. This is what occurs in the upper atmosphere where there are layers made up of helium and oxygen atoms and in the N2O layer. This is also what creates the ozone layer. With a concentration of 10 ppm the ozone molecules are not absorbing 93% of the uv from the sun, it is the oxygen and nitrogen that are absorbing that energy. The reason the atmosphere appears to cool with increasing altitude is because there are fewer molecules (less mass) transferring energy to the thermometer not because the molecules have less kinetic energy. and is energy that radiated not mass
Get lost Doug Cotton ya sick freak.
1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere, makes the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere like that reflective panel set on the dash. Remove the atmosphere and the earth becomes much like the moon, a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree.
2) the GHG up/down warming loop requires “extra” energy which it gets from
3) the surface of the earth radiating “extra” energy as an ideal, .95 emissivity black body which
4) it cannot do because of the non-radiative contributions of the contiguous atmospheric molecules.
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 0 RGHE + 0 GHG warming + 0 CAGW.
All science backed up by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
https://www.linkedin.com/…/nicholas-schroeder-55934820…
I have to ask in there 2 Herb Roses? Did someone hack his account? Sometimes one version of Herb makes pretty good sense and the other sounds crazy.
is their 2…
See this HR is talking sense…
“If you have two sources of heat radiating energy there will be an equilibrium point between them where the energy from one source equals the energy from the other source. If you move towards either source the energy/heat will increase. There is nowhere where the energies add creating a hotter area between the sources.
The equilibrium point between the energy radiated by the sun and the Earth’s core is in the Earth’s crust. The energy radiated from the Earth at night is the solar energy absorbed during the day not geothermal energy. The only time the Earth radiates any geothermal energy is when a volcano erupts or another hot spot exists and the local equilibrium point shifts out of the crust and into the atmosphere.”
I’d give that one an A.
Yeah that is good. Who knows…they do like to imposter.
The Climate King is naked and clueless.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
“Rising amounts of greenhouse gases are preventing heat radiated from Earth’s surface from escaping into space as freely as it used to. Most of the excess atmospheric heat is passed back to the ocean. As a result, upper ocean heat content has increased significantly over the past few decades…”
” If the ocean absorbs more heat than it releases, its heat content increases…”
Science is doomed.
They treat heat like a conserved quantity…like an accounting of objects. They only get away with it because their entire field doesn’t matter to humanity one bit.
Just wait until their scheme meets engineering. One day it might happen. And then that will be it. It hasn’t gotten into engineering yet…but one day it might.
This is from
Gary Hendrick, who has clearly bought the CO2 farm and is a believer.
“There is no doubt that CO2 is the main mover and shaker when it comes to climate change. Here’s a bucketful of papers on the heat absorbing qualities of CO2 (https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/). Also that it plays an important role in keeping the Earths temperature fairly constant. It therefore stands to reason that increasing the levels of CO2 will lead to increasing global temperature. Its a fine balancing trick, the carbon cycle adds and removes CO2 its bound up in rocks (Chalk, limestone), or absorbed by plants or dissolved in the seas etc or released by animal respiration, volcanic activity etc. WE have added to that cycle and tipped the scales (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2001GC000264). There are 2 stable forms of Carbon, 12 and 13. Because C13 is heavier than C12, plants use more C12 to make sugars. Causing them, (and us and animals) to have a high ratio of C12 to C13 in our systems than there is in the atmosphere. If burning coal and petrol is responsible for the current rise in CO2 we should see the atmosphere ratio become closer to that of fossil fuels. Using spectroscopy to measure air samples from ice cores and ancient trees and also modern day air samples, thats exactly what is seen. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5625891/)”
So I replied, “Well you have thoroughly convinced yourself CO2 can do what it simply can’t do but I won’t change your mind and I’m confident nothing could lol.
