@Felix Tx. Did you get it? How I was linking the psychic battle going on between you three (no judgements - not weighing in at all) in this thread to my attempts at conversation in this thread receiving silence. I surmised the silence I received was a part of the same battle going on between you three. Subsequently confirmed, more-or-less.
It’s all good if not unfortunate. I enjoy the topic (AGW) but if I have to do hours of solitary research just to come up with a conclusion that no one cares about then I’ll pass. It wouldn’t be fun or helpful to anyone. I will, however, bounce ideas and data off anyone else who’s interested in the same subject. That does seem fun and would foster some fellowship between actualists.
We’ve truly entered a bizarro universe lol. How on Earth can you say you “confirmed” that your “attempts at conversation were receiving silence” due to this psychic battle when:
Your questioning around the “-18C” being “effective at predicting average temperatures for the planetary bodies in our solar system” started ~3 days ago.
@Felix initiated the psychic battle ~2 days ago (~12 hours after #1).
Andrew actually engaged you in conversation about it (i.e. your attempts at conversation were not“receiving silence”) – 21 posts across the past 3 days no less, including after the psychic battle started!
My reason for not responding to your questioning around this point (which I read and decided not to reply to at the time before the psychic battle started) is because I already discussed it in detail earlier in the thread, I suspected that you hadn’t read it based on how you were asking it, and I didn’t have any interest at that point in re-iterating the same thing again – not because of the recent psychic battle going on.
After seeing that you indeed hadn’t read the thread (based on you indicating you weren’t sure if your “question had already been discussed in great detail earlier in the thread”) I asked you if it wouldn’t make sense to read the thread first - to which your reply was that you agreed it would indeed make sense but you still basically weren’t gonna do it anyway – at which point I stated my reason for not engaging with you on it (which has been my reason for all ~3 days since you first asked it) – that my interest “fizzled when your questions started to tread grounds that had already been covered”.
I have no idea from all that how you can conclude that the psychic battle had anything to do with it – nor how you “confirmed, more-or-less” that it had.
Well if you only want to research it to talk about it with other people, I don’t really see the point. I did the research cause I wanted to know what the facts were – and then I posted what I found here to see if there were any valid criticisms to what I found (none yet). If you don’t care what the facts are yourself, except as a conversation topic then… I’m not really interested.
That being said if you do actually read what I already wrote and make a good or interesting point that hasn’t already come up on this thread yet, then I probably would reply! But maybe not, I have satisfied myself enough on the topic. It would probably have to be an angle I haven’t explored myself yet.
@JonnyPitt feels it, @Kub933 feels it, I felt it from your first post on this thread [ie Global warming/climate change - #334 by Felix] – you clearly have started a very intense psychic battle here, and the psychic currents you are putting out are all the more powerful because you aren’t aware of it (i.e. it’s currently going on in your subconscious). Adding emojis to your posts doesn’t change it!
Isn’t this the “you got to be a good actualist” 101 – don’t pretend you are feeling good when you aren’t feeling good?
I implore you to please recognize you are doing so and address it directly so that the psychic currents can stop! Not unlike calling a demon by its True Name – call it by its name and it loses its power
Ask yourself sincerely, is this really an example of not attacking someone?
Is it not further attacking someone to say that “Even your writing is absolutely dropping with Richardisms” and “let alone the viewpoints which only ever stretch to fit the dimensions of what Richard has already said” and that this “cannot be called the free flow of intelligence”, even likening to what I’m doing as if one “Might as well go down to the local courthouse, put on some handcuffs and shut the cell door”?
And all for what? For observing me engaging in a discussion on a topic you’re not even interested in[1]??
I’ll put it this way. If Richard wrote that the Earth goes 'round the Sun and not the other way around… and you saw a thread where various people were saying “No, the Sun goes around the Earth, it’s obvious, look at the sky, look at ‘skepticalastronomy.com’”, and I was saying “But the Earth does go around the Sun, I looked into it, here is why…” – would you yourself, knowing that the Earth does go 'round the Sun, have the same reaction you had here?
If not then, why not? What’s different about this topic? And how do you know since you aren’t even interested in it?
Or do we all have to disagree with Richard on some factual topics (as opposed to say tastes or preferences), in your mind, even on a specific topic where he wrote something that is indeed a fact?
Ehmm no, what is strange is that you would think from what I wrote there that I believe that Richard is omniscient.
To explain: as you posted on the “Global warming/climate change” thread, and you are busy excoriating me for agreeing with Richard’s article, I made the presumption that if I were agreeing with something Richard wrote that you also agree with – such as for example that the Earth goes 'round the Sun and not the other way around – you wouldn’t be excoriating me for agreeing with you, too.
So the reason you are excoriating me must be because you disagree with Richard’s article – unless you didn’t even read it which would be even more bizarre.
So I asked you what specifically about it do you disagree with? What did he write that isn’t a fact? Tell me indeed how (to stay with the analogy) it’s not a fact the Earth goes around the Sun?
Because if you can’t point out anything unfactual about it… then there really is no reason for you to be excoriating me for agreeing with it! That would indeed be akin to saying I’m locking myself in a jail cell for being aligned with what the facts are.
Is it possible you had a negative reaction to what Richard & Vineeto’s most recent article said about “sexual orientation identity”, then you saw me agreeing with something Richard said (albeit about something else entirely), and you dug into me as a result? It’s only a speculation and I only offer it as a possibility (not an attempt to ‘read your mind’ or anything like that).
It’s even stranger that you write that you “respect R&Vs expertise and advice fully” yet here you are digging into me for agreeing with something they wrote resulting from that very “expertise and advice”! Why are you doing it? Further, as you write they “have always treated me very well” – why not extend that treating-you-very-well yourself, to your other fellow human beings on here specifically? Or would that be too much of a “Richardism” for you, not enough “independent thinking”, too much of “emulat[ing] Richard” to treat your fellow human beings the way he has treated you?
All of this raises an interesting topic completely unrelated to the GW issue, which is the degree to which we can pick up on vibes transmitted across a message thread. I have certainly experienced some vibes flying around in this thread and others recently, but I know that it’s a pretty hit & miss way to tell what’s happening inside of someone else’s psyche. And then behind a screen, anyone can deny or claim that they’re feeling perfectly pure & clean, and for that matter they may even believe it themselves. In the end it’s up to everyone to ask themselves where they’re at. As Richard says, if someone wants to spend their lives causing a ruckus, that’s their own choice.
I think @Felix also accurately points out that the psychic maze involves many dead ends, speaking for myself I’ve run into many, many of them over the last few years and even today it’s an ongoing thing sorting out where sincerity lies, and where ‘I’ continue to find insidious ways to wreak havoc. Of course, part of the role of the forum is pointing out dead ends to each other!
All the same, I don’t think any of us are wrong in observing that there have been some waves over the last couple weeks, certainly an interesting case study in ‘group’ dynamics, and an opportunity to see how we as individuals feed into that, feel offended by what others have to say, and feel hurt and perhaps lash out.
@Felix Thanks for pointing out in Richard’s article what caused you to question what his opinion of homosexuality is; is it an identity or is it a genuine biological orientation?
It would seem that on reflection, all sexual orientations have both at play.
The spectrum of hetrosexual orientation is hardly homogeneous. It’s so prevalent among men to have a “type” that it’s a cliche.
I have seen my own “type” morph over the years.
That “type” could have a biological aspect (I suspect we are driven to “balance” our genetics back to an “average”), but it clearly has identity aspects too; where will I be appreciated, where do I have the most power. Aspects which have clearly social motivations.
You mentioned above that you consider Richard and Vineeto “friends” (perhaps “almost friends”?). This is something that I had to let go of at some point over the years contemplating my visit in late 2017. They were very friendly with me, but they are not “friends” in the conventional sense.
