or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

That's fine - if you want to give equal weight to non-scientific assertions as to peer-reviewed studies by qualified scientists then you are quite entitled to do that. I'll bet you don't choose your medical practitioners on the same basis though. So let me get this straight - you accuse me of thinking that the earth was created in 1978 for providing data from 1978 to present, when your graphic was just for 2014. What are you saying? You think the earth was created last year?
No - you linked to data that shows slight seasonal cooling in a limited geographical area (the USA) that represents approximately 2% of the earth's total surface area. How is that global cooling?
 Just to clarify whatever you think that shows: 
I've not seen any. I've seen links to blogs and journalists who don't appear to be capable of understanding the science. If you can find even a single peer-reviewed study that supports the counter-argument then please post it. This debate is ludicrously one-sided in terms of evidence.
Incredible. Another link to an idiot blog site as evidence. All the data indicate that globally, the past decade was the hottest, not the coldest, decade on record, and an extension of a consistent 100 year trend. Which part of "globally" are you incapable of understanding? And you don't have any scientists supporting your view. 
To be fair - he is absolutely being allowed to participate. If his posts were being deleted that would be different. To turn it around, why should Mel not be entitled to put his own viewpoint equally robustly? And which partisan sources are you referring to here? Is that another "scientists are partisan" accusation?
Please - keep going - you are making our point perfectly. If your argument amounts to the observations (1) that the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are both being used (even though the climate change referred to is a warming trend) and (2) that scientific opinions sometimes change (even though they haven't in this case), then you are an excellent example of the irrational and unscientific mindset that @melgross and I were discussing. 
Did you even read the text in that link, or just the headline? Or are you simply obliging us by demonstrating exactly the attitude that he was complaining about?
Just what I was thinking. They don't block books about cannabis in those states.
The patent certainly indicates separate sensors for each color, and so the beam splitter is not losing light - simply distributing it between the sensors. And since light intensity is not wasted on sensors that filter it out (e.g. red light falling on a blue sensor element) as happens in a conventional single-sensor system, this design is theoretically more light efficient.
New Posts  All Forums: