This is God's wrath for supporting Russia. Boom.
Land temps in India reach 143.6 Fahrenheit
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
Obvious explanation for the extra heat...all the server farms supporting the gift card scammer industry.
You know that frog thing is a complete fallacy, yea? So the only logical conclusion to draw from your post is that humans are gullible enough to believe lies about the dangers of rising temps??? Guessing that's not the point you want to make?
If this is "a complete fallacy", let's put you into 50°C temps, and increase the temperature by +1°C per day. See how long you last...
Again, you're reading things that aren't there.
If you wanna be mad, more power to you, but at the very least, can you please stay relatively coherent when you post?
PLEASE READ. You are so far out of your element, im not sure where to begin.
We're talking about warm blooded people.PLEASE READ. You are so far out of your element, im not sure where to begin.
Not frogs.
When temperatures get warm enough, people start dying.
No, we're talking about the fallacy of the frog & boiling water (and why its an asinine fable). If you wouldve cared enough to read the context before interjecting yourself, you would know that and you wouldnt be illustrating the latest display of your foolishness.
Which has nothing to do with the topic here.
If you had the ability to comprehend "context" (or had the sensibility to not interject yourself into points you dont understand), you would see it does and/or wouldnt be turning "days w/o a stupid comment by Joe" ticker back to 0. But here we are.
Did you miss my use of the word "proverbial"? You must have.
Yes, only the gullible put any stock into climate change science and its potential future implications. I get that you don't give a crap as you'll likely be dead before it gets dire, but who's really believing the lies here?
It's you.
You are analyzing incorrectly. Just so you know, a proverb doesn’t have to be factually accurate to make a salient point. For example: "A watched pot never boils". It isn't factually true - the pot will boil in exactly the same amount of time as an unwatched pot - but the point is valid.
If you would've cared enough to read the context before interjecting yourself, you would know that and you wouldn't be illustrating the latest display of your foolishness.
Except its not a proverb - a proverb is defined as a general truth. As pointed out, this is not a general truth, its a fallacy. Furthermore, the actual truth diametrically opposes the point you were trying to make.
Nope, im analyzing literally. Proverbs have an element of truth - there is no truth in this saying, it is 100% opposite of the truth in fact.
And it's one you've improperly applied here.
It's also silly, when you learn certain basic things about biology, and transition temperatures that certain proteins unfold/don't function above a particular temperature. It's why, when things hit a certain temperature, no one can survive. Below that temperature, a few will, even lower maybe half will.
You could look up LD50 as a conceptual framework to understand where you went wrong here.
I think its just a figure of speech and doesn't need to be taken literally.PLEASE READ. You are so far out of your element, im not sure where to begin.
That said, your article says it does work if the temperature was raised at .002 degrees per second but not when raised 2 degrees per minute. So they say it's not true while giving an example of it being true. "If we add our own made up parameters to this concept, then it's a proven fallacy". That's not how it works.
Highest temperature recorded on Earth - Wikipedia
I have a hard time believing they blew it away by 10 degrees
LOL...so is "A watched pot never boils". It is 100% opposite of the truth, in fact. A watched pot will boil in exactly the same amount of time as an unwatched pot. Test it.
And don't retreat into semantics. He said "proverbial" so that's how you should have taken it. This isn't difficult. You were wrong...just accept it.
You've seen a scorpion ride a frog across the river?
Interesting, so you're fine saying the opposite of truth (according to Oxford Dictionary) to prove a point. What's that called? Fake news? Misinformation? Disinformation? Ehh, im sure the truth czar Nina will be around shortly to straighten everything out.
