General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
BlisterDick
boobie poo bear luv hugs
 
BlisterDick's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sup View Post
didnt read

GET THIS MAN AN OFFICE!!
__________________
(╯□)╯︵ ┻━┻
Old 02-17-2013, 05:48 PM BlisterDick is offline  
Reply With Quote
#31  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Tex Arcana
I am a mean disrespectful person hiding anonymously and need an attitude adjustment.
 
Tex Arcana's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sup View Post
didnt read

sup
__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.--V


Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call destiny.
--John Hobbs


~~~ ~~~ Tea[m] Pyratex ~~~ ~~~
Old 02-17-2013, 06:01 PM Tex Arcana is offline  
Reply With Quote
#32  

SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Since...we had satellites?

So, not very long at all.

Quote:
The theory of AGW is 100+ years old. It's steadily advanced from then up until now. The denial movement is very recent, and is directly related to monied interests who want to see it discredited.
This could also be said of eugenics.

Quote:
Now, sure, there are people trying to make money off the green movement. That doesn't discredit the science, however. Either you can believe that there's a massive worldwide conspiracy of scientists going back 100 years, or you can believe that a small group of rich people is opposed to the idea and is trying to discredit it.
This could be said of eugenics, too. Was that a conspiracy theory?

Phrenology?

Last edited by SamFarber; 02-17-2013 at 08:03 PM..
Old 02-17-2013, 07:57 PM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#33  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex Arcana View Post
I never said it wasn't happening; I said that you and your ilk have no real fucking idea what's going on.
I have a great deal of doubt that you have the slightest idea of what is and isn't known about climate science.

Quote:
I know it happens. It's been proven multiple times it has happened many times throughout the history of this planet. There was a time it was so warm, Antarctica was a jungle-covered continent, with a metric fuckton of life. There was a time where both the oxygen percentages and the co2 percentages were far higher than they are now. Is that proof that we have "caused global warming"? Unless you made a time machine, and sent back a fuckton of co2 (HOW, I'll never know), humans had ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING to do with the holyfuckthatsalot of times this planet has experienced "global warming".
This is one of those "Tex doesn't understand the AGW theory, so he's going to rant for awhile" paragraphs. There are lots of factors that influence global climate. The fact that it was warmer in the past changes nothing about the fact that humans are raising the temperature of the planet now. None of the various mechanisms that explain increased temperatures in the past explain the current situation.

Got a link for that too
http://grist.org/climate-energy/clim...ways-changing/
Quote:
You keep talking about CO2 as a "greenhouse gas": well, so is water vapor. Oxygen is an unstable and dangerous molecule, perhaps we should stop its production altogether. Imagine how much heat oxygen causes!!
Separate this into a couple points:
A) there's literally nothing controversial about "greenhouse gases." That's been proven for decades, we 100% know which gases are "greenhouse" and how they work.
B) Greenhouse gases are not "bad," they simply trap heat near the surface of a planet. Without them, the Earth would be too cold to support life. They do this by absorbing infrared light (radiated heat) that would otherwise go back into space.
C) Water and CO2 absorb different wavelengths of light. This is again a demonstrable fact, and is 100% proven and uncontroversial.
D)Water is at a saturated level in the atmosphere, it's not going to increase barring other changes. CO2 can increase significantly, and is in fact doing so.
E) Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas, and in fact doesn't absorb infrared light at all. So nothing to worry about there.
Quote:
Yes, sometimes I exaggerate; but I do it to make a point, and to make people think. I hope they'll THINK about the dogma you (and your opponents) are attempting to shove down our throats, and hopefully they'll realize that stupid things like mechanical devices to I pull co2 out of the air and turn it into oxygen (yes, some idiot has proposed JUST THAT), or blaming cow farts for more greenhouse gas production, is just Plain. Fucking. STUPID.
I don't really care what "some idiot" has proposed. The people talking geoengineering are a fringe, and it's really not all that meaningful at this point.

Cows do in fact produce methane, which is a greenhouse gas. Then again, so does rice farming. Methane is an important contributor to warming, although much less than CO2. Doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long either.
Quote:
We already have a problem with idiots ripping out trees and plants, so they can plant fields (instead of using existing non-tree-covered land). Pulling co2 out will just make it tougher on existing plants to fucking LIVE, not to mention the ONE thing we animals MUST have to survive.
Literally nobody is talking about removing all the CO2 from the air. The only goal is to limit human emissions so that we're not continuously increasing the levels in the atmosphere.
Quote:
Wanna pull co2 out of the air? Plant more trees and plants. Pretty damn environmentally friendly, don'cha think?
Not a bad idea really, although you'd need more plants than there is available area on the Earth unless we dramatically slow down our emissions. We have an emissions problem, not a remediation problem.
Quote:
This planet goes thru cycles, warm and cold. When it's cold, half the planet is covered with ice, and populations shrink; when it's warm, most of the planet is habitable, and populations explode. And all these things happen in fairly predictable cycles.

