Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, you've said it's hot. Nothing but hot. Based solely on the limitations of your own senses and your inability to imagine anything else.Interesting. So when you do it, it's clear and rational. When we do it, it's mental derangement.
Do you think anyone is buying your self-rationalization besides you?
When I do what Dave?
I haven't said the sun is cold.
Stamp your feet, pout, and throw all the tantrums you like, boy.No, you've said it's hot. Nothing but hot. Based solely on the limitations of your own senses and your inability to imagine anything else.When I do what Dave?
I haven't said the sun is cold.
No Dave, not based solely on the limitations of my senses. Based on the meaning of words in the English language. You can imagine the sun to be many other things and there are words to describe those things. But cold isn't one of them. A lack of vocabulary to describe how you might imagine the sun to be is YOUR problem. You are expecting me to hear you say "cold" and use MY imagination to figure out what you mean? How about we come back to rational world where you use words to convey whatever it is you imagine so I know what idea you are trying to convey. Accusing me of a lack of imagination because I can't guess what you mean by "cold" when you don;t actually mean "cold" is just plain dumb. It's your claim, your imagination, you don;t get to blame me for your lack of expression. Even so I DID use my imagination and vocabulary to offer some different options of how to communicate this imaginative idea and STILL those terms were rejected in favor of the word "cold".
Yes, it is. Your limitations preclude you from understanding.No, you've said it's hot. Nothing but hot. Based solely on the limitations of your own senses and your inability to imagine anything else.When I do what Dave?
I haven't said the sun is cold.
And also Dave, I have not said the sun was nothing but hot. I've said it is sometimes "less radiant" or "of a lower temperature" or "less intense" or even "cooler". I have described the sun and it's cycle in several ways. Not just "hot"
In any of these cases, the sun is not cold. It never is.
Stamp your feet, pout, and throw all the tantrums you like, boy.No, you've said it's hot. Nothing but hot. Based solely on the limitations of your own senses and your inability to imagine anything else.
No Dave, not based solely on the limitations of my senses. Based on the meaning of words in the English language. You can imagine the sun to be many other things and there are words to describe those things. But cold isn't one of them. A lack of vocabulary to describe how you might imagine the sun to be is YOUR problem. You are expecting me to hear you say "cold" and use MY imagination to figure out what you mean? How about we come back to rational world where you use words to convey whatever it is you imagine so I know what idea you are trying to convey. Accusing me of a lack of imagination because I can't guess what you mean by "cold" when you don;t actually mean "cold" is just plain dumb. It's your claim, your imagination, you don;t get to blame me for your lack of expression. Even so I DID use my imagination and vocabulary to offer some different options of how to communicate this imaginative idea and STILL those terms were rejected in favor of the word "cold".
You don't get to dictate the use of language.
The Sun is cold compared to the heart of a supernova.
Sun surface temp = 6,000 Kelvin.
Supernova core temp = 100 billion Kelvin.
Now whine some more, child. Keep looking like a petulant little brat.
I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.
Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....
So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?
Stamp your feet, pout, and throw all the tantrums you like, boy.No Dave, not based solely on the limitations of my senses. Based on the meaning of words in the English language. You can imagine the sun to be many other things and there are words to describe those things. But cold isn't one of them. A lack of vocabulary to describe how you might imagine the sun to be is YOUR problem. You are expecting me to hear you say "cold" and use MY imagination to figure out what you mean? How about we come back to rational world where you use words to convey whatever it is you imagine so I know what idea you are trying to convey. Accusing me of a lack of imagination because I can't guess what you mean by "cold" when you don;t actually mean "cold" is just plain dumb. It's your claim, your imagination, you don;t get to blame me for your lack of expression. Even so I DID use my imagination and vocabulary to offer some different options of how to communicate this imaginative idea and STILL those terms were rejected in favor of the word "cold".
You don't get to dictate the use of language.
The Sun is cold compared to the heart of a supernova.
Sun surface temp = 6,000 Kelvin.
Supernova core temp = 100 billion Kelvin.
Now whine some more, child. Keep looking like a petulant little brat.
No one was comparing the sun to a super nova Dave.
If you would like to compare the sun to a super nova and call it cold, be my guest. Relatively speaking, the sun is cold, compared to a super nova.
The differences of temperature of the sun between it's cycles is not a proper use of cold.
I do not dictate use of the word or the language, I merely understand correct usage. In the context of the sun getting cold, compared to itself, it does not happen.
Stamp your feet, pout, and throw all the tantrums you like, boy.
You don't get to dictate the use of language.
The sun is cold compared to the heart of a supernova.
Sun surface temp = 6,000 Kelvin.
Supernova core temp = 100 billion Kelvin.
Now whine some more, child. Keep looking like a petulant little brat.
No one was comparing the sun to a super nova Dave.
If you would like to compare the sun to a super nova and call it cold, be my guest. Relatively speaking, the sun is cold, compared to a super nova.
The differences of temperature of the sun between it's cycles is not a proper use of cold.
I do not dictate use of the word or the language, I merely understand correct usage. In the context of the sun getting cold, compared to itself, it does not happen.
Son, I'm going to help you out with your government funded education...at no charge to you.
