RenaissanceChemist

52 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Before you cry "FRAUD!", you need to consider motive. Who gains from the world abandoning fossil fuel? The richest most powerful people? Hell no! They lose the most!

So who gains from this "fraud"?

Do I have to explain it to you?

1.  Al Gore has become a billionaire crying "global warming".  He now rides around the world in a private jet, badmouthing "fossil fuel" which he burns by the tens of thousands of gallons.

2.  Researchers who pocket government grants and contributions from brainwashed "environmentalists."

3.  Fake News.  The more inaccurate the story, the better it sells.

4.  Sierra Club, National Geographic, and all the other Leftist organizations preach climate change in every issue and sell world tours in every issue.
How about a $95,000 per person around the world tour by private jet?  National Geographic.  

Hypocrisy on a massive scale.

These are all rich and powerful people who use far more fossil fuel than the average schlep, which they DEMAND cut back his use of.

Moreover, the socialists want to use this to transfer wealth from America to third world countries.

Where the Global Warming  Hoax Was Born

Margaret Mead, Anthropologist

https://21sci-tech.com/Articles 2007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

 

The less fatalities do not mean, they were weaker, just that they passed through smaller villages rather than bigger cities (and people were better prepared)..

 

You ASSUME.  Any time I make a statement inimical to Al Gore and Company, I am instantly challenged to produce sources and references.
Why don't you do just that, in the form of peer-reviewed papers which document the fatalities being exclusively attributable to storm route.

23 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Neil  DeGrasse Tyson

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

The level of damage made to cities is not strictly correlated to strengths and quantities of tornadoes. Storms or hurricanes can go through sparsely populated area, while their strengths might be extreme. Your conclusions? They had to be weak storms because small damage in $$$.. !

Disregard that single storm, or year.  There is a gross inconsistency in the pattern, contradicting the Climate Change Narrative.
Moreover, you can google the global warming scam/fraud or climate change scam/fraud, and get thousands of hits from books, papers, videos, and presentations to congress by very knowledgeable scientists of every stripe.  This would not be possible if it were remotely as "factual" as claimed to be.

Truth never lost ground by enquiry. - William Penn, Some Fruits of Solitude

Almost all of the Universe is missing

///Nobody knows what dark matter or dark energy is.

==========================

Science of the Gaps

Don't worry.  Science will figure it all out, you betcha. It's the God of the Gaps that is so laughable, not Science of the Gaps.  That's sophisticated and very technical.  

Discussion is impossible.  Points may be made, but if they do not genuflect to the fraud, they are mocked, dismissed, ridiculed, and utterly ignored.

The Weather Channel offered its list of Top 10 Weather Years.  Curious to watch and see if it conformed to the Global Warming Fraud (Climate Change) Narrative, I took notes.

Worst weather years on record in America were 1995, 2011, 1816, 2012, 1992, 1993, 2005, 1935, 2017, and worst of all, 2013.

The storm of the century was March 12, 1993.  $5.5 billion damage.  This contradicts the claim that climate change is making hurricanes and tornadoes more violent and more frequent.

The Great Drought of 1935 needs some explaining as well, but will never get a fair hearing due to the bias in favor of billions of federal research dollars coming down the pipeline.

1 hour ago, mathematic said:

Assuming uniform density for the earth, the maximum will be at the surface.  However, the interior density is higher, so a curve as shown may be more accurate.

WHERE "at the surface"?

You failed to add the condition of perfectly spherical shape, which of course is not the case.  Masses weigh more at the poles, where they are closer to the center.

I submit that further decreasing elevation relative to the center will increase measured weight to an optimum, where it will reverse and get lighter until it goes to 0 weight at the center.

What individual has lived longest on a single natural foodstuff, be it fish, meat, vegetable, fruit, or legume?

I can't find anything on this interesting question.

On 7/22/2012 at 1:35 PM, Keenidiot said:

The likelihood that you were born faces such vanishingly small odds as to be impossible. Yet, despite these odds you were.

A world full of almost impossible people.  Profound science, that.

On 5/24/2018 at 8:55 PM, GalvestonTommy said:

 

Of course I know that with what has been recently discovered, scientists have been working on this only for the past century or less. This is a relatively minute time span compared to the calculated eons that nature has had. It's that deep-time-of-the-gaps explanation again, given enough time any thing can happen.

One last thing while talking about abiogenesis, I would be interested in knowing something about the background of some of the fellow posters. As mentioned, in addition to the last 8+ years studying biochemistry, etc., I have a degree in architecture, about 50 years in engineering type projects, some teaching in college, author of a textbook on a computer language which is a derivation of the lisp language (primary language used in artificial intelligence programs), co-author of a textbook on a major graphic and cadd software. Would any of you be willing to post any particulars that you might say stir your interest in this subject? Not trying to be too nosy, just interested.

It is not remotely true that "any thing" (sic) can happen.  Not remotely true.  I won't go into the reasons except to point out that this is the perpetual excuse of materialists.  Call it Science of the Gaps.

As to backgrounds and expertise, how much training and expertise did Orville and Wilbur Wright have in aeronautical engineering?

"

On 12/23/2018 at 12:46 PM, John Cuthber said:

Water has strong absorptions in the IR too.
It's a very effective greenhouse gas.

Just now, Strange said:

No one said any of those things. 

Citation needed.

Then whatever is your point about aging molecules?

Graph provided.  Point out any errors in modified graph.

On 12/23/2018 at 6:58 AM, iNow said:

The most important difference IMO is that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years, whereas water vapor leaves the atmosphere every few thousand seconds each time it rains. 

So you're saying that the age of a molecule affects its properties?  Old ones work better than new ones?  Clouds last only a "few thousand seconds"?

That doesn't sound like science to me.

1.  Water vapor has a broader IR spectrum than carbon dioxide, so the claim of "feedback" is utterly specious. 

2. Water vapor represents ~15,000 ppmv, versus ~410 ppmv for carbon dioxide.  

3.  The Keeling Curve is scientific fraud, designed to mislead and deceive, which science should never do.

The science channel had a physicist who travels the world measuring to a hundredth of a gram the weight of a plaster gnome.

He demonstrated that the gnome loses 2 hundredths of a gram from the ground floor to the 108th floor of a high rise.

His error was in claiming that the closer you get to the center of the earth, the heavier your weight will be.  Quite impossible, no?

So I created a crude representation of how weight changes with below grade elevation, but can't quite manage to determine the depth at which measured weight is maximized.   A very neat problem in my opinion.