'Taxes are bad taxes are scary no taxes'. Get over it, you know how much they pay in taxes over in Europe?
Did I personally pay for my doctors appointment today? nope.
Get on the side of life affirmation, not life pessimism. Nobody likes a pessimist.
It is easy to disprove the argument that CO2 raises global temperature. As a homebrewer, I know from kegging that you need to force higher pressures of CO2 to carbonate the beer at room temperature than at refrigeration temperature. This is why we chill the beer before force-carbonation and attach regulators to maintain the pressure when pouring. In other words, as the temperature of a liquid increases, the solubility of gases in the liquid will decline, assuming the pressure remains constant.Originally Posted by yeves
We can apply this gas law to your hypothesis: Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is actually stored in the oceans, either directly as dissolved HCO3-/CO3-- in the buffer system, or as calcium carbonate. When the water temperature increases, the solubility of CO2 declines, which means gas is released from the ocean into the air. This is why you see a trend of CO2 going up when temperatures go up.
Next please.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 02-03-2018 at 02:00 AM.
So in other words, the pro anthropogenic folks are simply reversing cause and effect. Temperatures rising causes the increase of CO2, not the other way around.It is easy to disprove the argument that CO2 raises global temperature. As a homebrewer, I know from kegging that you need to force higher pressures of CO2 to carbonate the beer at room temperature than at refrigeration temperature. This is why we chill the beer before force-carbonation and attach regulators to maintain the pressure when pouring. In other words, as the temperature of a liquid increases, the solubility of dissolved gases will decline. We can also apply this gas law to your hypothesis:
Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is actually stored in the oceans, either directly as dissolved HCO3-/CO3-- in the buffer system, or as calcium carbonate. When the water temperature increases, the solubility of CO2 declines, which means gas is released from the ocean into the air. This is why you see a trend of CO2 going up when temperatures go up.
Next please.
Yes. The world is certainly warming, but this is not actually a bad thing (unless you're involved in the winter sports industry).
Warmer temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 mean higher crop yields due to a longer growing season. This is particularly helpful for people in cooler climates, who are suddenly able to grow more of their own produce. That reduces dependency on imports, levels out bilateral relations and lowers the cost of living for everyone. If I was to be particularly cynical, I would say that AGW proponents' real aim is to destabilize Western economies, in order to make it hard for us to reproduce and expand.
Down here, the left-wingers are hysterical because we have just had the warmest January since records began in the 1850s, but you know what? Everyone else thought that it was fucking great. Figs and olives ripened here for the first time ever. The sea was actually warm enough to swim in without a wetsuit. I got a nice tan.
Bring on global warming.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 02-03-2018 at 02:27 AM.
A lot of kind-hearted if rather naive people don't understand that the AGW movement is really just one arm of a wider agenda by...certain people...to take over important institutions (such as academia), and then distort their purpose in order to dismantle the society we live in.
They do this through constant fearmongering about the future, by installing pessimism about the value of one's own culture and identity, and by conferring prestige upon hedonistic, conceited aspects of life.
A recent study in the journal PLoS One found that the number of flying insects is on the decline, and humans are most likely to blame.
This isn’t the first study to suggest that insects are disappearing. Since 2010, researchers worldwide have documented the decline of fireflies. And the disappearance of both bees and monarch butterflies, which each year traverse thousands of miles to travel from Canada to Mexico, has captured the public’s attention. In this new study researchers from The Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom chronicled not the decline of a single insect species or two, but rather overall insect population trends. And the results aren’t good. The authors can’t pinpoint any one reason for this troubling trend. But it’s possible—and in fact probable—that many factors are at play.
