This is fantastic stuff, truly epic.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Just because the planet can support something doesn't mean it will be particularly pleasant or desirable to the human species.
After all manikind will definitely die if temperatures increase by 5 degrees and CO2 goes up to 1000 PPM no?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Just like they didn't before.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Why do you even bother arguing with him? No one is ever going to change his mind about any of this and he's just going to continue to find articles that support his views. And he's just going to continue to spout ridiculous theories and statements.
-
Just like they didn't before.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The idea that humans are bad and their activities must be stopped is an extremely dangerous one.
Tell that to the dodo or passenger pigeon. I don't think anyone but the loonies are arguing that human activity needs to be stopped. Some of our actions need to be modified if we want to keep our environment viable for us. This is pretty hard to argue against when you see the damage pollution and uncontrolled industry have on the local environment.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I don't think anyone but the loonies are arguing that human activity needs to be stopped
Well I don't think I am a loony but I certainly don't go along with your argument since I have no desire to live in a world without some of the technological and other advances we now take for granted. If 'they' could come up with viable, cost effective alternatives that would still fulfill my need to live in relative comfort whilst being beneficial to the environment then all well and good. Otherwise find other solutions: no one will willingly pay more taxes or give up life styles just because one set of scientists have one idea whilst another set refute it. Besides, there are other far more pressing problems. Over population. Water shortages. Proliferation of nuclear weaponry to countries that won't hesitate to use them. Proliferation of ideologies so totally opposed to ours (okay, mine) that it may lead to war. And I really don't think anyone would ever consider me a loony. At least, that's what my psychiatrist keeps telling me...
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Did you read the rest of the sentence, or just gravitate toward a few words you can argue against?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As in, political issues are tackled so slowly that by the time we have any sort of politically-accepted answer, so much time will have passed that the prediction would have already manifested itself.
If thats what you meant then why not write it rather than bitch about it later. I am not psychic, I cant read your meanings, only your words.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sure, every organism changes its environment, but show me one other species that has changed it even CLOSE to as much as humanity
Rabbits in Australia (they are a plague). Bees. Without them you wouldnt have flowers. And I read somewhere the total mass of termite nests outweighs all mans constructions. Fact is energy is abundant, so are resources, and mankinds population in the developed countries has stabilised. CO2 is good for plants and there is no evidence at all that it causes warming, only a suspicion. So all in all, whats the big deal, or are you just down on humanity like so many other environmentalists (and other religious orders)?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Rabbits in Australia (they are a plague). Bees. Without them you wouldnt have flowers. And I read somewhere the total mass of termite nests outweighs all mans constructions.
These things haven't changed in thousands of years (More, but let's keep it simple)... Look at what the human race has done in that time... Forests leveled, air pollution, damaged ozone, dammed rivers, oil spills... This is obvious stuff, and I could go on and on...
fat_boy wrote:
act is energy is abundant, so are resources, and mankinds population in the developed countries has stabilised. CO2 is good for plants and there is no evidence at all that it causes warming, only a suspicion.
Here you go again... We've been through these arguments before, and I'm not going to start them up yet again, as when it comes to this issue, you "debate" just like CSS... You downplay any facts you don't like, and base your position on elementary speculation, claiming yourself as an "expert" because you took a few physics courses.
fat_boy wrote:
So all in all, whats the big deal, or are you just down on humanity like so many other environmentalists (and other religious orders)?
And here's that CSS-style argument again... Anyone who isn't firmly on your side must be all the way on the other side. I've made my position on these issues quite clear, but since you're just ignoring everything I say anyway, aside from cherry-picking a couple words from each sentence that you can misinterpret, I won't bother repeating myself.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Did you read the rest of the sentence, or just gravitate toward a few words you can argue against?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As in, political issues are tackled so slowly that by the time we have any sort of politically-accepted answer, so much time will have passed that the prediction would have already manifested itself.
