Ahh yes ofcourse, unbiased news. i guess google effectively tries to ruin my school presentations, just more reason to use alternate search engines

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fat_lesbians_lul[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ParalyticPoison4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]fat_lesbians_lul[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

and is just so much more convinient to use in every day use than duck duck go

It's really not. That's their psyop. Have you noticed that nobody "searches" for things, they "google" for things? That's actually a violation of trademark law and they should lose their trademark for that, but bigger things are in store for those monsters.

Maybe in 2012 you could have made an argument that google searched better than duckduckgo, but not even close anymore. Maybe you're just so used to the fake news, you reject the real results? www.projectvertias.com there are thousands of leaked documents and interviews available here. It's proven that they promote fake news like "WebMD" and the "Mayo Clinic" and they super reduce any source of truth. Take a look at their block lists.

At least they no longer claim that men can get pregnant, since the first DOJ + FTC Anti-trust investigation was filed They've even unblocked T_D from search results since today's announcement of 50 attorney generals filing suit, but it's too little, too late. Once a cheater, always a cheater. And I just did this autocomplete a few minutes ago, it's still fucked, they have just moved the goal posts around, a bit...

Don't be a slave. Google and associated entities consider you programmable. Are you?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Oh cool, a Goog employee.

What do you want to know? WebMD is fake news and fake medical. Mayo clinic is a very very deep rabbit hole, and is evil like you can't even fathom.

Google's bias per external analysis: https://files.catbox.moe/5fqp17.jpg

From: https://twitter.com/SBakerMD/status/1165311283442307073

There is just so much wrong there, and it is meant to distort the truth (program people), as well as heavily promote Big Pharmaceutical.

It is about as real of a science/medical site as Snopes is a real fact-checking site. Snopes is just insane levels of propaganda as you can tell from this hilarious example I have provided. Babylon Bee (a news parody site) was threatening to sue, so they added a new rating and slightly changed their story about CNN purchasing a giant washing machine to "spin news." etc. etc.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's what I want to know, the rabbit hole

It's deep. Consider No Name's "surgery." And others, etc. , I'm not going to go further here, this is already drifted too far from Going Your Own Way and into politics.

Half a decade researching [...] sites are a waste of time, really

The mayo clinic has real brick-and-mortar clinics.

It's much more than a "waste of time" -- WebMD is disinformation and propaganda. It is actually harmful to the mind.

And googling seems to make it worse

It's not "googling" -- it's called "searching." But their guerilla advertising has warped yours, and many others', minds through subliminal associations.

Break free and use https://www.duckduckgo.com

FB groups have been my best bang for buck

Don't use lifelog.

There are tons of resources available at https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I just wanted to hear your take because you seem informed

I am very well informed, and I'm open to discussion. I just don't know what you want. The recipe for the panacea? :)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fat_lesbians_lul[S] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ParalyticPoison0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]fat_lesbians_lul[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ParalyticPoison0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fat_lesbians_lul[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ParalyticPoison0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fat_lesbians_lul[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ParalyticPoison0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CuntMonteCristo1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fat_lesbians_lul[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CuntMonteCristo0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rtmlex-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fat_lesbians_lul[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atiqLegend13-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reinaldo866-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]fat_lesbians_lul[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

That is absolutely 100% false. Did you read the NZ scientist I provided?

Tell me -- if climate change is real, if adding more of something means more heat is retained... why don't we build greenhouses with thicker glass? Why doesn't that work? Do you know how a prism works?

Let's see you reconcile that, and then we can keep going all day on why climate change isn't real, but I would appreciate you reading the text I have provided, as it will likely alleviate some of this need for conversation.

You are still partly right -- China and Africa produce 90% of all the ocean waste in the world. That's why the plastic straw banning is so damn stupid, anyone who has ever actually had to go to a dump/landfill and deposit their trash knows how it works. Bury trash, make hill, grow grass, turn it into a park. That's it.