Changes in agricultural practices, such as the increased use of pesticides and herbicides, could bepartially to blame. Pesticide use, after all, has been implicated in the decline of bees. Light pollution is implicated in the decline of fireflies, which use their glowing rears to signal to potential predators that they’re not tasty. Male fireflies use a pattern of lights to signal to mates that they are a different kind of tasty, so excess light from human structures can throw off their game. And temperature shifts due to climate change likely play a role as well.
https://www.popsci.com/flying-insect-decline#page-2
the effects and the causes are layered, as the results, as the guilts, we all play a part though, and we all can change this... humanity has lot of power in its hands, it's silly to think oherwise, but as some spider said, with that comes a lot of responsibility
I don't know if mankind is the sole cause of global warming, but I don't really care about the environment. Don't think that makes me obtuse (inconsiderate or slow.)
I also don't see why I should have to be paying for it while companies are making billions and they are the ones producing the supposed toxins.
Last edited by at sirac son of sirac; 02-03-2018 at 03:07 PM.
@wacey can't make any offer of proof, just platitudes.
Not to mention the fact that large corporations are also extremely good at tax avoidance. So while you pay for the environmental damage that large corporations do as well as the carbon taxes that are simply poor taxes like the ACA was, they simply continue to damage it with impunity and collect massive profits. There's no incentive for them to do anything about the environment, and any money to help the environment is going to come only out of your pocket, not theirs.
Because I do not need to. It's real for me. Not because I was told it was real, but because I saw it with my own eyes.
Carbon taxation is applied to air polluters here. For every ton of air pollution you are charged a dollar amount, which supposedly is passed on to the consumer, which is not born out by the evidence.
The concept is simple: make less tonnage of air pollution, get taxed less = pay less overhead, make less pollution. Companies will think about the possibility now, of air as being something you can pollute. If it were not for government oversight, what other way would have enough teeth to get companies and corporations to actually change their ways? You think they will have enough ethical foresight to do it themselves? No, they won't.
How much a Carbon tax will effect you, the average citizen, is next to nil.
This is something that you as citizens need to address and ask of your Government. If that is not possible were you live, a Civil War is looming.
So I have to ask the doubters, is it a matter of doubt in global warming as an absolute phenomenon that is really happening, which it is, or is it a matter of doubt in the way our society is grappling and managing it?
Because one is sheer ignorance (choosing to ignoring what is true), and the other is just sensical scepticism of the needed solutions.
That's what a lot of people have been saying for a long time. The USA is more of an oligarchy than a democracy or a republic. It has been that way for a long time, if not forever.
yes you are making the claim for its existence. the burden to prove is on you.
you saw it with your feeling brain...it's called confirmation bias, Alice.
you have simply cited allegations against mankind along with the usual appeals to authority and consensus. not to mention blanket assertions. your feelings are great. you are entitled to them, but unless you have something more, well, thank you for the latest episode of Wacey in Wonderland.
your eyes are not a scientifically valid instrument for measuring and discerning the chain of causation on a mass meteorological scale. your approach is highly subjective and merely impressionistic. This is not unlike the socionics typing approach over at BSS. you are guessing, speculating, and ruminating about the causes of such, and to the extent you take it as truth boils your position down to faith.
yes, its incredible. you are such a phenom of modern nature. the weather people are wrong so many times even with the instruments they have, if only they had bionic eyes like yours, they could not only predict the morning weather but also long ranging global meteorological catastrophes!Not because I was told it was real, but because I saw it with my own eyes.
It's more a line of healthy skepticism for me about the validity of the evidence. Global warming is an ideology. People in research positions usually buy into the ideology to start with, furthermore they are paid to produce research which supports global warming - especially man made global warming. I don't even work in the environmental sector, and I have to be 'green' at work - I couldn't speak out about it because it's expected.
I did a search, https://phys.org/news/2017-02-ice-age-paradox-sea.html I can see that what the article is saying is that it expects sea levels to rise even more than expected, but it's the problem for me,
'The behavior of this ancient ice sheet—called Laurentide—has puzzled scientists for decades because its periods of melting and splintering into the sea occurred at the coldest times in the last Ice Age. Ice should melt when the weather is warm, but that's not what happened.'
Ice sheets can melt even when global temperatures are freezing, because ocean temperature is different from atmosphere temperature.
When I read stuff like that, i'm reminded that we're using computer algorithms to calculate stuff that just isn't up for the job, there's too much data that's not understood, or even computers aren't powerful enough to process the data.
I know that there's an answer for that, that sea temperature are rising, yet I read elsewhere that temperature in Antartica is falling. The point is that there's so much unknowns yet it's been pushed as an accepted ideology that I can't help but suspect we're being sold a bad deal.
Nice try but nope. Direct awareness, everything else was for your benefit, or not, apparently, and thats okay. I saw the melting ice in a realtime moment. I saw the billions of dead Pine trees rotting in the elements. (I worked as a Pine Beetle Kill logger - cutting them down and burning them as a job).yes you are making the claim for its existence. the burden to prove is on you.
you saw it with your feeling brain...it's called confirmation bias, Alice.
you have simply cited allegations against mankind along with the usual appeals to authority and consensus. not to mention blanket assertions. your feelings are great. you are entitled to them, but unless you have something more, well, thank you for the latest episode of Wacey in Wonderland.
your eyes are not a scientifically valid instrument for measuring and discerning the chain of causation on a mass meteorological scale. your approach is highly subjective and merely impressionistic. This is not unlike the socionics typing approach over at BSS. you are guessing, speculating, and ruminating about the causes of such, and to the extent you take it as truth boils your position down to faith.
yes, its incredible. you are such a phenom of modern nature. the weather people are wrong so many times even with the instruments they have, if only they had bionic eyes like yours, they could not only predict the morning weather but also long ranging global meteorological catastrophes!
I'm not a part of the fantasy.....maybe you are...?
AS far as the science part goes, oh yes, I am very scientific. Things are either true or not, and every truth or non-truth has an explanation. Define a hypothesis, isolate the variables, design a test, record the results, does the results verify the hypothesis, draw a conclusion. I'm an avid reader, and listener, global warming is real, its happening. And the science is rooted in my memories of a real-time experience. I don't need to imagine something I already saw, and see clearly on a daily basis. No faith is needed. All the rest is out of my hands.
btw, weather and local climate are not the same as climate and yearly trends. its not the same as habitat shifts and species loss. there are other metrics to pull from.
AS far as confirmation bias goes, not sure how much a child of 7, 8, 9 holds, because that was when my awareness starting watching. Perhaps the bias is in you, k4.
Last edited by wacey; 02-03-2018 at 06:05 PM.
It's not an ideology. And as far as ideologies go, they are not automatically wrong, nor bad. lol, I know, you are (apparently - supposedly.. so the prophecy goes?) made for IEEs who need to question the tautological basis of everything for the sake of it.
If you cannot find truth in the computer articles, I suggest going and seeing for yourself. If its something you are truly passionate about knowing, the only way you can do that is to see with your own eyes.
Eh, I would not even call it skepticism. Skepticism is simply reflexive doubt in the face of strong evidence.
Here, there is no real evidence. value in the evidence they try to present is neutralized by the breath of counter-evidence.
and it's always about temperatures....I don't see any global warmers even bothers trying to clear the causation hurdle.
At this stage, it's just been conjecture, rumination, speculation, and guesswork.
No one here is doubting global warming's existence. The debate lies on whether the cause is anthropogenic or if it is another cause or both. Grouping global warming deniers with those skeptical of an anthropogenic cause is disingenuous.
The crux of the matter is largely the latter where there is a matter of doubt in the way society is grappling and managing it. The reason why is simple, global warming is being used largely for political and financial motivations by forcing the narrative that it is 100 percent anthropogenic.
The vast majority of climate scientists are certain that global warming is occurring, but there is a lot of uncertainty in the cause of it. A good amount of scientists believe it is anthropogenic, while there is also a good amount that believe it is non-anthropogenic or both or they are simply uncertain.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Plenty of people on the problem and it all returns to C02 levels.
There is a reason many, many governments signed the Environment Accord in Paris. Only America pulled out, because it was bad for business. So a narrative is spun that global warming is not real and if it is the causes are natural. The tribalists nod together in agreement because Trump is strong and "I identify with that."
