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


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: You can't compare surface temperatures of the different planets, they all have completely different atmospheric masses.

    Like the bottle experiment, the heavier the atmosphere, the greater the pressure, the greater the energy density, the greater the temperature.

    Check the temperatures of the different atmosphere's relative to earths atmospheric pressure. It's about the same.

  • Matt Ridely on the greening of the planet

    , Dr Herbie wrote

    Actually, they get tax deductions AND subsidies -- item 3 on the list "Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)"


    I think everybody should get 100% tax deduction. And as I said, any subsidy should be stopped immediately, regardless who is the beneficiary.

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    , evildictait​or wrote

    CO2 was confirmed as a greenhouse gas 150 years ago - long before the climate change debate started in the late 1980s. The mechanics of how and why extra carbon dixiode in the atmosphere causes a temperature rise is trivial: CO2 absorbs infrared; then re-emits it.

    But only some of the re-emitted infrared goes outwards, and some inwards back towards the surface. That re-emission back down IS the greenhouse effect.

    That's precisely what the lamp on desk experiment disproves.

    In order for energy to flow from the CO2 to the ground, the CO2 has to have a higher temperature then the ground. Like with current in electricity, there has to be a difference in potential for energy to flow. Second law of thermodynamics.

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour


    Measuring temperature of a gas inside a container does not prove the greenhouse effect.

    You have to have sunlight being absorbed on a surface, that surface has to heat the atmosphere (0,04% CO2), then you need to double that to (0,08% CO2) and measure the changes in temperature of your surface.

    All this experiment does is prove that pressure drives temperature (energy density actually), which is a basic physics. As CO2 is heavier then air.

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour


    Hogwash,. You can easily neglect the expansion of the universe when calculating the mass of a liter of water. Scientifically proven that my model works.

    Now, I challenge you to do the same for amount of warming for a doubling of CO2. Like proton2 said, they can't even get the sign for that number right,.

    And now you say I have to come up with a better model, otherwise theirs is true? That's the world in reverse. You claim something, you prove it,. And none of the proof I've seen thus far, adds up. It fails the most basic of tests.

    Here's an experiment you can try for yourself disproving global warming;

    Aim a regular light at a desk. Now try with a mirror to make the spot brighter then it already is by reflecting it's rays back.

    It's impossible.

    Because the mirror will light up the same as the spot on the table, therefore no flow will go from the mirror to the desk. You require a brighter spot on the mirror then on the desk.

    This is precisely what climate scientists claim. Sunlight is converted by the earth into long wave radiation and this radiation is being reflected by the CO2 back to the planet, causing additional warming, which gets reemitted, and on and on, till you have a runaway greenhouse effect.

    It cannot happen since the CO2 is the equivalent of the mirror. Therefore the greenhouse theory fails.

  • Matt Ridely on the greening of the planet

    @blowdart: Exactly! Africa could do a much better job providing food for the world, but they cannot compete with the extreme low prices of our farms because of the subsidy.

  • Matt Ridely on the greening of the planet

    @Sven Groot: Ok, let me rephrase.

    To me it's obvious, that setting tariffs and granting subsidies distort the market and are therefore not economically viable. It gives of false signals to businesses. What can only happen to correct these misallocation of resources, is a crisis. Like the one we are having right now.

    I've done considerable reading on the subject and I am convinced that is the best explanation. If there is a better one, I'm all ears.

    @Dr Herbie: Tax deduction is something different then subsidies.

    Subsidies take money away from economic activity that is making a profit and direct them to some other government chosen economic activity. A tax cut is money that has been taken and then returned to the owner.

    In your link, the oil company got a tax deduction, not a subsidy.

    Edit; So yes, I agree, subsidy of ANY kind is bad, regardless of the goal.

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @evildictaitor: Eh, no,. I can disprove your theory with observations, no need to come up with an alternative explanation,. That's the responsibility of the person providing the theory,..

  • Matt Ridely on the greening of the planet


    (A1) Remains to be seen if the problem is real or not

    (A2) Assuming the problem is real, remains to be seen if we can do anything about it

    (A3) Assuming the problem is real and we can do something about it, it remains to be seen what we can do about it

    (A4) Assuming the problem is real, we can do something about it and it is within our power to do something about it, it remains to be seen if the government is backing the correct solutions

    That's a lot of if's for such a large investment. We can spend that cash on real problems right now, instead of investing it to prevent future problems that might not even exist.

    (B) agreed, that's what I meant with the remark.

    (C) Those studies all skip questions A1 to A4

    If it was economically viable to produce windmills and solar panels, the private sector would be all over it. But it's not. Therefore we need set tariffs and subsidies for these 'less economical' viable 'solutions'.

    Anywhere a subsidy or a set tariff is imposed, it's per definition not economically viable. As soon as the subsidy or set tariff is retracted (see Spain, Germany, etc.) the marketplace collapses.

    That's why we are in this pickle in the first place, it's a market reset for all the misallocated resources. I can refer you to some Austrian books on economics for citation if you want,.. 

  • Erik Meijer is leaving MS

    @Richard.Hein: noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!