The only way your plastic straws would get into the ocean is if you're an uninformed individual who believes in recycling. Recycling is a big scam as well, but not nearly as big as "climate change." Still waiting for NYC to be underwater in 2003. Oh, now it's 2023? How convenient. And I just give you money, and you do what with it? You burn it, and somehow that fixes all the pollution? If I pay more, that offsets anything China does?

Here's a video by a Canadian about how Canada is almost at war with the Philippines over their recycling program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2v7sbdl3WA . The guy isn't right about everything, but he is very right about recycling.

How exactly does taxing CO2 emissions help anything? Where does the money go? Follow the money....... you'll be surprised. Wut? Completely unaccounted and slush funds? International money laundering?!? Woah!

How could such a scam go on for so long and drain trillions of dollars from the world economy into the pockets of a few ultra-elite? Well -- the answer is simple. Many people put fear before thinking. Many people don't understand the scientific method. Many people don't check the data.

Oh, by the way, a suit was just settled in Canada, a defamation suit involving a pro "Climate Change" nut and a real scientist "Climate change denier." The judge ruled that after EIGHT YEARS of the "climate change" nut being unable to provide the source data which led to Al Gore's "Hockey Stick" bullshit, that he was closing the case and awarding victory to the real scientist (the climate change denier).

Don't be a part of the problem, please educate yourself. I have provided materials, and copious notes. If you have questions, question that. Don't just drop blanket assertions with no supporting evidence.

I deal in truths.

[–]emjaytheomachy-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]BigLebowskiBot0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]emjaytheomachy0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Okay, now that I'm done laughing... let's look at your question on green houses and their glasses. You are creating a strawman with this statement:

thicker glass doesn't amplify the heat

Right. Who said it does? See, the way you have phrased this implies you don't understand what green house glass is doing.

Greenhouse glass is designed (and btw, greenhouse glass panes are available in various thicknesses) to allow visible light to pass but prevent infrared light (radiation) from passing through (mostly.)

The visible light is used by the plants to perform photosynthesis and create energy. A by-product of this process is heat waste in the form of infrared light (radiation.) That heat, can't escape for the same reason it can't enter.

In other words, the green house effect allows visible light to enter (but not infrared) but the heating caused by visible light also leads to a conversion/release of infrared, which can't escape for the same reason it can't enter. So the heat builds up. It's also why you can temporarily have a cooling affect until the amount of infrared trapped in the green house catches up to and off sets (before passing, leading to heating) the amount of infrared not being allowed to enter the greenhouse.

So, again, it has nothing to do with glass amplifying heat (your strawman argument.)

[–]MenGoingTOWin-3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Okay, so you don't understand why greenhouses and the thickness of glass, I'll explain a bit.

First, I'll provide a reference https://dengarden.com/landscaping/greenhouse-glass-guide that only guides towards material, NOT thickness. This is important for optics.

So the "greenhouse effect" is based on the following logic: That more of a substance ( Carbon Dioxide ) increases the refraction angle. You know how a prism works? Well, the same is true of all optics. Reality is the amount of the refracting material does not matter, it just must be in abundance enough to always be hit, or you'd have multiple refraction patterns. Carbon dioxide without human intervention meets this criteria, it always hits.

So the greenhouse theory is that adding more CO2 increases the refraction index. So, since you don't understand optics, I'll skip over that proof (prove that on your own time, look into it, if you are searching for the truth). Instead, debunk this completely by the laws of conservation. If more of a substance was increasing the refraction index, it would actually be cooler, not hotter, due to the laws of conservation. Changing angle is a force vector, you've drawn these, right? You know how trigonometry is involved? Well, is a 180 degree line the same amount of force as a 174 degree line? Is it more? Because if it's less, there's your first boom.

Ignoring that I just debunked it, let's continue with the theory: that somehow the angle is changing, and this makes it refract off the earth in a different way less able to leave the atmosphere. Okay, first of all, this is ridiculous and it pains me to even type... If it can come in, it can go out. It's just a matter of angles. And no, infrared does not just bounce off the ground, it is absorbed by the ground. Other infrared radiation is given-off through the laws of entropy. Please, validate all this for yourself, I'm not even going past physics 201.

