Forum Nobility
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Priory_of_Sion last won the day on March 26

Priory_of_Sion had the most liked content!

About Priory_of_Sion

  • Rank
    [cries alone]
  • Birthday 09/10/1996

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    In Sturgeon's Guest Bedroom

Recent Profile Visitors

285 profile views
  1. That's one of my favorite urban legends. Qatar has less than a day to accept these demands by the Saudis, UAE, and friends: break relations with Iran expel Hamas members freeze bank accounts of Hamas members expel all Muslim Brotherhood members expel anti-GCC elements end support for terrorists stop interfering in Egypt end Al Jazeera apologize for Al Jazeera broadcasting anti-Saudi stuff pledge allegiance to the GCC I doubt the Qataris can do all these things within the day. Trump said something about Qatar, which in Trumpian fashion, is neither false nor entirely correct. Saudis probably got the OK to go through with this during the orb visit and seeming have used Qatar as a scapegoat for all their salafist militants murdering across the world. For reference, Qatar's military is primarily Pakistani mercenaries and is smaller than the US CENTCOM force that is in the country.
  2. People in Georgia just have those names
  3. Saudi Arabia & Bahrain cut off diplomatic relations with fellow GCC state Qatar and have closed down their airspace and seaways to Qatar. This follows some hacked emails showing UAE diplomats working with US think tanks about trying to get Qatar punished for not being fully on the Iran-hate train even though Qatar does fund its share of Salafists who routinely murder any Shia they come into contact with. Edit: UAE follows Edit: An alternative theory to this that doesn't center around Qatar being buddies with Iran, which they don't seem to be, is that Qatar is way more lenient towards the Muslim Brotherhood which is hated by the rest of the ruling parties in the region.
  4. It is almost as helpful as the Paris Agreement was.
  5. Look at this weird looking aquatic bear I found
  6. They're going to try to take us all out with them
  7. Saw a Timber and an Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake down here last month. It was a juvenile gray rat snake. I was at a university outreach event for my herpetology class and someone brought this rat snake. The asshole bit basically everyone that tried to pick it up. It bit me four or five times that day by that bugger.
  8. Monster turtles are much more rare today than they were a century ago. Georgia's alligator snapping turtle population took a big hit in the 70s and 80s due to trapping and turtle populations are really finicky because it takes forever for them to age to sexual maturity. I assume this applies to the other states they're found in too. I've only caught common snappers, which look just as wild in my opinion.
  9. cool
  10. A completely unfalsifiable position that doesn't really care what is true and false is really cute, but completely worthless. If you come across something that actually debunks 150 odd years of science, let me know.
  11. 15 times Fuck that crowd then. Well there's a couple established ways the climate changes, with these 3 being the major global drivers of climate. solar irradiance orbital perturbations atmospheric composition Solar irradiance has, on the average, been fairly steady over the past couple decades The earth's orbit has been relative constant over in this modern era too and thus there's no reason to suggest that warming is caused by shifts in the earth's orbit. So that leaves atmospheric changes. Sulfate concentrations (which have a cooling effect and where behind the global cooling scare) are going down and GHGs are increasing in tune with temperature. In the past, solar irradiance & orbital changes were the triggers for climatic change with CO2 levels increasing following the initial warming and thus exacerbate that initial warming. Today we have an initial warming that isn't related to those things, but warming does match up with CO2 They When the poles were ice free, yeah That is why Well, if you include the positive feedback loops, it gets really complex, but its also alarmist to talk about a runaway greenhouse effect. I used to be extremely skeptical of climate change a couple years ago. I changed my mind based on rebuttals I read. I had to agree with the I Fucking Love Science crowd, but they bumblefucked into being correct about something. By hating these idiots so much on every other issue, it must be impossible to accept that they can be right about something huh?
  12. I thought you wanted to know why it is believed that its human CO2 emissions that are behind elevated CO2 levels. So you wanted something like this? My sarcasm is that the leap in logic needed to say an increase in a gas known to increase temperature will increase temperature isn't a leap at all. Saying its just a correlation is just dismissing. I didn't watch Lindy's video. So I don't know what you mean at the time. I still don't know exactly what he means when he's going on about there's no linkage between CO2 and warming temperatures. That would help, but having the world's entire plant biomass increase CO2 uptake by ~8% seems rather daunting in my opinion. These are good opinions. Having modern ecosystems and human civilization to adapt to Miocene conditions within a century or so seems problematic. Its a tactic that's carried over from the evolution vs creationist debate that has become habitual. As I noted, the 3 degrees is a conservative estimate based solely off CO2 emissions and doesn't touch on all those feedback loops that aren't that well understood, from my understanding, regarding how much warming they'll cause. Besides a moderate 3 degree increase would put us about where the Eemian interglacial was at its absolute peak where sea levels were 20 feet higher than today and when hippos thrived in the Thames. Agreed. I say it every 5 times a day I think you can tell the difference when you get to know their opinions about nuclear energy and GMOs. How many actual geochemists, climatologists, etc do you see on TV talking about this? None. You get fucking Bill Nye and you get rather poorly written articles in pop science magazines/websites. It's honestly not that different from most other fields of science in that regard.
  13. The concern is that carbon sinks aren't able to take up that CO2 due to warming and thus accelerate warming. The Ocean is the largest carbon sink and takes in gigatons more CO2 than it emits. The problem is that human activities has thrown the sink/source equilibrium out of whack so now the atmosphere is taking in more of the share of CO2 because as temperatures increase, the oceans lose their properties as good carbon sinks. Totally. Yeah, it was sorta figured out in 1956. Carbon 14 and 13 ratios are decreasing and thus the source for the extra carbon in the atmosphere is from an old and organic source. That suggests fossil fuels are driving the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Depends where you live and how bad desertification/deforestation is in whatever region you're living in. I can see being skeptical about alarmism, though I can't see how a new climate regime being rapidly changed within a century's time can be harmless. There's plenty of worry about regarding positive feedback loops arising such as permafrost melting that will release methane that will warm the atmosphere even more. I touched on the oceans losing their ability to be carbon sinks earlier which is another feedback loop and you've also touched on the increased temperatures means increased water vapor (another greenhouse gas) feedback loop, the melting of ice is another feedback loop because ice reflects a good bit of solar radiation, but dark substrates such as the ocean or rocks will absorb heat and thus you'll get even more warming. This is what the alarmist sentiment is about, and the science behind how these feedback loops work are solid. I've tried to look for negative feedback loops associated with CO2 induced warming and I can't find anything. Many IPCC reports just focus on warming from CO2 emissions and not the warming that caused by these feedback loops as well, and thus there's been plenty of criticism that climate change projections, which often look at the end of the century, only show a rise in temperature of only a couple of degrees. Hell, even the sea level rise projections are just based off of thermal expansion and don't include ice melt. The powerful individuals and organizations... is an argument that goes both ways. Plenty of organizations, people, companies, etc are using global warming as a tool for their scams. It's disheartening for me as there's plenty of research papers documenting the potential negative effects of global warming and the most obvious solution is still demonized.