How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

[TroglocratsRdumb]

manmade global warming is a weak hypothesis used to frighten weak minded people

No. It is an almost universally accepted scientific theory.

sheep

Are you a sheep for accepting that drunk driving puts you and others at risk? Are you a sheep for accepting that smoking is bad for your health and those around you? Are you a sheep for accepting that cholesterol and trans fats lead to heart disease? Are you a sheep for accepting that failing to wear a seat belt is a bad idea? Are you a sheep for accepting that children shouldn't run around with scissors in their hands? AGW IS an almost universally accepted scientific theory which you can see for yourself at Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, a link I have probably put up here at least 20 times. If you think accepting overwhelming, peer-reviewed evidence and the conclusions of tens of thousands of published, degreed scientists makes me a sheep, well then BAA-BAA-BAA motherfucker.

.....but I have never even met your mother

Trusting scientists to be right all of the time is as foolish as trusting the American Press to be honest.
CO2 is about .04% of the atmosphere.
97% of the CO2 comes from good old mother nature.
Mankind's CO2 emissions are insignificant.
The Earth has a natural cycle of warming and cooling caused by the sun's cycles of warming and cooling.
All of the climate change cataclysmic doomsday predictions have been wrong.
But Climate Change Hysteria is a great political tool to frighten the Doomsday Fools.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Here is a great climate change apocalypse fool theme song, enjoy. LMAO

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Here is another great climate change apocalypse song LOL

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

World End Predictor fools have been around for a very long time.

List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Here is some information that might help the Climate Change End Timers be less frightened.

Doomsday cult - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Climate Alarm: Failed Prognostications

Learn how the narrative surrounding climate alarm has evolved during the thirty years since the orginal warnings came from alarmists.

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Here's How Wrong Past Environmental Predictions Have Been

The experts have been wrong for decades on end.

www.dailysignal.com

Doomsdays that didn’t happen: Think tank compiles decades’ worth of dire climate predictions

While data from NASA and other top research agencies confirms global temperatures are indeed rising, a newly compiled retrospective indicates the doomsday rhetoric is perhaps more overheated.

www.foxnews.com

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

and now for some climate end timer cartoons

 

[ReinyDays]

Generally speaking, "matter" doesn't radiate anything anywhere in particular.

Matter sure as hell does ... all Light Matter interacts with electromagnetic radiation ... you may be confusing this with the mythological substance called Dark Matter, which doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation, which is why it's dark ... all atoms can absorb photons, thus all atoms can radiate photons ... why else would the Sun shine? ...

400PPM absorbs 100% IR? Are you insane?

The mean free path for IR in Earth's lower atmosphere is around 27 m ... almost 100 feet ... that's the average distance an IR photon will travel near Earth's surface ... maximum absorption for solar IR is above 99% of the atmosphere, and it's all gone by the time the solar IR passes through the top 18% of the atmosphere ... only visual light and radio waves can pass through the atmosphere unencumbered ... this is why IR telescopes have to be in orbit above the Earth's atmosphere, they'd get nothing (or fogged out by back radiation) from the Earth's surface, even atop Mt Everest ...

The main culprit here is water vapor ... carbon dioxide only reacts to IR in a few narrow bands where water doesn't, notably around 15 µm ... so, yeah, even 180 ppm is enough to keep almost all the IR photons from Earth's surface from directly reaching outer space ... which is why the Earth's surface is 30-40ºC warmer than expected without an atmosphere ...

The odds of 180/1,000,000 trapping 100% are clearly not in your favor.

You should avoid gambling at all costs.

The odds of 180/1,000,000 trapping 100% are clearly not in your favor.
You should avoid gambling at all costs.

Apparently you don't gamble yourself ... if a $180 bet wins $1,000,000, then that's even money (on average) ... yes, I'll always toss a buck on the Fire Bet every chance I can, with every expectation of tipping the dealers more ... but most (if not all) casinos will only pay $980,000 on that $180 bet ... 2% house take ... you should avoid banking a casino at all costs ...

