olofscience
-
Content
2,540 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11 -
Feedback
N/A
Everything posted by olofscience
-
No raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.
-
Aw, I'm flattered. Lots of assumptions that I'll disagree with here, but at least this brings the discussion forward more than your previous comment. Took an essay, but you got there! See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
-
Oh you're back. Insightful contributions as ever too. /s
-
That was the biggest selling point of crypto, and one of the reasons I even considered getting into it. However, crypto failed for a few reasons. One, Bitcoin (and probably other Proof of Work coins) was deflationary. There was only a limited number going to be mined. This discourages actually using it. Their counterargument was that you can divide a bitcoin into so many sub-units, but this doesn't fix the underlying issue. Second was the transactions - it was too slow, too inefficient, too expensive to actually use as a currency. Currency that you can't use as currency is about as valuable as a main canopy that doesn't fly. At least to me. (on the above note - some can argue that crypto can be a store of value, like diamonds. But I think diamonds are ridiculously overvalued - they're useful in some tools like drill bits but their cost is more about suckers believing De Beers' marketing than anything else)
-
And just to re-emphasise about how refitting refineries for biofuels is just lying: Bio-fuel feedstock is usually triglycerides. To process it into biodiesel, you need to split the glycerol from the 3 fatty acids, then put them through esterification to turn them into methyl esters. Then possibly add some additives depending on the application (jet fuel, etc). That's pretty much it. The other main biofuel is biogas, which is methane (with some H2S impurities). All that's needed for that is H2S separation. Petroleoum refineries have fractional distillation columns, platinum formers, hydrodesulphurization units and a lot of other equipment that is simply useless and unnecessary for biofuel. So this blog post Brent links to accuses the Biden administration for lying, then lies about refineries being refitted for biofuels - when their link to the WaPo article says nothing of the sort. Just a normal day for brent I guess, with several lies before breakfast.
-
As usual, bullshit. It shows your ignorance about the oil and gas industry. From the WaPo article linked by the blog post: Why don't you buy or invest in it, Brent? I thought you were against government subsidies for renewables, does this mean you're arguing for the government to step in and buy this refinery?
-
May’s Global Temperature coldest in 9 years
olofscience replied to brenthutch's topic in Speakers Corner
More strawmen. You're still banging on your strawman that temperatures have to increase monotonically with CO2 level - NOBODY SAID THAT IT WOULD. The fact that you have to "create" the other side's arguments is the most obvious sign you don't have a chance. 2013 isn't even that long ago. July 2021 was the warmest month ever recorded, EVER, and what did we get from you? crickets. -
I'm not American, nor am I in the US. And neither are you, but I'm sure the GOP appreciates your support. So back to the discussion. Why is an authority (Merriam-Webster) and "scientific consensus" only important when it comes to attacking a tiny minority? Why isn't it important when the message is something you disagree with?
-
May’s Global Temperature coldest in 9 years
olofscience replied to brenthutch's topic in Speakers Corner
The NOAA don't need you to misinterpret their press releases for them. They need someone who can read, for starters. -
The fact that you're raging here actually shows that it's not as widely accepted as you want it to be. And that number is going down. Times are changing, old white men are raging.
-
This implies that it's a distribution, and that this definition only locates the mode. If it doesn't include the outliers, then billvon is correct - it excludes the outliers because it doesn't include them. Mathematical (and legal) language will only allow for a complete definition that includes the outliers, or excludes them, not both.
-
A suggestion to read more is "ad hominem"? It says something about you if that's what offends you. Do you need a safe space?
-
who said anything about being honest? He couldn't engage without making strawmen arguments or loaded questions. It's just impossible for him.
-
Since you willingly forgo scientific consensus on climate change, this is really funny. Do you even know what scientific consensus is?
-
whoosh. I'll take that. That's a lot better than people proudly demonstrating their ignorance about the topics they're raging about.
-
Funny how people who are raging about this know next to nothing about human biology, or even just biology in general. But then again you think you know better than NASA or NOAA scientists when it comes to climate change, so I guess it's not really that far out of character for you.
-
You should read more, starting with the articles you post. Hopefully you'll know the meaning of more words that way. There are also some literacy programs for adults you can attend if you're having difficulty reading on your own.
-
It had none. It just had dishonest debating tactics - strawmen, which you can't let go of. The personal attacks and insults were all from you.
-
Is that what you do? I mean, I know you missed school but as I said before, there are institutions for that.
-
Well...he's arguing with himself now
-
And you've got nothing but dishonest attempts to debate. Drop the strawmen, learn how to read, learn how to add, and we'll talk. K-12 is a good start, maybe in 12 years you'll know something!
-
You know when you ask CERN to solve your toddler puzzles, and they don't answer? It's not because they're afraid You really need so much attention, don't you could you at least try to learn to read your own links, and add two numbers together? I've got to go now, got some grown-up things to work on
-
Of those three, the only thing that has NO mathematical ambiguity is the definition of equal to. (and you even got your examples wrong) Geez. I've got better things to do that to teach you the basics of how to read, and how to do numbers.
-
Nope. Numbers are unambiguous and much clearer, but everyone knows you can't do them.
-
Nice loaded question. You'll then choose your own definition of catastrophic, apply your arbitrary criteria to any answer, then declare yourself the winner of the argument, which you do every day in your mind. You can't really debate honestly, can you? (rhetorical question: you can't. Because without cheating you really have no chance)
