Reply With Quote
Everything takes raw data and 'alters' it, ignorant . In the WC world, planes don't fly and we cannot use the internet.
OK, you mean you can improve a data set.
The problem I have with the alarmists is they take the raw data and alter it. I see that as their method of improving it. I disagree. There is no way to know if it is being "improved" properly.
Everything takes raw data and 'alters' it, ignorant . In the WC world, planes don't fly and we cannot use the internet.
How would you know? The data sets are public record for NOAA, IPCC, BEST, etc. Your oilco think tanks have pored over them and the best you can get is apples and oranges comparisons from UAH and histrionics from your British think tanks that you keep posting.
In fact when the astrophysicists raised some legitimate questions concerning the solar cycle, they were all over it like flies on shot back in 2003. I thought it was compelling as it seemed to show that solar activity might be cause. It turns out exhaustively not to be the case but that was good science.
Something substantive can be brought forth if it was there and we both know that those you support have more than enough financial backing to produce whatever they need. That should tell you something that the best they can do is the that they mail you.
You probably think Alex Jones is credible as well.
That didn't really answer my question.
Do you have any shred of evidence that, in this case, the modifications were deliberately done to produce some desired outcome?
you posted this in this same thread a month ago. Are you going senile and just don't remember what you post?
Just like to rattle your chain.
Climate Change Hoax Exposed
October 13, 2013 AFP
Censored portion of UN report leaked; says data exaggerated
By John Friend
Many scientists are extremely skeptical of the IPCC, its findings, and the very nature of the organization. Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography at California State University – Stanislaus, argues that the IPCC has a political agenda promoted by international elites.
“The idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange.
Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:
“Global warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and radically reduce the human population.”
“The IPCC is essentially operating with pre-determined conclusions, namely that human activity and carbon emissions cause ‘global warming’ and other environmental and climate problems, even though there is little objective scientific evidence to demonstrate ‘global warming’ is in fact a real phenomenon,” Dr. Karlstrom says. Climate scientists working with the IPCC and other international bodies have been known to not only spin scientific data to fit their pre-determined conclusions, but also to outright fabricate “evidence” to support their idea of “man-made climate change.”
“Bottom line, they don’t want to share resources with the unwashed masses,” Dr. Karlstrom concludes. -
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1324....GKtvgaGG.dpuf
Which part of that is evidence? Be specific. Tell me what part of that article you think is evidence.
You want Xray to be specific when you don't even understand the applicable sciences yourself? How would you know if he was right? I'll bet you would go to Skeptical Science blogs or Real Climate blogs for your reply.
As many times as I was specific about the climate sciences, you failed to understand. It's laughable, like when I explained to Fuzzy why 3 phase power was used. Did you understand that? I doubt it. I think Winehole understood it, but I don't think you did.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-03-2014 at 01:02 PM.
Do you want to revisit the flywheel thread, dimwit?
You still cannot get get torque out of 180 degree phase and 3 phase smooths the rotation as opposed to single phase's stop start. The same principles hold true in all AC power transmissions including over power lines. What is sad is you still did not get it. You think they are two separate issues despite working with electric motors and power.
You did not even understand the function of a flywheel. You did not even know the properties of a capacitor because you thought large capacitances were impossible until recently and that they were only for car audio. this is what told me you were a parts changer because you work with run capacitors rating in the pF.
LOL...
This is so ing funny. I'm glad I selected "view post." I have FuzzyDumbkins in IGNORE, so I didn't see this till a few minutes ago.
Why? Do you not understand such a simple concept?
Bull . Just proves you don't understand.
What do you call a fan motor that plugs into a house AC outlet? Refrigerator? Dryer? Washer?
Do they have no torque?
And yes. It is the smooth rotational force that 3 phase offers, but you never understood the smoothing I was trying to explain to your sorry ass those years back. Not until I shamed you into silence with the graph I made.
Few single phase motors are made above 1/2 HP. The 60 hz vibration component gets greater and greater with increased power consumption. That's why three phase is used. For smooth and efficient power transfer. Not to make it go "roundy roundy." the more mechanical vibration and noise made because the power is not a smooth transfer to rotational, the less efficient.
My God you are so ing dumb. I never said impossible. There you go lying again. You cannot accept that I revised my statement on capacitors, but I still proved you don't understand series parallel circuits.
As for a flywheel, Just because you say I don't understand the rotational kinetic energy, doesn't make it so. Sure, a flywheel will smooth the ac hum out of the rotation, but at a loss of efficiency of power transfer.
You are so ing laughably stupid...
Your chain gets yanked easily. Doesn't it...
Remember this:
You went pretty silent about three phase after I posted and explained it.
Just how badly did I shame you?
