tallest skil

Oh, great! That’s exactly what we need. It’s a 21.5” Mid 2011 iMac. The good news is that you can install the newest OS on it once you get it running. The bad news is that you’ll still need a 10.6 disk to bypass the password on the existing account and do a clean reinstall of the software. eBay will have plenty of options for you if you don’t have a disc already.

Here’s how to clean install OS X. Because you can’t click on the disc on your desktop, you’ll have to boot directly to it. Pop the disc in the computer while it’s running. Then restart the computer. After you hear the boot sound, hold the Option (alt) key on your keyboard until you see a grey screen with two options. They should be “Macintosh HD” and “OS X Install”; the former is a square, the latter is a circle. Use the mouse (I think you can use the mouse) or the arrow keys and Return to select the OS X Install disc, and then you can follow the instructions in that link to clean install Snow Leopard and make yourself a new administrator account.

Once you have OS X installed, run Software Update to get yourself back to 10.6.8 (depending on the disc you buy, you might not need to do that). Once on 10.6.8, you can go to the App Store and search for “Sierra”. Download it, let it install, and then boom. iMac with the newest software. Though in running Sierra, you may want to install more RAM (memory) for it, since it only has 4 GB. Here’s a link to a single 8GB stick (you can have up to two, so 16 eventually). Unfortunately because this model is now 6 years old, RAM prices are slowly going back up.

jdw said:

Also, what is a discrete GPU, specifically?

It has its own RAM, rather than sharing the system’s. Intel’s GPUs, for example, take a dynamic proportion of whatever amount of RAM the system has (if it’s low, it can be 512 MB; if it’s high it can be 1 GB, etc.). Dedicated (discrete) GPUs are given their own memory (generally GDDR5 these days).

singularity said:
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

Funny how sea level is identical to 1870 (and 1901), then, huh? Funny how all the gauges show a 0.63mm/yr rise (which, again, is smaller than at any time in the last 11,000 years). Not 3.3. Not 2.6. Not 1.4. Certainly not “a meter by 2050.”



Sydney 1901:

Sydney 2017:

La Jolla 1871:

La Jolla 2017:

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.

A conclusion that can’t really be reached given that all recordings show a temperature decrease.

“WAA! IT’S ONLY UNITED STATES TEMPERATURES!” Because there is no other record of meaningful scientific value anywhere. The GHCND set of stations has slowly been closed down… and what’s this! The stations being closed down ARE FAR FROM THE EQUATOR. What does that mean? The average latitude of GHCND stations (This is a link to an auto-downloading compressed file of raw data. Heads up for seeing a file auto-download when you click it; I’m not trying to do anything to your machine) IS FIFTEEN FUCKING DEGREES CLOSER TO THE EQUATOR than it used to be. Do you imagine that might raise temperatures? If you answer no, don’t bother answering in the first place.






So let’s stop this madness, right? What happens when we take data from SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND SOURCES? That is, 1. stations active for a long time and 2. stations that don’t move (meaning keeping the same latitude). We see what I said above. NO. FUCKING. WARMING.





At the very best (for your delusions), you (meaning your own authorities) can say that there has been zero change since modern recordings began. Your bastard king himself, James Hansen, ADMITTED TO THIS.

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

The AGW crowd doesn’t have a fucking leg to stand on.

Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years

Well, it would have to have all been in the first 10 of those years, then, because there has been zero warming in the last 25 years.

storms and other extremes are changing as well.

Yes, they’re becoming less extreme. What’s more, do you imagine? Not fires.


Not floods.

USGS research has shown no linkage between flooding (either increases or decreases) and the increase in greenhouse gases. Essentially, from USGS long-term streamgage data for sites across the country with no regulation or other changes to the watershed that could influence the streamflow, the data shows no systematic increases in flooding through time.

Not tornados. Five (nearly six now) consecutive years of below average events.


Not hurricanes. Every single indicator shows they’re not only becoming less frequent, but also less powerful.




Not even drought. 



So what is it? What’s worse? Tell us. Is it anything at all? Anywhere? At any time? No. Of course, this has been known for a while.



It’s global cooling’s fault, after all! Oh, wait… NOAA wouldn’t want you to hear this now, would they?

Your narrative is predicated on laziness. Your narrative is predicated on people not doing their homework and not comprehending the data they see. Your narrative is predicated on appeals to authority and the expectation that your masters will never lie to you. 

That’s the only way it has ever existed.

Blunt said:

Building walls, pissing off china, showing no respect on Twitter, calling everything fake news, alternative facts, accusing Obama, this guy is a joke. 

So no argument, then. Thanks for admitting it.

