Global warming-or is it?

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #75,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from haxar on March 24th, 07:38 PM
Corporations, or strawmen, exchange commercial paper, such as promissory notes, by banking law.

The "Federal Reserve" creatures-from-Jekyll-island had a big stake in the Fed Act.

Rothschilds' wanted control over a Nation's lawful money supply, so that they could lien everything for their benefit (a.k.a. taxation), via Fed Act.

The taxman has jurisdiction because a lien exists. The role of the I.R.S. is obvious with a "Notice of Lien," since they're only interested in liened private credit from the Fed that you hold as unredeemed notes. Fortunately, they cannot dispute lawful money, or they'd spill the beans.

The redemption clause by restricted endorsement of all items for deposit is the only way out of the legal matrix and into the lawful private common law side.

Legislation is how they installed this current banking system, and for every other bankrupted country. Libya recently went bankrupt by this Western influence.

Of course it's not taught in school...
Well, that's a good demonstration of just how delusional the whole taxation and monetary system is, eh?

Theft is theft, whether it is done by a thug on the street, by a mob of people with pitchforks and torches, or by a mob of politicians with a stack of verbiage-on-paper. Therefore, objectively, taxation is theft.

Let the government charge for services it provides to earn its money (and put control of the money supply back in the hands of Congress, where it rightfully belongs, rather than in the hands of a secretive, largely unaccountable and privately-owned business), and most of the problems go away. The government should have no lien against the sweat and toil of the people, given that the government provides precious little in the way of value for the money taken by force of government (up to and including at the barrel of a gun, making it de facto theft).

Do away with the welfare system and return it to being the local society's (usually the church's, but not necessarily restricted to that) responsibility to take care of their own and we not only get rid of a massive waste and a magnet for every moocher in the world, but we have better social cohesiveness, less loneliness, more people with an incentive to work, less need to patrol the border for illegals, fewer mental issues and fewer people acting out violently.

Of course, the democrats, as part of their ideology, reject religion, so they must replace the social fabric of a church with the faux-fabric of 'government as god'. And from this, they raise up 'priests' who must not be questioned under penalty of personal and professional destruction ala witch trials... hence we get such debacles as CAGW, a wholly money-driven and political-power-driven attempt at instituting global governance of the same variety as the big-government the liberals (socialists all) want for our Federal government, only much larger, much more menacing and much more able (and likely) to infringe upon personal rights and freedoms. In order to do this, though, they must disarm the populace, hence the liberal's constant attack against the 2nd Amendment.

How anyone not in on the scam can be induced to go along with it is beyond me... there truly are "useful idiots" in the world.

Have you read any of Rand's work?
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #76,  »Last edited by Cycle
This sums up everything as regards libtards and their being notoriously bad at math:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3Yz3PiXZw

Ironically, that film was made by liberals... they're so tone-deaf they don't even realize that it's them doing this sort of stuff.

How do I know it was made by liberals? Well, they've admitted it, but the most glaring proof is that they messed up their own "New Math"!

At the end, the principle is tallying up how much the school owes the teacher, and says, "That's $2,000 for last pay period, and $2,000 for this one. That makes $4,000."

And the teacher replied, "Wrong. It's $22,000."

If they're adding 2+2=22, then 2000+2000 = 20,002,000

Twenty million and two thousand dollars.

Yet again, we see that Rule #1 to describe liberals holds true:
1) They're notoriously bad at math.

Even their own "New Math". :rofl:

I guarantee, if they keep it up, we'll be hearing about "math safe spaces" for schools. :laughing:

haxar

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #77,  »
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 08:00 PM
Have you read any of Rand's work?
Admiralty or maritime law jurisdiction is based in legal fiction.

Common law jurisdiction is about as non-fiction and simple as it can get: no property trespass without consent

Or, for a case docked in a court: legal counsel admits the admiralty/maritime jurisdiction for you, when you'll have to represent yourself to claim your property (incl. children) back (Karl Lentz). Is the common law competent enough to give your property back?

Sounds as if the 4th and 5th "Bill of Rights" constitutional amendments are common law trespass guarantees.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJa4lQsUDpA
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #78,  »
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 08:00 PM
The government should have no lien against the sweat and toil of the people, given that the government provides precious little in the way of value for the money taken by force of government (up to and including at the barrel of a gun, making it de facto theft).
The "United States" is a separate corporation from the "Federal Reserve" corporation.

It was simply the consent of Congress & President C.E.O., in common law, to implement the Fed Act, in 1913.