Truth is, there's not nearly enough data to make solid predictions. Even the sun, that bastion of constancy, just went thru a cycle of no sunspot production, the effects about which we basically have no clue whatsoever. And there are effects. And now they're back, and with a vengeance. And even THAT cycle will continue ad infinitum.

The planet wobbles in its orbit, the other planets and the moon have strong influences upon that, and we still don't understannd what that causes, because they happen over such a long fucking period of time, we aren't around enough to even have a statistical sample, much less a clue.
See the link I posted above. The current warming trend cannot be explained by a natural cycle.

Quote:
100 years is NOTHING, compared to the really big picture that is the history of this planet. You and I will be ground to dust long before ANYONE has the single slightest clue about these questions, and their answers. Or the effects of farting on the couch (talk about a statistically insignificant event).

I applaud anyone who stands up for making sure we keep things clean. I despise people who think they have the answers from their tiny little human snapshot,and are too arrogant to think they might just be wrong.

And you're in that group, there, boudreax.
It's sort of sad how you want to think everyone else must be as ignorant as you are, and are actually OFFENDED that people might actually be able to understand complex issues.

Everyone in science is open to the reality that our understanding might be wrong, but we're also willing to take on extremely challenging problems and try to solve them. A whole lot of smart people have devoted their lives to studying this and believe that the current understanding is pretty good, good enough to make policy recommendations. If you've got some contrary evidence, by all means present it. This "shit is too complex, humans are too dumb, you're all arrogant for thinking you know" attitude is and runs very counter to anything that might advance humanity.
Old 02-17-2013, 08:39 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#34  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamFarber View Post
So, not very long at all.
Your point is what, exactly?

We have various proxy methods of looking at historical temperatures (ice cores, tree rings, etc), but they're really not all that necessary to make the basic observation that temperatures are tracking nearly directly with CO2 levels.

Quote:
This could also be said of eugenics.

This could be said of eugenics, too. Was that a conspiracy theory??
That doesn't even make sense. Eugenics wasn't even a scientific theory, it was a philosophical movement. The morality of eugenics (the philosophy) really doesn't impact the validity of genetics (the science).

Also a guilt by association fallacy, since AGW has nothing to do with eugenics.
Old 02-17-2013, 08:46 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#35  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Sorry Gib for starting this thread, this must be frustrating


The other guy who talks to you thinks we are running out of co2 for plants if reductions are made, while the other one talks about eugenics...

at this point I was kind of hoping tex is really some elaborate troll job but no
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 02-17-2013, 09:58 PM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#36  

Gibonius
 
It's a hobby of mine.

Usually the people on the other side aren't quite this bad though. Morlock was better than these guys, sad to say
Old 02-17-2013, 10:24 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#37  

Tex Arcana
I am a mean disrespectful person hiding anonymously and need an attitude adjustment.
 
Tex Arcana's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
I have a great deal of doubt that you have the slightest idea of what is and isn't known about climate science.


This is one of those "Tex doesn't understand the AGW theory, so he's going to rant for awhile" paragraphs. There are lots of factors that influence global climate. The fact that it was warmer in the past changes nothing about the fact that humans are raising the temperature of the planet now. None of the various mechanisms that explain increased temperatures in the past explain the current situation.

Got a link for that too
http://grist.org/climate-energy/clim...ways-changing/

Separate this into a couple points:
A) there's literally nothing controversial about "greenhouse gases." That's been proven for decades, we 100% know which gases are "greenhouse" and how they work.
B) Greenhouse gases are not "bad," they simply trap heat near the surface of a planet. Without them, the Earth would be too cold to support life. They do this by absorbing infrared light (radiated heat) that would otherwise go back into space.
C) Water and CO2 absorb different wavelengths of light. This is again a demonstrable fact, and is 100% proven and uncontroversial.
D)Water is at a saturated level in the atmosphere, it's not going to increase barring other changes. CO2 can increase significantly, and is in fact doing so.
E) Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas, and in fact doesn't absorb infrared light at all. So nothing to worry about there.

I don't really care what "some idiot" has proposed. The people talking geoengineering are a fringe, and it's really not all that meaningful at this point.

Cows do in fact produce methane, which is a greenhouse gas. Then again, so does rice farming. Methane is an important contributor to warming, although much less than CO2. Doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long either.

Literally nobody is talking about removing all the CO2 from the air. The only goal is to limit human emissions so that we're not continuously increasing the levels in the atmosphere.

Not a bad idea really, although you'd need more plants than there is available area on the Earth unless we dramatically slow down our emissions. We have an emissions problem, not a remediation problem.


See the link I posted above. The current warming trend cannot be explained by a natural cycle.