Your phrasing is difficult ... should be "approaches 100%" ... certainty can only be established after-the-fact ... so in the real world we'll only see 99.999999999999999999999% ... perhaps higher, but still ≠ 100% ... thus my words "almost all the IR" ... if you try to take a course in chemistry at your local community college, likely they'll also make you take an English class, something to improve your reading skills ... this might surprise you, but "almost all" ≠ "certainty" ...

Perhaps you have a different explanation for the temperature maxima at 8 mb elevation? ... one that also explains the temperature maxima as we approach 0 mb ... (see how I used the word "approach"?) ... In science, it's never enough to say some theory is wrong, one must also state which theory is correct ... I'm sorry, photons don't come with return addresses, nor do molecules have the intelligence to decide which photons to accept and which to let pass by ... SSDD lead you astray ...

No, really. Stay away from gambling and anything to do with math. You don't have the first idea.

Avoid bets where your odds are 180 out of 1,000,000.

Let's see your math ... $180 bet wins $1,000,000 ... what's my take after a 180 trillion rounds? ...

Nothing Honey Boo Boo.

Nothing

You lose

The odds are 180 out of 1,000,000

Poker Percentage Odds Chart | Percentage Odds

Outs	1 Card To Come (flop)	1 Card To Come (turn)	2 Cards To Come (flop)
1	2.1%	2.2%	4.3%

Your odds are so much worse!

2.1% would be a dream come true for you!!

What kind of poker game allows a $180 buy-in to a $1,000,000 dollar pot? ...

How do you not get it????

How do you not get it????

Answer the question, fool ...
What kind of poker game allows a $180 buy-in to a $1,000,000 pot? ...

Gambling isn't only about odds, it's about pay-out as well ... stupid ...

You can freeroll into the WSOP Main Event. I think Chris Moneymaker won a $200 Satellite to get the $10K buy in.

Does EVERY $180 buy in win $1,000,000 every time as you suggest?

You can freeroll into the WSOP Main Event. I think Chris Moneymaker won a $200 Satellite to get the $10K buy in.
Does EVERY $180 buy in win $1,000,000 every time as you suggest?

This is your analogy ... and it's a particularly bad one at that ...

The first fallacy is reducing the sample pool to a deck of 52 ... there's 3,300,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2 in one mole of air (about 5 gallons at sea level) ... you contend there's no chance in hell any individual IR photon will strike and be absorbed by any CO2 molecules in the whole atmosphere ... I give you a mole of photons, what are the odds of every one traversing a 5-gallon bucket? ... what are the odds of 1,000 W/m^2 worth of photons traversing several miles of 5-gallon buckets? ...

So much for your deflection attack ...

400PPM absorbs 100% IR? Are you insane?

... approaches 100% ... that's a lot of photons, but not infinite ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Generally speaking, "matter" doesn't radiate anything anywhere in particular.

Matter sure as hell does ... all Light Matter interacts with electromagnetic radiation ... you may be confusing this with the mythological substance called Dark Matter, which doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation, which is why it's dark ... all atoms can absorb photons, thus all atoms can radiate photons ... why else would the Sun shine? ...

400PPM absorbs 100% IR? Are you insane?

The mean free path for IR in Earth's lower atmosphere is around 27 m ... almost 100 feet ... that's the average distance an IR photon will travel near Earth's surface ... maximum absorption for solar IR is above 99% of the atmosphere, and it's all gone by the time the solar IR passes through the top 18% of the atmosphere ... only visual light and radio waves can pass through the atmosphere unencumbered ... this is why IR telescopes have to be in orbit above the Earth's atmosphere, they'd get nothing (or fogged out by back radiation) from the Earth's surface, even atop Mt Everest ...

The main culprit here is water vapor ... carbon dioxide only reacts to IR in a few narrow bands where water doesn't, notably around 15 µm ... so, yeah, even 180 ppm is enough to keep almost all the IR photons from Earth's surface from directly reaching outer space ... which is why the Earth's surface is 30-40ºC warmer than expected without an atmosphere ...

The odds of 180/1,000,000 trapping 100% are clearly not in your favor.

You should avoid gambling at all costs.

The odds of 180/1,000,000 trapping 100% are clearly not in your favor.
You should avoid gambling at all costs.

Apparently you don't gamble yourself ... if a $180 bet wins $1,000,000, then that's even money (on average) ... yes, I'll always toss a buck on the Fire Bet every chance I can, with every expectation of tipping the dealers more ... but most (if not all) casinos will only pay $980,000 on that $180 bet ... 2% house take ... you should avoid banking a casino at all costs ...

Your phrasing is difficult ... should be "approaches 100%" ... certainty can only be established after-the-fact ... so in the real world we'll only see 99.999999999999999999999% ... perhaps higher, but still ≠ 100% ... thus my words "almost all the IR" ... if you try to take a course in chemistry at your local community college, likely they'll also make you take an English class, something to improve your reading skills ... this might surprise you, but "almost all" ≠ "certainty" ...

Perhaps you have a different explanation for the temperature maxima at 8 mb elevation? ... one that also explains the temperature maxima as we approach 0 mb ... (see how I used the word "approach"?) ... In science, it's never enough to say some theory is wrong, one must also state which theory is correct ... I'm sorry, photons don't come with return addresses, nor do molecules have the intelligence to decide which photons to accept and which to let pass by ... SSDD lead you astray ...

No, really. Stay away from gambling and anything to do with math. You don't have the first idea.

Avoid bets where your odds are 180 out of 1,000,000.

Let's see your math ... $180 bet wins $1,000,000 ... what's my take after a 180 trillion rounds? ...

Nothing Honey Boo Boo.

Nothing

You lose

The odds are 180 out of 1,000,000

Poker Percentage Odds Chart | Percentage Odds

Outs	1 Card To Come (flop)	1 Card To Come (turn)	2 Cards To Come (flop)
1	2.1%	2.2%	4.3%

Your odds are so much worse!

2.1% would be a dream come true for you!!

What kind of poker game allows a $180 buy-in to a $1,000,000 dollar pot? ...

How do you not get it????

How do you not get it????

Answer the question, fool ...
What kind of poker game allows a $180 buy-in to a $1,000,000 pot? ...

Gambling isn't only about odds, it's about pay-out as well ... stupid ...

You can freeroll into the WSOP Main Event. I think Chris Moneymaker won a $200 Satellite to get the $10K buy in.

Does EVERY $180 buy in win $1,000,000 every time as you suggest?

You can freeroll into the WSOP Main Event. I think Chris Moneymaker won a $200 Satellite to get the $10K buy in.
Does EVERY $180 buy in win $1,000,000 every time as you suggest?

This is your analogy ... and it's a particularly bad one at that ...

The first fallacy is reducing the sample pool to a deck of 52 ... there's 3,300,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2 in one mole of air (about 5 gallons at sea level) ... you contend there's no chance in hell any individual IR photon will strike and be absorbed by any CO2 molecules in the whole atmosphere ... I give you a mole of photons, what are the odds of every one traversing a 5-gallon bucket? ... what are the odds of 1,000 W/m^2 worth of photons traversing several miles of 5-gallon buckets? ...

So much for your deflection attack ...

400PPM absorbs 100% IR? Are you insane?

... approaches 100% ... that's a lot of photons, but not infinite ...

You need to stop posting, for your own good.

If CO2 is only 400PPM, that means that for every 1,000,000 molecules, CO2 is only 400.

Let me know you followed that before I post anything else

 

[Grumblenuts]

If CO2 is only 400PPM, that means that for every 1,000,000 molecules, CO2 is only 400.

Nice gas concentration conversion reference here. Keep in mind several gases can kill you quick at only 200PPM.

 

[ReinyDays]

Generally speaking, "matter" doesn't radiate anything anywhere in particular.

Matter sure as hell does ... all Light Matter interacts with electromagnetic radiation ... you may be confusing this with the mythological substance called Dark Matter, which doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation, which is why it's dark ... all atoms can absorb photons, thus all atoms can radiate photons ... why else would the Sun shine? ...

400PPM absorbs 100% IR? Are you insane?

The mean free path for IR in Earth's lower atmosphere is around 27 m ... almost 100 feet ... that's the average distance an IR photon will travel near Earth's surface ... maximum absorption for solar IR is above 99% of the atmosphere, and it's all gone by the time the solar IR passes through the top 18% of the atmosphere ... only visual light and radio waves can pass through the atmosphere unencumbered ... this is why IR telescopes have to be in orbit above the Earth's atmosphere, they'd get nothing (or fogged out by back radiation) from the Earth's surface, even atop Mt Everest ...

