From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
147
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

147 Views
Message 1 of 94

ChasKy - The deniers deny because the GOPerLords told them to, and that's as far as they will ever go to understanding the issue. The "telling" part is a massive, quazi-scientific miasma of long debunked theories involving 20,000 year cycles, a web of lies concerning the "hidden agenda" of NASA (gotta keep the wraps on all that "Moon Landing" stuff doncha know?) and visceral hatred of anything that might help a person of color (billions of our tax dollars going to AFRICA because of the Paris Accord) and of course the need to trash Al Gore to support the notion they did right when they stole the 2000 election.

 

Repeatedly telling them the truth will do nothing because what they believe transcends "truth" - its their last ditch defense of their racist, misogynistic, xenophobic world view that sustained them in hard times and has been swept away when they lost the Culture Wars. It is no accident the FOX News Cable audience is older than that for regular broadcast TV.

 

However, repeatedly telling the truth will do much to prevent them from gaining new disciples, and THAT is a worthwhile objective. It's moving them out of power by bringing more millenials into the political process - half of cable TV viewers are +65, and those watching FoxNews seem to do so to avoid all the blacks/gays/Muslims/women on the entertainment segment. The folks who gave Dems the House had jobs and classes to keep them occupied so they have little time to watch ANY TV.

 

These deniers are not "evil", but they have fallen under the spell of those who ARE. Keep posting the truth and see that "infection" doesn't spread.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
147
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
156
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

156 Views
Message 2 of 94

@Richva wrote:

48429795_1516446801824105_7559736207303770112_n.jpg


 LOL, Rich.....classic!!! I always wondered who bought all the InfoWars nonsense. 
 
And I also recall THIS topic posted by a usual conspiracy theorist this past S......BS....... And I recall there was recently....
 
Claim

 

A "large-scale killing" of white farmers is taking place in South Africa.

 

 

Rating
 
Origin

 

On 22 August 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted criticism of the South African government for their plans to redistribute land to black South Africans who were institutionally disenfranchised under that .....

 

Is a ‘Large-Scale Killing’ of White Farmers Underway in South Africa?

 

...posted here last summer......


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
156
Views
Moderator
0
Kudos
182
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

182 Views
Message 3 of 94

Hello everyone,

Please remember to post according to the community guidelines, and refrain from insults and inflammatory comments.

Thank you for your cooperation in making the AARP Community a safe and welcoming place for all.
http://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
182
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
196
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

196 Views
Message 4 of 94

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@sp362 wrote:
One of the personality traits of conspiracy theorists is that they want to believe in a conspiracy theory so they make themselves feel smarter and more important than they actually are.  Not saying that applies to aruzinsky, just pointing out the trait.

All the different studies, climate change, pollution, physics, etc. and they all point to the same conclusions backed up by real world outcomes. 

 

Heck of a conspiracy theory. Well, at least enough to get 4 hours of video on Youtube. 


Wrong.


Oh, because you say so? 

Because you are not right because you say so. There are numerous counterexamples to your "All ..." and only one counterexample is needed.  


OK, post a study that you want to discuss that refutes the premise.  Pick a few points to discuss out of it and we will see what we can come up with.  Here is a hint, try not to pick a study that has already been refuted or uses cherry-picked data.  Good Luck.


That will take a a long time because I have better things to do.  I often wonder how you people have enough time on your hands to make such prolific posts.  Maybe, you people are just better multitaskers and use their smartphones to post while cooking, doing house chores or deficating.  I am a terrible multitasker and I do not own a smartphone.  See you much later.

 


In other words you either can't, or don't know where or how to find one.  As I said before, if I were you, I would quit playing the intellectual, several of us on here have seen right through it.


Ain't that the truth !!!!


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
196
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
198
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

198 Views
Message 5 of 94

48429795_1516446801824105_7559736207303770112_n.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
198
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
204
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

204 Views
Message 6 of 94

For those who find it necessary to really "get into the weeds" and check the math of Climate Change/Global Warming, here's about as easy as this stuff gets. Nice to see a critique from those who claim they have knowledge of the more advanced modeling techniques to ascertain the validity of their claimed expertize:

The Earth's climate is a very complex system. It involves the atmosphere, the oceans, the Sun, vegetation and ice, not to mention human activity. Predicting what the climate will do over the next hundred years or so requires all the power of science and mathematics. We've explored this in the article Climate change: Does it all add up?

Earth and Sun

The Sun radiates huge amounts of electromagnetic energy in all directions. Some of this energy is received by the Earth. Image: NASA.

However, it turns out that sometimes even a simple bit of mathematics can go a long way. One of the most useful examples of a simple, but powerful, mathematical model used by climate scientists is the energy balance model — it only uses ideas from A level mathematics.

 

In the energy balance model we assume that the Earth is heated by the radiation from the Sun and that it has an average (absolute) temperature $T.$ Some of this heat energy is absorbed and the rest is radiated back into space. We then reach an equilibrium when these two balance. Now the heat energy from the Sun is given by

 \[ (1-a)S, \]  

where $S$ is the incoming power from the Sun (which is around $342 W m^{-2}$ on average), and $a$ is the albedo of the Earth: it measures how much of this energy is reflected back. The current value is $a =0.31.$ (The albedo would be higher if the Earth were covered in ice, since ice reflects the energy from the Sun.)