It's sort of sad how you want to think everyone else must be as ignorant as you are, and are actually OFFENDED that people might actually be able to understand complex issues.

Everyone in science is open to the reality that our understanding might be wrong, but we're also willing to take on extremely challenging problems and try to solve them. A whole lot of smart people have devoted their lives to studying this and believe that the current understanding is pretty good, good enough to make policy recommendations. If you've got some contrary evidence, by all means present it. This "shit is too complex, humans are too dumb, you're all arrogant for thinking you know" attitude is and runs very counter to anything that might advance humanity.

What offends me is your arrogance and absolute certainty in your dogma. I'll bet you're some form of christian or muslim, and as dogmatic there as you are in the rest of your life.

And it's arrogants like you that mess it up for everyone else, because you think you know more than everyone else. You seem to delight in calling me "ignorant" and "stupid", yet you missed my entire point utterly, you're so tight-focused on your own brilliance, you fail to see the bigger pictures--and that those pictures aren't pictures, they're movies, and the never stop changing.

Again your arrogance: instead of addressing the fact that human climate data is a VERY small sample, truly too small to even come close to being a molecule in the bucket, much less a drop, you choose to post a link to a environazi propaganda site that gives you step-by-step instructions on how to counter people like me.

Wow. Not only are you arrogant, you cannot even formulate an independent thought, or carry on a discussion with someone who doesn't agree without resorting to a play book. And I'll bet you have your sex moves all mapped out on a spreadsheet.

As for you and your throwing around "AGW" like everyone should know it to their bones: a 100-year-old theory is still just that: a theory. It's not "incontrovertible"--if it were, it would be LAW, carved into stone, dogma for which to question I would be put to DEATH!!







All theory is malleable. It's supposed to be.

I suppose, if I were to shit on your lawn every time I needed to, that COULD be called "anthropomorphic global warming" in action (), mainly because of water contamination and the spread of disease (yes, I'm stretching here, bear with me). And that's a perfect example of how humans affect the environment--but, then again, other animals do it to: dogs, cats, rats, mice, roaches, ants, plankton, bacteria, even virii, ad infinitum. Trees and plants do it to.

Let's step into the ridiculous: all foods will be banned that cause farting and burping. Penalty of death for doing it. Soylent Green for the future, so we can save the planet.

Another: we won't be allowed to breathe more than 10 times a minute, and more produces too much carbon, and that's a no-no,

No more fire, either: can't have that carbon getting into the air. Don't forget to incarcerate lightning for that forest fire. I'm sure you write a ticket to that volcano.

Another step further into the ridiculous: let's kill all humans, because they're destroying the environment, and while we're at it, let's take out the rest of life,because of all that carbon.



RIDICULOUS.



We live here. We are a product of the processes of this plant and of physics and nature. EVERYTHING we produce, every chemical we make, every object we create, every person we make, all have the same chemicals, compounds, and molecules that were here on this planet the the last 4 billion years. Everything that's "released" has been here that long, too. All that carbon was created by stellar formation processes (unless you're a creationist, then there's no hope for you, and I call for a and ban), as well as every other fucking element on the periodic table (and a few we have no clue about yet), and has been a part of global processes for all this time. Because we're using it to advance our "civilizations" (), it's being put to good use., still.

And, until we can advance our technology, it ain't gonna change soon. But the length of time we've used it is too small to have a huge impact upon a closed system as big as this planet. Nuclear waste: oh, fuck yes, but the impact of that is more upon us, and to a lesser event other forms of life, it would eventually cool off, and eventually the planet balance out again. Same goes for toxic waste: just takes less time to break it down to constituent components, and remove the toxicity.

And the planet will recover. Burn us off the planet (much like a similar event a few hundred million years ago that gave us our coal and diamond mines), and life will recover, and quite well. At best, we're the blister on Terra's dick.

And despite critters that were similar to humans stretching back up to 4 million years, and actual humans about 50k, in varying numbers, the planet hasn't been harmed by any of them. Of course, a majority of our history was lived in relative harmony with the environment--and any time that balance went the wrong way, nature had a great way of bringing back into balance (famine, pestilence, and disease). Civilization collapses, balance resumes, and we start digging in the muck and flinging our poo at each other again.

So here we are. Still figuring it out. If we're lucky, well get it before the planet scrapes us off and starts over.




If you TRULY are an open-minded individual (I doubt it, seriously), go read "State of Fear", by Michael Crichton. It's a good read, and he makes some very good and salient points on the matter.

Outside that: learn to park your arrogance. Have some humility in the face of a problem far larger than the mere mortal minds of humanity.

Otherwise, you'll just prove that you're a rotten bureaucrat, spouting the dogma, blowing your bosses diseased cocks for advancement and bonuses; and doing nothing to actually make the place better.
__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.--V


Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call destiny.
--John Hobbs