The main culprit here is water vapor ... carbon dioxide only reacts to IR in a few narrow bands where water doesn't, notably around 15 µm ... so, yeah, even 180 ppm is enough to keep almost all the IR photons from Earth's surface from directly reaching outer space ... which is why the Earth's surface is 30-40ºC warmer than expected without an atmosphere ...

The odds of 180/1,000,000 trapping 100% are clearly not in your favor.

You should avoid gambling at all costs.

The odds of 180/1,000,000 trapping 100% are clearly not in your favor.
You should avoid gambling at all costs.

Apparently you don't gamble yourself ... if a $180 bet wins $1,000,000, then that's even money (on average) ... yes, I'll always toss a buck on the Fire Bet every chance I can, with every expectation of tipping the dealers more ... but most (if not all) casinos will only pay $980,000 on that $180 bet ... 2% house take ... you should avoid banking a casino at all costs ...

Your phrasing is difficult ... should be "approaches 100%" ... certainty can only be established after-the-fact ... so in the real world we'll only see 99.999999999999999999999% ... perhaps higher, but still ≠ 100% ... thus my words "almost all the IR" ... if you try to take a course in chemistry at your local community college, likely they'll also make you take an English class, something to improve your reading skills ... this might surprise you, but "almost all" ≠ "certainty" ...

Perhaps you have a different explanation for the temperature maxima at 8 mb elevation? ... one that also explains the temperature maxima as we approach 0 mb ... (see how I used the word "approach"?) ... In science, it's never enough to say some theory is wrong, one must also state which theory is correct ... I'm sorry, photons don't come with return addresses, nor do molecules have the intelligence to decide which photons to accept and which to let pass by ... SSDD lead you astray ...

No, really. Stay away from gambling and anything to do with math. You don't have the first idea.

Avoid bets where your odds are 180 out of 1,000,000.

Let's see your math ... $180 bet wins $1,000,000 ... what's my take after a 180 trillion rounds? ...

Nothing Honey Boo Boo.

Nothing

You lose

The odds are 180 out of 1,000,000

Poker Percentage Odds Chart | Percentage Odds

Outs	1 Card To Come (flop)	1 Card To Come (turn)	2 Cards To Come (flop)
1	2.1%	2.2%	4.3%

Your odds are so much worse!

2.1% would be a dream come true for you!!

What kind of poker game allows a $180 buy-in to a $1,000,000 dollar pot? ...

How do you not get it????

How do you not get it????

Answer the question, fool ...
What kind of poker game allows a $180 buy-in to a $1,000,000 pot? ...

Gambling isn't only about odds, it's about pay-out as well ... stupid ...

You can freeroll into the WSOP Main Event. I think Chris Moneymaker won a $200 Satellite to get the $10K buy in.

Does EVERY $180 buy in win $1,000,000 every time as you suggest?

You can freeroll into the WSOP Main Event. I think Chris Moneymaker won a $200 Satellite to get the $10K buy in.
Does EVERY $180 buy in win $1,000,000 every time as you suggest?

This is your analogy ... and it's a particularly bad one at that ...

The first fallacy is reducing the sample pool to a deck of 52 ... there's 3,300,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2 in one mole of air (about 5 gallons at sea level) ... you contend there's no chance in hell any individual IR photon will strike and be absorbed by any CO2 molecules in the whole atmosphere ... I give you a mole of photons, what are the odds of every one traversing a 5-gallon bucket? ... what are the odds of 1,000 W/m^2 worth of photons traversing several miles of 5-gallon buckets? ...

So much for your deflection attack ...

400PPM absorbs 100% IR? Are you insane?

... approaches 100% ... that's a lot of photons, but not infinite ...

You need to stop posting, for your own good.

If CO2 is only 400PPM, that means that for every 1,000,000 molecules, CO2 is only 400.