It's the Sun, not sun. It's the name of a star which requires a capital letter. FYI
Yes, you're attempting to dictate speech.Stamp your feet, pout, and throw all the tantrums you like, boy.No Dave, not based solely on the limitations of my senses. Based on the meaning of words in the English language. You can imagine the sun to be many other things and there are words to describe those things. But cold isn't one of them. A lack of vocabulary to describe how you might imagine the sun to be is YOUR problem. You are expecting me to hear you say "cold" and use MY imagination to figure out what you mean? How about we come back to rational world where you use words to convey whatever it is you imagine so I know what idea you are trying to convey. Accusing me of a lack of imagination because I can't guess what you mean by "cold" when you don;t actually mean "cold" is just plain dumb. It's your claim, your imagination, you don;t get to blame me for your lack of expression. Even so I DID use my imagination and vocabulary to offer some different options of how to communicate this imaginative idea and STILL those terms were rejected in favor of the word "cold".
You don't get to dictate the use of language.
The Sun is cold compared to the heart of a supernova.
Sun surface temp = 6,000 Kelvin.
Supernova core temp = 100 billion Kelvin.
Now whine some more, child. Keep looking like a petulant little brat.
No one was comparing the sun to a super nova Dave.
If you would like to compare the sun to a super nova and call it cold, be my guest. Relatively speaking, the sun is cold, compared to a super nova.
The differences of temperature of the sun between it's cycles is not a proper use of cold.
I do not dictate use of the word or the language, I merely understand correct usage. In the context of the sun getting cold, compared to itself, it does not happen.
The phrase 'footprint' in regards to an event or source of change in any environment has been around for over a hundred years. The ecofascisti do not have a trademark on the term. From Nuclear Fallout in the 1940's to volcanic eruptions before that.Footprint?
What do you mean by footprint? I am unsure how you are comparing a "footprint" to our ability to light the planet.
Dude, you really don't have a clue, do you? I'm not here to teach you what your government funded schooling failed to do. Have a good day, Sweet Thang'
Are you telling me that YOU believe in this "foot print" stuff that has been brought into vernacular by the very people you guys claim to not believe? But you believe enough that you have adopted their climate speak?
You mean like "carbon footprint"? Or do you mean foot print as in, evidence of the action? If so.... can you not see the picture? That isn't something we can call a footprint?
What do you MEAN? Are you throwing "green speak" at me?
So the droughts of the 1930's are the sole cause of man's actions... not the other way around in that man's bad farming techniques only made things worse?Man's actions and direct causation of the dust storms and loss of massive amounts of soil, rendering great swaths of the plains barren is a matter of fact.
I can't and won't try to convince you otherwise, but your denials speak to your credibility and it's running awfully low there Mr. "scientist".
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrTPrp-fW8]70s Mother Nature *Chiffon* Margarine Commercial - YouTube[/ame]So the droughts of the 1930's are the sole cause of man's actions... not the other way around in that man's bad farming techniques only made things worse?Man's actions and direct causation of the dust storms and loss of massive amounts of soil, rendering great swaths of the plains barren is a matter of fact.
I can't and won't try to convince you otherwise, but your denials speak to your credibility and it's running awfully low there Mr. "scientist".
Gotcha. Man is more powerful than mother nature.
She's gonna be real bitchy when she finds out you think that.
Anyone else notice that the little froggy's thread is so stupid even Ole Crocks touched on it only once? All the other USMB Ecofascisti are avoiding it like a Marberg Virus Latte.
Then man did not cause the Dust Bowl as it was only ENHANCED by poor farming techniques, not created by them.You weren't very clear, were you?Didn't say that man caused a drought. Did I?
Perhaps not. Let me make this clear: Man did not cause the drought.
It's little froggy's Grand Unification Theory of Temperature. One standard for everything and measure for what is hot and cold.And icebergs do not get hot..Who fucking cares.Don't look now, but man has an incredible capacity to alter his environment.
Aside from the nice picture, let's not forget that the sun does not get cold. The idea that grown men have spent so much time and energy attempting to defend the proposition is absurd.
The sun does not get cold.
Have you been forgetting to take your lithium pills?
What is the definition of "cold" ....as it relates to temperature and/or environment?
No looking it up either...I will know if you did.
Little Froggy is such a reactionary and desperate for attention in his fool's paradise. It's been entertaining to watch little froggy be shredded over and over again on his fool's errands as well.Big Fitz! Where you been my man? Don't worry, Dave and a couple others been having a "big fit" in your absence. The dust bowl has got them sniffin' and fetchin' like their heads was on fire and their asses was ketchin'! Oh.... looks like you got a little excited too there Fitz! Glad to have you back.
The Sun doesn't get cold. There is no relative swing in the sun's temperature that you can make the relative use of "the sun gets cold' stick to. The Sun's temperature just doesn't vary that much. Sure, Sun spots and different layers of the Sun have different temps, but your "simple" theory of "the Sun gets cold, the Earth gets cold" was just a very poor choice of words and a gross over simplification of a very complex thing. The sun does not get cold Fitz. It never has in human history.
The Dust Bowl? Well by golly man caused that. Without man, it's just a drought. But when man left the soil exposed he caused something else to occur besides a drought. The drought wasn't man made, but the event known as "The Dust Bowl" was man made. Saying that man didn't cause the Dust Bowl is like saying when you farted this morning and stuck your head under the covers to sniff it, you didn't cause that. Food did. Well of course food caused that and without the food it wouldn't have that smell you like so much.
At any rate, we've got this party "jumpin'" now Fitzy! You were right about this frog pond. Doesn't take much to get 'em hoppin. Just give 'em a holocaust or an environmental disaster and they'll get to denying like nobody's business. We got enough denial in one topic to keep a therapist busy for the next 10 years!
