Originally Posted by Subteigh
You know...that's a fair point.
You know...that's a fair point.
yeah but think of all the things we could be diverting those resources to instead of "healthy children" if we aren't wasting time with a false notion of global warming
I got a big truck on my mind and that's basically like a child but better.. and it needs its food
Doubt it, but will take your word. The oil and gas sector is hugely funded for exploration purposes and efficiency. REGARDLESS, the argument people want money for climate change research, even if its just a contributing factor, is ludicrous.
You like that? That's all for you bud. I brought it up because its important to make the distinction that climate change research is not one single entity, its hundred thousand studies all pointing to similar conclusions. If it walks and quakes like a duck, then it probably is.???? Not sure why you brought this up, but nice vocab. I can picture you with your taped glasses while I read "amalgamation of all the accumulative data" lol
Maybe in your country. The scientific community is global in nature. Are you a person who believes less money should go towards scientific research? I guess the military could always use more instead......Let me clarify.
The scientific community survive on grants from the federal government.
That sux that is all you seem to hear :/ I would hate to listen to that as well. Thank God I don't live there, so as to breath clearly away from your asinine media.This is their mentality in convincing the nation:
"The Earth is in TROUBLE, humanity will DIE, and that we're trying to SAVE the planet!!! THINK ABOUT THOSE POLAR BEARS!!! THOSE CUTE POLAR BEARS!! BUT!!! We need MONEY from YOU! If not, prediction X **gasp** will happen and there's NO WAY to solve this without YOUR help ($$$).
In regards to polar bears: they are a "sexy" species, such as the tiger and the panda once used to be for the World Wildlife Fund. Public awareness is garnered through using easily recognizable species that elicit a sympathetic response. That you don't approve of this particular message does not negate climate change on the whole. I fail to see how Federal regulation on industry, business, utilities, and car manufacturer polluters involves your personal tax dollars? Which is really what the message is about: changing how people live, use resources, and construct in a reasonably long term sustainable way so to not effect the Earth's biosphere. If the doom and gloom message isnt working for you, then that's fine, but don't sit there and get caught up in the presentation, instead of the context.
I was demonstrating that scientists on climate change, and those whose work has influenced the mainstream understanding by proxy of related research, are not as influenced by hidden ulterior motives as say business would be by presenting alternative facts. For instance, cigarette companies espousing the benefits of cigarettes whilst simultaneously down playing the negative aspects. This was simply shoring up the rebuttal to you originally saying climate scientists want money for research and the whole climate change is a sham.Annnndd now you're going off tangent. Thanks for enlightening me. Should we bust out some rulers and measure our dicks to see who's the ultimate dude while we're at it?
Yeah, it kinda does. That's how science works. In other realms, sure, truth is more relative. On climate change, no, the facts are the facts and the majority consensus is clear. There is no hail Mary, "hey wait a minute maybe we were mistaken"; such as when Newton discovered objects no matter the weight accelerate at the same speed towards Earth, coming for climate change. It's true and it is happening and people's pollution in the modern world is causing it.My main point: Majority doesn't automatically equal truth.
Yeah I've always been that way since I was a little kid. Regardless, I'm still right and you know it.I see the taped glasses coming out again with you saying ***actuallllllllllyyyyyyyyyy***
It is true so why bother reading crack pot hypothesis that have been disproven anyway?You need to look at both sides of the argument (why global warming is true vs why global warming isn't true) to make informed conclusions.
I consider myself a pretty informed person and don't get my frame work for beliefs from popular science celebrities. Not that I have anything against Bill Nye. I don't turn on the TV and believe things because I am told to believe them. Give me a little more credit than that, I'm not a ESE.You don't turn on the TV and just believe it because Bill Nye told you to.
So why is pretty much every other country besides America still a part of the Paris Accord on Climate Change? It would not make sense for all these millions, billions of people to be wrong and Donald Trump to be right? It always amazes me how Americans, perhaps such as yourself, feel that regulating industry is a bad thing. As though industry is ethical enough to regulate itself. If you can follow this next tangent: why is Russia and Canada currently in negotiations over the Arctic Ocean which both countries predict to be clear of sea ice in the coming decades?And like I said; I'm sure human activity is contributing some, but not to the extent mainstream blows it out of proportion (Al Gore) where it warrants questionable action...
...Like paying a dumb carbon tax for literally JUST breathing lol
I will check it out sometime, maybe. It's fine if you want to have your head in the sand, Peter, its your prerogative.You quoted me linking the scientists that don't believe. Do you even read what I write? I don't understand
I'll link, AGAIN. http://www.petitionproject.org/
These panel of scientists (31,000), including climate scientists, which includes >9000 PhDs that signed this petition. Again, I believe it'd be even MORE, but it might put their careers at risk.
His "little ice age" theory on the warming planet has been largely discredited. I mean, he was relevant through the 1940-1970's, but science moved on. Cling to his testament if you choose, no one is stopping you, including me. I don't care about convincing you, I already know you are wrong.You know who else is skeptical? Try names like Reid Bryson, a LEGENDARY figure in climatology, the most frequently cited climatologist in the WORLD doesn't believe in the hype.
