RE: So.. what moron said... (Full Version)

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



Message


Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 4:40:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And when they found out that the nutsuckers were lying and they wanted to switch it back, the nutsuckers said no.

The investigation was pretty clear on this, and it was on tv. Nutsucker felching all the way on this baby.


And that guy was ALSO a democrat.

Besides which, the city didn't have the money to pay detroit for a 30 year contract, to solve a three month (supposedly) problem.

Literally every single emergency manager, public works dept head, mayor, the city council, the head of MDWQ, the epa.. The people that did the water testing.

All democrats.




thompsonx -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 4:53:54 PM)


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Peon - there have been at least three studies disproving the 97%.

Yet you consistantly have failed everytime you post tripe as prime rib.


If you wish me to provide you those references I can.


Please do...but graphic novels do not count.

As I said I can back up every singles allegation I make, using mainstream science.

Talk is cheap.


Unlike others, I don't have an axe in this fight, other than that truth prevail.


Roflmfao[8|]


If global warming were solid science, I would be on the same side as you.

Roflmfao[8|]

Only I've spend more than 30,000 man hours on this; the science isn't solid and in fact for the most part is shabbily fraudulent.

Not many people can brag that they have spent 15 years with their head up their ass.

By the way - thanks for the honest conversation. I certainly have a promoted a conservative view point here.

No you have promoted an assinine point of view which most of us find ludicrous.


Pejoratives such as *zany* are not useful in dialogue.

Yet you use them constantly.

I could say the same of many (most) of the left wing views here.

That is your problem...you see things as a left right paradigm instead of logical or illogical.

So I would suggest lets go back to first principles. Isn't the real question - is the world warming?

Good start.


Is it warming at a rate that constitutes an emergency?

First half truth....we have seen you make your next step from this bullshit.[8|]



Is this unprecedented in history?


Second half truth....since the long term record predates human existance on the planet.

And can it be attributed to greenhouse gases?


Now we get to the false premis that your first two half truths will seek to support.

And finally, if that is the case, what is the best course of action.

So the outcome is based on the two half truths and the false premis.


Does that sound like a fair statement of the issue?

No it sounds like some junior hi punkassmotherfucker who thinks his rhetoric has not been heard before by adults.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid to think that adults fall for that moronic shit.





thompsonx -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 5:04:50 PM)


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The glaciers that are melting in the ocean did not start there now did they. That is the anaolgy, you wish to change it, why?


Glaciers don't exist in oceans.

This would be a prime example of just how stupid you are. No one but you has sugested that they do. So why bring it up?


Sirtoyou & I were discussing melting artic sea ice. He claimed it would inundate us. I said if all the arctic sea ice melted it wouldn't change a damn thing. Ice melting in a glass doesn't change the level of water in the glass.


Another case of a half truth being used to support a whole lie. If it is warm enough to melt the artic sea ice it is an absolute reality that the glaciers would also melt. Perhaps you are used to debating with morons an minors. We are neither so please stop the buffonery.





AtUrCervix -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 5:27:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix


Man will never fly.

Posibly, but he falls well.


Flight: Controlled falling.

As to the other....of course we'll never get to 100%....that's God stuff....but we'll certainly do better than 10 - 15 or 25% capture.....

Seriously...you honestly think we'll never get to cost effective solar?

Never to solar that costs less than (all) other sources of energy?

Seriously?

With the technological brain power we have literally at our fingertips?

Seriously?







thompsonx -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 5:37:27 PM)


ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

ORIGINAL: thompsonx



Man will never fly.

Posibly, but he falls well.


Flight: Controlled falling.

No...that is called walking. Flight is something quite different.

As to the other....of course we'll never get to 100%....that's God stuff....but we'll certainly do better than 10 - 15 or 25% capture.....

The limit is in the nature of the photovoltaic cell.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/dont-be-a-pv-efficiency-snob/

Seriously...you honestly think we'll never get to cost effective solar?

Solar is cost effective now.
I have been on solar for 30 years. My first pannels cost about $8.00 per watt in 1985 dollars. The pannels I bought recently were .85 cents a watt.


Never to solar that costs less than (all) other sources of energy?

The sun shines for free.





Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 6:05:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix


Man will never fly.

Posibly, but he falls well.


