Kim D. Petersen

Anyone? #BeKind

@aliranalun I don't really care ... but can we talk about the weird and awkward way to hold the fork?

how many did you get right??

@kellyglawson @Alecbowers @simongerman600 @TheStithLord At no point does the graph touch 15% - not sure what you mean.

@dabelstein @Alecbowers @simongerman600 @TheStithLord But it is contradicted. 37%+state and local can’t equal 15% like the graph says. I’m not sure what their methodology was but it’s definitely worth questioning because its literally not adding up. Maybe most of the earnings of the top earners is capital gains?

If you have this weird gut feeling that the rich pay little tax in the US, your gut is spot on... Source: nytimes.com/interactive/20…

@ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 A) Not the IPCC as you claimed. B) your 23% is no where to be found in the paper C) Only 0.7% of papers explicitly rejected AGW up to 1% if you include the uncertain ones All in all you failed. [and yes, i'm familiar with this paper and others in the same category]

Posting an excerpt of some one saying something. This was exactly what I was referring to. Only repeating the headlines without looking at the data. Have you ever read this? It may have been the biggest propaganda lie after the original claim. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108… Specifically, “Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming”, ... so, even scientists who say man is only responsible for 1% of the warming are included in their 97% of papers that they claim agree that man is responsible for 50%+.

Great little piece by @semi_rad.

@ClimateRetorts @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 Ok - you've stopped arguing and are now trolling. Not going to feed the trolls - sorry. Guess you had no real arguments (at least not any based on science).

@dabelstein @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 You advocate for the complete destruction of your country. You wanna argue with me over the timeline?

@ClimateRetorts @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 No. The inevitable result of net zero is a stop in increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.... And then a sloooooow fall taking many centuries back down to pre-industrial CO2 levels. [or a rest at that new level]. At which point we MIGHT have a return to glacial/interglacial cycles.

@dabelstein @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 Of course you are. It is the inevitable result of net zero.

@ClimateRetorts @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 Yes, Denmark was covered by ice during the last glacial (and once more (younger dryas) after. When the canadian inland freshwater disrupted the Thermohaline circulation (gulf stream)) ... what does that have to do with anything? Do you think this was yesterday?

@dabelstein @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 Your country is also covered in ice. How did they convince you to buy more? Trillions of dollars worth? Don't you already have enough ice?

@ClimateRetorts @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 No one is advocating or arguing for a return to a glacial. Now your arguments are becoming really really silly.

@dabelstein @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 You betray your country. Denmark will also be covered in ice for 100,000 years. How did they convince you to advocate for that?

@ClimateRetorts @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 And why should you? Do you have a day that is 10k years long? This is a silly argument in the line of personal incredulity and failure to understand deep time.

Yeah, as a resident of Canada I never look out the window, see ice for 500 miles in every direction, and think "It's too warm". I also don't want my house covered in ice for 100,000 years. We had a joke about salesmen when I was a kid......."that guy could sell ice to an Eskimo". The UN comes here, to my -40 degree nights, and tries to sell me ice.

@ClimateRetorts @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 No - but there are positive feedbacks, yes. Water vapor being the primary one. Albedo changes a secondary. But i guess that you think glacial/interglacial cycles happen by magic? Since you dismiss the science explaining them.

@dabelstein @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 For any more than a fraction of a degree of warming you need numerous positive feedbacks to amplify the minor effect of CO2. They are made up and programmed into the climate models. You 6 degrees is fake data from a made up fantasy world.

@ClimateRetorts @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 Geologically speaking a million years is a blip. But not for the human species! (hint: Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved roughly 300,000 years ago). No problems with comprehending when Canada was under a km of Ice, it was ~5-6° colder than now. Puts 2°C in perspective doesn't it?

A million years is a blip. And yeah, it's been hard for life for a hundred million years. Is that hard for youbto wrap your head around? You cannot comprehend Canada being covered in a km of ice for 100,000 years? All you know is 2 degrees of warming? That's your biggest threat?

@ClimateRetorts @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 What you are stating here is physics illiteracy. You know that CO2 at 280ppm was already heating up the Earth by roughly 33°C right? Even the small variations caused by the Milankovich effect (bottom of interglacial to top of interglacial) warm the Earth around 5-6°C .