I’ll read your links for my own interests and fun. Open invite still stands if you want to debate this with a physicist…”
Joseph don’t hold your breath for his reply 🙂
{insert hilarious Boomie meme with guy holding breath here}
“It therefore stands to reason…”
Lol…that’s literally all they got…lol
Joe or Pierre or both…
Pierre if you pop up you gave me this a while back…
The molar mass of CO2 is 12.01 g/mol + 2 * 16 g/mol = 44.01 g/mol
At S.T.P, one mol of CO2 occupies 22.4 L = 22400 cm3
The density of CO2 at S.T.P is = 44.01 g / 22400 cm3 = 0.001965 g/cm3
Or 1.965 kg/m3
So, for Earth 100% CO2
T = 101.3 / (8.314 x 1.965 / 44) = 272.9 K (result in absolute temperature)
272.9 K – 273.2 = -0.3 °C (conversion to Celsius)
More CO2=more cooling
STP stands for Standard Temperature and Pressure
Which I came up with
The entire atmosphere is 5.1×10^18 kg
1.92810^39 kg/mol is the total molar mass of atmopsheric CO2.
That’s a total of 4.3810^40 molecules of CO2 as opposed to around 1.095×10^44 molecules that aren’t.
Now my question is did we miss something here? I seem to vaguely remember CO2 changes the chemical composition of something water vapor or oxygen? Which would change the molar mass equation as CO2 increases. I can’t find it anywhere so I am at a loss?
Relax people, this is just a thought experiment to increase my math skills and to debunk CO2 increase doesn’t even cause warming on a molar scale.
Now you also gave this:
Water has a molar specific heat capacity of 75.32 J/mol.
CO2 has a molar specific heat capacity of 37.35 J/mol.
Water being 95% of greenhouse gases and CO2 less than 5.
Water over-overwhelms CO2 and negates any CO2 effect, up or down.
Now they are trying hard to claim water vapor increase is a direct result of CO2 increase. Yes they are claiming IR redirection from CO2 is evaporating more ocean water and warming the oceans up in the process.
As you said Joseph, “heat is not a conserved quantity”. I don’t know why but I love that statement!
https://electroverse.net/earth-is-about-to-enter-a-mini-ice-age-robert-felix/
“We should be bracing for a prolonged solar minimum that could last for decades, until the 2050s”
Actually I think I read that article already. Linked it here too lol.
We are due for another glaciation within the next 3400 years. I’d imagine for an astrophysicist it would be bitter sweet to be able to experience it. From a purely physics point of view, to experience and be able to analyze a glaciation in progress would be invaluable. The realization that the planet has never once prepared for this inedible final the bitter part.
Really good Propertarian discussions with the leaders. Channel recommendation.
Looks like Spencer has pseudo names or just an acolyte…
gbaikie:
“You can´t warm something up with cold air”
Obviously cold air can warm something colder than the cold air.
And:
Venus surface air made hotter by colder air above it.
And say it’s noon, and 4000 meter above surface the air has been warmed, but
it much colder then air at the surface. Say lapse rate per 1000 meter of 6.5 C, so
4 times 6.5 = 26, so is 26 K colder than surface air. In night as surface cools, the cold
air above {4 km up} also cools {or it’s warming the surface air- or one could say prevent/slows surface air
from cooling as much is would if didn’t have that cold air above it [which will continue to be 26 K colder
than surface air]. Though you also say the cold air 4 km up cooled the surface air during the day when surface
was warming this colder air.
Or the 10 tons of air per square meter, is being warmed by the surface when surface warmed by sunlight, but
warm the surface air you have warm air above it. Or day starts cold surface air, say 15 C, the sunlight can’t
warm the surface up much, because needs to heat the 10 tons of air per square meter.
So roughly if morning air is cold, day not going to get very hot, but starts warmer, it can get hotter.
Though if air is dry, it’s easier to heat up- or dry air can have wider swings in daytime and nighttime
air temperature.
Of course weather can flow in or out warmer or colder air masses. Or one could think morning
tells what day air temperature will be, then it doesn’t happen.
“The atmosphere increases heat absorption by adding convection, conduction and radiative absorbtion compared to in vacuum where you have only radiative heat loss. ”
Yes, 10 tons per square meter. Plus got Earth’s trillions of tons of clouds {water droplets/ice particles}.
“The atmosphere cools the earth surface more than without an atmosphere, but it also redistributes heat also reducing maximum temperature.”
