Page #6
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#26|
Started by #485312 [Ignore] 15,Dec,20 18:50
New Comment Rating: -1 Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
Give Americans a CHOICE.
only registered users can see external links
But I agree with giving people a choice. Electric cars should become
so cheap and attractive, that even you will want one.
If they cannot make that happen soon enough, they should
switch cars to bio-fuels. It's about a $1000 conversion.
The challenge is producing the bio-fuels, so they better get at it.
Maybe you'll like this video. Simone Giertz bought a CityCar.
only registered users can see external links
She's a 'maker' of funny but totally useless inventions.
only registered users can see external links
You would also need to rewind the motor ,with a finer gauge of wire for more turns in the armature and install better bearings.
Making With Mihir - Simplest EV Conversion under $3000
Convert Your Car in 3 Days!
only registered users can see external links
72 volts,that kept cost down a good bit to as motors are more common at that voltage.
I would have thought a motor with dual output shafts would have been more practical.
72 volts is a bit low too. 400 volts would be a lot more compatible with
charging stations. You would need to be very careful during your DIY project.
Had 1 battery explode because of a internal short, shot me and the seat up, my head hit the roof of the cart. Had a hell of a time getting the battery replaced under warranty, they tried to say I had it wired wrong, Strange, as I drove it AFTER the battery exploded to the nearest garden hose so I could use baking soda and water to clean the mechanicals before corrosion set in from the acid.
I watch videos that are way longer and some are even a bigger waste of time.
This video is still more useful than the things you watch.
Cut-up videos from Biden making him look worse than he is
and partisan hacks lying about evidence that doesn't exist.
If they cannot show you the complete video and if they cannot
specify the evidence, then they are lying to you.
What do you think you learn from listening to people lying?
I listen to people who don't show 10 seconds of video, misrepresenting
what actually happened or what was actually said.
If I would see such videos, I wouldn't accept them as true.
I only value sources that do specify the evidence and that use
logical argumentation, without fallacies.
If I find any signs of dishonesty, I stop watching.
Most videos from Simone Giertz are also more useful.
What she makes is mostly useless, but she does teach some skills
and she shows extraordinary creativity, which I think is inspiring.
I do not just watch videos from makers like Simone Giertz, Adam Savage, Nerdforge and Laura Kampf, who are making thinks, showing skills and creativity, I even watch game streams, which are even less useful. And that still leaves me time to do some gaming myself.
I do have a lot of time to waste. I have a 40 hour/week job and 90% of it
I can do from home. Life is good in this socialist hellhole, which you think
my country is. I work to live, instead of live to work.
Bet you are one of those that think they should continue to work at home all the time. What if everyone thought that way, then how the hell are you going to get packages delivered to your door and you get them while in your PJs.
That handshake video was cut-up. A few seconds before you see why he extends his hand.
That latest video where Biden stands up, according to Fox'News' during the interview, clearly was the end of the interview, if you see the few minutes before.
Not 'all the time', when I need to be at work, I go to work.
and I spend it in many ways, that I like. YouTube is just one.
The videos that I watch bring me inspiration or knowledge or both,
the videos that you watch bring you misdirected outrage.
You are correcting your own problem; directing your outrage to the wrong people, will allow the wealthy to cuck you further and make you work even harder and longer, for less. No more time to watch your videos. Problem solved.
Unless they start to show you their propaganda at work, while you are toiling on that assembly line. It's an image they used, to fearmonger about communism,
but they stopped doing that, because capitalism is getting way too close to that.
It's your laziest flip ever.
only registered users can see external links
We have been running out of oil since we started pumping it!
only registered users can see external links
The ice age is coming,the ice age is coming!
only registered users can see external links
1863 the sea level was rising!
This lady seems to agree that climate change is bs
More interesting reading.
only registered users can see external links
Something near the end of the page caught my eye. And it makes sense with the censorship of the liberal media.
"ob Starkey | August 29, 2023 at 12:27 pm |
Jim writes
‘But now the internet is a means of centralization and control.”
As a specific example of this practically speaking try looking up studies written prior to 2001 on sea level rise. Google and Bing will take you to more recent papers affirming the current notion that sea level has only been rising at the current rate for 175 years or so. Older papers suggested the rise has been happening for hundreds of years."
UM, sound familar ,sounds like something we conservatives have been hinting at for a while now. Climate change is not new, and information to try to show a different viewpoint is censored by making it difficult to find.
Here's My take on climate change after alot thinking.
Liberal retards, that won't work, are jealous of the success's of those folks that do. Such as nice cars and homes. So instead of trying to succeed on thier own,and achieve goals in their own lives, they have found a way to demonize the working mans rewards for his work by claiming it hurts the enviroment.