If thats what you meant then why not write it rather than bitch about it later. I am not psychic, I cant read your meanings, only your words.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sure, every organism changes its environment, but show me one other species that has changed it even CLOSE to as much as humanity
Rabbits in Australia (they are a plague). Bees. Without them you wouldnt have flowers. And I read somewhere the total mass of termite nests outweighs all mans constructions. Fact is energy is abundant, so are resources, and mankinds population in the developed countries has stabilised. CO2 is good for plants and there is no evidence at all that it causes warming, only a suspicion. So all in all, whats the big deal, or are you just down on humanity like so many other environmentalists (and other religious orders)?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
CO2 is good for plants and there is no evidence at all that it causes warming, only a suspicion
Hokay, this set by bullshit alarm off with the phrasing. CO2 traps heat, as such an increased concentration of it will capture more heat. The debated point is just how much of a concentration difference will effect the earth as a whole, or how else the potentially localized trapped heat may alter local, or even global, climates. Say for instance a magical sum of CO2 gets trapped over the glaciers, they all melt, now take two guesses at how screw much of humanity is. Now, the questions are, can it get trapped there, what's the magical sum, and how the bloody hell can we keep that from ever happening. This is pretty much the worst case scenario, second would be what the magical quantity of CO2 it would take before we manage to give humanity a collective case of heatstroke, which would be the wet bulb scenario you were ranting about a few weeks back. From what I've seen we don't know if the first is possible, or how much CO2 would be required in either case. Personally I'd rather not find out by trial and error. I'd rather my kids didn't either. I'd vastly prefer it if people would shut the fuck up and let the actual scientists figure out just how screwed we could make ourselves(I'm including Al Gore in the shut the fuck up group btw), and try to explore ways to keep that from happening.
-
What, this[^]!? Do you just believe EVERY conspiracy theory out there, no matter how daft, or is there a selection process?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
believe EVERY conspiracy theory out there
That's the problem with conspiracy theories. If you don't believe them all you might miss the one that was actually out to get you. :laugh:
Latest toys built for fun: 3D gravity simulation using xbap
full size Google image search. -
Good job too as he was British Aristocracy who disliked America and it's violence, both domestic and as part of it's foreign policy. Philospher, Logician, Mathematician and Linguist. Also won the Nobel Prize. Read before talking bollocks.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Disliked it's violence? Disliked it so much he calls for putting sterialents in the water supply and making people so dumb and domesticated that they obey any authority? That sounds incredibly violent to me.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
fat_boy wrote:
Rabbits in Australia (they are a plague). Bees. Without them you wouldnt have flowers. And I read somewhere the total mass of termite nests outweighs all mans constructions.
These things haven't changed in thousands of years (More, but let's keep it simple)... Look at what the human race has done in that time... Forests leveled, air pollution, damaged ozone, dammed rivers, oil spills... This is obvious stuff, and I could go on and on...
fat_boy wrote:
act is energy is abundant, so are resources, and mankinds population in the developed countries has stabilised. CO2 is good for plants and there is no evidence at all that it causes warming, only a suspicion.
Here you go again... We've been through these arguments before, and I'm not going to start them up yet again, as when it comes to this issue, you "debate" just like CSS... You downplay any facts you don't like, and base your position on elementary speculation, claiming yourself as an "expert" because you took a few physics courses.
fat_boy wrote:
So all in all, whats the big deal, or are you just down on humanity like so many other environmentalists (and other religious orders)?
And here's that CSS-style argument again... Anyone who isn't firmly on your side must be all the way on the other side. I've made my position on these issues quite clear, but since you're just ignoring everything I say anyway, aside from cherry-picking a couple words from each sentence that you can misinterpret, I won't bother repeating myself.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
These things haven't changed in thousands of years (More, but let's keep it simple)...
Bingo! You just got caught out being ignorant. Rabbits were introduced to Australia a few centuries ago.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Forests leveled
Tunguska.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
air pollution
Natural fires.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
air pollution
Ditto,
Ian Shlasko wrote:
damaged ozone
And when we banned CFCs etc, the effect on the ozone hole was...? (Yepmm fuck all) So did we really damage it or is ti natural?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
oil spills.
Los Anggeles tar pits. Totally natural oil spil.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I could go on and on...
Please do, refuting your immature arguments is mildly ammusing.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
We've been through these arguments before
And I proved all of them.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I won't bother repeating myself.
