• Was marlon brando bisexual?

    Best answer: No, he wasn't. He kissed a man once to see what it was like, and he hated it.
    Best answer: No, he wasn't. He kissed a man once to see what it was like, and he hated it.
    6 answers · Abuse and spam · 2 days ago
  • Who exactly denies that climate has changed in the past?

    Best answer: I do not deny that climate has changed in the past. I do have a disagreement with the idea that it has "always changed", because I don't know what that means and I don't think people have the evidence to support this idea once it's defined. For example, we're concerned about the time... show more
    Best answer: I do not deny that climate has changed in the past. I do have a disagreement with the idea that it has "always changed", because I don't know what that means and I don't think people have the evidence to support this idea once it's defined.

    For example, we're concerned about the time change over a several hundred year period, from the industrial revolution to the next century or two. When people say that the climate has "always changed", for their comment to be relevant, it should always have changed over similar time periods to the one we're considering. My first problem is that they don't define what they're talking about. I guess they mean that the global mean temperature has always changed over such time periods, and the changes that have occurred are similar in magnitude (~1K) to what we've seen. If they don't mean that, then why bring it up?

    If they do mean that, I don't think they have any evidence whatsoever to support their claim. Think about it, if we round up and take 5 billion years for the age of the Earth, and use 100 years as our relevant time period, then there have been 50 million such time periods over the history of the Earth. We have reasonably good instrumental data for perhaps two of those. Over Earth's recent history, we have some imputed temperatures from proxy records, but those are bound to have bigger error bars on them than the instrumental records. Go back a billion years, and all bets are off, we simply have no time resolution whatsoever on the order of 100 years, much less the data that could resolve a 1 K change over all those time periods. The global mean temperature could have changed 0.5K, 2K or 5K over a one hundred year period, and it's doubtful that we would know. Perhaps we could narrow a 5K change to a few thousand years, but the idea that we could tell a 1 K change versus a 0.1 K change over a particular century back then is ludicrous.

    So when people say "The climate has always changed" we should see that for what it is--an unsupported truism based more on faith than on science. They say it to as a way of dismissing the very real climate change that is happening today and that humans are causing--change that we can see and measure--instead of their imagined climate change of the unspecified, unmeasured past.
    27 answers · Global Warming · 5 days ago
  • If the Earth is round then Explain this?

    If the Earth is round then Explain this?

    Best answer: Face palm, lol.
    Best answer: Face palm, lol.
    9 answers · Other - Environment · 10 hours ago
  • How would "skeptics" have reassured people on the Titanic ...?

    ... shortly after the collision? Would some have made statements such as "There's been hardly any sinking in the last 20 minutes"? "Alarmists want to blame it all on the iceberg"? "Andrews believes in Peak Horses too; he's just a liberal with an agenda, like all those in the White... show more
    ... shortly after the collision? Would some have made statements such as "There's been hardly any sinking in the last 20 minutes"? "Alarmists want to blame it all on the iceberg"? "Andrews believes in Peak Horses too; he's just a liberal with an agenda, like all those in the White Star cult"? Would some have produced a graph, showing the amount of sinking since the ship set sail, with the y axis scaled to the depth of the ocean, fitted a linear trend of 0.63m/day and said "Nothing to worry about; plenty of time to reach port"? But surely there would have been none so deranged and deluded as to say, "Ice is lighter than metal and a lighter object can't sink a heavier object; that would be against the laws of hydrodynamics." and ... "Its all controlled by the Sun, which will rise soon and we will transition to a record floating trend. Measurements taken at the stern prove this has already started." Surely none could have been that dumb, could they? What else might they have said?
    11 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • What is the carbon footprint of Al Gore compared to the average citizen?

    Best answer: HUGE! Let us pray: ALGORE is my shepherd; I shall not think. He maketh me lie down in Greeneth pastures: He leadeth me beside the still-freezing waters. He selleth my soul for CO2: He leadeth me in the paths of self-righteousness for his own sake. Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reason I will... show more
    Best answer: HUGE!

