Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1438966)	2/12/2024 8:49:32 PM
From: Eric	Respond to of 1572938

The big thing that doesn't get covered very well is those water molecules don't last very long in the atmosphere. Literally only a few days. The hydrological cycle. en.wikipedia.org

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1438966)	2/13/2024 2:24:07 AM
From: maceng2	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572938

<< Volcanos don't change the physics of water.>> Did I state that they did? We are not talking about changing the chemistry or physics of water molecules. We are talking about the amount of water in the upper atmosphere. That is all. Before you start lecturing me on humidity parameters, first ... do you understand what "super saturation" means ? Then ... when we start throwing in seeding issues and cloud formation, particulates thrown up by volcanoes, and other gases (SO2 anyone?) then we are talking clouds and stuff. btw. As a "non creation myth" person, what do you say: Did the egg come first or the chicken? Inquiring minds wish to know. OK at some point I will watch that video. The first glance does not look encouraging. As soon as I see the word "debunked" I know we are already looking at people with a fervent religious view they want to project. In my experience. only low quality .. usually ego driven ... "scientists" use a word like "debunked" as everyday language discussing scientific matters. Possibly corrupt, with politically motivated reason for saying such things. The facial expression on the guys face is not a good indicator too. He seems hot under the collar, and therefore possibly confused and emotional about the subject under discussion. But I am biased. I will watch it when I am bored of doing other stuff, or if I discover something interesting and need a dissenting view to test the new idea.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1438966)	2/13/2024 3:23:02 PM
From: maceng2	2 Recommendations Recommended By longz rdkflorida2 Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572938

OK, I have been looking at your guy. Mr Debunker. Yes I watched all of that video link shown. And a bit more. How bad are wind farms for birds really? Let's rebut a common argument... pic.twitter.com/YnBTk8PrwZ — Rosh (@RSalgadoDArcy) December 13, 2023 So after all the cats have killed their share of the birds etc, there are not many birds left. Then the wind farms chop up the rest. Those few birds left might just survive and the species be continued, in spite of the losses, but then whack the wind farm blades strike the final blow. Surely the killing of the few scarce birds left before wind turbines do their deadly work matters ? Nope... Rosh shows a big smiley face to demonstrate it doesn't matter at all. Besides fossil fuels kill "infinitely more" birds, and we get an abrupt end of video at that point. No doubt a big clapping of obedient flippers is expected at that point. . Been reading the comments naturally. not just on his utube page. "Rosh" approved this comment.... Anyone who has a conspiracy theory that relies on the entire scientific community collaborating in a cover-up to mislead the world has clearly never had any dealings with the scientific community. — Michael Merrifield (@AstroMikeMerri) January 18, 2024 Is Michael Merrifield expertise in devious misinformation peddling? It certainly looks like it. Never mind the inter department squabbling, jelousies, and so forth Michael, how about the funding processes? You all jump in unison like trained sea lions when that comes about. and that is what we are seeing with "Rosh". Not much science and a lot of BS. I see several mentions on this board "why has so and so not entered a paper of their research". Peer review by trained sea lions does not advance science, as does the "debunking" of real science by trained sea lions not advance science. Untrained sea lions would likely do a better job. The links on his pages is all about subduing free thought on the matter of climate. Just one statement after the other. What Is Climate Change? \| United Nations Supposedly only the trained sea lions can possibly figure out climate change, silly normal human beings should just leave things to the experts. Normal folks should do what they are told, and believe what they are told. Very little to zero science imho.