Dead serious.Are you serious right now?
Nope, never seen anything I felt was from a legitimate source, just opinions and speculation.I say that you should look at both sides before making an informed decision and you can't even find evidence that its not happening? You've never seen ANYTHING!? Not even ONE thing? That's like the bare minimum.
It's up to you.Why are you even responding to me if you haven't even looked into it? And here you are lecturing us and questioning people's critical thinking skills lol. My conversation with you should just end here.
Honestly, I can't be bothered. It all sounds like the crack pots who think creationism is equal to evolution. Anthropogenic Climate change deniers all sound delusional to me.BTW, do you know how to use the internet? You can find some counter-evidence now in google.
I'm all for unplugging from the matrix, did that about 15 years ago. Lived off the grid with my ex in a cabin we built in North Central BC. I'm about as far as unplugged from the 'society delusion' as you can get.Maybe you need to unplug from the matrix for 2-seconds and get your eyes checked too.
You don't like being disagreed with, do you?What a joke.
Sure, potatoes, potatoes. Tomatoes, tomatoes.No but just the "amalgamation of all the accumulative data from dozens and dozens of fields of study."
Or just the general summary/models/predictions that have been made so far.
For sure, Kelly-Anne Conway.But there ARE scientists that don't believe it. You can look at the SAME data and come to DIFFERENT interpretations of that data and can still be science.
Why don't you just tell me, because again, I've already got a lot going on, and can't be bothered.Oh, and look up with how they came up with the 97% "consensus" because I doubt you did your research on that.
Do you live in the City, Peter?Again, to clarify, I never said money was the only interest. I'm sure saving the planet is a legitimate concern to many.
...and?I'd tell them, "its warm outside and its melting your ice."
BTW, I love big trucks and I work in industry and I have no problem with what Civilization is doing because I know there used to be no other way. But I'm not a total hypocrite about it, nor a delusional liar either. Via: stating climate change is not happening and its not caused by people.
Electric technology might take off for passenger vehicles, but has not showed any promise for commercial vehicles that require huge torque and horsepower to transport loads over 5500 Kg. I'm all for it - will believe it when I see it. In regards to fusion, well pipe dreams never seem to materialize. crazedrat stated Thorium nuclear reactors are the way to go and I agree.
Yeah, because that's better than global warming...
...Apparently we want more where these two came from. They aren't even really "thorium reactors": https://www.theguardian.com/environm...uclear-uranium
Thorium reactors do not meltdown, unlike uranium reactors which do. Thorium is a safe nuclear reactor with little toxic waste by-products. Chernobyl was an different kind of nuclear reactor, as your research pointed out. Uranium rods over heated in Chernobyl during a testing exercise. Thorium reactors cannot have runaway reactions as they are a different kind of substance, more like a gooey gel.
Energy has to come from somewhere - nuclear energy, the energy found in decaying rocks - is one solution. Where I come from, hydro-electric damns are the main source of electrical energy. That is not feasible everywhere.
Thorium reactors are a very safe and clean technology.
I don't understand. You can literally just type the number in google to figure out if I'm lying?
And you make labels like "delusional," "denier," etc lol so ironic...
So, what conclusion? And do you even know the opposing opinion? Because it seems like you don't, as you later say:
**actualllllllyyyyy**But I'm not a total hypocrite about it, nor a delusional liar either. Via: stating climate change is not happening and its not caused by people
That's not what the opposition is saying.
Your delusional ignorance on public display.
If it's useless, yes, less money.
That's how the media works. And many are falling for it. Lets not forget Al Gore in 2006: "WE HAVE 10 YEARS LEFT TO SAVE THE PLANET!!!" lmao. And how'd that turn out? I'm sure he was legit concerned about rising sea levels after buying his $4 million house along the coast in San Francisco.
Oh, and BTW, we've actually had 5x more polar bears since 1940.
EPA taxing on heating + air conditioning, the price of food, cost of gas, food & clothing, and even TV and computers are affected. I got billz to pay homie, and I don't want to pay to breathe air.
Look up how the data has been measured/manipulated/cherry picked.
Exactly HOW MUCH humans are contributing is NOT SETTLED. Whether increased CO2 levels is a totally bad thing is NOT SETTLED. There are so many other variables; natural changes in weather, the sun's output, orbital shifts, ocean cycles, solar cycles, cloud cover etc etc. It's multifactorial, and it shows; the current models are very poor at predicting anything.
Oh boy, you sure showed me!!!
The stuff you didn't even look into?
I dunno. Why is Justin Bieber so popular? Why are millions of Americans fat? Why does everyone accept Dr. Oz as gospel? They must be right about something!!! BTW, nice strawman argument. THE MILLIONS OF SMART PEOPLE vs DONALD TRUMP lol. The middle-class is being crushed here. We don't need more taxes.
The problem with climate change alarmists is that they've been making predictions for DECADES and they've been proven FALSE.
Why didn't any of these predictions come true?
Ever since the First Earth day in 1970,
Why did Harvard Biologist George Waltz predict civilization end within 15-30 years?
Why did Paul Erlick, professor and leading authority predict that people would starve to death and that the population would decrease 1-2 million by 1980?
Why were there predictions that by 1975 there'd be food shortages and famines?
That between 1980-1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish and die off?
DAMN!!! I thought science people were supposed to be right about EVERYTHING because...SCIENCE!!! derrrrr
Are you beginning to see why I can't take you guys seriously?
Climate change alarmists are delusional.
I know right???? Screw that guy's ("the father of climatology") credentials:
Also screw all the other scientists, PhDs from Harvard, MIT, NASA, etc. Science has MOVED ON from these IDIOTS!!!Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Science in the 1970s he became the first director of what now the Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He's a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment. He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.
But sall good, you got your boy Bill Nye the science guy.
:*
Look it up.
You don't even know the arguments, let alone their basic position. Here's another reminder:
Insert the "I'm still right and you know it," preferably with Wacey's voice for dramatic effect.But I'm not a total hypocrite about it, nor a delusional liar either. Via: stating climate change is not happening and its not caused by people
God ain't real cuz...EVOLUTION BRO! Nuff said! Nuff said!!
Donald Trump is a RACIST!!!! HE WANTS TO DEPORT ALL IMMIGRANTS!!
Climate change deniers are DUMB!! The weather DOES change!! Can't they SEE!? They don't believe in SCIENCE!!
Your ignorance on display again.
climate change alarmists are delusional.
Depends. If you prove me wrong maybe I'll agree.
The link you could have clicked instead of trying to be clever and typing Kelly-Anne Conway. It takes like less than a second to push the button with your fingers.
Nah. If you cared enough you'd look into it. Which is ironic, since you keep banking on your consensus argument and how you're supposedly "unplugged." You could be cutting down trees for your cabin but instead you have all this time to reply to me even though you have a lot going on and can't be bothered??lol
Yeah.
That's it.
lol. again you don't even know the opposing position. why am I not surprised. you obviously need to get out of your cabin and do some homework.
the deniers aren't saying the climate doesn't change or that humans aren't contributing.
Yes, the climate changes. Yes, humans may contribute some.
But exactly how much? And if we do know exactly how much, what should we do? What's the costs vs benefits? Should we hold in our farts? Should we lower our standard of living and go back to the stone ages like the Flintstones? And if so, how many people are we willing to let die?
Those questions aren't clear.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 07-10-2017 at 06:28 PM.
...Did you even read the linked article? The thorium is converted to uranium-232 by bombarding it with protons because actual thorium can't be used for nuclear fission reactions. Uranium-232 is at least a little worse than regular uranium. I also posted Fukushima, not just Chernobyl. Look at the Fukushima map... You've got radiation in the whole Western part of the United States. I wonder if the radiation from Fukushima and Chernobyl happens to correspond to the places owned by the WWII Japanese and the Nazis in The Man in the High Castle...
Plus, even if the reactors don't naturally blow up, they're good targets for war. Who needs to spend money building nukes and negotiating all the "X country is building nukes!" diplomacy when you can just drop regular weapons on your enemies' power plants and get Chernobyl?
Yes, electric power is promising for most vehicles, but the technology needs to develop further for some vehicles. That is still better than relying on gas on almost vehicles like the present. Fusion power will require some time to become a reality, but it will likely happen in the future, it is just a matter of when rather than if IMO:
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-uk-...fusion-reactor
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Thorium reactors are not possible... they have been trying for over 50 years with billions of dollars going into research without any success. Even if it were possible, it would be "too little, too late" as it would require thousands and thousands of new reactors (which would cost billions of dollars each) to meet the electricity demands of the world, which is simply not feasible.
And besides, the renewables have been so successful that any kind of nuclear fission technology is not really required. The intermittent nature of renewables and the lack of flexibility of nuclear reactors really don't mix well.
Unfortunately, an astronomical amount of (tax-payer) money have been wasted into pipe-dream nuclear fission technology that really went nowhere. Fast-breeder reactors are one of them. It promised "unlimited" supply of energy by reprocessing and re-using the spent nuclear fuel rods of the traditional nuclear reactors. This proved to be an incredibly complicated and complex process. Over 60 years of research and tens or hundreds of billions of dollars have been gone into research and building of prototypes of fast-breeder reactors, which ultimately resulted in producing little to no energy. France and Japan were the biggest advocates of such technology (because they're the biggest advocates of nuclear fission technology, so they hold the largest amount of spent nuclear fuel rods next to the US), and as a result, they have wasted the most amount of money.
Last edited by Singu; 07-10-2017 at 08:25 AM.
Yes, I just sacrificed whole rainforest just to calm down gods.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
This seems like a standstill draw. Not much to add to this.I don't understand. You can literally just type the number in google to figure out if I'm lying?
And you make labels like "delusional," "denier," etc lol so ironic...
The climate deniers are saying climate change is a hoax/conspiracy..I figure this is what we are talking about here? I suppose your distinction you are making is that the opposition admits climate change is happening: just not caused by people. I've read the alternatives, for instance: Earth rotation, solar flares, little ice age..on and on. None of it adds up to how quickly the climate is swinging. I mean, for you to state "not happening, and if it is, not people caused", it really doesn't matter to me what your person beliefs on the matter are. You are allowed this prerogative. There isn't a single article, nor bit of information that would convince me otherwise. It's firmly solidified in my mind, and buttressed by the outer world in which I live ie: municipal, provincial, federal governments that acknowledge and prepare. Further, my personal circle of acquaintances, those in the public setting. Simple changes in business practises, and federal legislation can more then tackle this problem. And the public sentiment is there as well.So, what conclusion? And do you even know the opposing opinion? Because it seems like you don't, as you later say:
**actualllllllyyyyy**
That's not what the opposition is saying.
Your delusional ignorance on public display.
What is personally at stake in this for you? Why are you so adamant about your position? I don't understand your angle here.If it's useless, yes, less money.
Time will tell. For you not to consider the long term consequences here of humanities current paradigm in regards to its relationship with nature and the natural world, even when they are explained to you, sounds incredibly *non-Ni* mobilized.That's how the media works. And many are falling for it. Lets not forget Al Gore in 2006: "WE HAVE 10 YEARS LEFT TO SAVE THE PLANET!!!" lmao. And how'd that turn out? I'm sure he was legit concerned about rising sea levels after buying his $4 million house along the coast in San Francisco.
Let's say this fact can be verified and its accurate (I don't have the inclination to check it - will take your word), it might simply be explained by better hunting practises put in place by the federal government to help save the species population. From my understanding, only native Inuit people are allowed to hunt polar bear, which explains why there numbers rebounded through the 1950-60s. This timeframe also coincided with the Federal governments mandate to allow native people access to the traditional lands and ways of life - in order to hunt for subsistence and economic generation.Oh, and BTW, we've actually had 5x more polar bears since 1940.
REGARDLESS, habitat loss due to warming Tundra ecosystems still has an effect on the polar bears life cycles - as food and habitat changes to quickly in order for them to adapt. The northern climate is particularly susceptible to climate change, as it is a delicate and sensitive ecosystem. It comes as no surprise to me you do not personally *feel* anything for the polar bears circumstance, as you have never been up north yourself, nor seen one in person. All you can understand of them is what you see through media. Your issue, from my perspective, has more to do with the manner in which the polars bears plight is presented, for instance forcing you to feel sympathy, then the actual reality of what is happening to them - a "sexy" species effected by the warmer climate. More polar bears now does NOT mean the species is not in decline due to other factors other than hunting.
Consider yourself fortunate, as American prices are artificially deflated to begin with. For example gas: we pay 40-50% more, even though it comes from our ground. In regards to air: no surprise here this would be your attitude, as a city dweller all you have ever known is shitty air.EPA taxing on heating + air conditioning, the price of food, cost of gas, food & clothing, and even TV and computers are affected. I got billz to pay homie, and I don't want to pay to breathe air.
This bolded part is patently false. Increased Co2 is totally a bad thing. Two small examples are ocean acidification and acid rain. I wrote a paper on this topic for school. Here is a copy of my text. It is a mock journalistic style, because I was bored of writing essay style at the time. Yes, before you ask, it is exclusively my own work, no plagiarism. The characters are fictional (I made them up), however the information was straight from my text book. I would be dismayed to hear if your American schools did not teach about acid rain in New York state several decades ago.Look up how the data has been measured/manipulated/cherry picked.
Exactly HOW MUCH humans are contributing is NOT SETTLED. Whether increased CO2 levels is a totally bad thing is NOT SETTLED. There are so many other variables; natural changes in weather, the sun's output, orbital shifts, ocean cycles, solar cycles, cloud cover etc etc. It's multifactorial, and it shows; the current models are very poor at predicting anything.
By Wacey
“What is happening right now is a problem that actually originates in the atmosphere. Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the air, changes the chemistry of the oceans. Carbon dioxide gas is absorbed into the water and changes the pH levels, sometimes dramatically. This can have devastating effects on the marine life”. Edwards explains.
We are making a dive just on the eastern tip of one such coral reef, named Dry Tortugas. The water is warm and inviting. The oceans here are historically productive, containing a large amount of biodiversity, but food webs always start with the microscopic organisms.
“This is where the problem lies,” says Edwards, “the changes in pH decreases the concentrations of carbonate ions. These molecules are extremely important, as they are what corals and other marine organisms use to produce calcium carbonate, the main ingredient for creating their skeletons and shells. Think of calcium carbonate as the flour in bread. Without flour, you cannot make bread. What they are doing is a process known as calcification.”
To see the effects carbon dioxide has on marine life, we dive towards the deep. Not three meters below we swim over the corals. Seeing the beauty of the intricate forms, each strikes me as being a colorful piece of living art growing on top of each other towards the ocean surface. Many small, whimsical tropical fish dart in and out of their hiding places, searching for food. We swim some ways further along the reef and come upon an area composed entirely of white coloured corals. Although also showing a striking beauty, I get the sense that something here is wrong. There are less fish swimming amongst the bone coloured structures and there is less seaweeds situated throughout the corals then in the area we first explored. It is as if the corals are dead, the reef a watery desert.
Back on the deck of Cousteau One while pealing off our wetsuits and masks, Edwards laments.
“Those bleached out areas are essentially dead. The tiny creatures that form the corals cannot produce calcium carbonate, which are the material bases for the whole reef ecosystem. And its not just happening here, other food webs rely on calcifying organisms, fish species such as salmon and herring eat these microscopic organisms as important food sources.”
Our boat skims across the water towards the mainland. The sky is brightly lite with the oranges and pinks of a tropical sunset. When I ask Edwards if there is something that could be done to save the corals, she looks out towards the water and sighs.
“Well, the studies show that coral reef calcification decreases in response to the decrease in concentration of carbonate ions. The level of these ions is decreased as the level of carbon dioxide in the air goes up, because the carbon dioxide is absorbed into the ocean. To stop the problem, we need to stop the raise of carbon dioxide levels in Earth’s atmosphere......................................
McAllister holds up a full water bottle pulled from his nap sake in to a beam of sunlight. The water inside the bottle glows brightly with white light.
“You see sulfur dioxides and nitrous oxides are released by burning fossil fuels. These react with the water moisture in the air to form strong acids. When this water falls to Earth, whether it is in the form of rain, snow, or fog, it negatively affects the forests. Fish and other forms of life in lakes and streams can be killed. Another problem is that soil chemistry is changed and this impacts the trees.”
We reach an outcrop that affords us a view of the valley and the dense forest canopy covering the landscape. McAllister gazes out with an expression of both pride and reverence.
“In the late nineteen eighties, this valley looked completely different. The trees were dead because of the acid rain. Remember, any precipitation that has a pH level lower than 5.6 is considered acidic. It will damage the forest. This was a common occurrence back then. It was all caused by the larger cities such as New York and Philadelphia. These urban centers and the human activity taking place there were releasing air-polluting substances like the sulfur oxides and nitrous oxides. These gases mixed with the air moisture and fell back to the Earth here as acid precipitation.”
“So why does it look so different now”, I enquire.
“Because luckily amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990 have resulted in the decrease of acid precipitation. The forests, lakes and rivers were able to recover from the pollution and rejuvenated. This is a great success story for this area. However, more needs to be done.”I cannot control your critical thinking skills, nor your efforts to be discerning as to whether or not you will take consensus into account. On this topic, it would seem your research has led you to believe one thing, that I emphatically do not. As to this idea of the middle class being crushed - sure its happening all over the world, why has Trump just lowered taxes for the rich?Oh boy, you sure showed me!!!
The stuff you didn't even look into?
I dunno. Why is Justin Bieber so popular? Why are millions of Americans fat? Why does everyone accept Dr. Oz as gospel? They must be right about something!!! BTW, nice strawman argument. THE MILLIONS OF SMART PEOPLE vs DONALD TRUMP lol. The middle-class is being crushed here. We don't need more taxes.
Such is the nature of predictions. Doesn't negate what is currently happening to species and ecosystems.The problem with climate change alarmists is that they've been making predictions for DECADES and they've been proven FALSE.
Why didn't any of these predictions come true?
I suppose as a LSI, you would feel personally betrayed by predictions gone wrong. Would it be wise then in your cognitive dissonance, to swing the other direction and throw your flag up in the opposing camp, the camp that claims "IT" has the right answer about climate change (or lack of climate change). Can you not see how preposterous the act of doing so becomes?Why did Harvard Biologist George Waltz predict civilization end within 15-30 years?
Why did Paul Erlick, professor and leading authority predict that people would starve to death and that the population would decrease 1-2 million by 1980?
Why were there predictions that by 1975 there'd be food shortages and famines?
That between 1980-1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish and die off?
DAMN!!! I thought science people were supposed to be right about EVERYTHING because...SCIENCE!!! derrrrr
Are you beginning to see why I can't take you guys seriously?
This is what is referred to as an impasse.Climate change alarmists are delusional.
Science - understanding - is a multi-process beast that is ever evolving and ever changing as new insights are garnered from nature. That those scientist in the past contributed their research, passion, drive and knowledge in their times, and their contributions have become obsolete, doesn't remove any of the authority and respect they are deserving of. That being said, any good scientist worth his salt should be able to lay down his entrenched beliefs if the truth says something different about what he/she knows. Science is filled with numerous examples of people learning something new that topples existing paradigms. Its actually quite common.I know right???? Screw that guy's ("the father of climatology") credentials:
Also screw all the other scientists, PhDs from Harvard, MIT, NASA, etc. Science has MOVED ON from these IDIOTS!!!
But sall good, you got your boy Bill Nye the science guy.
lol.:*
I'm not particularly interest at this point in my life.Look it up.
I am aware there are alternative arguments and the general basic position. That is enough for me to know.You don't even know the arguments, let alone their basic position. Here's another reminder:
The irony here, is that its you honestly believes he is right.Insert the "I'm still right and you know it," preferably with Wacey's voice for dramatic effect.
For an awakened, illuminated mind, it should be enough said.God ain't real cuz...EVOLUTION BRO! Nuff said! Nuff said!!
Not a concern of mine.Donald Trump is a RACIST!!!! HE WANTS TO DEPORT ALL IMMIGRANTS!!
Yes, absolutely correct.Climate change deniers are DUMB!! The weather DOES change!! Can't they SEE!? They don't believe in SCIENCE!!
Whatever you say, the world is what you make it.Your ignorance on display again.
Well, delusion is the human condition. Buddha figured that out 2,500 years ago. So, its not a stretch to affirm it in climate change deniers.climate change alarmists are delusional.
I know how LSI are: if the mountain was LSI, then Muhammad would still be trying to move it.Depends. If you prove me wrong maybe I'll agree.
I'll check out the alternative facts, Kelly. No problem.The link you could have clicked instead of trying to be clever and typing Kelly-Anne Conway. It takes like less than a second to push the button with your fingers.
Peoples values and actions change with time, and I am no exception.Nah. If you cared enough you'd look into it. Which is ironic, since you keep banking on your consensus argument and how you're supposedly "unplugged." You could be cutting down trees for your cabin but instead you have all this time to reply to me even though you have a lot going on and can't be bothered??
Just trying to get a sense of what informs your introverted thinking: the setting, time, and place.Yeah.
That period of my life is now over - ancient history.lol. again you don't even know the opposing position. why am I not surprised. you obviously need to get out of your cabin and do some homework.
There are a number of solutions. Are you afraid of what you might loose? Don't worry so much, Peter. Change is the only real constant. That is a hard, hard lesson to learn. If I can do it, so can you.the deniers aren't saying the climate doesn't change or that humans aren't contributing.
Yes, the climate changes. Yes, humans may contribute some.
But exactly how much? And if we do know exactly how much, what should we do? What's the costs vs benefits? Should we hold in our farts? Should we lower our standard of living and go back to the stone ages like the Flintstones? And if so, how many people are we willing to let die?
Those questions aren't clear.
Fusion: I would be amazed and spell bound if it happened.
With electric cars: I hope the transition moves to electric energy instead of combustables in my lifetime.
LOL. nice job dodging/derailing pretty much everything I addressed.
I never dodged a single thing. I gave you my answer for each point; point for point. "derailling"? Never derailed anything.
I really liked this because it brings to mind the LSI equivalent of a robespierre style Se over reaction i.e.: fighting like a rooster, but the Ne equivalent. "this prediction was wrong once, therefore the opposite must be true" (nevermind investigating where exactly it went wrong with a little nuance and correcting the specific errors and moving forward--no! scorched earth!" rraaAARrgI suppose as a LSI, you would feel personally betrayed by predictions gone wrong. Would it be wise then in your cognitive dissonance, to swing the other direction and throw your flag up in the opposing camp, the camp that claims "IT" has the right answer about climate change (or lack of climate change). Can you not see how preposterous the act of doing so becomes?
HahahahahahhaI really liked this because it brings to mind the LSI equivalent of a robespierre style Se over reaction i.e.: fighting like a rooster, but the Ne equivalent. "this prediction was wrong once, therefore the opposite must be true" (nevermind investigating where exactly it went wrong with a little nuance and correcting the specific errors and moving forward--no! scorched earth!" rraaAARrg
Last edited by Computer Loser; 07-11-2017 at 01:59 AM.
its alright, you're embarrassed, you're trying to shift the goal posts, we understand
Thanks, your mom consoled me last night as I shifted the goal posts to her bedroom. Nice that you guys understand.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 07-11-2017 at 01:56 AM.
well, she is a caregiver and you are a child
It's a shame that some people can only make "Socionics ad hominems"...
Yes, where did the fine art of Nazi and occasionally Communist ad hominems go?
Lol. Yes you did. And I’ll point it out below.
(hint: you can answer every point and still bullshit).
Lmao.
I just listed off predictions SCIENTISTS (not lay people) got WAY off, and you just brush it off as, “Oh yeah, it happens.” Lol
Do you understand the severity of this.
Scientists weren’t just making little claims, they were saying that CIVILIZATION ITSELF WOULD END, that people would STARVE, that polar bears would DROWN, that tornadoes would hit HARDER THAN EVER…
And guess what happened?
Not only were they off, they were WAY OFF; we didn’t even get BELOW AVERAGE of ANY of the predictions.
This isn’t something that you just brush off like nothing happened,
This is a matter of trust.
Are we now just supposed to pick and choose what to believe and cross our fingers on some things?
If I told you that the world would end in a week, and in response you gathered and stored all this food in your basement, and you loaded up on weapons just in case your neighbors might break in,
And a week later I told you… JUST KIDDING!!!
How would that make you feel? Would you continue trusting me?
It’s kind of a big deal.
Here again,
1. You’re dodging the severity of the issue I brought up and instead you,
2. Redirect/project false accusations on me.
I never swung to complete opposite direction. I’ve said that climate change alarmists are exaggerating the severity. Nobody is saying the climate doesn’t change and humans don’t contribute at all. I’ve stated my position NUMEROUS times throughout this thread. Your reading just sucks. I’ll post my position, again:
You’re being intellectually dishonest. **Insert I'm right and you know it! With Wacey's whiny voice for dramatic effect**the deniers aren't saying the climate doesn't change or that humans aren't contributing.
Yes, the climate changes. Yes, humans may contribute some.
But exactly how much? And if we do know exactly how much, what should we do? What's the costs vs benefits? Should we hold in our farts? Should we lower our standard of living and go back to the stone ages like the Flintstones? And if so, how many people are we willing to let die?
Those questions aren't clear.
As a matter of fact, it seems like YOU are the one that swings the other direction with an example here:
(side note: so the rest/unbolded part you agree with huh? Lol)
As for CO2,
One example of a GOOD thing is global greening. We’ve actually had INCREASED crop yields/greening of the Earth. This in turn can help feed the population. This is a GOOD thing. Therefore CO2 is not TOTALLY bad.
As for you, you find a couple things bad about CO2 and all of a sudden it's TOTALLY bad according to you. This is you swinging in the other direction.
Here’s another example of you doing this:
Just because I posted examples of predictions being wrong DOESN’T MEAN automatically I don’t consider long term consequences. Lmao.
This is just you again redirecting/projecting false accusations on me.
It seems like YOU are the one that swings in opposite directions. Hypocrite.
Here you’re derailing and going off on a massive rant about why there hasn’t been a decline in polar bears.
Climate alarmists predicted that the glaciers would melt, and polar bears would drown, in a specified time period, as a result. THAT never happened.
Regardless of everything you just said, THAT’s what THEY claimed.
Here you realize how wrong you are and how much you contradict yourself so you pull shit out of your ass trying to sound intellectual. You should have @Bertrand help you out with that, since he loves brown-nosing you so much lol
And maybe every time I show up late to work I should just tell my boss "Peoples values and actions change with time, and I am no exception."
lol
No, you clearly don't, as illustrated below:
As I’ve mentioned a thousand times… Climate change is multifactorial. It’s difficult to assess HOW MUCH humans are contributing. Climate change skeptics are skeptical of the exaggerated hysteria made by climate change alarmists.
How much are they contributing? 100% 10% 1%? 0.000001%? It matters.
Do. You. Understand? Shall I dumb it down even more?
It’s a list of *current* scientists (from places like NASA, Harvard, MIT) that don’t believe in the exaggerated claims of climate change. It’s okay, I know it hurts to be in denial. :*
Here you're just vomiting bullshit about how science updates itself.
You sound intellectual/cool/hip but you dodge the point completely:
There are past and *current* scientists that don't believe in the hype.
It's called Satire.
Here, let me pull up the definition (just in case you're in denial again) for you:
Cute of you to answer each point though, trying so hard awwwww lolsat·ire ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/noun the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
It’s like dating a single mom and paying for her kid. The kid doesn’t belong to you. You're paying for somebody else's kid. If you get off on that shit, good on you
Teach me your ways, enlightened one, where can I find you in the swamp? I want to be just like you master.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 07-11-2017 at 08:51 PM.
Everyone needs something to panic about, it seems, so why not the climate?
There are many places that are already affected by global warming. Millions of people are already dealing with the reality of rising sea levels, constant floodings, their homes being displaced and relocated, mass emigration, agricultural production and crop harvesting failures, and so on. Being able to just panic is already a luxury. Not just the poorer countries, but also the places in the US are already affected.
http://www.theclever.com/15-places-t...climate-change
https://www.livescience.com/41380-cl...s-at-risk.html
http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/07/...limate-change/
Bangladesh is one of the most vulnerable countries:
Here is an interesting article on some of the worst-case predictions:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...or-humans.html
and a more reasoned analysis of the article:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...omething-else/
I think the switch to renewable energy is one of the most interesting things happening in the world right now... it's going to be a complete energy revolution. But right now, it's mostly only happening in Europe. Especially the East Asian and North American countries also need to get into the game. It seems like the US as a country has much potential for renewable energy due to its geographical location where it has a lot of wind and sunlight, but they're still not stepping up to the game, which is a waste of potential.
Germany isn't even that great of a place for solar power, it has very few sunlight hours per year compared to other places, and yet it produces so much electricity via solar power that it can almost meet its entire energy demand at peak.
So who knows, this whole disaster could be miraculously averted if the switch to renewable energy becomes even more successful than predicted.
IDK
Last edited by Ave; 12-01-2018 at 09:48 AM.
The video I posted above mentions this meme at some point.
It's interesting because it is so not true, fossil fuels are so necessary to bettering civilization, especially in the developing world, but there is never any debate about it. It's always assumed at the onset of a debate that fossil fuels are a bad thing, the question then becomes how do we replace them. Since fossil fuels are the most cost-effient form of energy known to man, our civilization is benefiting so much from them. That's why the video I posted above has such an interesting case to make about it, since this is an aspect of the debate which is never considered. The problem I have with environmentalism is that it views humans as polluter-parasites and human activity as disruptive to a "natural balance", which is a philosophical stance I disagree with. Human activity has made our environment alot safer and cleaner over the past centuries. For example, four centuries ago people lived mostly on manure covered farms in the countryside, thanks to industrial society we now have "livable cities".
