Oct 29, 2010
You have a bad memory, otherwise you'd recall your excursions into correcting my English with you soulmate, IBWACKYDumbo. (Tuesday Dec 6 | post #2140)
Been? (Tuesday Dec 6 | post #51485)
This is a Topix forum, a place where people write nothing worth contributing. (Tuesday Dec 6 | post #51484)
Dictionaries are written by the people who define the words. (Monday Dec 5 | post #2134)
Dictionaries are written by the people who define the words. (Sunday Dec 4 | post #2125)
Cooks 97% consensus disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors Anthony Watts / September 3, 2013 UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. Anthony 0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1% PRESS RELEASE September 3rd, 2013 https://wattsupwit hthat.com/2013/09/ 03/cooks-97-consen sus-disproven-by-a -new-paper-showing -major-math-errors / (Friday Dec 2 | post #4857)
97 Articles Refuting The 97% Consensus http://climatechan gedispatch.com/97- articles-refuting- the-97-consensus/ (Friday Dec 2 | post #4856)
We can but hope that fuggy's right and the NASA satellites are wrong. (Friday Dec 2 | post #144)
It's not that we need to return to 1940 levels. To have a serious solution, everyone on the globe needs to return to the average lifestyle afforded by carbon output of approximately 1875. The global population then of 1,325,000,000 divided by the cubic metric tons of emission, a mere 187,000, equates to .00014 parts per million, per person. This is not far off of our target of .00017. Shouldn't we do this? You know, just to "play it safe?" This is pretty good news. If we go back to the carbon output of 1875 we can still have a few trains and everything! Plus, I think stylish pocket watches are reasonably carbon neutral? To actually be serious about climate change, the average household has to reduce to owning zero vehicles. We also can allow no indoor heating or air conditioning, artificial refrigeration, electrical lighting, computers, or cell phones. Any individual who lives a life greater than this would allow lies to themselves about wanting to save our planet. Also, farms need to produce foodstuffs without mechanical equipment. Grocers must abandon refrigeration. Long-haul trucking needs to be abolished. Airplanes must be banned. Streets cannot be illuminated at night. Power grids in general should be decommissioned. Then we will finally be free of global warming. God forbid that a Stalin-type ends up getting ahold of this notion, as population control is the actual most-serious solution. If climate change exists, ideally we have to accomplish a solution on an individual basis. Each person who does not achieve this "new" lifestyle of 1875 would certainly be a hypocrite. I might follow. But I suggest we let the leftist socialists go first. (Friday Dec 2 | post #1)
Respiration | definition of respiration by Medical dictionary medical-dictionary .thefreedictionary .com/respiration 1. the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the body cells, including inhalation and exhalation, diffusion of oxygen from the ... <<<< <<<< << Plant respiration is a chemical reaction by which plant cells stay alive. The process can be represented by the following formula: glucose + oxygen → carbon dioxide + water (+ energy). Through respiration, plants use oxygen and produce carbon dioxide. The result is the release of stored energy for use. (Friday Dec 2 | post #2108)
The 97% consensus hoax was first trashed in 2013: Cooks fallacy 97% consensus study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for What does a study of 20 years of abstracts tell us about the global climate? Nothing. But it says quite a lot about the way government funding influences the scientific process. John Cook, a blogger who runs the site with the ambush title SkepticalScience (which unskeptically defends the mainstream position), has tried to revive the put-down and smear strategy against the thousands of scientists who disagree. The new paper confounds climate research with financial forces, is based on the wrong assumptions, uses fallacious reasoning, wasnt independent, and confuses a consensus of climate scientists for a scientific consensus, not that a consensus proves anything anyway, if it existed. Given the monopolistic funding of climate science in the last 20 years, the results he finds are entirely predictable. The twelve clues that good science journalists ought to notice: 1. Thousands of papers support man-made climate change, but not one found the evidence that matters http://joannenova. com.au/2013/05/coo ks-fallacy-97-cons ensus-study-is-a-m arketing-ploy-some -journalists-will- fall-for/ (Friday Dec 2 | post #4854)
Q & A with Earthling-1
Happy, warm and comfortable
Mountain retreat, SE Spain
In the campo.
Paella Valenciana, Gazpacho Manchego and Estola tinto, finished off with a Ponche Caballero over ice.
I Belong To:
The human race.
When I'm Not on Topix:
I'm enjoying good food, fine wine and good company. Otherwise I'm doing something useful.
Read My Forum Posts Because:
They're interesting, helpful and factual
I'm Listening To:
The deafening sound of silence
Read This Book:
I haven't written it yet.
Good food, and fine wine.
On My Mind:
The ignorance of mankind.
Blog / Website / Homepage:
I Believe In:
Truth and how hard it is to find.
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC