StarGateWars Forums

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:48 pm**

if 2 + 2 = 5 was taught from the very start and was used consistently by everyone, then it would be correct

5 is only a symbol, we only designate it meaning because we are taught to, you could just as legitimately use the word dog for 5, as long as you state any such assumptions then you will be fine

what your trying to do is attack an axiom of mathematics, which is pointless

as for the video, his definition of organic chemistry is retarded

as for the production of oil being a continous process, yes, if you consider it a fossil fuel it is still being made by the decaying matter which is under compression etc

as for it being produced at a rate rapid enough for current demand to be met in a sustainable way, thats unlikely at best

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:02 pm**

[KMA]Avenger wrote:i've given you a hypothetical situation which i thought was plausible, in which a kid being taught 2+2=5 would have been taught that by a teacher who themselves learned as a kid from books which would also have been peer and board reviewed, and the peers and board members would also have learned that 2+2=5 from earlier books which were also peer and board reviewed. in that kind of situation is it not possible that scientific fraud may have been committed?

before you answer the above, lets consider the recent scandal with climategate...for the past 10+ years (even though the idea of man made climate change has been around a good 40+ years) all i've heard is "man made global warming this, anthropomorphic or man made climate change that", and yet its been proved that its nothing more than scientific fraud on an educational and global level running into the 100's billions if not trillions, and thats not even touched on just how much damage this has caused our industries which have been shut down because of this fraud.
the fraud of climate change becomes even more ridiculous when you consider that 1 volcano puts out more CO2 in 1 year than man has ever put out in every single endeavour he has engaged in from the moment the first man walked on the earth to the present day.

if they can convince the world that foisting a global carbon tax on the people will somehow fix the planet, what are "they" not capable of doing?

and to cap it all off, i recently told my sons geography teacher that i didn't want my son learning about "man made climate change" because it was a fraud and has been proved as such to which i got the reply "its part of the curriculum so he has to learn it" to which i said "even if its a fraud?" to which he replied "i don't set the curriculum, take this up with the head teacher and the educational board if you feel that strongly about it". its safe to say the man thinks all the info leaked about climategate is propaganda put out by Russians or the Chinese, such is his conviction that we are causing climate change without even considering why the Copenhagen climate change summit collapsed in total failure after the 3rd world country's walked out of the summit because they found out what a fraud the whole thing is...

do you see why i have a problem with mainstream academia and its books?

Go back to climate thread if you want to discuss climate change

since it's such a complex issue still in it's infancy i don't think it should be taught in schools but as mollari pointed out mathematical axioms like 2+2=4 are well established facts. Two not related.

Also
If one piece of wrong information is taught in a school; it does not follow that all information not related to the incorrect premise taught is wrong... i think i told you about this in the dianna thread.

Also
If you want to make this thread into a discussion about failures of education i'm all for that.

Finally
You have already stated you don't understand the chemistry to refute oil as a product of biomass. Your "no fossils found below certain mark" is crap because unless the creature has some form of a calcium based component to it, it won't leave a fossil behind. You are going to have to point some flaw of the theory that actually holds up to scrutiny, or you come off as just a bigot.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:14 am**

[KMA]Avenger wrote:especially when you consider that Tesla had developed free and wireless electricity for the whole planet, to which JP Morgan replied "can i put a meter on it?" to which Tesla said "no" to which Morgan replied by pulling Tesla's funding and killing the wardenclyffe tower project: http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=warden ... bec9886e72

there aint no such thing as "free" electricity.
well, no more than there is a "free" lunch, at any rate.
as a free-market supporter you should know that.
if someone can produce it, and someone else wants it, it has a price.
and no one will give something for nothing (well, except for governments, but we definietly can't trust THOSE, can we?).
electricity can be (and is being) easily produced from sustainable elements. sunshine, wind (which is basicly transformed sunshine), water currents and water falls (again, basicly transformed sunshine), nuclear reactions (immitated sunshine) and many others 'natural resources'.
we have the technology. we can make it better, stronger, faster, cheaper.
why aren't we? well, my guess is that we aren't because there aint no such thing as "free" electricity.
if someone can produce it, and someone else wants it, it has a price.
and no one will give something for nothing

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:28 am**

you missed the point i made...or more accurately, the point JP Morgan made...the Ele3ctricty was made free of charge to the producer and very lttle was needed to pass that on top the consumer, but because JPM couldn't put a meter on it her killed the project....its exactly the same scenario with the CO2 tax they want to foist on all of us...

"hmmm...why should people be allowed to breath for free?! I KNOW, lets tax them on the CO2 they exhale!!!

those 2 scenarios are both similar in that, the electricity Tesla was tapping into was free, as is the air we breath...but not for much longer!

