Governments reject GW as a reality
-
Ours is still pushing Cap & Tax among other tyrannically unconstitutional legislation.
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:
Ours is still pushing Cap & Tax among other tyrannically unconstitutional legislation.
And the Littlest Captain is doing what about it? BTW: Your Constitution was shredded some 150 years ago.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
You just tried to change tact again. Here's a really really simple question for you... was Rudd ditched for someone with a different view on GW? You might like to start here[^] Your point here seems to be that Australia's changing of PM somehow validates your views about GW. I am saying that the change of leadership within the Australia Labour party was not related to the GW policies or views of either the current or previous PM. You're an idiot and you dont know what you're talking about when it comes to Australian politics. I'm going to go home, play with my son, put him to bed, eat dinner with my girl friend and smoke a big Dutch joint. You can continue without me if you want.
You forget that in fb's mind, anything with a slight correlation means that it is a cause/effect scenario. So, if he thought Kevin Rudd was actually gay, then the fact that he banged his wife once was actually the reason he got sacked. He'll use any correlation and spout it as proof of cause and effect. He doesn't subscribe to the first rule of reason which says that "in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think". And before debating someone, if that person doesn't follow reason, then there's no point in trying to "reason" with them.
modified on Tuesday, July 6, 2010 6:25 PM
-
Ah, but it wouldn't be an NCB run operation, do it with private companies and make it pay!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
You forget that in fb's mind, anything with a slight correlation means that it is a cause/effect scenario. So, if he thought Kevin Rudd was actually gay, then the fact that he banged his wife once was actually the reason he got sacked. He'll use any correlation and spout it as proof of cause and effect. He doesn't subscribe to the first rule of reason which says that "in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think". And before debating someone, if that person doesn't follow reason, then there's no point in trying to "reason" with them.
modified on Tuesday, July 6, 2010 6:25 PM
-
You just tried to change tact again. Here's a really really simple question for you... was Rudd ditched for someone with a different view on GW? You might like to start here[^] Your point here seems to be that Australia's changing of PM somehow validates your views about GW. I am saying that the change of leadership within the Australia Labour party was not related to the GW policies or views of either the current or previous PM. You're an idiot and you dont know what you're talking about when it comes to Australian politics. I'm going to go home, play with my son, put him to bed, eat dinner with my girl friend and smoke a big Dutch joint. You can continue without me if you want.
Josh Gray wrote:
You just tried to change tact again
Thats 'track' or 'tack'. Changing 'tact' is either becoming more tactless or less tactless. Which I am sure you didnt mean. As for Australian politics, yes, I know nothing, and I am sure you lept upon that one thing to criticise me with as it is somethign you understand better than I. Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue. Perhaps you shouldnt smoke gear. In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Josh Gray wrote:
You just tried to change tact again
Thats 'track' or 'tack'. Changing 'tact' is either becoming more tactless or less tactless. Which I am sure you didnt mean. As for Australian politics, yes, I know nothing, and I am sure you lept upon that one thing to criticise me with as it is somethign you understand better than I. Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue. Perhaps you shouldnt smoke gear. In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Thats 'track' or 'tack'. Changing 'tact' is either becoming more tactless or less tactless. Which I am sure you didnt mean. As for Australian politics, yes, I know nothing, and I am sure you lept upon that one thing to criticise me with as it is somethign you understand better than I. Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue. Perhaps you shouldnt smoke gear. In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.
You're right about the word tack, thanks. As for the rest you obviously have the shits at being shown up for talking crap as you usually do. Be a man, admit you were wrong and move on.
fat_boy wrote:
Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue.
You have issues if you attempt back up points with facts you clearly know nothing about and then turn nasty when you're shown to be wrong.
fat_boy wrote:
In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.
I'm warped from your point of view? well thank fuck for that. I'd call your rabid fascination with global warming a pretty good sign of mental issues.
-
fat_boy wrote:
And your proof is what? (And dont give me the 'its toxic at 10%' we all know that, and we are only talking about 1000ppm nax here) Of course whats good for plants is good for crops and that good for man.
We inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. For humans, carbon dioxide is a waste product. You never specified anything about concentration levels. If it's toxic at 10%, then it stands to reason that it gradually becomes toxic as it approaches that concentration, so lower concentrations may be within our tolerance but are not "good" for humans. And of course, unless you're going to allege that the density of the atmosphere will increase, then more CO2 means less of something else... What? Is it oxygen? Because that would also be bad for humans.
fat_boy wrote:
What a daft argument. The last 10000 years pretty much coincides with mans civilisation so its a perfectly good base to use.
You're confusing the gap between the data points with the accuracy of the trend itself. The economy has gone up since 1990, down since 2000, down since 2007, up since the end of 2008, up since yesterday... All of these statements are true, but which of them actually tells us what's happening, and which best helps us predict what it'll be like next year? And keep in mind that whether your two data points are 10000 years apart or 10000 seconds apart, they're still only two points. If you pick your reference point as the middle of an ice age, or the middle of a warm period, it's going to spin your results in one direction.
fat_boy wrote:
No no no no. The RAW data shows no warming. Havent you looked into this? Looked at raw station data? Validated what you see on th enet as much as you can with the various met olffices in the different coountries?
Have you? Or have you just read blogs from people who have shown you charts with select bits of the numbers? I could go on the pro-AGW sites and do the same thing, but I'm not.
fat_boy wrote:
SO you think the entire scientific community is behind GW?
Did I say that? Read what I wrote. Don't put words in my mouth. Like I keep saying, you're making this political instead of scientific.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
In actual fact CO2 is necessary for humans. Without it our breath response isnt triggered. If its less than about 250 ppm crops start to fail, trees start to die. Thats bad for man. If its above 5000 some people may experience discomfort, thats why its the maximum level recomended for crop production, I sent you the link to the Canadian govt dept of agr paper on this. So anywhere between say 300 and 5000 is comfortable for man. And we are looking at an increase to 500 or 600 ppm. So its not a problem to man at a biological/chemical level.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Have you?
Yes. As I believe I told you before I checked the data on the Daly website with that held by the Met office and found it agreed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Did I say that?
Its hard to know what you mean because you are inconsistent fomr one post to another and dont argue point through. Perhaps you do it for ammusement, I dont know. But, Hansen is ain important figure. I criticised him, and you say "you're attacking one particular scientist, as if he represents the entire scientific community". This lead me to believe that you think, since I am not attacking the entire scientific community , than the entire community is behind AGW. If not can you explain what you meant? Here is an interesting link to a documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUuff3cnPBo[^] It has just scientists, not politics, or rhetoric, discussing the scientific pronciples behind GW and why in their opinion any warmig caused by CO2 is negligible. If you really are as open minded as you say you are you wil take the time to watch it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Thats 'track' or 'tack'. Changing 'tact' is either becoming more tactless or less tactless. Which I am sure you didnt mean. As for Australian politics, yes, I know nothing, and I am sure you lept upon that one thing to criticise me with as it is somethign you understand better than I. Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue. Perhaps you shouldnt smoke gear. In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.
You're right about the word tack, thanks. As for the rest you obviously have the shits at being shown up for talking crap as you usually do. Be a man, admit you were wrong and move on.
fat_boy wrote:
Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue.
You have issues if you attempt back up points with facts you clearly know nothing about and then turn nasty when you're shown to be wrong.
fat_boy wrote:
In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.
I'm warped from your point of view? well thank fuck for that. I'd call your rabid fascination with global warming a pretty good sign of mental issues.