Climate science doesn't deny that the climates change and that climates have been different in the past. They don't just look at the effects of climates changing, like sea levels, they look at the basis; solar radiation coming in and the earth's and atmosphere's ability to absorb that solar radiation.
The atmosphere's ability to absorb solar radiation is fully dependent on the composition of the atmosphere. This is a physical absolute. Do you refute that?
Humanity has emitted CO2 and NH4 more than any natural source. The consumption of fossil fuels emits 20 times more CO2 than the yearly record of all wildfires globally.
Do you refute that?
Humanity has destroyed a large part of the forests, that recycle and absorb CO2.
Do you refute that?
The CO2 levels have been rising from an average of 295 parts per million in 1900,
to an average of 417.06 parts per million in 2022. Do you refute that?
Do you refute the relationship between the average temperature of the earth and human CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and deforestation?
So, even if there was any truth to your last claim, how does it refute climate change?
And what evidence do you have that liberals are not working?
And if there was jealousy towards 'successful people', and liberals would want to take their stuff, or whatever you are implying, why would climate change be an effective method to do that?
Why would those liberals propose solutions to mitigate that climate change, which provide lots of chances for smart people to make money and be successful, if they want to hurt successful people?
Those successful people are now all driving Teslas, placed solar panels on their roofs, lowered their energy expenses, and their lives continue like nothing is happening.
So, how are even the majority of successful people being hurt at all?
This was not something I learned in a published book or some science magazine. This was something I saw with my own eyes, and if you visit Miami Beach, especially, the are known as South Beach, you can see it too, daily.
Your take on climate change is wrong on two counts. The first is not believing it’s on a fast pace. The second is thinking, (how did you put it?) liberal retards, that don’t work, etc, etc, etc. listen, Phart, those liberals, as you call them, are working people who work in their respective science field, and they contribute way more than you or me or Trump to the betterment of the world.
The last time the sea level was higher than today was during the Eemian,
about 125,000 years ago. Humans were still living only in Africa then.
Were you there when the northern ice cap reached into Southern Europe? And you can't be right because Scripture says that the world was conceived in 7 days approximately 10 thousand years ago. Those shells are probably from when your area flooded about 25 years into the last century.🤣😈
--------------------------------------- added after 4 minutes
Our cabin in Central Florida is at a 98' elevation and it's nowhere the highest elevation in Florida.
Someone is afraid apparently of the truth, regardless of what it is.
That's just another bullshit story, posing for the fact that the claim has been completely debunked.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Even Fox 'News' called it a hoax:
only registered users can see external links
It's such a silly claim, that most scientists don't even take the time to dismiss it. They have better things to do than study people's delusions.
If there was a global flood, within the last 10,000 years, there would be evidence of it EVERYWHERE. There would be sea shells on every mountain side and not just the one 40 miles from your house. When there are sea shells, high up on mountain sides, they are incredibly old. Some mountain sides were see floor once. They rose up through plate tectonics over many millions of years.
The only possibility to accept Noah's Ark is by BELIEVING IT.
It's ridiculously impossible in about a thousand ways.
There are even scientists who took the time to debunk it in science papers,
but if you want to hear the reasons presented in a consumable manor,
just search for 'Noah's Ark debunked' on YouTube.
He's just a short one: only registered users can see external links
Pay attention here,
Just how green is "going green"?
Not very green actually according to your neighbors in the UK>
only registered users can see external links
So we give up oil, to save the world,only to poison the water and Kill everything.
“Attempts to explain attitudes to climate change, and the refusal of large parts of society to accept the idea of an imminent catastrophe, have largely foundered. This ground breaking book overturns the existing literature, developing a powerful new model of public attitudes based on the interaction of traditional religion and a new culture – a new faith – of climate catastrophism, which is instinctively accepted or rejected. At its centre is a series of measurements of public opinion, culled from major international polls, which make a strong case that society is now in the grip of a major new religion. That case is made still more powerful because the model is able to predict real-world outcomes, such as the deployment of renewables and the prevalence of climate protest groups in different countries.
So in short, non religous people that are jumping on the climate change bandwagon are joining a religion after all!@ AHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAAAAAHAAAAA
These concept are all the products of religion or religion is the product of those ideas, that were conceived by people who didn't understand anything about reality and just tried to explain things, based on no knowledge at all.
You may no believe all of these ideas, but you have claimed to believe some.
That's you having religious beliefs, while you now laugh very hard about people being convinced of the truth of claims in a religious way. So please explain that.
Does that mean that you accept that there is a difference between the religious way to be convinced of 'truth' and the scientific method, to acquire knowledge?
Science claims there is knowledge that is so thoroughly confirmed and even proven, after so many attempts to disprove, that they are accepted as theory, which is the term of knowledge that approaches absolute certainty. The basic principle or physics equations that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena theories are called laws.