Indeed, ascribing them with “conventional friendship status” is to rob oneself of the appreciation of the actual caring they demonstrate in meeting with us.
I enjoyed our brief chat earlier in the week. I certainly will read and respond to your investigations. It was a genuine interest being expressed when I said that I am interested to see where your interest takes you. (That’s a lot of interest going on there!).
Indeed, as we discussed, the crux of the entire AGW theory depends on the -18C starting point.
My own satisfaction is 99.99 recurring % complete that it’s false. There is the that tiny doubt there simply because I don’t have the inclination to program a suitable model and pay for super-computers to run the needed simulation.
It however is the glaring absence of anything like such a model (a virtual earth sans atmosphere, water and biology) confirming, if only virtually, that starting point, which is the smoking gun for me.
Such a massive political, economic, social, doctrine impacting the lives of everyone should surely have better experimental (if only virtual) publicly available evidence.
As I mentioned many hundreds of posts ago, I am legally responsible to vote in Australia. So whilst being nothing close to a scientist, I am legally expected to decide on this topic.
Whilst at best my political power is 1 in 12million of the country (assuming I don’t start a political party), it’s not zero.
To your other point as to what the motivation behind the AGW agenda is, that is interesting too.
I suspect it’s basic reality is that there isn’t one, atleast not a coherent one held by all parties.
However, to speculate;
The most obvious to me is political power hijacking classical environmentalism and virtue signalling with it. It’s literally “thin air” brownie points for political power. Makes otherwise ruthless politics seem that it cares.
It’s far easier to appeal to the population if one appears to care about the planet.
There is also I suspect the majority (even among the political classes) actually believe in it.
They, like me, were taught it in school. Why would anyone question that?
I don’t agree with this. The -18C starting point indicates that something is warming the planet. But it may not be CO2.
I’m sorry but this sentence doesn’t compute for me. Except you’re certain that AGW is false.
It however is the glaring absence of anything like such a model (a virtual earth sans atmosphere, water and biology) confirming, if only virtually, that starting point, which is the smoking gun for me.
Such a massive political, economic, social, doctrine impacting the lives of everyone should surely have better experimental (if only virtual) publicly available evidence.
Do you think if more measurements are made on the inner planets and the moon that the method behind -18C will be shown to be fatally flawed?
I’ll have to read more about these measurements. I haven’t gotten far at all. It should be fun though. I always liked basic astronomy.
Indeed, that is an interesting angle. One thing that is left out of all climate models is the geothermal heat of the planet.
The Stefan Boltzmann equation though is the method by which they arrive at the -18C.
That method absolutely doesn’t account for the thermal properties (conductive especially) of actual physical rocks, sand, etc.
If you look at the formula itself, there is nowhere that accounts for the planet already being hot.
Neither does the formula account for the temperature gradient which happens when things are heated up.
For example, if I where to take a blow torch and heat up a rock, that rock will via conduction heat up gradually to a certain depth.
That heat will remain in the rock until it’s conductive properties move that heat back to the surface and radiate the heat away.
This would be the basic premise of a virtual model.
What does a sandy/rocky planet, spinning on its axis once every 24 hours, tilted as the earth is, do thermally?
Considering the rocks/sands etc are being heated (at the rate of around 1KW per 60 square kilometres),
Considering that infrared radiation penetration of various rocks/sands etc means that a thermal gradient exists within the surface. As such, it take time to both heat up and lose heat.
Yea. I have no reason to disagree with it. But if 3m below the surface and shielded from sunlight is as warm as on the surface then that would be food for thought to say the least.
IR can penetrate anywhere from 6 inches to 3 feet into various rocks/ soils.
So if the IR can directly heat the soil material to a depth of a couple of feet, then we have the entire day time for that heat to be conducted down to a certain depth, and then the geothermal heat is maintaining a constant heat at depth below that,