The act is now reverse-engineered by this research.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #79,  »Last edited by Cycle
Math quiz

All you need is:
y = 1/x
x2 + y2 = 10
y = |-2x|
x = -3|sin y|

{EDIT}
Hint: https://www.desmos.com/calculator





 :-D
{/EDIT}
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #80,  »
Math quiz

9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1 = ?

haxar

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #81,  »Last edited
I'm missing algebraic procedures in order to solve these problems.

If I just had the procedure, then these problems would've been solved by now.

This is what school does to you: learning programs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_programming

+ - × ÷ is all I need to make a good C/PHP/bash program, or procedure.

Matt Watts

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #82,  »Last edited
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 10:13 PM
Math quiz

All you need is:
y = 1/x
x2 + y2 = 10
y = |-2x|
x = -3|sin y|
Brilliant Cycle.  What else ya got?   Pink unicorn pixie dust farts?   

 :rofl2:

Sometimes I crack myself up.   :-D

Zweistein


Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #84,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 03:02 AM
Brilliant Cycle.  What else ya got?   Pink unicorn pixie dust farts?   

 :rofl2:

Sometimes I crack myself up.   :-D

What cracks me up is that you sought an incorrect formalism for the solution, leading to an incorrect result. In other words, you did it wrong. :D

Matt Watts

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #85,  »
Quote from Cycle on March 25th, 08:34 AM
What cracks me up is that you sought an incorrect formalism for the solution. In other words, you did it wrong. :D
No, not your way, which was my point.  Perspective.  Even something formal like mathematical equations or logic can have perspective, cryptography is a good example.  I can hide a very specific meaning in something that would otherwise be perceived as gibberish.  I could do this with symbols or geometry too.  I could write a 500 page dissertation and the only hidden meaning I really wish to convey is that "God loves you."

So we are discussing global warming.  Does anyone know the reason the universe exists?  What its purpose is?  What our role is in being here on earth?  Where this is all going?

If you know the answers to these questions, all I can say is you are really hooked up.  You must have the inside scoop.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #86,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 12:06 PM
No, not your way,
You  mean the correct way? :D
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 12:06 PM
which was my point.  Perspective.
It's math, there's only one right answer. All else are incorrect formalisms leading to incorrect results. Don't you know that mathematics is unfalsifiable?
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 12:06 PM
Even something formal like mathematical equations or logic can have perspective
No, it can't. I refer you to that video above, and to the solution to the first math quiz (included in the relevant post).
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 12:06 PM
, cryptography is a good example.  I can hide a very specific meaning in something that would otherwise be perceived as gibberish.
But if you're using cryptography, there is only one solution which returns a correct result (that's kind of the point of cryptography, after all)... as you said, the rest result in gibberish (just as incorrect thinking leads to gibberish beliefs). Thanks for corroborating what I've said. :D
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 12:06 PM
I could write a 500 page dissertation and the only hidden meaning I really wish to convey is that "God loves you."
Ironic, given that I did something similar with 4 equations in the first math quiz. Thanks again for proving me right. I suspect you're suspecting that I'm thinking two or three steps ahead of everyone else.. or that I'm psychic. {cue spooky music} :D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d1yDCWicf0

PeakPositive


chuff1

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #88,  »
Cycle, Never assume your the smartest person in the room...  There is no logical reason to continue to impress upon us that you have the solution to our problems and all others are wrong and we should bow down and accept you as "The truth".   That being said... We all chose to be here.  So let us not forget why we are here and lets start giving each other a leg up not one that is pulling them down.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #89,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from chuff1 on March 25th, 06:23 PM
Cycle, Never assume your the smartest person in the room...  There is no logical reason to continue to impress upon us that you have the solution to our problems and all others are wrong and we should bow down and accept you as "The truth".   That being said... We all chose to be here.  So let us not forget why we are here and lets start giving each other a leg up not one that is pulling them down.
I never made any such assumption... but when I see others exhibiting delusional ideation such as believing that whatever they wish hard enough for, "no matter how ridiculous the idea is" (not my words) on a forum which is supposed to be pursuing a scientific means of achieving affordable, safe, abundant energy... would you rather I allow this forum to be subsumed by metaphysical thinking?

You know, like Energetic Forum was a few years back? It got so bad they had Ken Wheeler "proving" that magnets gave off heat (because he didn't understand that the magnet was reflecting IR from the nightvision IR LED on the camera and from his own body), and demonstrating his "motionless generator" (which was actually lighting the LED because he was holding it, and his hand was minutely wavering, cutting lines of flux from an enormously powerful magnet)... both of which were debunked eventually... but only eventually, and after much back and forth between those who knew better and Wheeler, who engaged in multiple foot-stomping invective-riddled profanity-laced tirades in lieu of providing actual proof of his ridiculous assertions.