And yet you do, without adding anything of substance to your debate.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
And since mankind lives in temperatures ranging form -40 to +50 I doubt there is little to fear from a few degrees.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
So here's a question...what would happen to the earth if temperature's went up 5 degrees Celsius (I'm assuming you meant Celsius, though like only a pseudo-scientist could, you left it off...in fact you didn't even say degrees this time, so maybe you think mankind survives in -40 to +50 Kelvin)? Would more of the ocean's ice melt? If so, what effect would that have? Would the ocean temperatures also go up? If so, what effect would that have? How would an increase in global temperature affect the weather patterns? Would there be more rain, less rain, more rain in some areas, less rain in some areas, less snow leading to less snow melt (many Californian's water supply is almost wholly depended on snow melt). If any of that were to happen, what other effects would that have? Simply saying that because man can live in a wide temperature range, therefore a change in temperature wouldn't be a problem is simplistic and exposes your ignorance. Aren't there more things to consider than just whether man keels over immediately in 125 degree F heat? Surely you have to admit that man's survival doesn't rely solely on whether he can live at a given temperature...
-
fat_boy wrote:
CO2 is good for plants and there is no evidence at all that it causes warming, only a suspicion
Hokay, this set by bullshit alarm off with the phrasing. CO2 traps heat, as such an increased concentration of it will capture more heat. The debated point is just how much of a concentration difference will effect the earth as a whole, or how else the potentially localized trapped heat may alter local, or even global, climates. Say for instance a magical sum of CO2 gets trapped over the glaciers, they all melt, now take two guesses at how screw much of humanity is. Now, the questions are, can it get trapped there, what's the magical sum, and how the bloody hell can we keep that from ever happening. This is pretty much the worst case scenario, second would be what the magical quantity of CO2 it would take before we manage to give humanity a collective case of heatstroke, which would be the wet bulb scenario you were ranting about a few weeks back. From what I've seen we don't know if the first is possible, or how much CO2 would be required in either case. Personally I'd rather not find out by trial and error. I'd rather my kids didn't either. I'd vastly prefer it if people would shut the fuck up and let the actual scientists figure out just how screwed we could make ourselves(I'm including Al Gore in the shut the fuck up group btw), and try to explore ways to keep that from happening.
Distind wrote:
CO2 traps heat
Really? How? Go on, tell us how CO2 traps heat. What is it a mirror? An insulating blanket? Or is it a heat sink? How much heat can it hold? Whats its specific heat capacity?
Distind wrote:
I'd rather not find out by trial and error. I'd rather my kids didn't either
So since the temperature has fallen in the last 10000 years by around 4 degrees while CO2 has increased do you not consider that as fairly convincing evidence that it isnt causing warming, or if it is, that any warming might be beneficial in preventing us form entering a new ice age? Any I refer you to Phil Jones who stated recently that the last warming period, ie 1980 to 1995 is stastically indiferent to the previous 3 (going back into the 19th century) He is a scientist, he was also head of CRU that prepard data for the IPCC. I might also refer you to Lindzen and Christy if you want to know what scientists think.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
So here's a question...what would happen to the earth if temperature's went up 5 degrees Celsius (I'm assuming you meant Celsius, though like only a pseudo-scientist could, you left it off...in fact you didn't even say degrees this time, so maybe you think mankind survives in -40 to +50 Kelvin)? Would more of the ocean's ice melt? If so, what effect would that have? Would the ocean temperatures also go up? If so, what effect would that have? How would an increase in global temperature affect the weather patterns? Would there be more rain, less rain, more rain in some areas, less rain in some areas, less snow leading to less snow melt (many Californian's water supply is almost wholly depended on snow melt). If any of that were to happen, what other effects would that have? Simply saying that because man can live in a wide temperature range, therefore a change in temperature wouldn't be a problem is simplistic and exposes your ignorance. Aren't there more things to consider than just whether man keels over immediately in 125 degree F heat? Surely you have to admit that man's survival doesn't rely solely on whether he can live at a given temperature...
William Winner wrote:
what would happen to the earth if temperature's went up 5 degrees Celsius
BAck to what it was 10000 years ago (vostok and greenland ice core data).
William Winner wrote:
Would more of the ocean's ice melt? If so, what effect would that have?
Yes. The same effect as at the end of the ice age. Coastal flooding. (Which man survived wuite happily) Of course I wasnt suggesting that man will easilly face such an extreme of temperature, but he will adapt. He has already to these extremes.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
These things haven't changed in thousands of years (More, but let's keep it simple)...