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:03 am**

Usable electic is not produced for almost nothing KMA & in fact Ihave some serious doubts as to the widescale validty of that project.

Have you looked at recent attempts of 'wireless' power transmission? That should give you a clue to the doubts

EDIT: Also no one is suggesting the people be taxed for the CO2 they exhale as part of the process of living. What is being suggested is that something is paid to fund stuff to offset CO" emissions from the production of stuff like cars/tvs/computers etc etc, which is something totally different altogether.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:09 am**

Kit-Fox wrote:EDIT: Also no one is suggesting the people be taxed for the CO2 they exhale as part of the process of living. What is being suggested is that something is paid to fund stuff to offset CO" emissions from the production of stuff like cars/tvs/computers etc etc, which is something totally different altogether.

AND - is already being done on a national level.
i.e. - nations pay (in some way or another) based on the amount of greenhouse gasses they emit.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:22 am**

Kit-Fox wrote:Usable electic is not produced for almost nothing KMA & in fact Ihave some serious doubts as to the widescale validty of that project.

JPM was so convinced Tesla's wireless electricity thingy would work, he pumped millions into it not knowing it was a free energy system. when he finally found out Tesla wanted to make it a gift to the world he pulled the plug.

Kit-Fox wrote:Have you looked at recent attempts of 'wireless' power transmission? That should give you a clue to the doubts

i haven't looked at the development of it. all i know is that its coming but not quite ready yet....if ever.

Kit-Fox wrote:EDIT: Also no one is suggesting the people be taxed for the CO2 they exhale as part of the process of living. What is being suggested is that something is paid to fund stuff to offset CO" emissions from the production of stuff like cars/tvs/computers etc etc, which is something totally different altogether.

that's the thin end of the wedge mate.

@Hitchkok: what's the main component or ingredient in green house gases? i'll give you a clue, its not CO2...actually, CO2 is a VERY minor component/ingredient.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:43 am**

Actually KMA CO2 is a large component of so called greenhouse gases and it is something that is very exceptionally easy to deal with, which is no doubt why the huge drive to actually do something as its relatively simple when compared to processing some of the other stuff covered by the term.

And throughout history lots of investors have pumped money into things they believed in only to find eventually it wouldnt work or wasnt possible after putting in large sums of cash, that means absolutely nothing. It doesnt mean it worked or woulc/could work on either a national or international level.

You really should look into some of the latest reasearch which is proving its practically impossible to have a 'wireless' electricity grid. Sure we can do with a few specific devices purpose build with purpose built equipment. But widescale & without requiring everyone to replace every electrically power device they own??? Not on your life, not yet & in all liklihood not anytime soon either.

As for thin end of the wedge, yeah of course it is KMA, everything that Gov or Business does is a thin end of a wedge isnt it? Seriously I thought I was paranoid with my personal security but blow me if you dont make me look like rank amatuer

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:00 am**

mate, Tesla had built his tower and proved it worked, funding was pulled by JPM because he couldn't put a meter in the house...or put everyone on the grid as we are now. bottom line is this, it worked and Tesla proved it worked....lets just agree to disagree on this one.

as for the GHG's, what % of GhG's would you say CO2 makes up?

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:16 am**

around 99.5% (in 1998, according to wikipedia).
the exact figures are
CO2 - 365 PPM (Parts Per Million)
Methane - 1745 PPB (Parts PER Billion), which is 1.745 PPM
Nitrous Oxide - 314 PPB, 0.314 PPM.

so we have CO2 at 365 PPM, and the other two leaders at a combined 2.059.
so that's (365/367.059)*100~99.439
(now, that's not taking into account water vapour, but come on, not much we can do about clouds, is there?)

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:01 pm**

Hitchkok wrote:around 99.5% (in 1998, according to wikipedia).
the exact figures are
CO2 - 365 PPM (Parts Per Million)
Methane - 1745 PPB (Parts PER Billion), which is 1.745 PPM
Nitrous Oxide - 314 PPB, 0.314 PPM.

so we have CO2 at 365 PPM, and the other two leaders at a combined 2.059.
so that's (365/367.059)*100~99.439
(now, that's not taking into account water vapour, but come on, not much we can do about clouds, is there?)

