GLOBAL WARMING -- Everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else!!!!!!

[IBDaMann]

All that talk and not one single mathematical discussion. Funny. Numbers are involved. Try again, Cletus.

You still haven't supported your affirmative claim. I have no such claim to support. Shall we just close out your Global Warming sermon with a an overall rejection with extreme prejudice?

I think we shall.

 

[IBDaMann]

You should learn language changes.

This hasn't changed yet. The same lack of English proficiency that placed you in the bottom 20th percentile on the SAT has made you look foolish yet again right here. Seize the opportunity to learn what you did not in your younger days.

It is now perfectly acceptable to use they/them in a singular aspect.

Nope. "They/them" is entirely plural. I really shouldn't have to be teaching you this; you should have already learned this years ago.

"The Associated Press Stylebook, as of 2017, recommends:

AP? Dismissed.

 

[AProudLefty]

This hasn't changed yet. The same lack of English proficiency that placed you in the bottom 20th percentile on the SAT has made you look foolish yet again right here. Seize the opportunity to learn what you did not in your younger days.


Nope. "They/them" is entirely plural. I really shouldn't have to be teaching you this; you should have already learned this years ago.


AP? Dismissed.

You should feel ashamed.

 

[gfm7175]

You claimed Stefan-Boltzmann could be used to debunk anthropogenic global climate change. You have yet to follow through.

Typical. I've seen losers like you all over the place.

So you CAN'T explain how everywhere can possibly be warming twice as fast as everywhere else?

Typical. I've seen losers like you all over the place.

 

[AProudLefty]

So you CAN'T explain how everywhere can possibly be warming twice as fast as everywhere else?

Your point has already been taken. You're beating a dead horse.

 

[ZenMode]

Wow, all the world's "human-released-CO2" can be accurately measured?!

YOu don't need to worry your tiny little head about it. It probably requires some understanding of math and statistics and those aren't your areas as we saw with your failure to use the STefan-Boltzmann equation to disprove global warming.

Yo don't need an understanding of ay

Well, you aren't saying it now that I pointed out how stupid it was for you to have said it.


There is no such thing as incorrectly applying science that always applies. You have to apply it, always ... and there is no incorrect way to apply it because science because it is science and there is only one way to apply it, and that is by applying it. Science isn't subjective and isn't some sort of technique.

Remind me again why you are involved in this discussion?

"There is no such thing as incorrectly applying science that always applies. "

So, I could use the referenced radiance equation to calculate how long it would take two trains to meet on a train track if one left New York traveling west at 58 mph and the other train left San Diego traveling east at 77 mph?

I'm quite sure someone, with enough information, could calculate how much air is released from a balloon, and how quickly it's released, if you opened the valve. If you calculated that correctly, that doesn't mean you'd be correct if you tried to use the released air equation to determine the distance from Mars to Earth.

 

[IBDaMann]

Your point has already been taken. You're beating a dead horse.

If only you spoke for countless others besides yourself.

 

[Daylight63]

So you CAN'T explain how everywhere can possibly be warming twice as fast as everywhere else?

It is highly doubtful that anyone has said anything like that. But thanks for proving ONCE AGAIN you can't follow through with your Stefan-Boltzmann claims.

Typical. I've seen losers like you all over the place.

I've actually done calculations with S-B. Unlike you I can work a math problem. LOL

 

[Daylight63]

This hasn't changed yet.

The APA begs to Differ. But I'm sure YOU are the authority. LOL. Rando alert!

Nope. "They/them" is entirely plural. I really shouldn't have to be teaching you this; you should have already learned this years ago.

Good luck, grampa! Keep shoutin' at those kids to keep their soccer balls off your lawn.

You lose to history. Good job being a dinosaur.

AP? Dismissed.

LOL. YOU, dismissed

 

[ZenMode]

If only you spoke for countless others besides yourself.

Since you're ignoring my last post, for reasons that are obvious, who/what do you speak for with your opinion?

