Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad

Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

Home Forums DISCUSS General Discussion and Questions Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2009 - 06:53pm

    #90
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1612

    count placeholder

    Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

[quote=Doug]

jerrydon

Ok, I was all set to leave it alone until I saw your response to Mike.

[quote]Gallons is measurement of total volume, not height, width, weight or power.[/quote]

cubic centimeters (cm3), cubic inches (in3) and cubic feet (ft3) are also measurements of volume.

[/quote]

I didn’t say they weren’t anywhere, did I? I simply stated that gallons are volume. NOAA used gallons, I ran with it. I’m not sure how you feel that bringing up a straw man argument furthers the conversation.

[quote]

That’s why we use it as a measurement in other areas. For example, automobile engines are defined in size according to the amount of water they would displace if dropped into a vat full of it.[/quote]

No they aren’t, they are measured in displacement of pistons in cylinders. 

[/quote]

**********************************************

What is being displaced regarding the pistons, Doug, the cylinders? You are confusing bore and stroke with volume displacement of the cylinders. You seem fairly lost lost on that. But since it isn’t that important to the subject, I won’t beat it to death.

[quote]

I won’t even get into your frankly bizarre notions of how water will be distributed around the globe, your misunderstanding of such dynamics are just too fundamental.

[/quote]

Why not? Why bring something like that up if you aren’t prepared to discuss it. Please tell me specifically how rainfall occurs if water does not evaporate from surface water, forming clouds in the sky, resulting in rainfall that does not have to be deposited in the same area from which it initially evaporated. I learned that in 2nd grade, has that process changed?

And, what are the true dynamics of that process? You cannot logically state that mine is wrong and not state what is correct. Wouldn’t be prudent.

Or, maybe you think it is the second law of thermodynamics that governs disbursement of particulates in the atmosphere that is bazaar? I’ll need more information to address this.

[quote]

I don’t think anyone is questioning your belief, I am questioning your grasp of data and science.

[/quote]

You haven’t questioned anything other than my math that I remember. I addressed that in another post. And if you don’t get specific as to what you are questioning, how am I too respond, that I question your questioning?

[quote]

You obviously have no respect for or knowledge of science. 

[/quote]

You have never had so much as a 5 minute conversation with me. How on earth would you ever know that? If you knew me you would understand that I have a BS in environmental chemistry with post grad studies in thermodynamics.

You have simply quit arguing AWG and are attacking me personally. Please don’t try to discredit the messenger. Engage the message.

[quote]

Even the denialists are admitting that global warming is occuring. 

[/quote]

LOL….I can’t believe you said that. How can one deny something exists and espouse it does exist at the same time? Your logic just did a belly flopper out the window. And please stay on subject and attempt to read the above posts so I don’t have to keep explaining the same things over and over.

I have posted several graphs showing a warming trend from the 1860s to 2000 and a cooling trend from 2000-2009. Now you think I’m doing a flip-flop and arguing against my own data?

No, there was a warming trend for about about 140 years. The argument is cause/effect. Man-made carbon is not causing warming, warming from sun cycles is causing a nature-based rise in carbon levels via the ocean carbon sink. Your side is so lost in this discussion and so confused in science that they have this exactly bass awkward.

[quote]

Well, we now know how strong your faith is. 

[/quote]

The faith is all on your side, my friend. How can I have faith in something I don’t even believe exists? No, there can be no faith from my perspective in AGW because there is no such thing as AGW.

You see, faith can be defined as a belief in something where there is no empirical evidence to support it. You have no empirical evidence to substantiate AGW, yet you strongly believe in it, What makes the espousal of your beliefs any different than a Baptist attending Sunday School espousing his?

[quote]

I would suggest that you start reading up on the actual science that is going on out there–You have a real opportunity to gain some education.

[/quote]

I don’t need to read up on anything, I have taught it in a formal setting. I have read and debated that literature ad nauseum. Sorry if this upsets you, but 99% of it is crock with that other 1% being just true enough to suck in the gullible. You’re right, Doug. You probably ought to leave it alone.