Let me know you followed that before I post anything else

You need to stop posting, for your own good.
If CO2 is only 400PPM, that means that for every 1,000,000 molecules, CO2 is only 400.
Let me know you followed that before I post anything else

There's 602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in a mole of air, or 23.6 liters at sea level ... roughly 5 gallons ... 400 ppm of that is 240,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of carbon dioxide in that 5 gallons ... 1,000,000 molecules of air is only 48 attograms ... 48 x 10^-18 grams ... do you not know what a mole is? ... it's a basic unit of measurement in the SI metric system ...

Here's a hint ... when someone uses a word you don't understand ... look it up ...

Mole (unit) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You need me to stop posting for your own good ... Oh, I forgot, Bubba didn't finish Middle School ... chemistry is taught in high school ... still, you should look up words you don't understand, instead of looking like an idiot ...

 

[LuckyDuck]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Technically, a survey of scientists found that not "all" scientists agree with the concept of global warming. So, you are generalizing. That doesn't negate that the "majority" of scientists do believe we are having a negative impact on the climate.
Here's the thing though. Through the "Clean Air Act" and the "Clean Water Act," plus emission restrictions on our vehicles, the United States is one of the least polluters in the world. The major contributors to carbon emissions remains, China, Russia, India and Africa, with other 2nd and 3rd World nations being considerable contributors.
Newsflash......they aren't going to change their ways for years to come.

 

[forkup]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Technically, a survey of scientists found that not "all" scientists agree with the concept of global warming. So, you are generalizing. That doesn't negate that the "majority" of scientists do believe we are having a negative impact on the climate.
Here's the thing though. Through the "Clean Air Act" and the "Clean Water Act," plus emission restrictions on our vehicles, the United States is one of the least polluters in the world. The major contributors to carbon emissions remains, China, Russia, India and Africa, with other 2nd and 3rd World nations being considerable contributors.
Newsflash......they aren't going to change their ways for years to come.

CO₂ Emissions by Country 2024

Newsflash doesn't seem actual data agrees with you.

 

[jc456]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Technically, a survey of scientists found that not "all" scientists agree with the concept of global warming. So, you are generalizing. That doesn't negate that the "majority" of scientists do believe we are having a negative impact on the climate.
Here's the thing though. Through the "Clean Air Act" and the "Clean Water Act," plus emission restrictions on our vehicles, the United States is one of the least polluters in the world. The major contributors to carbon emissions remains, China, Russia, India and Africa, with other 2nd and 3rd World nations being considerable contributors.
Newsflash......they aren't going to change their ways for years to come.

CO₂ Emissions by Country 2024

Newsflash doesn't seem actual data agrees with you.

china is number one on the list you provided. dude are you ok? hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha, can't make up your kind of stupid, you must work on it.

 

[forkup]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Technically, a survey of scientists found that not "all" scientists agree with the concept of global warming. So, you are generalizing. That doesn't negate that the "majority" of scientists do believe we are having a negative impact on the climate.
Here's the thing though. Through the "Clean Air Act" and the "Clean Water Act," plus emission restrictions on our vehicles, the United States is one of the least polluters in the world. The major contributors to carbon emissions remains, China, Russia, India and Africa, with other 2nd and 3rd World nations being considerable contributors.
Newsflash......they aren't going to change their ways for years to come.

CO₂ Emissions by Country 2024

Newsflash doesn't seem actual data agrees with you.

china is number one on the list you provided. dude are you ok? hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha, can't make up your kind of stupid, you must work on it.

If the argument is that America is one of the least polluters in the world what is the problem of me stating they are 3rd in total emissions and second in per capita? As for stupid, maybe read first, react second.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Technically, a survey of scientists found that not "all" scientists agree with the concept of global warming. So, you are generalizing. That doesn't negate that the "majority" of scientists do believe we are having a negative impact on the climate.

Crick's not generalizing. It's an unprecedented, overwhelming consensus thing, not a pointless "majority" thing. Facts aren't established through democracy. And it's an unsustainable thing, not just "a negative impact" thing.

 

[jc456]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Technically, a survey of scientists found that not "all" scientists agree with the concept of global warming. So, you are generalizing. That doesn't negate that the "majority" of scientists do believe we are having a negative impact on the climate.
Here's the thing though. Through the "Clean Air Act" and the "Clean Water Act," plus emission restrictions on our vehicles, the United States is one of the least polluters in the world. The major contributors to carbon emissions remains, China, Russia, India and Africa, with other 2nd and 3rd World nations being considerable contributors.
Newsflash......they aren't going to change their ways for years to come.