Flight: Controlled falling.

As to the other....of course we'll never get to 100%....that's God stuff....but we'll certainly do better than 10 - 15 or 25% capture.....

Seriously...you honestly think we'll never get to cost effective solar?

Never to solar that costs less than (all) other sources of energy?

Seriously?

With the technological brain power we have literally at our fingertips?

Seriously?






I never said that. In fact I have said quite the opposite. I have merely said that solar isn't cost effective now.




Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 6:06:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

ORIGINAL: thompsonx



Man will never fly.

Posibly, but he falls well.


Flight: Controlled falling.

No...that is called walking. Flight is something quite different.

As to the other....of course we'll never get to 100%....that's God stuff....but we'll certainly do better than 10 - 15 or 25% capture.....

The limit is in the nature of the photovoltaic cell.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/dont-be-a-pv-efficiency-snob/

Seriously...you honestly think we'll never get to cost effective solar?

Solar is cost effective now.
I have been on solar for 30 years. My first pannels cost about $8.00 per watt in 1985 dollars. The pannels I bought recently were .85 cents a watt.


Never to solar that costs less than (all) other sources of energy?

The sun shines for free.





Whereas a Kwhr in the us costs $.12 And in florida $.07.




thompsonx -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 6:09:12 PM)

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


I never said that. In fact I have said quite the opposite. I have merely said that solar isn't cost effective now.

You are wrong...dumbass




Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 6:11:03 PM)

So, here is an article from the WSJ, talking about how alarmists attempt to shut down people that disagree with their point of view.

Michael Mann has sued three people. He has lost twice, and is now being countersued for damages. But in the meantime he managed to drag the case out for 4 years costing the defendent more than 4 million dollars in legal fees.

Resorting to legal intimidation - does that sound as if your science is in order? Especially when you lose? Twice?


Edit: Gah. Article didn't post. Link here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/punishing-climate-change-skeptics-1458772173




thompsonx -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 6:22:56 PM)


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Whereas a Kwhr in the us costs $.12 And in florida $.07.


The sun shines for free. What part of that escapes you?
A hundred watt pannel cost me $85.
A hundred watt pannel will make 1 kw in 2 days if we figure the pannel get 5 hours a day of exposure. I live in the desert southwest with much more than 5 hours of insolation...
.12 cents into $85. equals 708 days.
Now unless the sun stops shining the rest of the electricity it produces is free.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.





thompsonx -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 6:24:26 PM)


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

So, here is an article from the WSJ, talking about how alarmists attempt to shut down people that disagree with their point of view.

Michael Mann has sued three people. He has lost twice, and is now being countersued for damages. But in the meantime he managed to drag the case out for 4 years costing the defendent more than 4 million dollars in legal fees.

Resorting to legal intimidation - does that sound as if your science is in order? Especially when you lose? Twice?


Isn't that exactly what dupont did in the article you linked us to about teflon?




Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 6:32:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

So, here is an article from the WSJ, talking about how alarmists attempt to shut down people that disagree with their point of view.

Michael Mann has sued three people. He has lost twice, and is now being countersued for damages. But in the meantime he managed to drag the case out for 4 years costing the defendent more than 4 million dollars in legal fees.

Resorting to legal intimidation - does that sound as if your science is in order? Especially when you lose? Twice?


Isn't that exactly what dupont did in the article you linked us to about teflon?



Correct. Michael Mann is just as guilty as Dupont.
It seems to have escaped your attention .. but I called out Dupont for their horrendous actions.




thompsonx -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 6:41:05 PM)


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

So, here is an article from the WSJ, talking about how alarmists attempt to shut down people that disagree with their point of view.

Michael Mann has sued three people. He has lost twice, and is now being countersued for damages. But in the meantime he managed to drag the case out for 4 years costing the defendent more than 4 million dollars in legal fees.

Resorting to legal intimidation - does that sound as if your science is in order? Especially when you lose? Twice?


Isn't that exactly what dupont did in the article you linked us to about teflon?



Correct. Michael Mann is just as guilty as Dupont.
It seems to have escaped your attention ..

Jesus you are phoquing stupid...If it had escaped my attention how did I just post it?








itsSIRtou -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 11:19:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Man, do you not get that it is absolute science that ice melting in a glass of water will NEVER overflow it? I explained it to you before. Go google archimedes principle to find out why its still true.