What is wrong with a wall? Who gives a shit about communist China, which has killed 60 million of its own people for disagreeing with the government? “Alternative facts” don’t exist BY THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD. Either something is true or it isn’t. Do you know what the Socratic method is? Do you know what the scientific method is? IF YOUR CLAIM DOESN’T STAND UP TO TESTING, IT’S WRONG. Get over it. Is your complaint about the news regarding your belief that the news is infallible or in regard to your unwillingness to believe anything that goes against your feelings? Obama’s personally responsible for a fair bit of the damage done to the country in the last 8 years. The numbers prove that.

MacPro said:

LOL ... Got to ask, which fossil fuel funded, right wing think tank did you get your mail order qualifications from? 

Thanks for admitting that everything I said is correct. You have no argument. You have no evidence. You have no refutation. You have no position of your own. If I’m wrong, prove it. Because the Universe tends toward entropy, and because the laws of thermodynamics state that a system will remain in its current state unless acted on by an outside force, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU–THE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING LOBBY–TO PROVE THAT THE SYSTEM IS CHANGING FROM ITS CURRENT STATE. It’s not on sane people, who know how to parse the field’s data. It’s on the people who say the data isn’t what the data is–and who have been caught changing it to suit their narrative–to prove their claim.

StrangeDays said:

Hmm yeah Neil deGrasse Tyson disagrees

I don’t give a shit about your appeal to (false) authority.

see how CO2 as a greenhouse gas keeps the sun's heat trapped inside the atmosphere

Hi. No one disputed that. Learn how to read posts before you reply to them.

Also, Venus. 

Is this your first day on the job? Serious question. Not even trying to hurt your feelings. Do you just literally know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the topic? Are you seriously just parroting things you’ve heard “authority figures” say without thinking about them or understanding them yourself? Please do answer this question in your next reply so that I know how to approach you from now on. Whether you’re just a hardliner bought and paid by lies or you just don’t know anything; I’m perfectly fine with being amicable with the latter.

“MUH VENUS” is not an argument. In no capacity is it an argument. In fact, it’s more proof of the opposite of what you want to claim. What’s Venus’ atmospheric composition? 96.5% carbon dioxide. What’s Venus’ temperature? 462°C. Okay. Let’s see… What’s Mars’ atmospheric composition? 95.97% carbon dioxide. What’s Mars’ temperature? −63°C HOLY FUCKING SHIT THAT HALF A PERCENT MAKES AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE DOESN’T IT WE’RE KILLING THE EARTH DESTROY ALL YOUR INDUSTRY GO LIVE IN CAVES I SAID SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

“But that’s nonsense,” you say. Except it’s the argument. Actually, it isn’t. It’s smaller. We’re talking about 0.0001 mole fraction CO2. But let’s pretend we’re talking about half a percent of the atmosphere’s composition, like between Venus and Mars. That’s an amazing temperature difference, isn’t it? Wow. All because of that tiny change in CO2. Nothing else. Could not possibly be anything else. Ever. Not a single thing is different between the two planets, except for that CO2.

Oh, wait, Venus is larger. And closer to the Sun. And has vulcanism. AND HAS AN ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE THAT IS 9000 TIMES HIGHER THAN FUCKING MARS. The composition is, in the grand scheme of things, FUCKING IRRELEVANT. Earth would be cold (not as cold) if it was at Mars’ distance. Earth would be hot (not as hot) if it was at Venus’ distance. It’s almost as though THE FUCKING SUN has something to do with the temperature of a planet. Nay, I’ll go a step further. Maybe, just maybe, THE FUCKING SUN has the… greatest… effect on a planet’s temperature. Tin foil territory, I know. But hey, maybe it’s true. And maybe there’s a way to show that empirically, just like maybe there’s a way to empirically show that CO2 INCREASES CAUSED BY HUMAN WHATEVER HAS DONE JACK SHIT in regard to EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF CLAIM MADE by your masters whom you so eagerly parrot.

I don’t know. Maybe. And maybe you should take five seconds to think about a topic before replying to it. Why am I angry? Take a wild fucking guess.

I'm going to go with our best & brightest minds over some anonymous guy named "Tallest skil" on a rumors forum. 

Cry harder, “StrangeDays.” Appeal to authority. Ad hominem. You have no argument. You have no evidence. You have no refutation. You have no position of your own. If I’m wrong, prove it. Because the Universe tends toward entropy, and because the laws of thermodynamics state that a system will remain in its current state unless acted on by an outside force, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU–THE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING LOBBY–TO PROVE THAT THE SYSTEM IS CHANGING FROM ITS CURRENT STATE. It’s not on sane people, who know how to parse the field’s data. It’s on the people who say the data isn’t what the data is–and who have been caught changing it to suit their narrative–to prove their claim.

Your precious authorities–NOAA, NASA, the Department of Agriculture, ET. AL.–say exactly what I am saying. Not what you are saying.

StrangeDays said:

Nobody said killing the planet, that's your straw man invention.

No, it’s the primary party line. If no one here said it, that’s irrelevant to the initial statements, which regard the concept of AGW in the first place (and all associated claims therein).

Warmer, melting ice caps, raising sea levels, loss of coastal land, etc.. All real and mesasurable.

All disproven. The Earth is cooler than a century ago. The ice caps are not deviating from the last 40 years (lol, that’s such fucking cherrypicking) of measurements. The rate in sea level rise has not changed in over 140 years, and is slower than at any time in the last 11,000 years. If coastal land is being lost, it is not due to the thing you already mentioned and didn’t need to repeat as a separate point. It is due to land subsidence. This has long been proven. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove your beliefs changing the state of things.

 CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which is fact -- it's what prevents us from being a cold rock.

Nitrogen, oxygen… none of those do anything, huh? Oh! Quick quiz. Which gas is the THIRD most prevalent in Earth’s atmosphere?

If you don't believe man can produce gases that affect his living space

Thanks for asserting something that no one questioned.

do this fun experiment -- lock yourself in the garage with the car engine running, and see what happens. Harmless gases, right?!

That sounds suspiciously like a death threat for telling the truth. Interesting.

gwydion said:

But you can start showing the data that disproves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it doesn't makes temperature grow.

CO2 lags all historical temperature increases.

Yes, climate changes. But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever. In order to establish an actual human impact in a statistically significant way, you must show a modern trend that deviates from a baseline of appropriate duration. Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation. Not only are we not in a period of “record high temperatures,” we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years.

There is absolutely no evidence that current temperatures are outside the trend of totally natural variation, and all attempts to make it appear that way are misleading you by truncating the data to a sample of statistically insignificant size. And then they apply their misleading, exponential curve-fits and smoothing effects for dramatic purposes. The earth had had ice caps for maybe about half of the time over the past 500 million years. The picture shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates.

The sea level has been rising at a very steady and predictable rate over the past 8-10,000 years since the emergence from the last major glacial period with no deviation at all from this trend even as humans began industrializing. When environmentalists show you graphs going back 50-100 years of rising sea level data, they omit the fact that this is both on-trend and completely expected.

We have no actual data that indicates that climate is in any way behaving abnormally, much less due to human impact. The only thing we have is a hypothesis that CO2 affects climate in a meaningful way, which is what climatologists attempt to model. But those models make terrible predictions.

If your hypothesis consistently churns out inaccurate predictions–no matter how many times you tweak the knobs and change little fudge-factors here and there–then your hypothesis is shit and must be discarded. Morons who believe in this garbage have no understanding of basic epistemology, let alone science–and that goes for the so-called “scientists” peddling this mystical bullshit. 

CO2 is only hypothesized to have the impact on global climate that the alarmists claim. But this has failed to be demonstrated in two major (but related) ways. First, carbon dioxide levels are currently being measured at several hundred ppm higher than measured from ice core samples. Now, it must also be cautioned that you can’t necessarily compare these two sets of data because they represent two different methods of measurement, and have other potential biases. However, even assuming that its true that CO2 levels are much higher–and that they’re caused by human activity–current temperatures are not deviating from the normal historical trends in line with CO2.

A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2 ºC. Everyone agrees on this point because it’s a simple computation given the physical characteristics of CO2 which is well mixed in the atmosphere. Actual warming, again absent feedbacks, would likely be much less due to bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, something that we understand but find difficult to model (H2O levels vary dramatically day to day and even hour to hour with regional weather).

The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8 ºC of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming until a new equilibrium point is reached.

The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average feedback rate. Again, modeling H2O in the atmosphere is extremely difficult because it varies so much with weather. Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. In the late 1990s, the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.

There is no data to suggest a positive H2O feedback either now or in Earth’s past. Indeed, we cannot model some periods in Earth’s history with an assumed positive H2O feedback. It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them.

If there is no positive H2O feedback, we literally have nothing to worry about. The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, and surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind, it’s simply “CO2 = bad” and “experts say we’re warming faster then ever.” The more you know.

Not only are current temperatures not outside the normal trend, we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years. Also, current temperatures (at the peak of the current 100ky cycle) are actually lower than past 100ky cycles, meaning that we are expected to either warm further just by way of natural variation or we are in an unusually cold peak period.

Second, climate models that use CO2 as a major driver for global temperatures are not producing accurate predictions for global temperatures. This is at least good initial evidence that the alarmist stance on the CO2/climate hypothesis is false. Notice that current temperatures are in no way deviating from normal trends. and that the two “scary red dots” are not observed data, but “predictions.” But, as we already know, the observed data is wildly lower than the predictions. These people are completely full of shit.