LEMMINGS.
Distrust in bureaucracy, business, government, the system, is being projected onto distrust of the warming phenomenon. That is the true optics here.
Further, calling it non-anthropogenic caused is just as fallacious as saying it is anthropogenic , if there are no conclusive answers yet (there are).
For good reason in that there is a lot to be gained by those entities if the cause of global warming is anthropogenic and nothing to be gained if it is not. The reality might be somewhere in between though.
Ftr, I am all for taking care of the environment through less dependence on oil, increased usage of electric cars, less usage of coal power plants and the like.
However, carbon tax is just an insiduous method of deriving more money from the general public especially when corporations can easily find loopholes from it and the general public cannot.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
The Carbon Tax is not applied to people, only people who release C02 into the atmosphere and is measured by the tonnage. Average people like you or I, will not need to pay for that, and the handed down costs are minimal.
My gas costs have noticeably increased because of a carbon tax added on to gas where I live. I feel the effects of carbon tax weekly when I fill up my car for gas and I have to pay much more. This is just one example mind you. I would not care about carbon tax if it did not impact me directly, but it does.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
We are already in paradise. Let's accept the ways things need to be. The global warming problem is not "out there". It's inside us. It's the way we do things. It's the very root of our Civilization.
I think poetically, how many ice ages did man evolve through...? A number of them. Tough times, wild swings in climate, our extinction at one point.
So, we remade the world to suit us. We broke the Ice cycle. It took us 10,000 years, but we made it! We were the next phase in the story of planet Earth. Just...many animals and species and ecosystems had to perish to make way for the new.
We were the next force of nature. Our intelligence warmed the very Earth itself. I mean, is it a stretch to think this way?
Well, that is the mechanism, the driving force behind pushing for a change to electric. It hurts, because its meant to, but just barely tolerable. The Governments are us.
Carbon tax on gas just looks like a cash grab from the government to me. It will do little to encourage the transition from gas to electric cars. However, tax credits on electric car purchases and other incentives to make electric cars cheaper though are actual ways to encourage electric car usage.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
It's ideological in the sense that the dichotomy of climate change being a cause for concern depends on how liberal you are, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21560547 and http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/0...cs-of-climate/ The less liberal you are, the less likely you are to believe that a) climate change is a problem or b) climate change is man made. Although among liberals and conservatives, most people believe climate change is happening.
I understand you've seen it with your own eyes and I respect that, but I also know that the world is a huge place and there is a lot of data to be analysed. Climate change might be caused by mankind, and it might lead to natural disasters, but, I don't think it's wrong to want a debate about it with information from both sides. I don't like it when i'm made to feel i'm wrong because I want to see both sides of the argument presented by informed people before making a decision.
I found this wiki link interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_consequences
It speaks in a language which I think's sensible, for instance
'These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.'
'These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.'
'These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.'
'These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.'
There's a variety of scientific views, and my hunch is mostly with the 1st group - it's not possible to predict how much temperature will change, but also the 2nd and the 3rd, because we're still not sure how much mankind contributes to global warming. I don't want to repeat myself, but when it's common sense to see that there's a lot of unknowns, but taxes and beliefs are put to me that it's a certainty that natural disasters will happen, so I have to stop using handtowels, paper cups, transport, heating, lightbulbs, then yes it's weird and it's like an agenda, a political ideology by the government or oligarchs for some way to make money out of me or to restrict my freedom.
It is a cash grab. And it will charge the polluters.
What if there is no Conspiracy? What if there are no huddled 'in groups' plotting domination?
Either way...the planet is warming. Are we ready for the Environment Refugees? Are we ready for the sub Sahara to dry up into a burnt Kernel of Corn? Are we ready for the second Dust Bowl? The water around the coast to go up several meters? For the loss of the Boreal forest, and the opening of the Arctic Channel to shipping? To the expansion of the deserts and the intensifying of the Monsoons?