We're better than that. If it were as simple as saying "You're being idiotic. Wake up.", then I'd do that, but it appears to require actually proving that their thinking is skewed, at a tangent to reality... and even then there are quite a few who won't reorient their thinking to reality. But at least they keep most of their unscientific prattle to themselves after a fact-based drubbing. :D
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #90,  »Last edited by Cycle
Getting back on topic... did anyone remember to participate in Earth Hour?

Now even the CAGW virtue signalling is a failure:

Alberta, Canada:

Further, electricity draw this year was higher than in previous years... because global temperature is lower.

All of California ('Earth Hour' represented a miniscule dip in the already-declining trend of power usage for the day, with less than 1/2 the drop in power draw than the prior day's same time period... 'Earth Hour' didn't even rise above the statistical noise):

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/25/in-california-earthhour-failed-to-register-a-blip-in-electricity-reduction/
If the result is negligible in far-left California, then it's a dying exercise in fake eco-piety, nothing more than an attempt at mind-herding the sheeple to the shearing stations.

https://twitter.com/ecobusinesscom/status/844748852208951298
73% of people believe 'Earth Hour' is ineffective... that'd be because it sends the message that sitting in the dark, without electricity, is somehow a good thing... tell that to people in the third-world, who have to suffer through blackouts all the time.

You'll note that includes Australia now, due to the liberals pushing so much wind and solar power that they've destabilized Australia's electric grid, causing blackouts, skyrocketing electric rates and necessitating a whole fleet of mobile diesel generators to keep the lights on... not to mention that boondoggle of the Musk Battery, which can supply less than 1% of the grid's needs for only an hour, at a cost to the taxpayers of $50,000,000 Aus... and Tesla makes money going forward by banking energy when electric rates are low, then doling it back out when electric rates are high, raising the average price of electricity for everyone.

Matt Watts

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #91,  »Last edited
Quote from Cycle on March 25th, 03:45 PM
But if you're using cryptography, there is only one solution which returns a correct result (that's kind of the point of cryptography, after all)... as you said, the rest result in gibberish (just as incorrect thinking leads to gibberish beliefs). Thanks for corroborating what I've said. :D
Funny you should mention that.  I once wrote an algorithm for group password management that would return multiple correct answers.  I was told explicitly it was not possible, but it was and I did it.
Quote from Cycle on March 25th, 03:45 PM
Ironic, given that I did something similar with 4 equations in the first math quiz. Thanks again for proving me right. I suspect you're suspecting that I'm thinking two or three steps ahead of everyone else.. or that I'm psychic. {cue spooky music} :D
In school I majored in AI.  Yes my heuristics were simple, but I could look-ahead orders of magnitude beyond my competition.  Even still, I could not look-ahead infinite levels.  If I could, then those questions I asked above, I would already know the answer to.

When I was a kid, my ol' man would whip my ass at chess, day after day.  Then one day, everything changed.  It was me cleaning his clock.  He would always say, "Eagles listen not to the chirping of sparrows."

I said that because "I get it" Cycle.  This isn't my first rodeo.  Most of us here seek to know the truth.  To me, yeah, it would be nice to know the truth, but a bigger question I have is, why do I need to know the truth?  Why should I even care?

So we debate global warming and I ask myself, "What difference does it make?"  People get all bent out of shape when they're cornered and it starts to become obvious they are wrong.  So the flip what?  Just be wrong.  Or right.  Or stupid.  Or brilliant.  Instead, go do something that makes you smile.  Go play fetch with the dog.  What I'm certain of is we were not put here for petty foolishness.  I want to build a "fuel-less" electrical generator; not because we need it, not because it will change the world, not because I have something to prove.  I want to do this because I think it's possible and I think I can do it.  If my solution looks to you like pink unicorn pixie dust farts, fine.  Have a good laugh, then go build your own.  It's never been my job to convince anyone of anything.  I'm here trying to learn, explore and put some pieces together in whatever form they happen to present themselves.  And that will have to be good enough.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #92,  »Last edited by Cycle
Here's something that's in my wheelhouse:
https://www.iceagenow.info/submarines-in-trouble-in-the-arctic-due-to-ice/

Back when I was stationed aboard a USS Los Angeles (SSN-688) class submarine, we had no problem punching through the Arctic ice.

You'll note that while NOAA were reporting that the ice in that area was only 16" thick, that class of submarine is designed to punch through 6 feet of ice. I've seen them punch through 8 feet. So either they aren't building submarines like they used to (for the same class of submarines), or NOAA has been caught in yet another lie... this time a lie that's damaged two very expensive pieces of equipment (two submarines), put the lives of hundreds of men at risk and caused operational problems for the submarine service which results in a lowering of national security.