    Let us pray:
    ALGORE is my shepherd; I shall not think.
    He maketh me lie down in Greeneth pastures:
    He leadeth me beside the still-freezing waters.
    He selleth my soul for CO2:
    He leadeth me in the paths of self-righteousness for his own sake.
    Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reason
    I will fear all logic: for thou art with me and thinking for me
    Thy Gore’s family oil fortune and thy 10,000 square Gorey foot mansion, they comfort me.
    Thou preparest a movie in the presence of contradictory evidence:
    Thou anointest mine head with nonsense; my obedience runneth over.
    Surely blind faith and hysteria shall follow me all the days of my life:
    and I will dwell in the house of ALGORE forever..........
    12 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • Should all Industry be banned if they are contributing to Global Warming, as proven by solid science?

    Best answer: Why pick on industry? Why not ban people who use the products that industry makes and attack the problem's root cause.

    Industry is not making stuff for the fun of it. It expects to sell whatever it makes. Those buyers are the real culprits.
    Best answer: Why pick on industry? Why not ban people who use the products that industry makes and attack the problem's root cause.

    Industry is not making stuff for the fun of it. It expects to sell whatever it makes. Those buyers are the real culprits.
    13 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • True or False? Green house gases should be banned?

    Best answer: Perhaps one day, when either renewable or fusion power can supply all of our energy needs, we can ban putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, providing that they can't be traced to modern day photosynthesis. The carbon cycle is important to all life on Earth and Earth would be a... show more
    Best answer: Perhaps one day, when either renewable or fusion power can supply all of our energy needs, we can ban putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, providing that they can't be traced to modern day photosynthesis.

    The carbon cycle is important to all life on Earth and Earth would be a ball of ice without naturally occurring greenhouse gases.
    12 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • Is it possible to represent the Republican party unless you lie about climate change?

    Best answer: Actually, about 1/3rd of millennial Republicans accept AGW and 1/2 believe it is an issue that needs tackling.

    It's the older Republican generation who don't accept it. You know ... the people who don't care cause they won't be around to see the impacts.
    Best answer: Actually, about 1/3rd of millennial Republicans accept AGW and 1/2 believe it is an issue that needs tackling.

    It's the older Republican generation who don't accept it. You know ... the people who don't care cause they won't be around to see the impacts.
    17 answers · Global Warming · 3 days ago
  • Does anyone else think climate change is unstoppable?

    The Earth will warm up no matter what we do?
    The Earth will warm up no matter what we do?
    10 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • What are some of the weirdest and wackiest things blamed on Global Warming?

    Best answer: In 1968, on his album "The Other Side", Tiny Tim recorded: " The ice caps are melting, the tide is rushing in. All the world is drowning, To wash away the sin. " Yes, the Crazies' predictiction was that we were all going to be under water before 1990. But that would have... show more
    Best answer: In 1968, on his album "The Other Side", Tiny Tim recorded:

    " The ice caps are melting,
    the tide is rushing in.
    All the world is drowning,
    To wash away the sin. "

    Yes, the Crazies' predictiction was that we were all going to be under water before 1990.

    But that would have been 30 years ago. Our family has lived on the same property in Florida - on the ocean - for 90 years. High Tides and storm surges from hurricanes are marked on the beach . . . . and there has been NO CHANGE AT ALL in 90 years. Perhaps if the alarmists would make credible predictions they would be taken seriously.

    added: and if some dimwit builds there house on permafrost . . . or 1 foot above sea level, that's their stupidity, not my problem.
    7 answers · Global Warming · 1 day ago
  • Is sea level rise in "pause" mode?

    Is sea level rise in "pause" mode?

    Best answer: Noting to pause. The level appears to rise or fall at various times, not necessarily in line with American made Global Warming, of course.

    Also the variable methods for measuring the sea level makes using it for scare tactics problematic.
    .
    Best answer: Noting to pause. The level appears to rise or fall at various times, not necessarily in line with American made Global Warming, of course.