Yeah And 70% of atmosphere is over ocean. Which never get “hot” and does not dump heat from such hot land surfaces into space {it keeps the heat which causes warmer night air temperatures- or causing higher day and night air temperature- higher average temperatures.]
“An incandescent filament in vacuum runs hotter than with gas surrounding it.”
Yes, which was “found out” or one could say, it was “remembered” with the Apollo missions.”
NASA GISS tampering in action: A hat tip to NoTricksZone for providing this data.
Tampered data: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgibin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=JA000047678&ds=14&dt=1
Actual Data: https://www.data.jma.go.jp/obd/stats/etrn/view/monthly_s3_en.php?block_no=47678&view=1
Sorry link didn’t work…
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=JA000047678&ds=14&dt=1
So Joseph I have offered a handful to debate a physicist live (or prerecorded) on their beliefs in global warming. No takers and that’s not even providing your name, just the word “physicist” is enough for them to decline. What sound faith they have in their religion!
Wow. Keep on them though! Lol
🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
I got EM F so flustered he accused me of being paid by FFs. LOL. Don’t send in an engineer to do a scientists’ work. He doesn’t even comprehend half of what I say and claims he schooled 1000frolly.
At least when I tear down a scientist’s straw-man they have enough decency to end the conversation.
Its the illiterate trolls that are the worse. They have no real science understanding and they don’t care, their job is grunts and nothing more, not captains of field generals. They have one purpose,
weaken the opposition with subterfuge, or as I call them the 3-Ds, Deny-Deflect-Discredit repeat as needed.
Ask EMF for a live debate with me. Guest on my YT.
I did, “If your so confident in yourself debate a physicist. I’ll set it up.”
He replied, “I’m not a physicist. I’m an engineer. If you wish someone to debate, you should debate James Hansen. He’s in the public eye.”
So I just heard that James Hansen got his PhD on Venus Greenhouse Runaway Effect.
You should get your PhD on “Venus is not a runaway GHGE.”
lol
What is that supposed to mean? He can only debate other engineers? The best debates come from people of different fields and backgrounds. He doesn’t want the debate to go outside his vocabulary and flawed understanding is what it is.
Why doesn’t he engineer a perpetual energy machine with “Radiative forcing” or “back-radiation”.
?
Boomie it means he knows he’s full of CO2 soot and doesn’t want to be emabaressed by an actual physicist who knows what he’s talking about.
For example I gave him this, you know stuff physicists write on their diapers as kids,
“Which means you have a lot to learn and a lot you don’t understand. My conversations with you verifies that.
However earmarks you should know you pretend you don’t which makes your pitch for GW suspect.
Such as the fundamental difference between thermal energy and thermal heat, something an engineer with thermodynamics education should be fully aware of. ALL heat is thermal energy but not all thermal energy is heat. HEAT is a requirement to increase a temperature. Even an ice cube can emit thermal heat on an object colder than itself. What an ice cube can’t do is transfer thermal heat between itself and another ice cube, unless you have a temperature variation. Once all the ice cubes are in thermal equilibrium they will be transferring thermal energy between them.
Atmospheric CO2 absorbs mainly at a wavelength of 15 micron. That corresponds to energy of 0.0827 eV. To put that into perspective, it would take about 77,760,000,000,000,000,000,000 {7.776 (10)^22} such photons to equal 1 Joule. So it would take 4.2 times that many photons to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree C.
1 Joule = 6.24 (10)^18 eV
Or, 1 Joule = 6,240,000,000,000,000,000 eV
One MeV is one megaelectron volts or one million electron volts, and the MeV is a measure of energy equal to 1.60217646 × 10^(-)13 joules.
Now an ice cube emits mainly at a wavelength of 10.7 micron. So ice photons are about 50% “hotter” that CO2 photons.
However, this energy is NOT going to “stack up” to a higher temperature, not how boson physics works. So 3.26592*10^23 photons radiating at 15 microns will never increase temperature above its radiative frequency or “stack” to boil water.
See easy?”
His reply:
“No, that means I sit in front of my workstation and draw pretty pictures which people pay me $65 an hour for. After a days work and, a walk or swim, I spend a little time talking to guys like you. It’s a little amusing to hear the ideas you all come up with. My favorite sister has magical thinking as well. You do realize the climate science is well understood? You do realize the climate models work extremely well?”