Strange that these sort of empirical observations all show exactly the opposite of what the CAGW clowns are claiming, eh?

It's time to disband the NOAA, or at the very least drain the swamp of the libtards. Their politicization of the climate is now merging into the realm of causing real danger.
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #93,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 10:49 PM
Funny you should mention that.  I once wrote an algorithm for group password management that would return multiple correct answers.  I was told explicitly it was not possible, but it was and I did it.

In school I majored in AI.  Yes my heuristics were simple, but I could look-ahead orders of magnitude beyond my competition.  Even still, I could not look-ahead infinite levels.  If I could, then those questions I asked above, I would already know the answer to.

When I was a kid, my ol' man would whip my ass at chess, day after day.  Then one day, everything changed.  It was me cleaning his clock.  He would always say, "Eagles listen not to the chirping of sparrows."

I said that because "I get it" Cycle.  This isn't my first rodeo.  Most of us here seek to know the truth.  To me, yeah, it would be nice to know the truth, but a bigger question I have is, why do I need to know the truth?  Why should I even care?

So we debate global warming and I ask myself, "What difference does it make?"  People get all bent out of shape when they're cornered and it starts to become obvious they are wrong.  So the flip what?  Just be wrong.  Or right.  Or stupid.  Or brilliant.  Instead, go do something that makes you smile.  Go play fetch with the dog.  What I'm certain of is we were not put here for petty foolishness.  I want to build a "fuel-less" electrical generator; not because we need it, not because it will change the world, not because I have something to prove.  I want to do this because I think it's possible and I think I can do it.  If my solution looks to you like pink unicorn pixie dust farts, fine.  Have a good laugh, then go build your own.  It's never been my job to convince anyone of anything.  I'm here trying to learn, explore and put some pieces together in whatever form they happen to present themselves.  And that will have to be good enough.
Agreed with one caveat... no one has ever made a working machine to extract energy from the quantum vacuum (and yes, they exist) who doesn't strictly subscribe to reality. If you'll remember, Ken Wheeler tried, and if no one had countered his blather with facts, he'd likely be selling "magnetic room heaters" and "battery-free lights" to gullible yokels today. Even with being proven absolutely wrong, he's attempting to foist on those same gullible yokels his incorrect take on how magnetism (and indeed the entire universe) works via selling that compilation of pontificating science-denialism and foul-mouthed denigration of the greats of science that he calls a book.
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #94,  »Last edited by Cycle
Getting back on topic again...

Whaaaaa?!?!?!?! :wtf:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111
(Donchyts et al., 2016)
Earth's surface water change over the past 30 years
Gennadii Donchyts, Fedor Baart, Hessel Winsemius, Noel Gorelick, Jaap Kwadijk & Nick van de Giesen
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
{For those requiring names only, you can stop at the above line. For the rest, the data are below. :D}
Quote from https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111
Earth's surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas. Here, we analyse the gains and losses through the Deltares Aqua Monitor — an open tool that detects land and water changes around the globe.

“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.
Well, that quashes "OMG! We're all going to drown!" alarmism. :-D


Zooming in...

Note the sea level decline from the Holocene Highstand (while keeping in mind that anthropogenic contributions could not have in any measurable way contributed to the Holocene Highstand sea level rise). Note further that the climate alarmists are screaming bloody murder about only a small portion of the circled part of the graph above (labeled 1700-2013)... the 1950-2013 part, in this case.

That covers 3 rules to describe libtards:
2) They have no sense of scale.
3) They have no sense of history.
4) They're gullible enough to believe every scary story they manage to read.
 :D

Perhaps they aren't aware of the facts such as...

Much of modern Finland is former seabed or archipelago that shows sea level immediately after the last ice age... it isostatically rebounded faster than the sea level rise (which was at times more than 20 times faster than the modern average of sea level rise (see chart above)).

Or that Global Mean Sea Level has actually fallen by 2.75 mm over the past two years, and that trend is expected to accelerate.

Or that the continental shelves we see off our coasts is where sea level used to be at the end of the last ice age, and much of the sea level rise that could have happened as we climbed out of the last ice age has already happened... now isostatic rebound of the land is outpacing the minuscule amount of sea level rise in most areas.

Or that with Antarctica containing 90% of all global ice, net deposition of snow on Antarctica means that 90% of all glacier mass is growing, not shrinking. You'll note that doesn't take into account Greenland adding ice mass, nor the Himalayan glaciers, nor the Montana glaciers, nor the WA state glaciers, nor New Zealand's glaciers, etc.