Bingo! You just got caught out being ignorant. Rabbits were introduced to Australia a few centuries ago.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Forests leveled
Tunguska.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
air pollution
Natural fires.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
air pollution
Ditto,
Ian Shlasko wrote:
damaged ozone
And when we banned CFCs etc, the effect on the ozone hole was...? (Yepmm fuck all) So did we really damage it or is ti natural?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
oil spills.
Los Anggeles tar pits. Totally natural oil spil.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I could go on and on...
Please do, refuting your immature arguments is mildly ammusing.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
We've been through these arguments before
And I proved all of them.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I won't bother repeating myself.
And yet you do, without adding anything of substance to your debate.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Rabbits were introduced to Australia a few centuries ago.
Really... And did they swim there, or did humans bring them over?
fat_boy wrote:
Tunguska.
Again with your binary logic... Farming and logging operations bulldoze forests on a regular basis, so you point to one of a small number of times in recorded history that it happened naturally.
fat_boy wrote:
Natural fires.
Again, a matter of degree. Just look at the differences in air quality between urban and rural areas.
fat_boy wrote:
And when we banned CFCs etc, the effect on the ozone hole was...? (Yepmm f*** all) So did we really damage it or is ti natural?
The attribution of CFCs to ozone depletion isn't even a controversy... Are you just going to make this up as you go along?
fat_boy wrote:
Los Anggeles tar pits. Totally natural oil spil.
Yet again... One of a few natural examples, when the human race does it on a frequent basis.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Disliked it's violence? Disliked it so much he calls for putting sterialents in the water supply and making people so dumb and domesticated that they obey any authority? That sounds incredibly violent to me.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Disliked it so much he calls for putting sterialents in the water supply and making people so dumb and domesticated that they obey any authority?
First, you post Russell as a great visionary, warning us of the dangers of authoritarian societies, the mental moulding of the young physiologically (e.g., fluorinated water) and psychologically. Then I completely change your view of him simply by posting a couple of quotes where he appears to be supporting an authoritarian world government with genocidal tendencies. And what is missing from these quotes? Context, you great lummox! You have never read the books from which the quotes were taken. Consequently, you are unaware of whether he is proscribing or prescribing these scenarios. I have manipulated you just as Uncle Al and his ilk do. See how easy it is? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Distind wrote:
CO2 traps heat
Really? How? Go on, tell us how CO2 traps heat. What is it a mirror? An insulating blanket? Or is it a heat sink? How much heat can it hold? Whats its specific heat capacity?
Distind wrote:
I'd rather not find out by trial and error. I'd rather my kids didn't either
So since the temperature has fallen in the last 10000 years by around 4 degrees while CO2 has increased do you not consider that as fairly convincing evidence that it isnt causing warming, or if it is, that any warming might be beneficial in preventing us form entering a new ice age? Any I refer you to Phil Jones who stated recently that the last warming period, ie 1980 to 1995 is stastically indiferent to the previous 3 (going back into the 19th century) He is a scientist, he was also head of CRU that prepard data for the IPCC. I might also refer you to Lindzen and Christy if you want to know what scientists think.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Really? How? Go on, tell us how CO2 traps heat. What is it a mirror? An insulating blanket? Or is it a heat sink? How much heat can it hold? Whats its specific heat capacity?
Are you claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or are you just being a pedantic jack***?
-
Distind wrote:
CO2 traps heat
Really? How? Go on, tell us how CO2 traps heat. What is it a mirror? An insulating blanket? Or is it a heat sink? How much heat can it hold? Whats its specific heat capacity?
Distind wrote:
I'd rather not find out by trial and error. I'd rather my kids didn't either
So since the temperature has fallen in the last 10000 years by around 4 degrees while CO2 has increased do you not consider that as fairly convincing evidence that it isnt causing warming, or if it is, that any warming might be beneficial in preventing us form entering a new ice age? Any I refer you to Phil Jones who stated recently that the last warming period, ie 1980 to 1995 is stastically indiferent to the previous 3 (going back into the 19th century) He is a scientist, he was also head of CRU that prepard data for the IPCC. I might also refer you to Lindzen and Christy if you want to know what scientists think.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Really? How? Go on, tell us how CO2 traps heat. What is it a mirror? An insulating blanket? Or is it a heat sink? How much heat can it hold? Whats its specific heat capacity?