Absolute misdirection and not one rebuttal of the actual science presented him.
What a lame reply. Ask him if he realizes that’s not an argument that is a fallacy. Consensus and authority as usual.
You mean the climate models that say our entire climate is controlled by 1 molecule that makes up a tiny portion of the atmosphere? No, I don’t think those are right.
See…they can never acknowledge anything…just constant misdirection.
I read a really good comment some place recently. It was like this:
“At the end of all this, when the left wins, the conservatives lined up against a wall about to be shot will be arguing “Why are you allowed to kill me but I’m not allowed to kill you?””
It kind of applies here too. We argue all day asking why they are allowed to sophize and obfuscate and deny and ignore and disengage and miss the point and ridicule and mock…and they’re FN good at this, they are FN amazingly expertly consummately good at all this. Like I said at the end of my 2nd book: the situation is this way because we are in a war. We are not in a conversation…we are in a war. The enemy is some sort of parasitical force that simply wants to extract from its host. It doesn’t feel any form or sense of benefit from mutuality whatsoever…it feels more benefit in robbing its host for 5 cents then it would feel from making 100 dollars by working together. It simply cannot process or cogitate or act out mutuality in any form whatsoever…it can only extract. There is an energetic barrier asymptotically approaching a threshold of mutuality and reciprocity in action, and it cannot penetrate this barrier. It is as impossible for it to act in a reciprocal manner as it is impossible for you to randomly smash a puppy’ brains out of its head with a hammer. In fact it finds reciprocity as unpalatable as you find that action. The joy and confirmation and assertion of life you experience from nuzzling a puppy and scratching its ears and making it play happy, our enemy feels in robbing you of 5 cents without you knowing about it.
We sit here and appeal to their honesty and to their reciprocity when these aren’t even concepts which exist in their vocabulary nor their genetic history and makeup; these concepts are as alien and unknown to them as the life experience of a nematode is to us.
They are the anti. They are the anti everything. They will not stop until they’ve consumed this entire planet and all of its resources. You see, they do not require the civilization which we have developed and feel accustomed to maintain. They do not need any of it. They do not need roads, electronics, technology of any kind, etc etc etc. Although they use these things, they do not need them. And you can see that they tell us that they don’t need them with their avowed political plans, etc. What they need is only this: to extract from you on the way down, thus putting them on top. As long as they are extracting from you on the way down, then they are as happy and as fulfilled and as affirmed in their life and existence as anyone can possibly be…the inverse state of one of us leading a productive life maintaining and developing civilization.
https://voat.co/v/whatever/4039935
I just found out about Stan Rogers and we need more inspirational wholesome music like this. Another Canadian. You Canadians are a special people.
My Mother’s side is Canadian, Nova Scotia. I think French & Scotch-Irish on her side. German & British on my father’s. Pretty sure there is some Dutch in there too.
They are terminators.
“It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!”
You actually made me lol.
Good reference. See…these ideas exist well before us…others have detected this phenomenon long ago. Heck…think of the Bible passage ‘we wrestle not against a physical enemy but against powers and principalities of darkness’ etc.
Actually that bible reference is in high places, meaning people in power. Aint that something? A Hive Mind.
Or less religious, call them the Borg. Or a million other things from fantasy to fiction. Dopplegangers, Changlings and what have you.
It’s just creepy.
Speaking of creepy a new show called “Utopia” about sums it up it’s a remake of an older UK version. The basics is still the same. A cult trying to make Utopia on planet Earth by killing off most of its denizens. Sound familiar?
Garak did nothing wrong.
Look at this idiotic article pretending that climate science isn’t already politicized and that Republicans are being scientific by fighting climate change but the democrats are making it harder to do that by being too political:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-want-to-hand-climate-science-over-to-the-mob
Everything is a psyop…….
People can only seem to hold 2 ideas at once, and they can’t even digest those two properly. Give Them two wrong choices, both right for the controllers, and you have the whole argument in your paradigm.
