Sydney CBD climate protest attracts over 30,000 people

[COVENS]

Apprently having government in the title means it hasn’t got a bias lol. I would argue that would suggest there’s a mayor agenda at play.

Have you got any evidence for that, or is that just how you 'feel?'

 

[Realist90]

Have you got any evidence for that, or is that just how you 'feel?'

I mean it’s a bit of common sense, with feelings. Notice how I said I’d argue? Never mentioned a fact as of yet about it. But nice try.

 

[COVENS]

I mean it’s a bit of common sense, with feelings. Notice how I said I’d argue? Never mentioned a fact as of yet about it. But nice try.

So you're arguing with zero evidence. Does that make sense?

Do you care to respond to my question from yesterday?

 

[Realist90]

So you're arguing with zero evidence. Does that make sense?

Do you care to respond to my question from yesterday?

oh fuck me lol. Bro stop looking at just one post, I was responding to hackies logic on the matter.

what question from yesterday? Why do you even care what my answer will be though lol.
I’m still fkn waiting for hacky to explain how it’s only a few people on Twitter that believe climate change started the fires, yet it really is showing that majority of msm and eco warriors believe it to be climate change that’s started it lol.

 

[wendog33]

What's TK opinion of Snopes fact checking? Much of a reputation for honesty?

In one notable media appearance, Moore defended the safety of glyphosate, a weed killer, by saying he could drink a quart of the product straight with no problem. When challenged to do so by the interviewer, he changed course, saying he wouldn’t because he’s “not an idiot” before abruptly ending the interview.

 

[Juicydog]

Apprently having government in the title means it hasn’t got a bias lol. I would argue that would suggest there’s a mayor agenda at play.

Could the agenda be some extra cashola?

An example would be al gore who at one stage was worth $1.7m and when he started the climate gospel, his net worth jumped up to $300m?

Ohhh my

 

[Hacky McAxe]

q = ε σ (Th4 - Tc4) Ah

I just want to show you the difference between a heat flow equation (above) and a Greenhouse Effect equation (picture below).In both you see the letter T with the number 4 beside it. This refers to the energy which we calculate using the temperature of the places we are measuring. Which is what the T stands for: Temperature.

Note that in the greenhouse equation below) they ADD the energy from the two places together (see the plus sign + between the two letter Ts) and in the heat flow equation they SUBTRACT energy one from the other (see the minus sign - )

As both of these equations are describing the exact same phenomena, both can’t be correct. One is right and one is wrong. Either energy that a cooler object absorbs from a hotter source is sent back to the source and ADDED to it, OR energy leaves the hotter source and travels to the cooler object and heat is SUBTRACTED. So think. You don’t need to be a scientist with a PhD. If you are standing next to a glacier.

Energy leaves your body and is absorbed by the ice. The ice radiates in all directions including back towards you, including some of the energy that you just gave it. Now, does that energy coming back from the glacier to you ADD to your own outgoing energy and raise your temperature? Does your core temperature increase from 37C to 42C if you stand next to a glacier? OR Does heat keep leaving your body and warm the glacier a little bit? If your body warms your immediate surroundings to the same as your core temperature do you stop getting colder? Will your skin become 37C just like your blood so you no longer feel cold? We can make things more complex.

We can add concepts such as heat capacity, insulation, resistance, emissivity, etc and some of these things CAN raise the temperature of the source of energy. This is what the deceitful and the ignorant rely on to fool you into thinking the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect is real. But none of these other concepts are part of the mathematics that describes how the Effect is supposed to work. Only the equation does.

And its mechanism is to ADD the energy that a cooler object has just received from a warmer source to the warmer source. It completely contracts the other equation for heat flow shown above. Choose which one fits your experience of reality.