~~~ ~~~ Tea[m] Pyratex ~~~ ~~~
Old 02-17-2013, 10:59 PM Tex Arcana is offline  
Reply With Quote
#38  

Tex Arcana
I am a mean disrespectful person hiding anonymously and need an attitude adjustment.
 
Tex Arcana's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
It's a hobby of mine.

Usually the people on the other side aren't quite this bad though. Morlock was better than these guys, sad to say

Moronlock was a ... well, moron, and just as incapable as you of seeing the big picture--otherwise known as the truth.
__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.--V


Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call destiny.
--John Hobbs


~~~ ~~~ Tea[m] Pyratex ~~~ ~~~
Old 02-17-2013, 11:00 PM Tex Arcana is offline  
Reply With Quote
#39  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
who can argue with your long ramblings that include endorsing a scifi thriller novelist's work of fiction

you are possibly the dumbest person ever to have posted in this forum, and with sam and dio around that's a really fucking esteemed position to have
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 02-18-2013, 07:37 AM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#40  

SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Your point is what, exactly?

That you can't have the data to support your theory because this is very recent in geological time.

Quote:
That doesn't even make sense. Eugenics wasn't even a scientific theory, it was a philosophical movement. The morality of eugenics (the philosophy) really doesn't impact the validity of genetics (the science).

Also a guilt by association fallacy, since AGW has nothing to do with eugenics.
Eugenics is more of a science that AGW. AGW is a political movement, not a scientific one. With eugenics they could actually show outcomes of what happens when you allow bad genes to thrive. It is more like common sense. In this example, though, the POLITICS is what is preventing it from being accepted. In AGW the politics is pushing people to believe things based on an agenda.
Old 02-18-2013, 08:00 AM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#41  

SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Why the past-tense on "themorlock"? Is he dead? I don't keep up.
Old 02-18-2013, 08:01 AM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#42  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamFarber View Post
Eugenics is more of a science that AGW. AGW is a political movement, not a scientific one. With eugenics they could actually show outcomes of what happens when you allow bad genes to thrive. It is more like common sense. In this example, though, the POLITICS is what is preventing it from being accepted. In AGW the politics is pushing people to believe things based on an agenda.

This is,again, terrifically ironic in light of the OP in this thread.


AGW only became a political movement when the opposition/denial movement decided to make it one. They realized they couldn't win an argument on merit, so they'd drag the whole thing down into the mud and try to make it look like both sides were hopelessly political and the issue was unresolveable. It'd be sad if they're right about the latter, because the actual science is quite clear.
Old 02-18-2013, 08:43 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#43  

SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
....AGW only became a political movement when the opposition/denial movement decided to make it one.....

You are incredibly naive. I guess you are going to tell us Agenda 21 is science, too? It is all part of the same movement
Old 02-18-2013, 08:47 AM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#44  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamFarber View Post
You are incredibly naive. I guess you are going to tell us Agenda 21 is science, too? It is all part of the same movement

I know you're not really concerned about "evidence" or anything, but this stuff is demonstrable historical fact. The theory of AGW has been around for literally 100+ years, and there was no money involved in it up until very recently. No motive to be a scam, just scientists doing science. Only very recently did it become politicized, and there's direct evidence of an astroturf denial movement.

So again, either you can believe that there's a massive worldwide conspiracy of scientists going back 100 years, or you can believe that a small group of rich people is opposed to the idea and is trying to discredit it. Occam's Razor works here.

I don't really get into the policy side of things. The US is still in the "attack the science" stage, so that's what I'm concerned about.
Old 02-18-2013, 09:02 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#45  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:43 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.