 

[ZenMode]

I just did some more interesting Google searches:

1) list of countries warming below global average This link, in the very convenient "AI overview" section at the top, informs me that Sweden is one of the countries that is warming below the global average. It tells me that this is due to their strict adherence to the required rituals of the Global Warming faith.

2) Sweden warming twice as fast as This link, in the very convenient "AI overview" section at the top, informs me that Sweden is NOT warming below the global average, but is rather actually warming twice as fast as the global average. Sooooooo which "AI overview" is the correct one? ... or maybe they're BOTH wrong??

Then there's THIS little nugget...

3) list of countries warming below the global average This link uses the exact same wording as link #1, except I added in the word "the" between the words 'below' and 'global'. Here, within the very convenient "AI overview" section, I am informed that it is "difficult" to provide a definitive list of countries warming below the global average.

I wonder if that is because there supposedly AREN'T any countries that are warming below the global average... because every country is supposedly warming TWICE AS FAST AS the global average... because that's the nonsensical kind of BS that the Global Warming faith loves to preach in order to fear monger the gullible masses...

Again... if you had A N Y intellectual curiosity, you could have found this on your own:

Factors influencing regional warming rates:

• Latitude:
  Higher latitudes (closer to the poles) experience greater temperature fluctuations and warming rates due to the angle of sunlight and other factors.
  
  
• Altitude:
  Higher altitudes tend to be cooler than lower altitudes, and the rate of warming may be lower in mountainous regions.
  
  
• Ocean proximity:
  Ocean currents and the influence of the ocean can moderate temperature changes in coastal regions, leading to slower warming rates compared to land areas further inland.
  
  
• Greenhouse gas emissions:
  Countries with higher greenhouse gas emissions will tend to experience more warming than those with lower emissions.
  

Specific examples:

• European land:
  European land temperatures have increased faster than the global average, indicating a higher rate of warming in Europe.
  
  
• Land areas:
  Land areas generally warm faster than oceans, and some land areas may experience warming rates below the average due to factors like altitude or ocean proximity.
  
  
• Polar regions:
  Polar regions experience significantly higher rates of warming than the global average.

 

[gfm7175]

It is highly doubtful that anyone has said anything like that.

You're SERIOUSLY going to play the "AProudLefty" game with this one??

"but..... but....... but they didn't LITERALLY say the literal exact precise words: everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else, so NEENER NEENER BOO BOO!!!!"

Do you seriously believe that a Global Warming preacher is going to come right out and say the exact words "everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else"?? Of COURSE not, because that would be an incredibly STUPID thing to say, and even the most basic of minds could realize that such a claim is complete and utter BULLSHIT. Thus, the Global Warming preacher must obfuscate instead, which is where all of the meaningless buzzwords come in handy ("climate crisis", "pollution", "tipping point", "forcing(s)", "greenhouse gas", "carbon footprint", etc etc).

Instead of being direct and saying "everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else", the global warming preacher is going to pander to his specific audience and claim "[the location that you live in] is warming twice as fast as the global average". If he's in the USA, he's going to tell US citizens that "the USA is warming twice as fast as the global average". If he's in Canada, then he simply replaces the word "USA" with "Canada", and etc etc. Ergo, by the time he's done preaching to the world, he's effectively claimed that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else.

Why do these sorts of "save the planet" movements always seem to involve a certain select group of insiders getting rich off of it while the rest of us poor saps end up with our pocketbooks fleeced, bent over furniture, and forced to use shitty products instead of good products that actually work.

But thanks for proving ONCE AGAIN you can't follow through with your Stefan-Boltzmann claims.

I've actually done calculations with S-B. Unlike you I can work a math problem. LOL

 

[IBDaMann]

The APA begs to Differ.

Oh, that's right, the American Poultry Association purchased the rights to the English language and they made some changes. One of those changes was the elimination of any need to spell out your initialisms the first time they are used in a document.

Dismissed.

 

[IBDaMann]

Do you seriously believe that a Global Warming preacher is going to come right out and say the exact words "everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else"?? Of COURSE not, because that would be an incredibly STUPID thing to say, and even the most basic of minds could realize that such a claim is complete and utter BULLSHIT.

