IIJamesII

10 ms·

1.
The New Fusion Race(youtube.com)
2 points by IIJamesII 9y ago|0 comments
2.
by IIJamesII 10y ago
I'm saying it's a glaringly bad strategy. Buy hey, continue trotting out complete and utter hypocrites to lecture us on what ought to feed our families for dinner.
3.
by IIJamesII 10y ago
"one person could have flown coach from New York to Japan (and back) 3,408 TIMES with the amount of fuel the Governator used to commute within California." Who does he think he is lecturing poor people like me about what I ought t
4.
by IIJamesII 10y ago
If followed conscientiously by those who really think this way - this approach really might benefit future generations.
5.
by IIJamesII 10y ago
Yes. Kyle Simpson rocks. He is smart and he looks deeply into things. He is opinionated and I like that too. I learn more when I see smart opinionated people disagree with each other. The fact that these books need to be written to de-mysti
6.
by IIJamesII 10y ago
>"1. The laws of physics were proven to false and it turned out the CO2 does not trap energy in the atmosphere." Most skeptics agree that CO2 traps energy in the atmosphere. By itself, a doubling of CO2 should cause about 1 deg
7.
by IIJamesII 11y ago
I was also wondering how they successfully rule out other possibilities. Many people seem very eager to believe. Some skepticism here can help aid a more thorough understanding.
8.
by IIJamesII 12y ago
The very notion that the climate will amplify CO2 heating by as much as 4.5 times should raise red flags. Without all that extra heat amplification there is no global catastrophe and therefore no drama. There are lots of papers on climate
9.
by IIJamesII 12y ago
Haha, no. I'm genuinely new and my account is 18 days old. But I can see why many people wouldn't want to be identified as 'deniers' if that's what you mean?
10.
by IIJamesII 12y ago
Sure. The big example is "climate sensitivity". Basically the models assume the earth's climate will amplify any CO2 heating by an extra 3 - 4 times. Without that extra heat there is no catastrophe.
11.
by IIJamesII 12y ago
Are you asking in good faith? You seem to assume right off the bat that anybody who is skeptical is irrational since there is a "massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion". And yet I disagree. I think that