Secondly, if such were the case... then colours would be the cure. You know why something looks a certain colour is because of refraction, right? Like how a prism splits white light into roy g biv? Now, of course, black absorbs the most heat and white the least, this is also basic optics. I won't discuss that, but I want to focus on colours. With the exception of green and yellow, the remainder of the colours are fairly evenly dispersed. Changing the colour (by adding different compounds) would affect the heat, because we can actually see the angle changing, because of colour. If it's the same colour though? It's the same refraction. More or less blue does not change the colour of blue. Sure, it may get darker, but that is because of less refraction from the material below.

Let's get back to greenhouses, see this support topic on thickness of plastic to be used: https://www.gardenstew.com/threads/does-anybody-know-thickness-of-greenhouse-plastic.958/ Notice there are ZERO mentions of temperature, outside of "in the cold" aka retaining the ambient temperature of the Earth, which I touched on in my previous reply.

Please, show me a source that says adding more orange paint can turn something blue. If the angle of the sun rays were changing, all the colours we see now would no longer match the paintings, as colour is a specific angle / vibration of light, within the visible spectrum. Try shining a red light bulb on a blue wall, or blue on red, etc. Notice anything? Optics strikes, again.

So, moving on to your followup about "how this works" is completely wrong. Infraed light IS heat. Light passes at light speed, by E=mc² this shows that there is no room for change due to cumulative refraction, because it doesn't exist. It is a constant. Red shirt will always be red shirt, a lightbulb vs the sun will not show a different colour other than the differing amounts of source light which are reflected rather than absorbs.

Your theory also negates how things could ever get cold, because of some magical energy transfer (do you know how gasses work? What is pressure?) that happens in your imagination.

It's also why you can have a temporary cooling effect

This makes absolutely no sense, even if the theories you were stating had any scientific merit. You are just "Yes, sometimes 1+1 is two, but it could be any number." That's not science, science is not variable in such a way, unless there is an external influence. So what is that force that nobody since Newton has ever discovered or proved to exist? You're on the way to being a breakthrough physicists.

It has nothing to do with glass amplyfying heat

HEAT IS LIGHT! INFRARED SPECTRUM IS HEAT!!!! If there was additional bending, it would get COLDER not WARMER. Seriously, do some research on optics. Help yourself; help me to help you.

strawman argument

This is a logical fallacy. Absurd association. I have provided nothing but science and data, you have failed to provide any reference or indication that it is anything less than true, you have quoted no science, just random theories that make the unicorns you want to believe are real, visible. Unfortunately, some of us live in reality.

Come on, bring it. Let's get some references, let's get some physics, let's get to equations! I'm ready. Because I already know I'm right. Do you?

Don't believe me, and don't want to actually learn the science? Look at a beam of light in water. Pretty well any water of the same type (salt vs not, etc.) Notice anything? If what you are saying is true, it would not be a fixed angle, it would be a circle -- an ever increasing angle. But it's not -- reconcile.

[–]fat_lesbians_lul[S] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fat_lesbians_lul[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]emjaytheomachy-2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]emjaytheomachy-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]emjaytheomachy-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fat_lesbians_lul[S] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DudeAtThePlace-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

First of all, he was the Director of the New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Secondly, he specialized in coastal measurements, water levels.

Third... are you seriously trying to claim that "geology" isn't the study of the Earth? Because, it is. What field would you like him to have a degree in, instead? Climate change? Global warming? Because those don't have degrees, for a real simple reason... it's not science.

I'd like to go to fourth, I've provided ample scientific evidence, ample resources outside myself... but you have provided absolutely none, nor do you counter anything in any source I've provided, except "lol I looked up this dude on wiki and it says he's a geologist." Yes, he does have a degree in geology... because that's the study of the Earth. He spent almost 30 years professionally studying geology, before he moved on to the highest level of science in his country. He's literally been honoured by New Zealand's highest orders, and the queen!!! And he was THERE for the entire creation of this scam, so he can give first-hand accounts, which you also cannot.

But it's cool, I understand you completely. You have no scientific argument whatsoever, because there is none. You have no counters to any of my points, because there is none. You have no experience or title that is even within 5 leagues of Dr. David Kear.

