0james0

No one is interested in repeating themselves in a perpetual redundancy. You can go back and read the previous link. those that scream the loudest are always in error

Yes, really. I suggest go do some serious reading and comprehension of what it is that you are trying to convey here because you have major gaps, your errors begin having faith in the IPCC, the organization you have loving cited so diligently here.

The discussion is about human caused climate change vs natural and the methods used to make the measurements. Solid proven methods such as empirical observations vs computer models that have large ambiguities in the data flow. I have read what John Clauser has to say about how clouds have a large influence on climate and its mostly left out the equation of the computer models along with other factors and there’s a lot of influences on climate. Also including, believe it or not celestial objects, decaying material on land and in h2o sources, methane released from the ocean, etc… So the whole package needs to go through an objective observation theory before it can be reliable. It has yet to have been develop. The computer models can’t even get known observational data correctly, the data spikes are all over the map. And what other posters are pointing out is the reliability of IPCC and the handling of the data. And John Clauser may not have (yet) written or co-authored white paper on the matter it doesn’t mean that he can’t read the data and fully comprehend what it is in the data. I mean really-take a look at his impressive achievements-literally mind blowing and to put that at risk for a mere notion would be purely stupid, I don’t think he is stupid. I believe John Clauser has more insight on what is going on with organizations like the IPCC more than most are willing to admit, his work has shown to be reliable and if he is making waves then it’s worth paying attention to. So we have this guy with an impressive background standing up and criticizing the IPCC for shelling out conceptual hypotheses based on ideas and concepts fed into computer models measured by people in an office as opposed to real world empirical observation measurements. Yeah he’s going against the grain and annoying a lot of people, that is what science tends to do and that fact is written in history. There’s no disagreement that climate change is in progress, the disagreements are within what is the cause, is there a single cause and of what extent and what course and what the trajectories are. 1.1c increase in temperature over a 100+ years (even that has errors but mitigated) is correlated with human activities, not proven but correlated is the hypothesis. Now some here scream and yell “PROVE IT!!” “Give me a link!!” Prove what? That the IPCC should not be a source of information? That as of yet there is no computer model that is reliable to predict the future and evidently fails to provide an accurate report of known historical trends? Those links have been posted but no one here has the fortitude to do some reading. As I mentioned before-approaching with a predisposition will definitely fail any insight. The problem with science in this day and age is that academically predisposed ideas are interjected in the curriculum and that is where errors occur - actually not this day and age—oh no wait it’s always been that way-the taboo is there will always be independent thinkers that discover things about nature-discoveries that go against the norm. History has shown us that one countless times hasn’t it? But there’s no scene in arguing with a congregated heap that refuses to study objections-

Mass erroneous mindset is nothing new

I posted a link explaining, but you refuse to read and educate yourself. The preferred route is not to read but gripe in disagreement. Weird…

And a lot of the ev batteries are being farmed out to China and built in those beautiful facilities for “the greater good”

It is a complex variable. Steve Carson has a great explanation if you are interested in giving it a read. https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/

Yes it is one piece of a very complex system. There was no attempt to convey that the decomposition of organic matter is solely responsible for climate changes. But I can understand if someone is amped up on a single factor known as human activity.

If anyone from any viewpoint is genuinely interested in the complexities of the climate and atmosphere physics then I strongly suggest reading a blog by Steve Carson. He explains in practical terms and there is a lot of feedback from colleagues and scientists. But going in with a predisposed opinion nothing will be gained. There is a lot to read and learn to better understand and equip those who are sincerely interested. https://scienceofdoom.com/ and I will add that if you are here just to give an “opinion” derived from “sources” that used in the attempt to “convince” with impunity of your counterparts, then don’t bother

It’s an article that gives insight of the one of the complexities of the atmosphere. Read entirely, if you are genuinely interested in climatology.

It was a deduction of language. Does anyone know what gender and age bracket of the anonymous profiles here are?

I’m sorry it’s upsetting, but we can see your game. Good night and have fun twirling around in the addiction of trying to convince.

Millennials verbatim, thanks ????

Sorry for your predisposed position which is where your errors begin. I’d suggest hitting the books and learn what it is you’re trying to understand, it’s very complex and it will take some time for you to understand. But you first need to skip and abandon any political positions. Climatology is in its infancy and no scientist or university has a full grasp of it and neither do you.

It’s remarkable as reading through the posts here many boys and girls especially the millennials really have no interest in researching with an open mind, posting “reports” from second and third parties that are not open to additional scrutiny and information. If science has a theory it needs to be proven by disproving it. Just a lot yelling and screaming here, and it’s so clear that many are not open to other evidence and it epitomizes fascism. Isn’t that supposedly the left is against? Guess not.

Clear your web browser from all the garbage it’s collected because it’s directing you to what you assume what is instead of what is. The mathematics of leaf decay - MIT News In fact, the natural decay of organic carbon contributes more than 90 percent of the yearly carbon dioxide released into Earth's atmosphere and oceans. https://news.mit.edu/2012/leaf-decay-1004

Erroneous exaggeration, 90% of C02 is natural, about 10% is from human activity.

Chatgpt is a toy for the inept. I’ve fussed with it and it’s completely skewed, it offers no real insight. If anyone is interested in gaining knowledge then I’d suggest hitting the books. But from the looks of it it’s apparent that the habitual thread trollers are only interested in quoting cnn msnbc and google search results that make them feel cozy.

Yes it is definitely faster and has more kick from the start. It felt awkward and the seat is quite uncomfortable. I was strongly considering the pcx because it’s more comfortable riding but not nearly as nimble as the wave. Still considering purchasing the pcx or something larger and comfortable. The wave is just plain easy in the city where 90% of my driving and parking occurs. Another deciding factor is the fuel consumption, caltex 95 benzene I’m getting 64-73km/L, I think that’s pretty impressive, if I had a 350 or 500 I’m sure it would be parked most of the time. Everyone has their personal preferences so I have no idea what is best for someone else.

I had a click 125, rode the 160 and wasn’t impressed. GF suggested wave 125 and I resisted. I rented one for a couple weeks and after getting used to it I actually liked it, nimble easy to maneuver through traffic and can climb any hill with the two of us. I have no problem 80- 90

The entire ideology is based on conspiracy theories to counter their opposition, it’s a common theme that goes back to its origins. Reading through the replies it’s clear, and what is even more telling is that those on the left are the ones that always predictably start shouting and throwing insults and censor. It has no resemblance of anything democratic. That is what I see a lot of boys and girls on this site do every day and all day. To be quite frank, it is really weird. I don’t think the future of AI will ever be centrist. But centralized yes it will, I assume those of you on the left want a centralized AI system that reflects the will of the few, not the will of the masses, correct? That is exactly what most of the leftist are spouting whether you realize it or not

I’m sure you are not open to anything that doesn’t fit the narrative of the left politics. That’s is great that you can stand strong with an ideology no matter where it goes. But make no mistake where that ideology is rooted from and what history has shown that the oppression it’s created. AI has censorship embedded in the program, nothing cool about that whatsoever unless you’re one of the extremest ideologues pilfering through this website

Typical fascist conjecture with certain limited intelligence involving left wing bias

Then start the appropriate thread.

You’re getting close but not close enough, not yet anyway.