Personally I think this bill sucks. I would far prefer something like Alan Grayson's Medicare Buy-In bill. However even if the Senate does not pass HR 4872, the Reconcillation Act of 2010, the current bill accomplishes one thing which is the camels nose is finally in the tent. And although I'm sure it will take many more years and many more battles, the outcome is inevitable, the best you can do is to delay as you've done for so many years but sooner or later there will
[quote who="djcityscapes" reply="2" id="2570951"]Thanks Mumbles! Do admins *move* threads around here? I don't want to be accused of double posting. [/quote]Actually you could do it yourself if you set up a blog on Impulsedriven or JoeUser. This would give you other abilities to manage the threads you create as well. However if you don't want to bother creating a blog and then figure out how to move a thread you could perhaps wait and hope that Kryo sees this and moves it for you. He
You'll get a quicker and better response to this if you put it into the "Forum Issues" forum as that is the forum Bara monitors for exactly this kind of support. https://forums.galciv2.com/forum/503 If you're on a different site than galciv2 just replace it with your site as the Forum Issues forum is accessible from *all* sites.
[quote]I'll amuse myself by thinking about how funny it is that a highly educated professional with advanced physics knowledge can't figure out salt water mechanics.[/quote]Amuse away. Engineering is not Physics. No I did not realize that the level of salt in sea water not only reduces the freezing point of water but also reduces the density maximum down to the freezing point. As far as "advanced physics knowledge" I had 8.01 (<a href="http://web.mit.edu/8.01/www/Spring02/syll
Check out Feburary as well, 2nd warmest Feburary in both satellite records. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_T
[quote]but I think now that psychoak is against global worming and Mumblefartz is for it?[/quote]Basically except for the worming part. [quote]Temperatures of Arctic waters are below zero around the ice, that's warmer than the ice always and warmer than the air for half the year, by around thirty degrees at the worst times. Where the ice is melting, obviously the water is above freezing. Water is also fluid, ice cooled water falls below the surface, ice is not fluid, temperature drops
[quote]Since you completely ignored it, I'll point out, again, that nearly all of the recent warming is from the polar ice sheet reduction.[/quote]We've discussed this before. A glass of water with an ice cube in it cannot rise much above freezing until the ice cube melts.
Other studies on solar influence on climate This conclusion is confirmed by many studies finding that while the sun contributed to warming in the early 20th Century, it has had little contribution (most likely negative) in the last few decades: Erlykin 2009 : "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activit
It's been 6 pages since I posted this so I may as well drag this graph out again. It shows TSI with respect to the GISSTEMP record. I love using GISSTEMP because it pisses off psycho so. As before the temperature data is from NASA GISS and the TSI data is fro
[quote]Yeah, Ill just set this here for you all.[/quote]Thank you for the uncredited graphs. Any indication as to what authority produced these babies or did you just do it yourself in paint? The following is a TSI graph from NASA that looks nothing at all like the unattributed graph you produced. Also the article this graph came from is http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/27oct_eve.htm . <img
[quote][quote]A contrarian's contrarian. [/quote]Exactly. [/quote] Then you should fit in quite well with all the different nut cases (I'll graciously include myself, am I not magnanimous) wandering around in this thread. Welcome, to the wood chipper. [e digicons];P[/e]
[quote]I consider this to mean that you a protagonist for environmentalism then?[/quote]I consider this to mean you wish to argue against *everybody*, both denier and proponent (or alarmist if you will, I really don't care about terminology)? Fine by me. You can stake out the "I don't agree with anyone" position. A contrarian's contrarian. I would say curmudgeon except assuming the age in your profile is correct you're far too young to be a curmudgeon plus I like to think I have the c
[quote] It's called extrapolation. I see the types of posts you are making now and I consider it a safe bet that most of your previous ones on this topic are just more of the same.[/quote]Actually the arguments on each page are not just *more* of the same they *are* the same as in identical. As soon as the next page rolls over the deniers get to repeat the same arguments that were just debunked on the previous page. The reason is that deniers are not required to prove anything
[quote]Feel free to insult me any which way but please leave the vulgarity at your door, not mine. [/quote]I will apologize to you but most definitely not to DG. My intent was not to insult you in particular but to point out the ugliness that is in fact the reality that lies beneath the otherwise apparent joviality of your post. I find joking about old people choosing to go to prison for the health care and tax benefits as offensive as you found my words. In retrospect I should h
[quote]It would behoove you to check your obnoxious and foul langauge at the door[/quote]Why? So you can pretend that the entire topic isn't offensive to begin with? I said nothing that wasn't already directly implied. I just took off the false veneer of wink, wink, nudge, nudge and took what was implied and made it explicit. As far as lying *you* are the liar. Please quote a single reply, *any* reply, where I've said "I never visit JU". Go ahead prove that you're not lying, I
[quote]Shit tard making stupid statements after I've linked to it who knows how many times. I just ignore him when he argues with nothing, it happens too frequently to bother with.[/quote]You mean like this: [quote]Some of the people warning about global warming are the same pinheads that during the 60's and 70's were warning about the new ice age. They were wrong then as well as now. 1860-1880 global warming followed by global cooling. 1910- 1940 global warming followed by globa
[quote]but also you're also probably getting your information from raw satellite readings that don't yet account for much of the more modern analysis that account for those inconsistencies.[/quote]Mmmm. Raw data.
[quote]and now they can't account for the lack of warming right now because[/quote]Of the deep trough in TSI that we're in without which we would have set yearly record after yearly record. [quote]demonstrably without cause[/quote]Then demonstrate it.
[quote]I guess that means science is the process of falsifying data to fit your hypothesis, then forcing the populace to accept your conclusion by calling everyone a denialist while you use your phd, which is often gotten the same way in the soft sciences, to shut down opposition.[/quote]Oh. You mean like John Christy and Roy Spencer, that fucked up their measurements so badly that they had to increase their predicted warming trend by 40%? From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa
[quote]I like the skepticalscience.com website because it takes arguements against AGW head on and provides links to relevant studies on both sides and provides you the information you need to make a decision for yourself as opposed to just getting the publications take on it.[/quote]The Skeptical Science site is a pretty good site particularly because it covers so many "skeptic" arguments. The downside is that the counter arguments it presents can often be rather short and not always well do
[quote]Thank you for being gracious. Here's another one you can add to the list: Freeman Dyson[/quote]Duly noted and added. Quite a long article but definitely worth reading, thanks for the link. I also read his wiki article as a cross-check. Dyson Sphere was the first thought that came to my mind and he does seem to be the source of the term although compared to his other accomplishments it's a trivial
[quote]I guess that means science is the process of falsifying data to fit your hypothesis,[/quote]That's apparently the way you want to take it however refinement of data/models/theory happens all the time usually in the direction of greater and greater precision. You have your claims as to the why of such changes and to you they will always seem nefarious, whereas I don't presume to know the why of the changes. The only thing I *don't* presume which you do is a global conspiracy. [q
[quote]If it could be proven that we are in the warmest period in the past 100,000 years and all natural causes are ruled out [/quote]Pretty weak criteria since as you say nothing can be "proven" to someone that doesn't want to believe it. What I gave you are demonstrable criteria that are achievable within the next ten years. So in other words there is nothing that can happen short of a 10 meter sea level rise in the next ten years that would convince you that maybe there was somethi
380 Replies1,212,289 Views
You are leaving Ashes of the Singularity Forums
You're about to visit an external site:
Subscribe to our Newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates, and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.
JoeUser Forums
Stardock Forums
GalCiv2 Forums