Here are some of them:
- Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
- Newton's Laws of Motion
- Universal Law of Gravitation
- Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
- Laws of Thermodynamics
- Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
- The theory of electricity
- The caloric theory
- The particle (or kinetic) theory of matter
- Corpuscular theory of light
- The quantum theory of the emission and absorption of radiation
- Rutherford's and Soddy's 'emanation theory' of radioactive decay
- Chemical theory
- Theory of plate tectonics
- Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
- Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
- Theory of General Relativity
- Germ theory of disease
When you laugh at religious beliefs, that means you understand that there is a difference between them and scientific knowledge. Correct?
Then why do you not accept the 'Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection'? This theory is based on just as much or even more evidence than the theories I listed above.
There is no evidence of a creator, that is a religious idea, which you seem to believe.
So why do you refuse to accept a scientific theory of a religious claim?
If you are not convinced of any evidence, your position should be: "I don't know!".
That's what religion is all about; accepting ideas as truth, while there is no evidence for that truth. I think it's unwise to accept ideas without evidence. You do that all the time,
but to my surprise, now you even laugh about it.
There is a lot of evidence for climate change. The concept itself is based on the 'quantum theory of the emission and absorption of radiation'. CO2 absorbs radiation of the sun and turns it into heat. Climate change is based on observations and scientific confirmation. I don't hold it to be true, because some people say so, but because I've accepted the evidence. Many scientists have tried to refute the evidence and failed.
The difference between you and me, is that I will change my mind immediately, when I'm confronted with evidence against a proposition, which is stronger than the evidence that supports a proposition.
Since you laugh so hard about the idea that climate change is somehow similar with religion, you must have very good reason to reject the evidence provided by scientists or evidence against it. I would be very interested in those, because so far, you have only provided ignorant arguments.
That Archimedes guy, he got several good men killed in WW2. Did you know that? I can't find the exact article I read a few years ago.
With his "Buoyancy Principle"
only registered users can see external links
or WHO is the person behind the evidence or proof. It doesn't.
I don't care WHO Archimedes was or what he did besides his work,
to determine if I want to trust any of his scientific discoveries.
Newton was brilliant, but it seems like he was a very unpleasant person.
It doesn't matter, because these people only discovered some facts of reality,
while all the other scientists tried hard to disprove them, but couldn't,
This is the scientific method, and is just as important as the discoverers.
Any discovery is valuable, but it only turns into science when it's challenged.
I'm not talking about Fox'News' asking questions, I'm talking about real skeptics honestly trying to unravel the logic of a proposition and trying to find mistakes.
Many honest hypotheses die this way, many dishonest hypotheses too.
The ones that survive for decades and get confirmed by other studies,
can make it to theory. A theory is the pinnacle of knowledge. Not because scientists trust the discoverer, but because they didn't succeed in disproving the evidence.
It might get the name of the discoverer, but all of science is responsible.
And what is your reason for saying that climate activists are becoming part of a religious movement? Someone said it!
It's an opinion that you like and therefore you think it's true. There is no logic or evidence supporting that opinion, but you don't care. Just as you don't care about any logic or evidence supporting your position against climate change. A few ignorant arguments or a few people claiming to be honest scientists, telling you that it's all a big conspiracy, without any consistent explanation of its goal, is good enough for you, to keep believing that everyone else is lying or crazy. That's a religion.
The who that says or finds something means a lot. Just as you discredit Judge Joe brown because he says something you don't like and has had a brush with the law himself, I discredit alot of the people pushing climate change, who fly to their meetings in private jets, have their little sail boat hauled to within a couple miles of their destination so they can make a grand entrance and so on.
crediablity matters if you want to really gain support for your ideas.
Science isn't one person, it's a process of lots of people trying to shoot holes in the evidence and arguments of one or a few people.
If there is just one claim, made by one person, first, you should consider their evidence and arguments over the source. The problem is that most of your sources don't provide any evidence or arguments, but only opinions. Then there is nothing left to determine the truth of their claims, by considering the trackrecord of that person.
I asked you for any arguments that judge Joe Brown might have made.
That's me saying that I don't see him as a source spending my time on,
but if you think he provides any value to the discussion, you might learn something, when you listen to him, paying attention to evidence and arguments.
I doubt you will get anything useful from him. If it gets you any arguments,
then that's your time well spent.
There is truth in your claim that credibility matters. That's why all the climate change deniers are spending their time trying to discredit the climate scientists and not their evidence and arguments. That fools people like you, who think credibility matters more, than evidence and arguments. That still wouldn't be much of a problem,
if you had a better judge of character and credibility.
New Comment Go to top