So literally repeating what I just said is supposed to be compelling?LOL...
This is so ing funny. I'm glad I selected "view post." I have FuzzyDumbkins in IGNORE, so I didn't see this till a few minutes ago.
Why? Do you not understand such a simple concept?
Bull . Just proves you don't understand.
What do you call a fan motor that plugs into a house AC outlet? Refrigerator? Dryer? Washer?
Do they have no torque?
And yes. It is the smooth rotational force that 3 phase offers, but you never understood the smoothing I was trying to explain to your sorry ass those years back. Not until I shamed you into silence with the graph I made.
Few single phase motors are made above 1/2 HP. The 60 hz vibration component gets greater and greater with increased power consumption. That's why three phase is used. For smooth and efficient power transfer. Not to make it go "roundy roundy." the more mechanical vibration and noise made because the power is not a smooth transfer to rotational, the less efficient.
My God you are so ing dumb. I never said impossible. There you go lying again. You cannot accept that I revised my statement on capacitors, but I still proved you don't understand series parallel circuits.
As for a flywheel, Just because you say I don't understand the rotational kinetic energy, doesn't make it so. Sure, a flywheel will smooth the ac hum out of the rotation, but at a loss of efficiency of power transfer.
You are so ing laughably stupid...
Your chain gets yanked easily. Doesn't it...
Remember this:
You went pretty silent about three phase after I posted and explained it.
Just how badly did I shame you?
You stated that flywheels do not store energy.
You said that capacitors were not that large and they only rated into the uF. I showed you a 1F cap and then you doubled down on the stupid by saying that caps that big were a recent phenomenon. At that point i explained to you how placing them in parallel increased capacitance and that they have been doing that for a century. Since that time you have tried this tactic of obfuscation. Nobody buys it.
I answered your question saying that it smoothed the stroke and you started going off about power transfer efficiency and going with this same tactic. I didn't ignore it. i just made of fun of you just like I do now. At that time you had no notion of motors and went on and on about power transmission never understanding that the issues were the same.
It is actually amusing watching you crow victory when its obvious that you do not understand the principles. Nice google on motors though, partschanger.
Bait taken I see!So literally repeating what I just said is supposed to be compelling?
Liar.
I have stated I was wrong about how well the technology has come. Your feeble mind cannot seem to move on.
I see you have changed your mind, but are too much a pussy to admit it. At least I acknowledge I was wrong about a 1 farad capacitor being the size of a closet.
You have changed what you claim did not store rotational power several times now.
And like it is not lost on people that you are the one that claims he never said he doesn't like black people when you have a post saying that you don't like most black people. Call me a liar all you want but you are just sad.
WC ran away. I win.
LOL...
Such a fool.
I have admitted I was wrong about the farad capacitor, yet your tiny mind can't let go of your singly victory.
I was saying windmills don't store rotary power like the rotary UPS does. I never implied there was no kinetic energy at all. Just not enough to matter.
Take you fake win. You so easily delude yourself.
I'm going to go back to ignoring you.
Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year
Ice is covering 16m sq km, more than 2.1m unusual for time of year
UN computer models say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing
By David Rose
...snip...
It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers. But it doesn’t stop there.
In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings.
Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.
So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared.
This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.
Why should it do this?
Many have noted that the effect of all these changes is to produce a warmer present and a colder past, with the net result being the impression of much faster warming. They draw their conclusions accordingly.
...snip...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz36h1MHcrI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The observations must be wrong since 95% of the models disagree.
It was a ing op-ed, dip . They didn't present any scientific evidence. That was kinda my point.
I understand the sciences passably enough, and you more than sufficiently enough to generally hold that your opinions are driven more by ego and confirmation bias than objective, evidence-based reality.
That you are foolish enough to start rambling without really looking at the links involved supports my assertion.
Funny. I see you as the dip that uses confirmation bias.
Remember this:
When it comes to my arguments of technical matters, I am well above the average person. I forgot until I looked it up that you said what you did, and it was after LnGrrrR made a statement that gave me cause to elaborate. I very often forget I am talking above peoples understanding. I try to simplify things, but there is still so much lost, especially when I overestimate everyone elses understanding.
The biggest problem with so many of you assholes is you accuse rather than ask for elaboration. Maybe you can learn something if you ask, and listen instead of letting your ego get the better of you.
Fuzzy is the worse of you all. He is either genuinely obtuse and stupid, or a good troll. Either way, the likes of him should be banned.
Nice now he is ing about me to you and trying to prop up his partschanging rep.
I just want to say that I was not even trying to create this tizzy he is in. He called me out.
When someone calls you out and ends up putting you 'back to ignore' does that mean anything?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