What you do have? Cognitive dissonance. Several accounts. Did you know voting on a post on multiple accounts is a site-wide Reddit bannable offense?

You have both an inability to discuss, and an inability to see the truth. I've given you ample time with ample resources, ample scientific principals, ample testimonials... hell, I've even given you evidence on the greenhouse bullshit by references to two gardening forums discussing glass thickness and nobody in their right mind mentioning making a hotter greenhouse through thicker glass. You didn't even need to disavow science you don't understand, you just simply needed to find me a single legit source that says thicker glass = more heat from sunlight.

You must either be paid directly through this scam, or are one of the assholes out there perpetuating it against scientific reality that anybody with a computer and internet can understand.

/r/TheBluePill is that way ---------->

You've burned a lot of accounts in some endeavour to shame me into cognitive dissonance. Hope it was worth it, for you.

This is the wrong community for that. We think for ourselves. We live in reality and use facts and logic to understand our world, not feelings and shame.

[–]DudeAtThePlace-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are beyond dumb. I don't need to provide a source for why higher levels of CO2 trap more heat in, it's basic fucking chemistry. Ever heard of absorption? Do you know that fluids with a higher concentration of dyes absorb more light for the respective dye? Do you know that CO2 has the same property but instead of being in the visible range it's in the infrared?

Ample resources? You've provided three, three with questionable sources themselves. You know that articles should cite what they put and if it comes from second hand talk shows, it probably isn't reputable. It's like anti-vaxxers citing a blog. It actually doesn't help your argument when there have been actual doctorates built on this research, and they all somehow agree whilst still being completely separate.

And to answer your question, yes there is a degree in specifically climate science, you just don't want to except it, but I bet you are more than willing to except theology as a doctorate level degree even though it takes less research than what you've done.

I have no counters to your points, because you have no points. Saying that having a ban on plastic straws is saying that you are no more impactful than a rock. That simply isn't true no matter how boring and droll your, you specifically, life is.

I've burned one account, one that has posted more meaningful shit than anything you could muster to this sub. It barely got any traction but came at the price of me having any ability to converse on a forum that was designed for conversation. That price having come because dickwads like you love shitposting minority cases and two year old memes to get even the slightest amount of karma. Because dumbasses like you like trolling everyone and than claiming you did it because of a mindset inspired by this sub when all this sub truly says is to forget the romanticism, forget the fairy tails, forget the nonsense about having to make someone else feel good about themselves so you could share some fickle bond. Because people who can't come up with any means of proper arguments other than forged quotes and trolling go out to other subs and make everyone think we actually give a damn.

You literally equate having any ability to critically think outside what you decide is right is being blue pilled. Because you think for some ridiculous notion that making it so the planet you live on doesn't look like shit is being cucked to the system. If that was so true,why would people want to break away from the system. You think it's easier to force everyone to stop using plastic? If it was easy it would have been done. If the system in power didn't want plastic in use, there wouldn't be plastic in use. If the system didn't want anything other than bio-fuels in use, than bio-fuels would have been the only thing in use. It's not like it isn't document that there was a choice to use tetraethyl lead over ethanol back when cars started becoming mainstream. Hell, while we're talking about lead, it isn't like there wasn't huge ad campaigns made to keep lead in fuel or anything. If you really think the system is against you in the whole not using carbon rich/ using renewable fuels, then can you explain all of the engines that are still designed to run on them. They aren't any better than there renewable counter parts, infact biodiesel is better for diesel engines to run off of.

I think it's hilarious how little your argument leads to. If there isn't a problem with carbon levels in the atmosphere, then where does the research into climate lead you? A better understanding of climate. If there isn't a big problem on the horizon, then why is all the research done into more effective means of powering a world bad? You literally end up proving yourself a supporter of the status quo, the same shit that put you on this sub. You speak like an angry little child that is mad things aren't his way, not excepting the old is bad and the many are dumb and sticking to yourself. It honestly comes off as you not being MGTOW at all and just a whiney bitch that is mad he doet get his way.

Comments