RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Phydeaux -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/10/2016 9:25:54 AM)

When the US gets to the same level of debt Greece was at - the catastrophe will come just as fast, just as hard.
Sovereing or not sovereign, people aren't going to accept script from a country when they have no clear value of that script. Its why cash is fleeing china right now - the expectation of a weeking currency. And china *is* a sovereign country.




DominantWrestler -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/10/2016 9:41:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/millennial-media/201304/do-racism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand

Well, another study.

And another study...this one carried out by a gentleman at Oxford.

https://reason.com/archives/2014/06/13/are-conservatives-dumber-than-liberals

http://www.usworldreport.com/study-shows-conservatives-have-higher-iqs-than-liberals-2/


The the far right USNewsReport references an article mentioning liberals are smarter than conservatives. Lmao




MariaB -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/10/2016 9:52:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

When the US gets to the same level of debt Greece was at - the catastrophe will come just as fast, just as hard.
Sovereing or not sovereign, people aren't going to accept script from a country when they have no clear value of that script. Its why cash is fleeing china right now - the expectation of a weeking currency. And china *is* a sovereign country.


But we are not comparing like with like because we have very different financial institutions. It would be like comparing a game of chess with a game of monopoly. We can all inevitably lose but we won't lose the same way. http://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2015/mar/31/david-cameron-right-was-uk-deficit-worse-than-greece




Hillwilliam -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/13/2016 6:14:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I'm on a phone, can't cut and paste at the moment.
But crop yields have increased 11% due to increased co2 according to 2 studies.

Out of how many? 50,242,167?

Maybe it's because of longer growing seasons. [8|]


Here is a link to global temperature data that show 96% of the planet as had no global warming over the last 35 years.The north pole has a small warming trend.

Over that same period, yields have increased dramatically.
Yields are increasing for a lot of reasons. Longer growing seasons isnt one of them. Increased co2 is.

But you can give a liberal facts, but you can't make him abandon his preconceived notions.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/29/should-we-be-worried/

[image]local://upfiles/11137/8A9BC11C956C44E59AD77B3933C7DA01.jpg[/image]



Did you notice no serious attempt to dispute the facts here? Presented once again with actual temperature data - I note that hill has not tried to support his ridiculous assertion about longer growing seasons...
Nor any defense of "global warming"

Facts are inconvenient things...

Maybe Hill was working out of town in Norfolk.

1. I have never said that AGW (or even GW) was real. I have said that we need to lead the way in new tech.

2. I see a few graphs that occupy a tiny fraction of the post industrial timeline and you have not even thought of an explanation.
I can only assume from this that you are basically an ignorant RW parrot with the Koch brothers as "Jeff Dunham" and you as "peanut" with their hand up your ass moving your lips as you say what they wish.



A. Still no support for your "longer growing seasons" eh?

B: As for - tiny fraction of industrial age:

1. You conjectured that crop yields might be increasing due to longer growing seasons, due to higher temperatures, due to CO2.
a. How long do you expect global temperature data to be available? Hint: since weather satellites.
b. Global satellite temperature data confirms - no temperature increases over 96% of the globe.
c. And yet crop yields were up 11%.

C. Over the same time, Co2 levels went from 349 to 398 ......



A: longer growing seasons means it's warmer.
B -1 I conjectured nothing in my post. You seem to lack the reading comprehension of an annelid.
B-1.a Anyone who doesn't know that 1980 to 2015 is a tiny fraction of the industrial age is dumber than a cyclostome.
B 1 b. No it doesn't. no matter how much you lie, it doesn't make it true. Ask Bill Clinton.
B 1 c. Crop yields up, longer growing season [8|]


C. CO2 up. You're supporting the other side.

I really thought you were more intelligent than a Helminth but your posts show otherwise.




Phydeaux -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/13/2016 7:08:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I'm on a phone, can't cut and paste at the moment.
But crop yields have increased 11% due to increased co2 according to 2 studies.

Out of how many? 50,242,167?

Maybe it's because of longer growing seasons. [8|]


Here is a link to global temperature data that show 96% of the planet as had no global warming over the last 35 years.The north pole has a small warming trend.

Over that same period, yields have increased dramatically.
Yields are increasing for a lot of reasons. Longer growing seasons isnt one of them. Increased co2 is.

But you can give a liberal facts, but you can't make him abandon his preconceived notions.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/29/should-we-be-worried/

[image]local://upfiles/11137/8A9BC11C956C44E59AD77B3933C7DA01.jpg[/image]



Did you notice no serious attempt to dispute the facts here? Presented once again with actual temperature data - I note that hill has not tried to support his ridiculous assertion about longer growing seasons...
Nor any defense of "global warming"

Facts are inconvenient things...

Maybe Hill was working out of town in Norfolk.

1. I have never said that AGW (or even GW) was real. I have said that we need to lead the way in new tech.

2. I see a few graphs that occupy a tiny fraction of the post industrial timeline and you have not even thought of an explanation.
I can only assume from this that you are basically an ignorant RW parrot with the Koch brothers as "Jeff Dunham" and you as "peanut" with their hand up your ass moving your lips as you say what they wish.



A. Still no support for your "longer growing seasons" eh?

B: As for - tiny fraction of industrial age:

1. You conjectured that crop yields might be increasing due to longer growing seasons, due to higher temperatures, due to CO2.
a. How long do you expect global temperature data to be available? Hint: since weather satellites.
b. Global satellite temperature data confirms - no temperature increases over 96% of the globe.
c. And yet crop yields were up 11%.