I dont know if you read the article I linked to, but I based my statement about Australian politics on that. I have no reason to believe you are more correct than the writer of that article so I wont be appologising anytime soon. Just because you lilved there, in fact so did I but lets not get into the 'I lived there longer than you so I know more about it than you do' crap, lets leave that for the ignorant, does not mean you are necessarially right. As for mental issues, I am pretty sure I have a reasonable compliment, who hasnt. At least I KNOW what mine are and recognise them. Do you?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I dont know if you read the article I linked to, but I based my statement about Australian politics on that. I have no reason to believe you are more correct than the writer of that article so I wont be appologising anytime soon. Just because you lilved there, in fact so did I but lets not get into the 'I lived there longer than you so I know more about it than you do' crap, lets leave that for the ignorant, does not mean you are necessarially right. As for mental issues, I am pretty sure I have a reasonable compliment, who hasnt. At least I KNOW what mine are and recognise them. Do you?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
blah blah fucking blah. Here's a really really simple question for you... was Rudd ditched for someone with a different view on GW? Yes, no or fuck off? You choose
-
Still in an asshole mood I see. I guess the joint didnt help you any.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Still in an a**hole mood I see.
Still cant answer the question I see. What would have been surprising is if you admitted your mistake. I dont imagine that's ever happened though.
fat_boy wrote:
I guess the joint didnt help you any.
Didn't get round to it in the end. Tonight perhaps. You're not far away, wanna come over?
-
In actual fact CO2 is necessary for humans. Without it our breath response isnt triggered. If its less than about 250 ppm crops start to fail, trees start to die. Thats bad for man. If its above 5000 some people may experience discomfort, thats why its the maximum level recomended for crop production, I sent you the link to the Canadian govt dept of agr paper on this. So anywhere between say 300 and 5000 is comfortable for man. And we are looking at an increase to 500 or 600 ppm. So its not a problem to man at a biological/chemical level.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Have you?
Yes. As I believe I told you before I checked the data on the Daly website with that held by the Met office and found it agreed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Did I say that?
Its hard to know what you mean because you are inconsistent fomr one post to another and dont argue point through. Perhaps you do it for ammusement, I dont know. But, Hansen is ain important figure. I criticised him, and you say "you're attacking one particular scientist, as if he represents the entire scientific community". This lead me to believe that you think, since I am not attacking the entire scientific community , than the entire community is behind AGW. If not can you explain what you meant? Here is an interesting link to a documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUuff3cnPBo[^] It has just scientists, not politics, or rhetoric, discussing the scientific pronciples behind GW and why in their opinion any warmig caused by CO2 is negligible. If you really are as open minded as you say you are you wil take the time to watch it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So anywhere between say 300 and 5000 is comfortable for man. And we are looking at an increase to 500 or 600 ppm. So its not a problem to man at a biological/chemical level.
And how do you know it will stay within that range?
fat_boy wrote:
Its hard to know what you mean because you are inconsistent fomr one post to another and dont argue point through. Perhaps you do it for ammusement, I dont know. But, Hansen is ain important figure. I criticised him, and you say "you're attacking one particular scientist, as if he represents the entire scientific community". This lead me to believe that you think, since I am not attacking the entire scientific community , than the entire community is behind AGW. If not can you explain what you meant?
Ah, I see your confusion... I was restating my previous point, several posts ago, when I said, "You think one research group encompasses the entire scientific world, or at least the portion of it on that side of the debate". Should I just copy-paste next time?
fat_boy wrote:
Here is an interesting link to a documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUuff3cnPBo\[^\] It has just scientists, not politics, or rhetoric, discussing the scientific pronciples behind GW and why in their opinion any warmig caused by CO2 is negligible. If you really are as open minded as you say you are you wil take the time to watch it.
For every link you find that opposes GW, I could find one that supports it, and vice versa. There are plenty on either side.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Still in an a**hole mood I see.
Still cant answer the question I see. What would have been surprising is if you admitted your mistake. I dont imagine that's ever happened though.
fat_boy wrote:
I guess the joint didnt help you any.
Didn't get round to it in the end. Tonight perhaps. You're not far away, wanna come over?
Josh Gray wrote:
wanna come over?
Well, taking this at face value, no thanks, I dont smoke anymore. And Amsterdam is a long way from Luxemberg, although the sight of you crapping yourself as my 6'4" 240 lb mass of muscle and lesh walks in the door could be ammusing. (That last part was taking your invite at non face value). :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
So anywhere between say 300 and 5000 is comfortable for man. And we are looking at an increase to 500 or 600 ppm. So its not a problem to man at a biological/chemical level.