CO₂ Emissions by Country 2024

Newsflash doesn't seem actual data agrees with you.

china is number one on the list you provided. dude are you ok? hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha, can't make up your kind of stupid, you must work on it.

If the argument is that America is one of the least polluters in the world what is the problem of me stating they are 3rd in total emissions and second in per capita? As for stupid, maybe read first, react second.

That’s not what he said

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Generally speaking, "matter" doesn't radiate anything anywhere in particular.

Matter sure as hell does ... all Light Matter interacts with electromagnetic radiation ... you may be confusing this with the mythological substance called Dark Matter, which doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation, which is why it's dark ... all atoms can absorb photons, thus all atoms can radiate photons ... why else would the Sun shine? ...

400PPM absorbs 100% IR? Are you insane?

The mean free path for IR in Earth's lower atmosphere is around 27 m ... almost 100 feet ... that's the average distance an IR photon will travel near Earth's surface ... maximum absorption for solar IR is above 99% of the atmosphere, and it's all gone by the time the solar IR passes through the top 18% of the atmosphere ... only visual light and radio waves can pass through the atmosphere unencumbered ... this is why IR telescopes have to be in orbit above the Earth's atmosphere, they'd get nothing (or fogged out by back radiation) from the Earth's surface, even atop Mt Everest ...

The main culprit here is water vapor ... carbon dioxide only reacts to IR in a few narrow bands where water doesn't, notably around 15 µm ... so, yeah, even 180 ppm is enough to keep almost all the IR photons from Earth's surface from directly reaching outer space ... which is why the Earth's surface is 30-40ºC warmer than expected without an atmosphere ...

The odds of 180/1,000,000 trapping 100% are clearly not in your favor.

You should avoid gambling at all costs.

The odds of 180/1,000,000 trapping 100% are clearly not in your favor.
You should avoid gambling at all costs.

Apparently you don't gamble yourself ... if a $180 bet wins $1,000,000, then that's even money (on average) ... yes, I'll always toss a buck on the Fire Bet every chance I can, with every expectation of tipping the dealers more ... but most (if not all) casinos will only pay $980,000 on that $180 bet ... 2% house take ... you should avoid banking a casino at all costs ...

Your phrasing is difficult ... should be "approaches 100%" ... certainty can only be established after-the-fact ... so in the real world we'll only see 99.999999999999999999999% ... perhaps higher, but still ≠ 100% ... thus my words "almost all the IR" ... if you try to take a course in chemistry at your local community college, likely they'll also make you take an English class, something to improve your reading skills ... this might surprise you, but "almost all" ≠ "certainty" ...

Perhaps you have a different explanation for the temperature maxima at 8 mb elevation? ... one that also explains the temperature maxima as we approach 0 mb ... (see how I used the word "approach"?) ... In science, it's never enough to say some theory is wrong, one must also state which theory is correct ... I'm sorry, photons don't come with return addresses, nor do molecules have the intelligence to decide which photons to accept and which to let pass by ... SSDD lead you astray ...

No, really. Stay away from gambling and anything to do with math. You don't have the first idea.

Avoid bets where your odds are 180 out of 1,000,000.

Let's see your math ... $180 bet wins $1,000,000 ... what's my take after a 180 trillion rounds? ...

Nothing Honey Boo Boo.

Nothing

You lose

The odds are 180 out of 1,000,000

Poker Percentage Odds Chart | Percentage Odds

Outs	1 Card To Come (flop)	1 Card To Come (turn)	2 Cards To Come (flop)
1	2.1%	2.2%	4.3%

Your odds are so much worse!

2.1% would be a dream come true for you!!

What kind of poker game allows a $180 buy-in to a $1,000,000 dollar pot? ...

How do you not get it????

How do you not get it????

Answer the question, fool ...
What kind of poker game allows a $180 buy-in to a $1,000,000 pot? ...

Gambling isn't only about odds, it's about pay-out as well ... stupid ...