Yes. The reason no warmizombie would ever come right out and specify that Global Warming doctrine holds that everywhere is warming at double the rate of everywhere else is that the warmizombie mission is to conceal the religion's stupidity, not to broadcast it.

 

[ZenMode]

There is no such thing as incorrectly applying science that always applies. You have to apply it, always ... and there is no incorrect way to apply it because science because it is science and there is only one way to apply it, and that is by applying it. Science isn't subjective and isn't some sort of technique.

Remind me again why you are involved in this discussion?/QUOTE]

"There is no such thing as incorrectly applying science that always applies. "

So, I could use the referenced radiance equation to calculate how long it would take two trains to meet on a train track if one left New York traveling west at 58 mph and the other train left San Diego traveling east at 77 mph?

I'm quite sure someone, with enough information, could calculate how much air is released from a balloon, and how quickly it's released, if you opened the valve. If you calculated that correctly, that doesn't mean you'd be correct if you tried to use the released air equation to determine the distance from Mars to Earth.

So, do you see how it's possible to incorrectly apply science?

And, have you come up with an answer to these questions regarding Trusting the Science.

Right. In general do I trust my doctor, or a doctor, or do I trust "the science" and leave a doctor out of it?

Right, so how do I apply your theory of "trust the science" in real life?

 

[IBDaMann]

@ZenMode - fix your post and repost it. If I hit reply, nothing gets quoted.

 

[Daylight63]

You're SERIOUSLY going to play the "AProudLefty" game with this one??

"but..... but....... but they didn't LITERALLY say the literal exact precise words: everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else,

Why do I think your points are meaningless? Because you were too much of a pussy to even defend your claims about Stefan-Boltzmann but ran away like a little worm.



The only reason anyone responds to your posts is so you'll say something even MORE stupid or show yourself to be a bigger puss than you already are.

You're hilarious!

 

[ZenMode]

There is no such thing as incorrectly applying science that always applies. You have to apply it, always ... and there is no incorrect way to apply it because science because it is science and there is only one way to apply it, and that is by applying it. Science isn't subjective and isn't some sort of technique.

Remind me again why you are involved in this discussion?

"There is no such thing as incorrectly applying science that always applies. "

So, I could use the referenced radiance equation to calculate how long it would take two trains to meet on a train track if one left New York traveling west at 58 mph and the other train left San Diego traveling east at 77 mph?

I'm quite sure someone, with enough information, could calculate how much air is released from a balloon, and how quickly it's released, if you opened the valve. If you calculated that correctly, that doesn't mean you'd be correct if you tried to use the released air equation to determine the distance from Mars to Earth.

So, do you see how it's possible to incorrectly apply science?

And, have you come up with an answer to these questions regarding Trusting the Science.

Right. In general do I trust my doctor, or a doctor, or do I trust "the science" and leave a doctor out of it?

Right, so how do I apply your theory of "trust the science" in real life?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not going to say that everything within this video is perfectly accurate, but the overarching point is a rather interesting one about the silliness that the Church of Global Warming wants people to believe. Apparently everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else... Here is a particular Google search showing this... Just scroll down the first page and you'll see what I mean...
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTCEJvXLmxMIvW2AXzggykKVUeZRQ:1571259285224&source=hp&ei=lYOnXeT-CqLR9AO5nIvYDg&q=china+warming+twice+as+fast&oq=CHINA+WARMING+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l2j0i22i30l2j0i22i10i30.1259.2806..4018...0.0..0.123.1296.12j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0i10.5pGCYPodCpE

Any Church members care to address this?


I assume this falls under "Settled Science", as defined by Global Warming Mythology?



http://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/2/global-warming-mythology-reference-manual

The wokesters censored the video.

 

[gfm7175]

Why do I think your points are meaningless? Because you were too much of a pussy to even defend your claims about Stefan-Boltzmann but ran away like a little worm.



The only reason anyone responds to your posts is so you'll say something even MORE stupid or show yourself to be a bigger puss than you already are.

You're hilarious!