Note that I don't disagree with the facts that scientists have discovered, but I actually wonder if we will pay a greater price for trying to "transition" from fossil fuels to other forms of energy (remember nuclear and hydraulic are not options for environmentalists) than if we don't, all things being equal. We need to look at different forms of energy and their good and bad sides. I am not saying fossil fuels have no drawbacks, but I do think the debate on energy is biased because the pros of fossil fuels are never mentioned anywhere and that's not balanced.
Last edited by Ave; 12-01-2018 at 11:05 AM.
To be honest, the only thing that really bothers me about the anthropogenic global warming initiative is carbon taxes resulting in higher fuel prices and higher home energy costs. So it is possibly a disingenuous cash grab for corporations and governments. It is the only reason that makes me suspect there is possible political motivation behind it.
It is just another excuse to tax everyday people with little proof that it will be directed towards actually improving the environment. Corporations can get tax incentives from carbon taxes, while we can't. Other than that, the push from fossil fuels to alternative energy is fine because eventually they will run out. So we might as well prepare sooner rather than later.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Well, that's true for petroleum, but coal won't be used up as fast. There is enough coal in the known reserves in the US alone that can be mined to last about another 325 years and much more in reserves that cannot be yet be mined by current technology: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...=coal_reserves But yes, we will run out eventually, so I agree there needs to be a replacement at some point. The problem I have with environmentalists is they seem to want to only hear about wind and solar and nothing else. I think some environmentalists (not all) would like to go back to a pre-industrial age, which to me is weird.
You don't think certain side effects of climate change such as rising oceans are a concern, though?
Renewables are already getting cheaper than fossil fuels, and in some cases, it already is. And it's basically free energy. There's a reason why all the top tech companies are building their own renewable farms.
I think that the shift to 100% renewables is going to be difficult, but it can be done.
Yeah, oil will run out first, while coal and natural gas will be around longer. My ideal is most cars being electric and most power plants being fusion. The former being far easier to achieve than the latter. Solar and wind is largely impractical except in certain areas.
Rising ocean levels are a concern, but the question is how much of it is anthropogenic and how much of it is natural? It is definitely both as temperatures have fluctuated in the past naturally, but the human factor is modern and new.
So if it is ~90% anthropogenic then that is good news because then we can actually do something about it. If it is ~50% anthropogenic then we still need to act to minimize the damage. However, if it is ~10% anthropogenic then that is depressing because it will largely be inevitable at that point.
Last edited by Raver; 12-01-2018 at 05:24 PM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Well you should look at Germany, a very heavy-industrial nation that consumes a lot of power, and yet they're shifting to renewables:
So it is possible to reduce CO2 emissions, at the same time increasing GDP. I mean it's not perfect and it's not without problems, but it means that it can be done.
The problem with electric cars is that they need to be recharged using an energy source in order to work. Electricity needs to be powered by electro-mechanical generators fueled by fossil fuel combustion, heat released from nuclear reactions or kinetic energy released from wind or water. And nuclear fusion won't be viable until 2050 or so. The main problem with fusion is the heat levels needed to produce it are tremendous, and no known receptacle can resist it. But I agree that if we can get fusion to work, that would have the most potential.
This is because of government interference in the market in the form of taxes and regulation on the fossil fuel industry, not because of the innate efficiency of wind and solar as energy sources.
Not really. The process of building wind turbines and solar panels is complicated and requires extracting and mining polluting chemicals in countries like China. Not that this is the only thing we should look at, since like I said human interference in the environment is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be. But it's certainly not free.
Ok, but GDP can increase for various reasons, and would perhaps have increased more than is demonstrated in those charts if we had left it to fossil fuels. I don't know, it doesn't say much.
Lots of countries are having massive success in switching to renewable sources like wind and solar. Bring on the free energy.
Yeah, that is why the electric car switch is dependent on the power plant switch too. Until we get nuclear fusion to work then our best bet is a mixture of fossil fuels and alternative energy. You can't get full power from alternative energy as wind and solar are dependent on the location as sun and wind are not constant. However, you can get a portion of energy from those sources at least.
We can't do a complete switch to alternative energy, but a mixture of alternative energy and fossil fuels is an improvement and a good compromise. Then if we can hopefully get nuclear fusion figured out in the near future is where the real benefits will come. Then a full switch to alternative energy is possible. A solution like carbon taxes is just child's play in comparison in addition to being a cash grab.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Thats correct, but even if you would burn the gasoline in power plants to produce electric energy and use it to propel electric cars.
The efficiency of that procedure would still be significant higher than driving a car powered by a combustion engine.
The efficiency of a combustion engine in a regualr car is shockingly low.
Only around 1/5 of the energy stored in the fuel is converted into mechanical energy, the rest is heat waste.
I guess only a few people know about this, how inefficient a combustion engine in a car is. And you can't do much about it, the laws of thermodynamics set to limit here.
Reply With Quote