It is pretty obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Try the experiment dumbass.
Fill a glass with water. Now add ice....omg it overflows.
You probably think an ounce of feathers weighs more than an ounce of gold.[8|]




now I understand what Phydeaux's problem here is. Phydeaux is citing only a partially (at best ) applicable principal.

Archimedes principle applies to a solid object being immersed in a fluid...... To wit:
if the weight of the water displaced is less than the weight of the object, the object will sink.

Otherwise the object will float, with the weight of the water displaced equal to the weight of the object.



Yo Phydeaux!! Notice the word displaced ...... it actually was mentioned twice in this description of this fundamental fact of fluid dynamics. As per your suggestion, I let Google help you with the definition:

dis·place - /disˈplās/ verb - cause (something) to move from its proper or usual place.


So obviously ice floats, displacing no an amount of water equal to itself. and what you're ignoring is the fact that ice melts, thus adding itself is just not to the total volume of water.

so Phydeaux, "nothing happens" is officially history. It is a concept that has joined the "world is flat" as a debunked concept....... you're welcome.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Have you notice that not a single one of the numerous posts that I have made on this topic gets contradicted


And it took a third-year design management student to slap some sense into a so-called expert. (No insult intended.)

Consider yourself managed & contradicted by a liberal.





Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/26/2016 12:13:53 AM)

Sirtoyou.

I have encouraged you now three times to try this, instead of trolling me an make yourself ridiculous. Get a glass of icewater, fill it to the rim.
Watch it for 20 minutes.

You will find the glass does not overflow. This is not me being a troll. This is just me trying to teach you an honest to gosh scientific fact.

If you take one cubic mililiter of water - and freeze it - it become less dense. The weight of the ice, does not change, but the density does. However, due to the fact that the ice floats it displaces exactly as much water as liquid water.

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

Or if thats too hard - make this easier for you. Take a full cup of shaved ice. When it melts, you will have about 2/3 of a cup of water. If what you were saying were true - that ice melting would overflow the cup, it would also overfill this cup.
But it never will.

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

For G-d's sake man. If you won't believe me - go ask a chemistry professor at your school. This is Pchem-1 level stuff.





Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/26/2016 12:21:01 AM)

Ok I give up.

Here are some links since you wouldn't simply believe me:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae389.cfm

Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOCqHRpQh88

http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/experiments/iceoverflow.html

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/110645/why-does-ice-melting-not-change-the-water-level-in-a-container

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Do you now understand that when all the artic sea ice melts - not a damn thing happens to global sea levels?

Note: this is not the same for ice on land (aka greenland, or antartica). I mention that in fairness, just as I did in my original comment.








itsSIRtou -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/26/2016 1:08:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Sirtoyou.

I have encouraged you now three times to try this, instead of trolling me an make yourself ridiculous. Get a glass of icewater, fill it to the rim.
Watch it for 20 minutes.

You will find the glass does not overflow. This is not me being a troll. This is just me trying to teach you an honest to gosh scientific fact.

If you take one cubic mililiter of water - and freeze it - it become less dense. The weight of the ice, does not change, but the density does. However, due to the fact that the ice floats it displaces exactly as much water as liquid water.

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

Or if thats too hard - make this easier for you. Take a full cup of shaved ice. When it melts, you will have about 2/3 of a cup of water. If what you were saying were true - that ice melting would overflow the cup, it would also overfill this cup.
But it never will.

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

For G-d's sake man. If you won't believe me - go ask a chemistry professor at your school. This is Pchem-1 level stuff.



quote:


sorry spanky, you aren't that important...

Let's use that glass of cool-aid you've been drinking from. …In its CORRECT context shall we, hmmm?

1.) add some crushed ice (sea ice) to an empty glass....fill the glass with the denier cool-aid to its rim. (after all, you're full of it...LOL) this will represent in a general sense what the world's oceans were before global warming,

2.) now add two times the crushed ice ( Sea ice) you started with, to the full glass, …. This represents the trend of higher than usual amount of melted ice every year, eventually when the entire polar ice cap melts away a few seasons decades in a row because individuals like you won't pry your eyeballs open, to the damage that's happening I guess that's what it will take for you to eventually figure it out… Maybe.