And how do you know it will stay within that range?
fat_boy wrote:
Its hard to know what you mean because you are inconsistent fomr one post to another and dont argue point through. Perhaps you do it for ammusement, I dont know. But, Hansen is ain important figure. I criticised him, and you say "you're attacking one particular scientist, as if he represents the entire scientific community". This lead me to believe that you think, since I am not attacking the entire scientific community , than the entire community is behind AGW. If not can you explain what you meant?
Ah, I see your confusion... I was restating my previous point, several posts ago, when I said, "You think one research group encompasses the entire scientific world, or at least the portion of it on that side of the debate". Should I just copy-paste next time?
fat_boy wrote:
Here is an interesting link to a documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUuff3cnPBo\[^\] It has just scientists, not politics, or rhetoric, discussing the scientific pronciples behind GW and why in their opinion any warmig caused by CO2 is negligible. If you really are as open minded as you say you are you wil take the time to watch it.
For every link you find that opposes GW, I could find one that supports it, and vice versa. There are plenty on either side.
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:
And how do you know it will stay within that range?
If we are reachiung peak oil production, and so far we have added 100 ppm, then it is quesitonable that we will even reach 600. More likely 550 ppm is the most (given that the bell curve for oil production is symetrical). We owuld probably have to burn every piece of coal and litre of oil in the ground to get CO2 up to the thousands. After all, this is where it was before the carboniferous period.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
For every link you find that opposes GW, I could find one that supports it, and vice versa
Yes, and you have stated you are open minded and undecided so I expect you will want to watch that video. Unless you are not so openminded as you profess.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Josh Gray wrote:
wanna come over?
Well, taking this at face value, no thanks, I dont smoke anymore. And Amsterdam is a long way from Luxemberg, although the sight of you crapping yourself as my 6'4" 240 lb mass of muscle and lesh walks in the door could be ammusing. (That last part was taking your invite at non face value). :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Well, taking this at face value, no thanks, I dont smoke anymore. And Amsterdam is a long way from Luxemberg, although the sight of you crapping yourself as my 6'4" 240 lb mass of muscle and lesh walks in the door could be ammusing. (That last part was taking your invite at non face value). Smile
I'm not a violent man, I'd not even considered that it could be taken that way. Perhaps you're used to people reacting to you in that manner. I've driven Amsterdam to Luxembourg in an afternoon. Waste of an afternoon though, what a fucking shit hole. Still, at least I can spell it.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Well, taking this at face value, no thanks, I dont smoke anymore. And Amsterdam is a long way from Luxemberg, although the sight of you crapping yourself as my 6'4" 240 lb mass of muscle and lesh walks in the door could be ammusing. (That last part was taking your invite at non face value). Smile
I'm not a violent man, I'd not even considered that it could be taken that way. Perhaps you're used to people reacting to you in that manner. I've driven Amsterdam to Luxembourg in an afternoon. Waste of an afternoon though, what a fucking shit hole. Still, at least I can spell it.
Josh Gray wrote:
Perhaps you're used to people reacting to you in that manner.
Not when they see me they dont. :) If you didnt like *Luxembourg* I guess you missed thr Grund and Claussen, they are pretty with good bars.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Perhaps you're used to people reacting to you in that manner.
Not when they see me they dont. :) If you didnt like *Luxembourg* I guess you missed thr Grund and Claussen, they are pretty with good bars.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Has this degenerated to you playing the tough guy online? That's really fucking pathetic mate, even for you. You still haven't answered my question.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And how do you know it will stay within that range?
If we are reachiung peak oil production, and so far we have added 100 ppm, then it is quesitonable that we will even reach 600. More likely 550 ppm is the most (given that the bell curve for oil production is symetrical). We owuld probably have to burn every piece of coal and litre of oil in the ground to get CO2 up to the thousands. After all, this is where it was before the carboniferous period.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
For every link you find that opposes GW, I could find one that supports it, and vice versa
Yes, and you have stated you are open minded and undecided so I expect you will want to watch that video. Unless you are not so openminded as you profess.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, and you have stated you are open minded and undecided so I expect you will want to watch that video. Unless you are not so openminded as you profess.