"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas." Wikipedia - Carbon dioxide next question, what's a greenhouse gas? Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. Wikipedia - Greenhouse gas next question, what's the greenhouse effect? The greenhouse effect is a process by which radiative energy leaving a planetary surface is absorbed by some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases. Wikipedia - Greenhouse effect You can read more in each article that is very interesting that can support your theories, but for now, that will explain to you about CO2 and the greenhouse effect
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
fat_boy wrote:
Rabbits were introduced to Australia a few centuries ago.
Really... And did they swim there, or did humans bring them over?
fat_boy wrote:
Tunguska.
Again with your binary logic... Farming and logging operations bulldoze forests on a regular basis, so you point to one of a small number of times in recorded history that it happened naturally.
fat_boy wrote:
Natural fires.
Again, a matter of degree. Just look at the differences in air quality between urban and rural areas.
fat_boy wrote:
And when we banned CFCs etc, the effect on the ozone hole was...? (Yepmm f*** all) So did we really damage it or is ti natural?
The attribution of CFCs to ozone depletion isn't even a controversy... Are you just going to make this up as you go along?
fat_boy wrote:
Los Anggeles tar pits. Totally natural oil spil.
Yet again... One of a few natural examples, when the human race does it on a frequent basis.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Really... And did they swim there, or did humans bring them over?
Just won a bet! I knew you would respond with that! OK, how about locust swarms? They strip the land bare all on their own without any help from man. Actually Beavers have quite a big impact on their environment by damming rivers. This has caused entirely different ecosystems to form. And, byu the way, if you are a pro-native chap, then the north american native had a huge impact on the environment. Check out their forest and game management. Anyway, this is about whether man has a bigger effect on the environment than other species. Of course he does. But so what? Man uses the earths natural materials for buildings. Principly houses, but all kinds of stuff. Why is it a big problem if man takes a load of rock thats lying around, or even breaks it free, and rearranges it into a house shaped object with the help of some trees, and some lime and sand? So an ant, termite, bird, ape, otter, beaver, and many other createures do the same, but to a lesser degree (and only becae they lack intemmigence). So mans only difference to nature is his increased intelligence. And yet you and many others like to make statements such as 'there is no square kilometer of ocean unaffected ny man'. Well there is almost no part of this earth unaffected by an animal in some form or another, why single out man for special attention. Why DONT we have the right to live on, and use, the planet for our own benefit? Of course we need to make sure we dont accidentally dammage it, but lets distinguish very carefully between what is and isnt damaging. And what is and isnt beneficial.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Rabbits were introduced to Australia a few centuries ago.
Really... And did they swim there, or did humans bring them over?
fat_boy wrote:
Tunguska.
Again with your binary logic... Farming and logging operations bulldoze forests on a regular basis, so you point to one of a small number of times in recorded history that it happened naturally.
fat_boy wrote:
Natural fires.
Again, a matter of degree. Just look at the differences in air quality between urban and rural areas.
fat_boy wrote:
And when we banned CFCs etc, the effect on the ozone hole was...? (Yepmm f*** all) So did we really damage it or is ti natural?
The attribution of CFCs to ozone depletion isn't even a controversy... Are you just going to make this up as you go along?
fat_boy wrote:
Los Anggeles tar pits. Totally natural oil spil.
Yet again... One of a few natural examples, when the human race does it on a frequent basis.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
The attribution of CFCs to ozone depletion isn't even a controversy... Are you just going to make this up as you go along?
OK, so we have stopped using CFCs for almost 20 years now, so please show us all how much smaller the hole in the ozone layer has become in that time.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Really? How? Go on, tell us how CO2 traps heat. What is it a mirror? An insulating blanket? Or is it a heat sink? How much heat can it hold? Whats its specific heat capacity?
Are you claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or are you just being a pedantic jack***?
-
fat_boy wrote:
Really? How? Go on, tell us how CO2 traps heat. What is it a mirror? An insulating blanket? Or is it a heat sink? How much heat can it hold? Whats its specific heat capacity?
"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas." Wikipedia - Carbon dioxide next question, what's a greenhouse gas? Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. Wikipedia - Greenhouse gas next question, what's the greenhouse effect? The greenhouse effect is a process by which radiative energy leaving a planetary surface is absorbed by some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases. Wikipedia - Greenhouse effect You can read more in each article that is very interesting that can support your theories, but for now, that will explain to you about CO2 and the greenhouse effect
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!