LMAO!!!

i dont know wheather to be shocked at that figure or to laugh at it!

let me get this straight...you think that GHG are made up of 99.5% CO2, or are you saying that's what wiki says??

ok, i cant wait to get an answer thereby dragging this out more that needs be...

firstly, by FAAAAR the biggest % of GHG are made up of at the very least (according to some "experts)...get this 72% of GHG is water vapour...other climatologists say that water vapour makes up 95% of all GHG and CO2 is a minor part consisting of a mere 5% in all GHG emissions....

to top it all off, 1 volcano puts out more CO2 in 1 year than all of man's endeavours on this planet from the moment the first man exhaled his first breath right up to modern times with all our factory's and gas guzzlers. now tell me, how the hell we are going to compete against a volcano by shutting down industry and shifting to green economies in order to "save the planet".

come on, this is already so ludicrous its beyond belief...i can see it now...

hooray for the planet! with all these draconian measures we have put in place, mans CO2 output has been cut to 0%...hooray for the planet!

eh, sir!

yes what is it mate.

sir mount pooh-pooh has just erupted.

oh crap!

never mind people...back to square 1, but this time we'll put a cap on the volcano so it wont interfere with us saving the planet.

putting all sarcasm aside...by FAAAAAR the biggest contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere is not man, volcanoes or cows farting...its the oceans....

what we going to do to stop the oceans dumping all its CO2 into the atmosphere...tax it?!

edit:

i tend to agree with climatologists who say that water vapour makes up more than 90% of GHG than those who say its under because more agree its over than under. plus those who say its over have more PHD's and doctorates than you could shake 10 sticks at, have worked for NASA and also some have more accurate forecasts than Govt appointed "experts".

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:13 pm**

So what your saying is that we shouldnt do anything about the sort of pollutions we create because nature can do worse ?? You do realise how stupid that is dont you?? And I ask in the spirit of enquiry.

Just because a natural event can put out a lof of XYZ (take your pick of the many things to moan about) doesnt mean we shouldnt do something about the stuff we output (in manufacturing and the like, rather than the process of living) especially when we have the tech & ability to do so. Lets face it we know its harmful so it can hardly be considered a clever idea to do nothing now can it?? Simples

Oh & just for your info Tesla proven it worked in a limited setting much like we can get wireless tech to work now, he didnt make it work across an entire nation or across international borders. He proved it worked with the right kit in the right circumstances, again like we can today but he didnt do it big enough to make a power grid out of it and neither can we, dont you think that tells you something? That for the moment its out of our reach

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:21 pm**

Kit-Fox wrote:So what your saying is that we shouldnt do anything about the sort of pollutions we create because nature can do worse ?? You do realise how stupid that is dont you?? And I ask in the spirit of enquiry.

Just because a natural event can put out a lof of XYZ (take your pick of the many things to moan about) doesnt mean we shouldnt do something about the stuff we output (in manufacturing and the like, rather than the process of living) especially when we have the tech & ability to do so. Lets face it we know its harmful so it can hardly be considered a clever idea to do nothing now can it?? Simples

Oh & just for your info Tesla proven it worked in a limited setting much like we can get wireless tech to work now, he didnt make it work across an entire nation or across international borders. He proved it worked with the right kit in the right circumstances, again like we can today but he didnt do it big enough to make a power grid out of it and neither can we, dont you think that tells you something? That for the moment its out of our reach

i'm not talking about pollution mate, thats a whole-nother argument.

pollution and environmental damage needs to be addressed and sorted out, i agree. however, carbon taxing us all into oblivion because of a fallacy that one of the life building blocks of our planet is somehow killing the planet is monstrously stupid to say the least!

and just for the record...there are times in earth's past that there have 100's even 1000's of times more CO2 in the atmosphere than present levels (the ice core record proves this), and the planet survived just fine.

so to recap, destroying the environment=VERY bad and needs to be stopped ASAP!

taxing carbon=stupid!

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:27 pm**

Just becasue in the geological past the CO & CO2 levels have been much higher doesnt mean that can be again you know. First off they would affect most of the plant life if their levels rose & from that the knock on effect would affects animals and humans.

What was good for the planet once is not always whats good for it now in much the same way that whay was good for you as a child of 6 100% isnt good enough for you now (such as clothes / food / availability of resources etc)

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:43 pm**

i dont understand what your getting at...

from what i have learned from geologists and agricultural experts who both agree that more CO2 means we have bigger plants, trees and more importantly...bigger crop yields since CO2 is to plants what O2 is for mammals.

so let me ask you, if more CO2 is in the atmosphere we get bigger plants, more oxygen for us to breath, and bigger crop yields, can you see any negatives there?

at the end of the day mate, CO2 causing global anthropogenic climate change is a sick and twisted lie/fallacy/joke/whatever, but more important than that, we have all been brainwashed by non-experts hired to train the whole planet that somehow the stuff we exhale (which is essential for life on earth) is causing the planet to cook itself from the inside out....what's next, we should all stop breathing because oxygen will melt the glaciers?!

but hey, don't take my word for any of this, listen to people who know what their talking about. these 2 films TOTALLY DESTROY the myth of man made global warming and CO2=bad for the planet or the environment.

the first film is an award winning channel 4 documentary : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 369613647#

and this film shows even more: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 427439443#

StarGateWars Forums

dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!

Re: dumb science!