@dabelstein @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 According to measureable spectroscopy, CO2 is very poor at absorbing IR. As such it has a small IR footprint. CO2 adhere's to physics and will not cause significant warming.

@ClimateRetorts @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 Why are you reciting talking points that are absolutely bonkers? First: CO2 hasn't been above 400ppm in the last 3-5 million years. If ecosystems are starving, they've done so for >>millions of years<< Finally look up C3, C4, CAM and other plant types for their reaction to CO2.

The low amount of CO2 is starving eco systems. It has never been this hard for life to survive. Coupled with living in an ice age. This mass extinction level event has lasted 100 million years. During short interglacials, the northern hemisphere is barely habitable. But 90% of the time it's covered in ice. 10 degrees of warming would put an end to the ice age, and the ongoing mass extinction.

@ClimateRetorts @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 Yes, we are living in an ice age, more precisely an interglacial period. No, CO2 is not getting close to extinction levels. It has been roughly the same (120±60ppm) for the last 1 million years (plus). During a deep glacial CO2 is around 180ppm.

@dabelstein @ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 We live in an ice age, with CO2 getting close to extinction levels. We've already had a mass extinction event. With the northern hemisphere mostly covered in ice 90% of the time. Only fools wish for colder temps and lower CO2.

@ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 Just to back up what i asserted in the 2nd paragraph:

@ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 Nope - IPCC doesn't make or present that kind of numbers. So you need to document what you are talking about. As for your 5% of the warming we've seen - that is an assertion (trust me bro argument), and it flies completely in the face of the evidence. Try with science sources.

@ConfoundedSoc @simongerman600 Yeah - (just about) every scientist on the planet who have looked into the data lost ... Sad to tell you, whenever i look into a climate sceptic arguments, it quickly fails, because its inconsistant But try me, tell me why CO2 doesn't adhere to physics and warm the atmosphere.

@dabelstein @simongerman600 However you need to rationalize it (and only kind of reference a single sentence of my response). After 30 years of lies, I’m shocked anyone is still trying to get people to buy into it. You’ve lost every person who looks into the data. You’ll never get them back.

@d_kaiserk @CNewcombe67 @luchi_deusvult What the f are you talking about? And of course it is paid, because that is what the employment rules state. Even had she been fired on the spot, she would still be payed according to her contract/employment rules.

@CNewcombe67 @luchi_deusvult Ha ha ha… You know in Sweden there’s no such thing as responsibility for public servants The leave is most probably paid as well

Hostility towards Islam breeds degeneracy.

@CNewcombe67 @luchi_deusvult She is very likely being assessed for mental illness. She was put on sick leave, and the students offered councelling. The whole thing is despicable, and i completely agree with you that she should be fired/not allowed to teach. Its abuse plain and simple.

@luchi_deusvult Leave is insufficient. She should never be allowed to teach again. She should be assessed for mental illness. If sane, she should be held fully responsible for this disgusting abuse.

@cyrus_razavi @MSchneekloth2 Din OP var decideret et svar på en kommentar om stigning og grunden til denne. Så nej, det var ikke hvad den her diskussion startede med.

Jeg ved godt, du kun vil hæfte dig ved stigning og fald, og ignorere, at de høje brændstofpriser i Danmark i meget høj grad skyldes afgifter. Fair nok. Men så diskuterer du kun bevægelsen i prisen, ikke hvorfor prisen generelt er høj. Og hele den her diskussion startede med Pelle Dragsteds angreb på andre partier, selvom hans egen politik er med til at skabe de høje priser.

Pelle Dragsted prøver igen at manipulere danskerne. Når benzinprisen stiger, skyder han skylden på politiske modstandere. Men han nævner ikke det mest centrale. I Danmark er afgifterne højere end selve brændstoffet. Først lægger staten en massiv afgift på. Derefter lægger den moms oven på hele beløbet. Altså skat oven på skat. Så nej, @pelledragsted Det er ikke DF eller deres "venner" der gør brændstof dyrt. Det er den politik du selv repræsenterer. Ideologi er en dårlig erstatning for ærlighed. #dkmedier #dkpol