Let that all melt………There is your first mess… ya think?

3.) Take BIG CHUNKS (glacial ice) of clear ice that would add up to over half the total volume of the glass. Drop them all into the already full glass as fast or slow as u like.
This represents the dense glacier ice that breaks off sometimes in football field sized chunks. (ask the Titanic how big they can get…)

….now if you're a below sea level city like New Orleans, or a waterway city like Venice, Italy for instance, or any other low coastal region, this is your biggest problem. The higher amount and volume of melt, the faster this becomes a problem.

Let that all melt too……By the way, How's that for "nothing happens" ….spanky?

I don't know what Snowball hit you in the eye, that makes you think that if you add liquid albeit frozen which then melts to liquid, into a liquid, that you don't have a higher total volume of liquid.


Simple logic dude. You are not smarter than a fifth grader. ( actually Im sure u are, but its My fave phrase dealing with conservatives...)



this is the experiment as originally given to you.

You keep trying to make it about a small scale of ice to a glass/ocean when the truth the matter is that the total amount of ice going into the ocean is ice thats been stored for hundreds if not thousands of years.

This ice when it melts is being added to the total overall volume of ocean.

When you get off your ass and do this experiment as stated, you'll find that not only does it overflow but it leaves a pretty darn good mess all over the table.

added after seeing post #256: no matter how small scale links u send.

You're still not smarter than a fifth grader.




Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/26/2016 1:12:05 AM)

Once again a liberal enviro fascist resorts to lying resorts to lying.

Here's what you actually said - post 187:
Phydeaux, of course you ignore things. I bet you don't use that "nothing happens" one-liner you used in another thread anymore do you? You ignore the simple melting of ice in a full glass will overflow it.

Damn, facts are inconvenient, eh. Nothing about adding ice to a full glass. just melting of ice IN a full glass will overflow it.
You've said it multiple times, in multiple threads. And its still not true. Admit you were wrong; that maybe you learned something and move on.




itsSIRtou -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/26/2016 1:27:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Once again a liberal enviro fascist resorts to lying resorts to lying.



Awwwww...... that was your reaction last time getting spanked too. Tell me Spanky exactly what am I lying about?

If anyone wants to see the whole post see in thread :

RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?

posts # 92, 96. 97


once again your premise put in its proper context has been put in its proper place..... You are still not smarter than a fifth grader.




Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/26/2016 1:49:57 AM)

Yes, lets quote post 92, the first post, shall we?


You said:

quote:


quote:


This comes from a Pulitzer prize-winning, nonprofit nonpartisan news organization. The glacier that should of hit you in the head, is that even in your own reports, mentions "The north pole has a small warming trend,"

Since from my understanding that polar ice cap melting is where the vast majority of water that is making the world's ocean levels rise comes from.



I said:
quote:



So right here is where your ass will start smarting.

Q: What happens to the water level in your drink, when the ice cubes melt.
A: Not a DAMN thing.

Q: So what happens to sea levels when the Artic or antartic Sea ice melts?
A: Not a damn thing.


Now, global levels might rise if greenland or the antartic land ice were to melt. And of course, they are, all the time. But the funny thing is there's this little
organization called NASA. You might have heard of it.

It says that even taking into account the melt off, Greenland and Antartica are gaining ice - to the tune of 86 billion tonnes per year.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2361/

Oops. Guess what that does to sea levels. Yep!




Do you see anything like -
quote:


this is the experiment as originally given to you.

You keep trying to make it about a small scale of ice to a glass/ocean when the truth the matter is that the total amount of ice going into the ocean is ice thats been stored for hundreds if not thousands of years.

This ice when it melts is being added to the total overall volume of ocean.


Nope. That is just another lie. You tried to move the goal posts, but you have doubled down on this stupidity about ice melting in a glass of water 3-4 times. Most humorously that displacement message. Shall we quote it? Truly a brilliant exposition of utter nonsense.


You said - the north pole had a warming trend.
The north pole has no land mass. It is all sea ice. You said it was your understanding that the polar ice cap (north pole) melting is where the vast majority of water that is making the worlds ocean levels rise comes from.

I corrected you and said no. Melting sea ice doesn't change sea levels one iota. It was only ice melting from greenland or Antartica that would do so.




Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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