Two problems with that:

1) you're using the 2nd law of thermodynamics with an equation based on a solid object to explain the thermal dynamics of gases. As humans found out a long time ago, this doesn't work

https://history.aip.org/climate/Radmath.htm

2) the first equation doesn't work when you are accounting for a continuous line of heat from multiple heat sources. The sun heats the earth. The earth transfers heat to the atmosphere in including the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at the lowest point first. The greenhouse gases that have absorbs the heat then emit the heat to the place of lowest heat which is other parts of the atmosphere and other CO2. When the sun stops heating the earth, the earth becomes a lower heat source. Much of the heat ends up transferred off to space. If this didn't happen then we'd cook to death. Add more CO2 and the heat will transfer to the CO2 first. Not due to it being the lowest heat source as it's not. Due to it being the closest thing that is lower in heat. Adding more CO2 slows down the ability of the IR heat to leave the earth

 

[COVENS]

oh fuck me lol. Bro stop looking at just one post, I was responding to hackies logic on the matter.

what question from yesterday? Why do you even care what my answer will be though lol.
I’m still fkn waiting for hacky to explain how it’s only a few people on Twitter that believe climate change started the fires, yet it really is showing that majority of msm and eco warriors believe it to be climate change that’s started it lol.

We're going off your own words here: you didn't know what IPCC is, so with zero evidence you suggest their is a corrupt agenda and bias. How is that arguing with common sense?

The subtext was: ignore "Climate Change," what's better: pollution or no pollution?

 

[Realist90]

We're going off your own words here: you didn't know what IPCC is, so with zero evidence you suggest their is a corrupt agenda and bias. How is that arguing with common sense?

The subtext was: ignore "Climate Change," what's better: pollution or no pollution?

I hadn’t spoken about ipcc at that point go back and read my posts lol.
I told hacky I had no idea what it meant, didn’t pretend I knew, but when he said what they were, my super common sense on the matter posted what it posted.

pollution is good for trees. Do I agree with making formula 1 cars even more gay then they already are with their tiny engines? No
I want them to get the mighty v12 or 10s back and let the petrol enter my fkn lungs.

 

[Wayne Rooney]

Do any of you alarmists have a fear of the dark?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Could the agenda be some extra cashola?

An example would be al gore who at one stage was worth $1.7m and when he started the climate gospel, his net worth jumped up to $300m?

Ohhh my

You're right. We should stop listening to environmentalists and listen to the oil companies. They definitely don't have an agenda.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I don't know why I bothered posting all that stuff. I'm going to dumb it down:

Statement: "CO2 doesn't warm the planet"

Response: "Venus exists"

 

[Realist90]

You're right. We should stop listening to environmentalists and listen to the oil companies. They definitely don't have an agenda.

But you’re doing exactly what you’re telling other not to do lol. You’re just taking the side you believe is right. Do you see some hypocrisy there?

 

[COVENS]

Could the agenda be some extra cashola?

An example would be al gore who at one stage was worth $1.7m and when he started the climate gospel, his net worth jumped up to $300m?

Ohhh my

You can literally google how Al Gore made his fortune or is the internet in on the conspiracy too?

 

[Realist90]

I don't know why I bothered posting all that stuff. I'm going to dumb it down:

Statement: "CO2 doesn't warm the planet"

Response: "Venus exists"

Venus gay and Serena look like an actual monkey. I know that seems racist, but it’s not about racism, it’s about analysing the and she resembles an ugly fat monkey that thinks she’s hot. I mean if all women looked like her I probably would have voted for gay marriage, as I wouldn’t even know the difference anymore between the genders.

 

[Wayne Rooney]

But you’re doing exactly what you’re telling other not to do lol. You’re just taking the side you believe is right. Do you see some hypocrisy there?

It's idiotism

 

[Hacky McAxe]

But you’re doing exactly what you’re telling other not to do lol. You’re just taking the side you believe is right. Do you see some hypocrisy there?

Nah, I'm just using statistics. Statistically the one with less supporters and more money is more likely to be corrupt.

 

[Realist90]

Nah, I'm just using statistics. Statistically the one with less supporters and more money is more likely to be corrupt.

So then labour and greenies are more corrupt than the liberal government? They both have less supporters.

 

[Realist90]

It's idiotism

It’s actually gayism.

 

[COVENS]

I hadn’t spoken about ipcc at that point go back and read my posts lol.
I told hacky I had no idea what it meant, didn’t pretend I knew, but when he said what they were, my super common sense on the matter posted what it posted.

pollution is good for trees. Do I agree with making formula 1 cars even more gay then they already are with their tiny engines? No
I want them to get the mighty v12 or 10s back and let the petrol enter my fkn lungs.

Ok, I can tell you're getting cranky