You can freeroll into the WSOP Main Event. I think Chris Moneymaker won a $200 Satellite to get the $10K buy in.

Does EVERY $180 buy in win $1,000,000 every time as you suggest?

You can freeroll into the WSOP Main Event. I think Chris Moneymaker won a $200 Satellite to get the $10K buy in.
Does EVERY $180 buy in win $1,000,000 every time as you suggest?

This is your analogy ... and it's a particularly bad one at that ...

The first fallacy is reducing the sample pool to a deck of 52 ... there's 3,300,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2 in one mole of air (about 5 gallons at sea level) ... you contend there's no chance in hell any individual IR photon will strike and be absorbed by any CO2 molecules in the whole atmosphere ... I give you a mole of photons, what are the odds of every one traversing a 5-gallon bucket? ... what are the odds of 1,000 W/m^2 worth of photons traversing several miles of 5-gallon buckets? ...

So much for your deflection attack ...

400PPM absorbs 100% IR? Are you insane?

... approaches 100% ... that's a lot of photons, but not infinite ...

You need to stop posting, for your own good.

If CO2 is only 400PPM, that means that for every 1,000,000 molecules, CO2 is only 400.

Let me know you followed that before I post anything else

You need to stop posting, for your own good.
If CO2 is only 400PPM, that means that for every 1,000,000 molecules, CO2 is only 400.
Let me know you followed that before I post anything else

There's 602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in a mole of air, or 23.6 liters at sea level ... roughly 5 gallons ... 400 ppm of that is 240,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of carbon dioxide in that 5 gallons ... 1,000,000 molecules of air is only 48 attograms ... 48 x 10^-18 grams ... do you not know what a mole is? ... it's a basic unit of measurement in the SI metric system ...

Here's a hint ... when someone uses a word you don't understand ... look it up ...

Mole (unit) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You need me to stop posting for your own good ... Oh, I forgot, Bubba didn't finish Middle School ... chemistry is taught in high school ... still, you should look up words you don't understand, instead of looking like an idiot ...

LOL!!

No matter how you count it, CO2 is still only 400 parts per million.

Next time use scientific notation...

....and CO2 will STILL be only 400 PPM

 

[forkup]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Technically, a survey of scientists found that not "all" scientists agree with the concept of global warming. So, you are generalizing. That doesn't negate that the "majority" of scientists do believe we are having a negative impact on the climate.
Here's the thing though. Through the "Clean Air Act" and the "Clean Water Act," plus emission restrictions on our vehicles, the United States is one of the least polluters in the world. The major contributors to carbon emissions remains, China, Russia, India and Africa, with other 2nd and 3rd World nations being considerable contributors.
Newsflash......they aren't going to change their ways for years to come.

CO₂ Emissions by Country 2024

Newsflash doesn't seem actual data agrees with you.

china is number one on the list you provided. dude are you ok? hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha, can't make up your kind of stupid, you must work on it.

If the argument is that America is one of the least polluters in the world what is the problem of me stating they are 3rd in total emissions and second in per capita? As for stupid, maybe read first, react second.

That’s not what he said

the United States is one of the least polluters in the world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Technically, a survey of scientists found that not "all" scientists agree with the concept of global warming. So, you are generalizing. That doesn't negate that the "majority" of scientists do believe we are having a negative impact on the climate.
Here's the thing though. Through the "Clean Air Act" and the "Clean Water Act," plus emission restrictions on our vehicles, the United States is one of the least polluters in the world. The major contributors to carbon emissions remains, China, Russia, India and Africa, with other 2nd and 3rd World nations being considerable contributors.
Newsflash......they aren't going to change their ways for years to come.

CO₂ Emissions by Country 2024

Newsflash doesn't seem actual data agrees with you.

china is number one on the list you provided. dude are you ok? hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha, can't make up your kind of stupid, you must work on it.

If the argument is that America is one of the least polluters in the world what is the problem of me stating they are 3rd in total emissions and second in per capita? As for stupid, maybe read first, react second.

Make China Great Again!

 

[Grumblenuts]

For many here facts don't matter. Zero interest in being correct. It's about being politically tough. Sticking to what one sees as the winning case or piling on after a divisive narrative has been introduced. Winning through volume and numbers alone.