    Also the variable methods for measuring the sea level makes using it for scare tactics problematic.
    .
    10 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • Are global warming deniers getting more brazen in their lies?

    Best answer: Yes, there has been strategy afoot to propagandize populations and minimize legitimate information (journalism and science) in order to corruptly seize power; any country without a free press becomes ripe for the picking. Recently, Trump pointed out that, I'm paraphrasing, he needed to put on a show to remain... show more
    Best answer: Yes, there has been strategy afoot to propagandize populations and minimize legitimate information (journalism and science) in order to corruptly seize power; any country without a free press becomes ripe for the picking. Recently, Trump pointed out that, I'm paraphrasing, he needed to put on a show to remain in power. In his frame of reference there may be something more dangerous than standing in the middle of 5th Avenue, shooting somebody, and not losing voters, and that is, telling those voters more truth. If you're in America, couches and asses are dangerous. Get up and vote!


    The updates will come later if I have time.

    Update 3:
    For the following, I'm just eyeballing the graph Dirac provided for Kano if I'm not mistaken.
    The given tide gauge data graph shows acceleration; the curve, even with the margin of error, looks somewhat quadratic. Normally, I download and analyze data finding curve of best fit, correlation, and so on.

    Note: The answer box couldn't handle the math without ghosting.
    See comments for math.

    Update 1:
    This is almost to silly to comment on, but It is important to combat lying and propaganda with truth, and that's what you appear to be attempting Dirac. If that was JimZ's contribution, it's wrong. It's easy to put out junk without proof. It's easy to gum up the works with I don't knowism, but these things, end up in the dust bin of history.

    Update 2:
    While reading a geometry book years ago, I read a passage dealing with prejudice by authority. The author was suggesting that one should not cite authority alone as a basis of knowledge. True enough, but this really only left me one option, doing the hard work of research before accepting authority; It seems like I have been doing this my entire time on this planet. I am a scientist. My background in chronological order is: applied physics, electrical engineering, computer science, and theoretical physics. I'm not a climate scientist, but regardless, I have enough prerequisite knowledge to understand Earth's state of energy.

    While researching the "97%" question I realized that, for me, the question is irrelevant. I did enough research, again for me alone, to know AGW is a fact, and now I'm allowed to accept the claims of certain authorities without prejudice. There's no easy way for me. It's always hard but rewarding work. If GC is claiming uncertainty, that's fine. If GC wants to tell us what he/she is most certain of that's better. Hard core yeas and nays from abstracts and climate scientists would have been best in the first place, but you can't always get what you want.


    Update 3:again:
    Maybe, the prolific Q&A power plant engineer doesn't have time to do the
    hard work of science or (math)?
    22 answers · Global Warming · 6 days ago
  • Has a single prediction of AGW actually been accurate?

    Best answer: I am still waiting for the 50 million climate refugees that the United Nations said we would have by 2010. The times we have been warned we have only months to save the planet Andrew Simms told us a year later that we had “only 100 months to avoid disaster.” Meaning time ran out in 2016… Al Gore told us that we had... show more
    Best answer: I am still waiting for the 50 million climate refugees that the United Nations said we would have by 2010.
    The times we have been warned we have only months to save the planet
    Andrew Simms told us a year later that we had “only 100 months to avoid disaster.” Meaning time ran out in 2016…
    Al Gore told us that we had just ten years in July of 2008 to ensure the “survival of the United States of America”. So America has been screwed for four months now…
    Jim Hansen, warned in 2009 that Obama only had “four years to save Earth.” Apparently Earth was lost in 2013…
    Prince Charles told us in May 2008 that we had “just eighteen months to stop climate change.” That gave us until the end of 2009…
    Prince Charles by July 2009, on the other had this had been extended to “just 96 months to save the world.” Time ran out in 2017…
    Lester Brown published in 2009 that we had “only months, not years” to “save civilisation from climate change.” It’s been years…
    11 answers · Global Warming · 3 days ago