Entries:
Comments:
Discussions:

Loading user information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading user information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

Maddus Mattus Maddus Mattus Maddus on C9, Is often ​controversi​al, But fun ​none-the-​less -​evildictait​or
  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @evildictaitor:

    That would be interesting indeed. But I'm not really interested in climate science. What I'm interested in, is what government does with climate science as a legitimacy.

    When my energy bill got raised by 50% to help save the planet, I started reading about the science that is supposed to justify this raise. The internet being the main source of information. I thought it was a dubious story, but I had no reason to distrust them. Then when additional levies got raised in order to save the planet, I started to look into the policy effects of the redistribution of these resources and meanwhile found opposing voices to the science.

    What I found, really shocked me. I found the science lacking and I found that the policies have a negative effect on the wellbeing of people. This single issue has changed my whole attitude towards science and towards government, it was a real eye opener for me.

    I just hope that on this forum, with a lot of intelligent people and many of you I consider my peers, come to see that the emperor has no clothes.

    Edit;

    Small note I would like to make, I do not doubt that our climate is changing. I doubt that CO2 emissions drive these changes. And I doubt that lowering our CO2 emissions is the right way to reverse these changes, I would much rather spend the resources on climate change adaption.

  • Erik Meijer is leaving MS

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    Just because Maddus is wrong on climate change, doesn't mean he wouldn't be a good employee at Microsoft. Lack of a PhD might be obstructive to getting a job in MSR though.

    *snip*

    http://careers.microsoft.com/

    Thanks, appreciate it Smiley

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @Sven Groot: Thought we might end up discussing the validity of the papers, but that would be moving the goalposts.

    I've presented my case, it's time to draw conclusions,.

    So either you are a believer in the greenhouse theory that states that bouncing radiation between the atmosphere and the surface is responsible for warming, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. That CO2 is the main driver behind this effect and we should at considerable expense (human lives) limit the emissions of this gas.

    Or you are a believer that gravity and the sun is what determines the temperature and the climate here on earth and that we are just along for the ride.

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @cbae:

    Move goalposts much?

    These are not peer reviewed articles, but blog posts.

    If you want to rebuttle the idea that mass is responsible for climate change, you have to do it in a peer reviewed journal.

    Until then, this is the best model we have. In order to invalidate it, you will have to come up with a better alternative.

  • Erik Meijer is leaving MS

    @blowdart: climate is just a hobby, my real interest is trying take over the world,..

  • Erik Meijer is leaving MS

    @Charles: Sounds like fun!

    Where do I apply?

    Big Smile

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf

    http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf

    there he is;

    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ferenc.pdf

    Miskolczi!

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    , Sven Groot wrote

    Okay Maddus, I'm calling bullshit. This is what you said here:

    *snip*

    Despite the fact that you didn't change your view on climate change, you did agree that greenhouse theory did not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, at least you agreed that that argument against climate change was flawed.

    And here you are, using that same argument again. So you either have a very short memory, are dishonest (you only said you conceded to end the discussion, not because you actually understood what I was saying), or just incredibly stupid.

    Correct, I did not have the answers then, so I conceded. I have learned new things and have changed my mind. Last time I checked, I'm allowed to do that.

    Maybe I'm just really stupid, or maybe you are gullible, who knows? Let's try and find out shall we?

    I want you to give me your source (a reliable, scientific source, so either an article in a peer reviewed journal or a regular article that cites its sources so I can check them) for the idea that it is the mass and pressure of the atmosphere, not its composition, that causes it to heat the earth.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

    http://www.knmi.nl/~laagland/cursus/presentaties_voorjaar12/Ozawa.pdf

    I'll try to dig up the paper that was a game changer for me, by Mikolsky (or something, why can't these dudes be called Jones?).

    I also want you to explain the following, again citing your sources: if the earth is in equilibrium, why has it been both much hotter (ice ages) and much colder in the past? If higher pressure equals higher temperature, then why is it so cold on at the bottom of the ocean?

    The activity of the sun and the angle of the earth relative to the sun. The evidence is against CO2 being any factor.

    That has to do with the fact that liquids do not compact (much) under pressure. So the temperature of the oceans are dictated by the sun, rather then gravity. As sunlight doesn't penetrate very far into the ocean, they are relatively cold.

    Citation for gas; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_law

    Citations for oceans; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_zone 

    Again, I want you to cite sources. They don't have to be scientific papers, anything that cites a sufficiently reliable source is okay (even a Wikipedia page with proper citations will do). I just want to know what source of information you are using to base your opinion on, that it's not just because it's "obvious" or "self evident". After all, since you claim to be a skeptic, you must have properly verified sources for your opinions.

    It seems like you think I do this for mere amusement, I don't. I'm convinced that they've got it wrong. And I'm convinced people are actually hurting because of the actions we take in order to 'save the world'. I think it's unjust and unfair to condemn people to energy poverty, because we are afraid to share to wealth. None should be forced to live without cheap abundant energy, without it, life is harsh and unpleasant. That's my motivation behind it. 

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @Proton2: not this sceptic Smiley

    I follow Jo's blog, so those articles are not new for me,.

    Why do you think it has 1000+ reponses? Because nearly all agree?

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @Proton2:

    Consider the earth to be at a potential of 220V. Consider the atmosphere to be at a potential of 200V. Does current run from the atmosphere to the earth? Clearly not.

    Now, if you stick your current meter with a potential of 0V into the atmosphere, you will measure a current.

    Exchange Volts for Temperature and voila, greenhouse theory debunked.