People would rather deal with the cognitive dissonance than accept their rulers are trying to enslave them and their children forever. People want to believe so badly the people in charge are looking out for them. To think otherwise is to daunting, terrifying.
They don’t care about us, we are their abused livestock. The quicker we accept that truth the better. Then we will actually understand the playing field.
Until we understand that, we are doomed.
Wow exactly Boomie.
I should say our rulers. Enslave us and our children.
The thing is those in power know its all a facade. They aren’t and have never been in control of the en masse, they create the illusion they control the en masse. Once an en masse revolts, they are powerless to control it and they know it. Nothing stops a horde all they can do is retreat to a fortified position and wait it out. The problem is en masse once replacing power by the very nature of that power, then becomes just as corrupt. Full circle and nothing changes.
I think John the Baptist said for kingdoms to change men’s hearts must change. Nothing more true about politics.
This paper from 1971 admits CO2 is not a logarithmic threat. However, they are still missing the total physics analysis. Point being, CO2 does not “create” heat.
Click to access rasool_schneider_1971.pdf
Check this comment out dry air can retain more moisture this sounds like a moron taught by Potholer with is “feedback loops” and again with this claim CO2 is warming the oceans…
“the effects of additional CO2 are actually fairly simple to understand if simplified: The increase of CO2 means more short wave IR from the Sun are absorbed by the air, which warms it.
Since the air is warmer, it can retain more moisture. Don’t confuse relative and specific humidity, air can very well contain more water vapor, while being dryer!
That water absorb long wave IR from the ground, heated by the Sun, which warms further the air. That’s one positive feedback.
Part of that heat is absorbed by the oceans, which, being warmer, start degassing several gas, including CO2. That’s another positive feedback.
That would mean a runaway processus if not for the fact that electromagnetic radiations, of which visible light and Infrareds are part from , increase faster than temperature. I think it’s at the square, but I honestly don’t remember.
Point is, at some point the ground, and the atmosphere will be warm enough to radiate in space enough energy to balance the greenhouse effect. That new balance depending of the initial amount of CO2 injected in the atmosphere.”
Morals
https://propertarianinstitute.com/man-is-amoral/
https://propertarianinstitute.com/morality-reciprocity-2/
https://propertarianinstitute.com/morals-reflect-genetic-distance/
What’s the best book on Morality? Nietzsche? “Beyond Good and Evil” seems interesting.
Joseph do you mind emailing me? I’m trying to set something up…You should still have my email. I doubt anything will come of it because I foresee some interference presenting itself if it moves forward. We shall see?
Worth a shot.
Hi, I think there is a pretty high possibility that an oligarchy of rich folks are trying to limit peoples freedom across the world using covid as an excuse to cause the deaths of millions because they believe humans are destroying the environment. Should I stop worrying about this? I ask because a lot of comments on here make me feel like you all aren’t at all worried for our future in the same way… if your not I would love to talk more to better understand your position. Thanks!
Hi Magic Pinhead…. sure thing…Most of the commentators here do believe in caring for the environment. We are aware of pollution, overfishing, plastics etc …so why we may appear unworried to you is because we all know that your science of AGW is a load of crap….and any amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t faze us at all.
Probably our only concern at the moment is that you lefty “climate change” believing loons have rigged the US election to usher in another 4 years of fake bedwetting from a corrupt, senile geriatric as leader of the free world. Nothing much else to worry about.
@Magic Pickaxe
The oligarchy isn’t worried about us destroying the environment, they are worried we will wake up and reclaim our sovereignty.
They are using covid as an excuse to destroy small businesses and weaken the middle class. Also doing a power flex and demoralizing.
If you would have asked me a year ago, “does the governor have the power to force business owners to close/restrict their business?”, I would have thought that would be impossible.
This is our Holodomor.
My main worry for the future is we never wake up, and cast off our foreign parasitic elite. Who are actively trying to destroy us.
Plus what Mack said. Except there is credible evidence in an approaching ice age due to the grand solar minimum. We are just now entering, they say won’t end till 2050.
Which and ice age would be much worse than “Global warming”. Food shortages leads to famine to war to pestilence. An Ice age will lay the path for the 4 horsemen to make their rounds.