Being open-minded doesn't mean having to watch every single video available. I actually don't like watching youtube videos on either side, as the 1% that aren't crap still tend to be a waste of time. At least when it's text, I can skip over the mindless rambling and get to the actual information. With a video, I have to sit through all of the long pauses and desperate cracks at humor, or risk missing something important if I skip ahead.
fat_boy wrote:
If we are reachiung peak oil production, and so far we have added 100 ppm, then it is quesitonable that we will even reach 600. More likely 550 ppm is the most (given that the bell curve for oil production is symetrical). We would probably have to burn every piece of coal and litre of oil in the ground to get CO2 up to the thousands. After all, this is where it was before the carboniferous period.
Seems like a logical argument at face value, but it depends on that being the only source of CO2, and on there being a constant absorption rate. Some studies, which we've discussed already, theorize that the oceans (The largest CO2 sink) may be near the point where they'll stop absorbing it. If that happens, the amount staying in the atmosphere could increase much more quickly. Also, continued deforestation (Which the greens are trying to reduce) will slightly reduce the absorption capability of the biosphere. Now what if the temperature goes up or down a degree? How is that going to affect absorption and emission rates? See, I'm not saying we're definitely going to reach 600 or 1000 or 5000... I don't know what's going to happen. The point I'm trying to make here is that you're oversimplifying a very complex problem. There are a LOT of factors to take into account, and looking at a historical curve or estimating peak oil isn't going to give you an answer alone.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, and you have stated you are open minded and undecided so I expect you will want to watch that video. Unless you are not so openminded as you profess.
Being open-minded doesn't mean having to watch every single video available. I actually don't like watching youtube videos on either side, as the 1% that aren't crap still tend to be a waste of time. At least when it's text, I can skip over the mindless rambling and get to the actual information. With a video, I have to sit through all of the long pauses and desperate cracks at humor, or risk missing something important if I skip ahead.
fat_boy wrote:
If we are reachiung peak oil production, and so far we have added 100 ppm, then it is quesitonable that we will even reach 600. More likely 550 ppm is the most (given that the bell curve for oil production is symetrical). We would probably have to burn every piece of coal and litre of oil in the ground to get CO2 up to the thousands. After all, this is where it was before the carboniferous period.
Seems like a logical argument at face value, but it depends on that being the only source of CO2, and on there being a constant absorption rate. Some studies, which we've discussed already, theorize that the oceans (The largest CO2 sink) may be near the point where they'll stop absorbing it. If that happens, the amount staying in the atmosphere could increase much more quickly. Also, continued deforestation (Which the greens are trying to reduce) will slightly reduce the absorption capability of the biosphere. Now what if the temperature goes up or down a degree? How is that going to affect absorption and emission rates? See, I'm not saying we're definitely going to reach 600 or 1000 or 5000... I don't know what's going to happen. The point I'm trying to make here is that you're oversimplifying a very complex problem. There are a LOT of factors to take into account, and looking at a historical curve or estimating peak oil isn't going to give you an answer alone.
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:
Being open-minded doesn't mean having to watch every single video available
I am asking you to watch ONE video.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
1% that aren't crap still tend to be a waste of time
This is actually quite good. Its just scientists talking about their work.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
and on there being a constant absorption rate.
Its a big unknown. Plants will grow more quickly, they already are, how much of the extra CO2 they can take is quesitonable as there is probably a maximum growing speed regardless of conditions, and this will deffinitely vary species to species. But since 600 ppm is still a long way off what it has been in the past, and what is safe for humans (if 5000 ppm is the recomended max for workers then lets say 3000 ppm is the max including old people, asthamatics and so on. Of course its a guess, but why the hell not, it seems fair). As for the oceans they outgas CO2 in response to temperatures. SO that could go either way, depending of course on what realy IS driving temperatures, the sun, cosmic rays, oceanic currents. Or a combination. All in all though, since we are not far above starvation level, 200 ppm, and the planet has had CO2 at far higher levels, 7,000 ppm, increasing CO2 is less risky than decreasing it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription