OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Twizzle]

Yeah, so hard to check those things out...

hang on mate, you are the one making the allegations, its not up to others to check for sources

 

[Gary Gutful]

The biggest joke in that is that the Australian public and Businesses are leading the way,in spite of the complete lack of coherent energy policy from the government,

Its always the way. Our Govt should man up and put some policy settings in place that end the uncertainty. Its what both industry and the public want.

 

[Bandwagon]

So if something drops from pH 8.2 to pH 8.1 it becomes 30% more what? What is the word that 'leftoids' have supposedly hijacked? I'm slightly right of centre in my politics so I'd like to know what word it is that the 'leftoids' denied me my right to use.

The claim that a solution that is alkaline that becomes less alkaline does not become more acidic is a ridiculous interpretation of how PH is measured, and what it actually means. This is really basic chemistry stuff. It ignores that which the PH scale is actually measuring ( the concentration of hydrogen Ions in a solution ) 7 is nothing more than the point in the at which equilibrium is reached between acidity and alkalinity.

A simple demonstration of this is say if one had an alkaline solution with a PH of 10, and added a small amount of an acid solution with say a PH of 3, and that was enough to change the PH of your alkaline solution to 9, HJ would tell us that despite have added acid to our solution, it has not become more acidic, and arguing against that would make one a leftoid hijacking language.

If anyone is hijacking language here it's HJ,

 

[Gary Gutful]

The claim that a solution that is alkaline that becomes less alkaline does not become more acidic is a ridiculous interpretation of how PH is measured, and what it actually means. This is really basic chemistry stuff. It ignores that which the PH scale is actually measuring ( the concentration of hydrogen Ions in a solution ) 7 is nothing more than the point in the at which equilibrium is reached between acidity and alkalinity.

A simple demonstration of this is say if one had an alkaline solution with a PH of 10, and added a small amount of an acid solution with say a PH of 3, and that was enough to change the PH of your alkaline solution to 9, HJ would tell us that despite have added acid to our solution, it has not become more acidic, and arguing against that would make one a leftoid hijacking language.

If anyone is hijacking language here it's HJ,

That is the final word on this topic. #TruthBombs

 

[Bandwagon]

hang on mate, you are the one making the allegations, its not up to others to check for sources

Yet we have...........

Please link to the research that suggests it, then.

I eagerly await your excuse to avoid posting anything...

Apparently it's fine to post a bombardment of bullshit unsupported claim after unsupported claim, however any argument to the contrary requires a link to the actual research, go figure.........................

 

[Gronk]

Ray Donovan’s dad. The left. God. The crimes thing ? Just ignore it.

 

[Gronk]

The claim that a solution that is alkaline that becomes less alkaline does not become more acidic is a ridiculous interpretation of how PH is measured, and what it actually means. This is really basic chemistry stuff. It ignores that which the PH scale is actually measuring ( the concentration of hydrogen Ions in a solution ) 7 is nothing more than the point in the at which equilibrium is reached between acidity and alkalinity.

A simple demonstration of this is say if one had an alkaline solution with a PH of 10, and added a small amount of an acid solution with say a PH of 3, and that was enough to change the PH of your alkaline solution to 9, HJ would tell us that despite have added acid to our solution, it has not become more acidic, and arguing against that would make one a leftoid hijacking language.

If anyone is hijacking language here it's HJ,

Yes, and in the context of the oceans becoming more acidic from my post above ^^^^ the impact of acidification is deoxygenation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/climate/climate-change-oceans-united-nations.html

 

[Gary Gutful]

Yet we have...........



Apparently it's fine to post a bombardment of bullshit unsupported claim after unsupported claim, however any argument to the contrary requires a link to the actual research, go figure.........................

And then when you go to the trouble of providing research he shit bags the source with a bullshit blanket statement and doesn't even give you the courtesy of exploring the information that you have provided.

He just wants to drop a big unsupported shit on the forum and then smugly f**k off thinking that he is smarter than everyone else. He's not interested in honest and meaningful engagement.

 

[strider]

Ray Donovan’s dad. The left. God. The crimes thing ? Just ignore it.

I wanna know what Bunchy thinks

 

[Bandwagon]

And then when you go to the trouble of providing research he shit bags the source with a bullshit blanket statement and doesn't even give you the courtesy of exploring the information that you have provided.

He just wants to drop a big unsupported shit on the forum and then smugly f**k off thinking that he is smarter than everyone else. He's not interested in honest and meaningful engagement.

It's a rather common theme, just dump a whole heap of information, proclaim it all to be the truth, create several avenues of argument, and demand it be disproved in order for any response to have any meaning.

Then as you say, smugly f**k off claiming some version of superior intellect, because no merkin can really be arsed going to the effort of arguing the same same thing over and over again whilst engaging in what appears to be an ideological standpoint at any rate.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

If the increase in temperature also increases resource scarcity then it will lead to increased conflict and therefore more deaths.

Why would increased temperatures lead to resource scarcity? What resources in particular are you talking about?

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

So if something drops from pH 8.2 to pH 8.1 it becomes 30% more what? What is the word that 'leftoids' have supposedly hijacked? I'm slightly right of centre in my politics so I'd like to know what word it is that the 'leftoids' denied me my right to use.

It doesn't become more. It becomes less - less alkaline.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

hang on mate, you are the one making the allegations, its not up to others to check for sources

No, I'm not. The allegation is that carbon dioxide has increased the global temperature. I've simply countered that allegations by showing that the "data" is either fraudulent (NASA) or a lie through omission (burn acreage, for example).

 

[Gary Gutful]

It doesn't become more. It becomes less - less alkaline.

So you can add more acid to something but it doesnt become more acidic? That sounds fanciful.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Why would increased temperatures lead to resource scarcity? What resources in particular are you talking about?

Fresh water
Land
Food

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

And then when you go to the trouble of providing research he shit bags the source with a bullshit blanket statement and doesn't even give you the courtesy of exploring the information that you have provided.

He just wants to drop a big unsupported shit on the forum and then smugly f**k off thinking that he is smarter than everyone else. He's not interested in honest and meaningful engagement.

I appreciated the effort. Truly. The cut-and-paste job was, honestly, more effort than anyone else has put in.

I did, however, provide something in response showing why the cut-and-paste is, to be blunt, crap. Apart from the underlying narrative that, essentially, "everything except 1970-2000 was natural but that period we want to scream about was definitely anthropogenic!!!", the data is actually fraudulent.

I put up a nice little video that runs through how the data is concocted. I've also previously posted a nice little graph from NOAA showing how they "adjust" their data to suit the narrative, too. And a couple of graphs to illustrate the lies of omission used to hype of perfectly natural events like wildfires. And I mentioned the recent case involving the granddaddy of climate change not being willing to produce any evidence, leading to him having to pay the opposition $2.6m, as well as a video with the guy who exposed the hockeystick as a fraud.

Once again, mate - at least you put in some effort. It's more than anyone else has. Unfortunately, it's obvious that it was just a quick, 5-minute cut and paste job.

 

[Gronk]

I appreciated the effort. Truly. The cut-and-paste job was, honestly, more effort than anyone else has put in.

I did, however, provide something in response showing why the cut-and-paste is, to be blunt, crap. Apart from the underlying narrative that, essentially, "everything except 1970-2000 was natural but that period we want to scream about was definitely anthropogenic!!!", the data is actually fraudulent.

I put up a nice little video that runs through how the data is concocted. I've also previously posted a nice little graph from NOAA showing how they "adjust" their data to suit the narrative, too. And a couple of graphs to illustrate the lies of omission used to hype of perfectly natural events like wildfires. And I mentioned the recent case involving the granddaddy of climate change not being willing to produce any evidence, leading to him having to pay the opposition $2.6m, as well as a video with the guy who exposed the hockeystick as a fraud.

Once again, mate - at least you put in some effort. It's more than anyone else has. Unfortunately, it's obvious that it was just a quick, 5-minute cut and paste job.

Belittling by suggesting that quoted sources is merely a cut n paste job is a vein attempt to reposition yourself as the one with superior intellect.

Your condescending attitude is a mask for your self doubt.

Just post a rebuttal of everything that @Gary Gutful put considerable effort in compiling FFS.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I appreciated the effort. Truly. The cut-and-paste job was, honestly, more effort than anyone else has put in.

I did, however, provide something in response showing why the cut-and-paste is, to be blunt, crap. Apart from the underlying narrative that, essentially, "everything except 1970-2000 was natural but that period we want to scream about was definitely anthropogenic!!!", the data is actually fraudulent.

I put up a nice little video that runs through how the data is concocted. I've also previously posted a nice little graph from NOAA showing how they "adjust" their data to suit the narrative, too. And a couple of graphs to illustrate the lies of omission used to hype of perfectly natural events like wildfires. And I mentioned the recent case involving the granddaddy of climate change not being willing to produce any evidence, leading to him having to pay the opposition $2.6m, as well as a video with the guy who exposed the hockeystick as a fraud.

Once again, mate - at least you put in some effort. It's more than anyone else has. Unfortunately, it's obvious that it was just a quick, 5-minute cut and paste job.

As was yours mate. You are just cut and pasting your own selective info that validates your position.

There have been countless articles that I read that counters the 'hockey stick is broken' position that you've put forward. It's not nearly as definitive as you think.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Fresh water
Land
Food

Well, Pou made the post but I'll take a quick run at your three.

Fresh water? Droughts are reducing in occurrence and severity and precipitation is increasing:

Land - not sure what you mean? Usable land? Land we can live in? As above, droughts are reducing. Land is becoming more arable. So, am I right to lump this in with food?

LAI (Leaf Area Index) is increasing, and significantly less people are dying from famine:





But, like I said, Pou made the post so I'll wait and see what he meant.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Belittling by suggesting that quoted sources is merely a cut n paste job is a vein attempt to reposition yourself as the one with superior intellect.

Your condescending attitude is a mask for your self doubt.

Just post a rebuttal of everything that @Gary Gutful put considerable effort in compiling FFS.

That would be too hard. He doesn't have it in him.