The heat energy radiated back into space is given by

 \[ \sigma e T^4, \]  

 

Here

 \[ \sigma = 5.67 \times 10^{-8} W m^{-2} K^{-4} \]  

is Stefan-Boltzmann constant (with temperature measured in Kelvin, denoted by $K$), and $ e$ is the emissivity, which is a measure of how transparent the atmosphere is. On the Moon, with almost no atmosphere, we have $e = 1$. Currently on the Earth we have $e =0.605.$

 

To find the Earth’s temperature we balance these two expressions so that

 \[ \sigma e T^4 = (1-a)S, \]  

and then we solve this for $T $ to give

 \[ T = \left(\frac{(1-a)S}{\sigma e}\right)^{1/4}, \]  

which you can evaluate on a calculator. Isn't that nice! Try it with the values above to find the current mean temperature of the Earth. Now take $e = 1$ to find an estimate for the average temperature of the Moon (all the other parameters stay the same). To check if you got the right answer, see here.

The power of this expression is that we can perform what if experiments to see what can happen to the climate in the future. For example, if the ice melts then the albedo $a$ decreases which means that $(1- a)$ and hence $T$ increases. Similarly if the emissivity $e$ decreases then the temperature $T$ increases. This is a worrying prediction as it is well known that increasing the amount of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere leads to a decrease in $e.$ Thus there is a direct cause and effect link between an increase in carbon dioxide (which is of course what we are seeing) and a rise in the predicted mean temperature of the Earth.

Thus, even a simple model can provide us with useful, if worrying, insights into the future of our planet. Along side basic models such as this one, climate scientists use hugely complex models that take into account all the factors that influence the Earth's climate. To find out more, see Climate change: Does it all add up?

 

So math geeks, here's a mathmatical model that clearly shows the connection between rising temperatures and decreases in the albedo as polar ice disappears or decreases in emissivity as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Both those connections have been firmly established experimentally as has the direct link between human activity and concentrations of greenhouse gasses.

 

Let us all know where the math fails - in your opinion.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
204
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
224
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

224 Views
Message 7 of 94

@aruzinsky wrote:

BreifHistoryOfGlobalWarmingJoke.JPG


What a well thought out, scientific explanation.  How could anybody possibly argue with that?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
224
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
237
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

237 Views
Message 8 of 94

BreifHistoryOfGlobalWarmingJoke.JPG

Old Witch
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
237
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
262
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

262 Views
Message 9 of 94

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

BTW, if Anak Krakatoa explodes, there will be enough global cooling to make liberals in the northern US cry about their heating bills.  And, the people in France will lynch Macron.


Another ridiculous uneducated statement.  While an eruption MAY cause a very temporary change, that is not the same thing as a long term change.  You can actually educate yourself about volcanoes and climate change by reading this link.

 

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html


One year is bad enough. 

 

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


Another ridiculous statement.  You are saying ONE year will stop climate change.  By the way, you are saying Anak Krakatoa will cause this effect, when the original, far larger Krakatoa caused a measurable weather disruption for 5 years, including a large ONE year drop.  What did effect did Mt St Helens have on the global climate?


Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of "If" and "enough."


Despite your claims of brilliance, you seem to be unable to make a lucid argument.  Why did YOU bring up Anak Krakatoa in the context of a discussion on climate change if it wasn't to imply that we didn't need to worry about climate change because a volcano would take care of it?  You really need to educate yourself.  Now you can say ditto to make yourself feel better and be confronted by what you think are facts that are really opinion, cherry-picked facts and / or outright lies.


Verbosely said the person who doesn't know what "if" and "enough" means.

Old Witch
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
262
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
266
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

266 Views
Message 10 of 94

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

BTW, if Anak Krakatoa explodes, there will be enough global cooling to make liberals in the northern US cry about their heating bills.  And, the people in France will lynch Macron.


Another ridiculous uneducated statement.  While an eruption MAY cause a very temporary change, that is not the same thing as a long term change.  You can actually educate yourself about volcanoes and climate change by reading this link.

 

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html


One year is bad enough. 

 

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


Another ridiculous statement.  You are saying ONE year will stop climate change.  By the way, you are saying Anak Krakatoa will cause this effect, when the original, far larger Krakatoa caused a measurable weather disruption for 5 years, including a large ONE year drop.  What did effect did Mt St Helens have on the global climate?


Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of "If" and "enough."


Despite your claims of brilliance, you seem to be unable to make a lucid argument.  Why did YOU bring up Anak Krakatoa in the context of a discussion on climate change if it wasn't to imply that we didn't need to worry about climate change because a volcano would take care of it?  You really need to educate yourself.  Now you can say ditto to make yourself feel better and be confronted by what you think are facts that are really opinion, cherry-picked facts and / or outright lies.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
266
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season

Top Authors