Or that climate scientists admit that anthropogenic contribution to sea level rise is so negligible as to be immeasurable.
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #95,  »Last edited by Cycle
And for those who think, "Ice ages take decades to take effect. We've got plenty of time.".

https://www.sott.net/article/196671-Mini-Ice-Age-Took-Hold-Of-Europe-In-Just-Months
Quote from https://www.sott.net/article/196671-Mini-Ice-Age-Took-Hold-Of-Europe-In-Just-Months
Just months - that’s how long it took for Europe to be engulfed by an ice age. The scenario, which comes straight out of Hollywood blockbuster 'The Day After Tomorrow', was revealed by the most precise record of the climate from paleohistory ever generated.

Around 12,800 years ago the northern hemisphere was hit by the Younger Dryas mini ice age, or “Big Freeze”. It was triggered by the slowdown of the Gulf Stream, led to the decline of the Clovis culture in North America, and lasted around 1300 years.

The group studied a mud core from an ancient lake, Lough Monreagh, in western Ireland. Using a scalpel they sliced off layers 0.5 to 1 millimetre thick, each representing up to three months of time. No other measurements from the period have approached this level of detail.

Carbon isotopes in each slice revealed how productive the lake was and oxygen isotopes gave a picture of temperature and rainfall. They show that at the start of the Big Freeze, temperatures plummeted and lake productivity stopped within months, or a year at most. “It would be like taking Ireland today and moving it up to Svalbard” in the Arctic, says Patterson, who presented the findings at the BOREAS conference in Rovaniemi, Finland, on 31 October.

“This is significantly shorter than what has been suggested before, but it is plausible,” says Derek Vance of the University of Bristol, UK. Hans Renssen, a climate researcher at Vrije University in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, says recent findings from Greenland ice cores indicate the Younger Dryas event may have happened in one to three years. Patterson’s results confirm this was a very sudden change, he says.
If the same doesn't happen this year (and it's trying, what with the Beast From The East, Beast 2.0 and Beast 3.0 causing much of Europe to be as much as 10 C lower than normal, and global temperature dropping at the fastest rate in recorded history), it'll likely happen next year.

Keep in mind that we're still in an ice age... we have glaciers all over the world. That already-existing store of cold will cause the next descent into glaciation to be faster, more brutal and more protracted.

Now, one must ask oneself... why were the so-called climate 'experts' telling people to prepare for catastrophic global warming when the preponderance of the empirical evidence points to a planet that is cooling at an accelerating rate?
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #96,  »Last edited by Cycle
In a world where 1 + 1 != 2... scientific reproducibility becomes an impossibility, turning science into mythomaniacal guesswork rife with bias and preconception.

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/perils-of-gpu-math-for-scientific-computing/
Quote from https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/perils-of-gpu-math-for-scientific-computing/
One engineer told The Register that when he tried to run identical simulations of an interaction between a protein and enzyme on Nvidia’s Titan V cards, the results varied. After repeated tests on four of the top-of-the-line GPUs, he found two gave numerical errors about 10 per cent of the time. These tests should produce the same output values each time again and again.
The really scary thing is that the Nvidia GPUs in question are specifically designed for 'scientific computing', and are used for the vision and control systems of self-driving cars... and they run the climate models of the climate alarmists... there's a reason not to blindly trust in technology, nor in the so-called 'experts'. Because in both cases, they can easily run you (or all of humanity) straight into a brick wall.

Compound the guileful perfidy of the climate 'scientists' with GPU-based data corruption... and what've you got? A big steaming pile of CAGW, based wholly upon bits and pieces of reality-based data taken out of context or so 'adjusted' as to be outright falsified, strung together with miles of politicized fantasy.

CAGW is the 'pink unicorn farting pixie dust' of our age.

onepower

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #97,  »Last edited
Read the last page of new posts and the only word which comes to mind is... embarrassing. This forum has become a joke in my opinion and I think we all know why.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #98,  »
You're just butthurt that you were proven wrong on every single one of your climate-based assertions. Any other CAGW-based topics you dare bring up, I've got 1300+ peer-reviewed studies to prove you wrong... for the simple fact that you are wrong. You drank the libtard koolade. You never once bothered to think for yourself and question the pabulum being spoon-fed to you by dissembling climate 'scientists' and the wholly-complicit fake-news main-stream media.

Subscribe to reality, and that won't happen.

onepower

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #99,  »
No actually I could care less what you think and what concerns me is when the administrators allow assclowns to spam post vomit that goes against all that this forum should stand for.

Free, clean, sustainable energy.