We no longer have the luxury of time. A fallen stone picks up velocity as it accelerates towards the canyon floor. Can Civilization survive the coming crucibles?
The problem is that it is all speculation. We know the Earth is warming, but we don't know for how long or how much and we are not certain of the cause. Preparing for the worst case scenario of mass flooding and drought makes sense if there is no doubt that it is purely anthropogenic and certainly going up. Otherwise, we just got swindled into a scam.
Especially if it continues to go up and it is beyond our control. I think that kind of terrifies people, the idea that a natural disaster like global warming can hurt us significantly, but there is nothing we can do about it like a meteor crashing into Earth. So believing it is fully anthropogenic gives a false sense of security instead of discovering the truth, whatever it may be.
Last edited by Raver; 02-03-2018 at 08:08 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
Guess what, if I post the socionic types for characters in a movie I saw when I was ten, that doesn't mean my research into socionics began when I was ten.
Or maybe you consciously began falling down the global warming rabbit hole at 7 years old. Well in that case, alice, unless you were 7 years old 56 million years ago, your direct observation method isn't exactly experientially relevant and certainly not a scientifically valid tool.
I don't have to offer any proof. I'm not the one making the claim for its existence. You are. Evidence is open to evaluation. Your memory of remembering a memory about a memory from when you were 7 years old is simply anecdotal and only serves the interests of your confirmation bias. Claiming your eyes as eyes doesn't exactly count as evidence, either, I mean, unless you want to remove them Arnie Terminator style and overnight them in the mail.
You have only presented one valid piece of evidence for review thus far, that is your photo of you on a platitude (no pun intended), and as I said, your interpretation of the photo establishes your confirmation bias but does not evidence global warming in any way shape or form.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 02-03-2018 at 08:19 PM.
Okay. Well I guess there is nothing left to say. You have your way of thinking and I have mine. So, what now....?
K4M puts @wacey in a head lock. Wacey taps. bwaha
Here, have a song by Grace Slick:
Last edited by Kill4Me; 02-03-2018 at 08:56 PM.
If you are going to make it about confirmation bias be brave and apply it to every single waking moment of life, because that’s what you are really saying. If that is confirmation bias, my childhood observations (perhaps they to were subject too outside influence beyond my at then reckoning), then every scrap of everything in all walks of life is a confirmed bias. Its all one big dream then. Because that is actually what is at stake here, not just this issue, but all issues. Every single one of them.
How would you have any trust in anything if what you see is just a bias confirmed and then conformed?
Thing like this.... end result: invention of new better technologies. I mean electric cars via better battery technology etc.
Like WW2 shook up information technologies.
It is freaking sad that we have to take paths like these to move ahead.
Although I'm repeating myself: humankind looks for energy minimization (replacement where replacement in the end gets the meaning and turns off the switch) using lots of detours. Well, same must apply to evolution as well. Just think about it in molecular level.
he he. moving bit ahead of myself, again...
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
Such a weird song to see back to me. The first time I heard this, I was 16 years old and travelling to the city by myself for the first time. I was on the right hand side, center rows of a Grey Hound bus. On my Discman this song played. Something about it spoke to me.
So, it is confirmation bias now, this moment, as I hear this song and move towards thinking something special is going on, because I heard it in the past? Is something being confirmed here?
Do you see my point? How can anything be trusted and verified if, as you say, its all a series of biases? It sounds ludicrous.
It is sad. We always play catch up after the fact. Nobody knew what was around the bend on the beach before we walked around it.Thing like this.... end result: invention of new better technologies. I mean electric cars via better battery technology etc.
Like WW2 shook up information technologies.
It is freaking sad that we have to take paths like these to move ahead.
Although I'm repeating myself: humankind looks for energy minimization (replacement where replacement in the end gets the meaning and turns off the switch) using lots of detours. Well, same must apply to evolution as well. Just think about it in molecular level.
he he. moving bit ahead of myself, again...
Heh. Assumptions
I didn't say that.
I just pointed out a few examples of confirmation bias.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