C. Over the same time, Co2 levels went from 349 to 398 ......



A: longer growing seasons means it's warmer.
B -1 I conjectured nothing in my post. You seem to lack the reading comprehension of an annelid.
B-1.a Anyone who doesn't know that 1980 to 2015 is a tiny fraction of the industrial age is dumber than a cyclostome.
B 1 b. No it doesn't. no matter how much you lie, it doesn't make it true. Ask Bill Clinton.
B 1 c. Crop yields up, longer growing season [8|]


C. CO2 up. You're supporting the other side.

I really thought you were more intelligent than a Helminth but your posts show otherwise.


A. You seem to not get it.
Over the last 25 years, CO2 concentrations have gone up 14%. Over that same period - unless you're growing crops on the north pole, tempertaures are not warmer; the growing season is therefore not longer.

B. I posted the satellite temperature data. The same data you can download from the Met, or the anglia climate unit, or Nasa. Please feel free to explain how for any non polar area you see a temperture rise.

C. I never said CO2 levels weren't up. I said CO2 concentrations follow temperature, they don't lead it. Which is exactly what the Rostek ice cores show. Co2 concentrations follow temperature by 800 years. Google it. You might learn something.




DominantWrestler -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/15/2016 11:56:20 AM)

That chart is probably the best evidence I have seen in a while of the North Pole melting




DominantWrestler -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/15/2016 12:01:30 PM)

And besides, climate change is not the only part of modern ecology. You know very well many companies would dump massive amounts toxins for much cheaper in destructive ways if they could get away with it. And CO2 plays a minute roll in global warming compared to many gasses




Phydeaux -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/16/2016 12:32:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

And besides, climate change is not the only part of modern ecology. You know very well many companies would dump massive amounts toxins for much cheaper in destructive ways if they could get away with it. And CO2 plays a minute roll in global warming compared to many gasses



It is absolutely true that CO2 plays a tiny amount compared to other gasses. But this infact argues that AGW is incorrect; not correct. CO2 and H2O have overlapping IR absorption bands. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is between 2-3%. The amount of co2 is .04%

Rule of thumb - 96X more contribution to global warming.

Now alarmists like to pretend that the amount of water vapor remains more or less constant - and therefor warming must be due to the increase of Co2. But is it really?

What if we had an increase of temperature - or an increase in cloud cover.

Or - if you look at our hydro carbon burning, and do some back of envelope calculations, you find that when we burn CxHy (fossil fuels) we form not only Co2, but H20.

How much water do we form? Roughty 22,000,000,000,000 lbs. 22 trillion pounds of water added to the atmosphere - every year. Now, of course it rains out - but to suggest that it rains out - misses the point.

A). Latent heat of condensation adds huge amounts of energy to the atmoshere.
B). It increases the amount of rainfall, and clouds.

And clouds .. make the earth warmer.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Different subject


When a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs infrared energy - it only has a few things it can do with that energy.

It can re-emit it.
It can get trasnlated into velocity
It can get translated into rotation
and it can be translated into vibration.
It can also get translated into chemical reactions -


Low in the atmosphere atoms are close together - constantly "hitting" each other - and when they do that energy is translated. So in the lower atmosphere this gets translated into conveying energy to surrounding atoms.

In the upper atmosphere, there is a long time between interactions of atoms, and radiation plays a much greater roll.
So the solar intensity in the upper atmosphere is 1360w/m or so; at ground its 1050 or so. In the upper atmosphere gasses serve to cool the planet by re-radiating energy into space.

In the lower atmosphere, greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere, but again according to a logarythmic function.

So here are some things that have never been successfully modelled:

As you increase CO2 concentrations, it migrates up the atmospheric column. It cools in the upper troposphere, warms in the lower - but the net effect as well as the net incremental effect is not known.






Phydeaux -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/16/2016 12:38:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

That chart is probably the best evidence I have seen in a while of the North Pole melting



Sure, but thats the whole point in science. You can't say its global warming -when in fact the effects are confined to the northern polar regions.

You can't say its CO2 driven - because co2 occurs everywhere, and the warming is only occuring in the northern polar regions.

Or you can - but if you are going to you better have a damn convincing argument on how ALL the heat gets transferred to the north pole.

Now, on the other hand. It is known that the north and the south poles get larger amounts of radiation - this is why the ozone depletes over the poles first.
And it is known that the maunder minimum increases the amount of radiation - and that the north pole is currently aspected.

So that would be one explanation that makes sense, wouldn't it.

Do I say thats the cause - no. But its a damn sight better explanation than AGW that doesn't actually fit the data points.




DominantWrestler -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/16/2016 7:18:49 AM)

The loss of huge ice and glacial formations no longer cool off the north as it used to. This is clearly demonstrated by glacial loss and collapse. These bodies of ice no longer cool the rest of the north, so local temperatures in the north are higher. But like a glass of ice water, the ice will melt before temperature changes. But this taking place over huge areas.

Basically, the ice is melting. Equilibrium of temperature globally is maintained through the dissipation of ice melting like a glass of ice water. However, because this glass of ice water is the earth, locally, the north is not cooled as much by relatively nearby ice

I'm slightly hungover. Sorry if I'm not concise




DominantWrestler -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/16/2016 7:24:25 AM)

And remember, CO2 is by far not the worst gas for climate change




Phydeaux -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/16/2016 10:57:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

And remember, CO2 is by far not the worst gas for climate change


Already covered. See above.

By the way do you know why ice cores are done in greenland and antartica?

Because virtually all the other glaciers do not survive the inter ice age warming periods. In other words. Yep. Glaciers melt. Just like they usually do.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875