Atheistforums.com

Alright, so most of us you guys have heard of global warming (later revised to "climate change" when the warming part didn't pan out.

Basically, gases are getting pumped into our atmosphere and gettting trapped there (where else are they supposed to go? lol) causing a greenhouse effect.  It's like if you rolled up yur car's windows on a hot day.  Light from the sun heats the air in your car, but the air it can't go anywhere.  Well, jokes on you guys, the Earth doesn't have windows or a roof - it's completely open to space.  So right there, this whole greenhouse thing doesn't make sense.

But let's take this nonsense seriously for a moment.  They say humans are dumping CO2 in the atmosphere.  Where's this carbon coming from?  The earth.  Where did that carbon come from?  The atmosphere.  So really, it's just being moved around.  Carbon cycle.  Look it up, hippies.

And you know what else is dumping C02 in the atmophere?  Vulcanoes.  I haven't looked it up, but it's probably waay more than humans could ever possibly add (not adding persay, because carbon carbon cycle)

Plus, environmentalists say that global warming is killing polar bears.  But the number of polar bears have actually gone up!

(https://polarbearscience.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/crockford-2017_slide-12-screencap.jpg?w=500)

Doomsday predictions come and go and none of the sheeple in the US is smart enough to notice.  Until now.

Let's do a science experiment real quick.  Stick your hand out of your door/window.  Does it feel hot out there?  Well, there ya go.

In fact, it probably feels downright chilly out there.  My fellow truthologist is here to help explain that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERoJ-z8ugtQ

Another April Fool's.  The only fools are Western people who want the death of Western civilization.  While weather may be getting more irregular, and overall (are averages for a whole planet reliable?) is heating up ... we know that great changes in weather predate human civilization (the Ice Ages, various droughts).  We may be in trouble, and certainly people contribute to it.  And even exterminating humanity, won't stabilize what has never been stable.

The real "tell" was carbon taxes ... it was a new way for the Elite to tax the petrochemical and coal use ... because the Elite don't have enough money yet ;-(  And the peasants must be controlled at all times.  Why does the Left want to help the NWO?  Controlled opposition, and no true Scotsman.

I agree.  You can't trust the scare mongers, and climate scientists are nothing but glorified weathermen, anyway.  I get my information from Rush Limbaugh who is way more knowledgeable than the best of your college educated scientists who are all brainwashed by the communist college professors.  They're all communists too, the whole lot of them.  Anyway, this has been the coldest March, I've seen in 4 years.  I damn near froze my ass, and I'd be looking forward to some actual climate change if it was real.  People have been driving cars for a hundred years, and haven't seen any global warming, and I'll take the pollution from my car any day, rather than having to ride a horse and standing knee deep in horse shit all the time.  And you can't keep a horse in the garage, so I'm not buying the hippy communist bullshit, not for one minute.

Quote from: SGOS on April 02, 2018, 08:29:40 AM
I agree.  You can't trust the scare mongers, and climate scientists are nothing but glorified weathermen, anyway.  I get my information from Rush Limbaugh who is way more knowledgeable than the best of your college educated scientists who are all brainwashed by the communist college professors.  They're all communists too, the whole lot of them.  Anyway, this has been the coldest March, I've seen in 4 years.  I damn near froze my ass, and I'd be looking forward to some actual climate change if it was real.  People have been driving cars for a hundred years, and haven't seen any global warming, and I'll take the pollution from my car any day, rather than having to ride a horse and standing knee deep in horse shit all the time.  And you can't keep a horse in the garage, so I'm not buying the hippy communist bullshit, not for one minute.

So you trust weathermen, or was it Weathermen ;-)  These old 60s folks, age and generation, can't be trusted now that they are past 30.

Quote from: Baruch on April 01, 2018, 07:08:19 PMWhy does the Left want to help the NWO?  Controlled opposition, and no true Scotsman.

An April fool every day of the year...

How about we just don't fuck with something that clearly no political body clearly understands?

Throw a stone into the pond and try to make the smallest ripple that we can.

Quote from: Jason78 on April 02, 2018, 05:14:59 PM
How about we just don't fuck with something that clearly no political body clearly understands?

Throw a stone into the pond and try to make the smallest ripple that we can.

That would be too intelligent, and no way to make a profit off the marks.

Funny how Christian fundamentalist denial of science is so generalized. Not only do they deny legitimate science that contradicts the Bible, but they think basically anything that is scientifically proven is a conspiracy.

Quote from: Blackleaf on May 03, 2018, 07:34:04 PM
Funny how Christian fundamentalist denial of science is so generalized. Not only do they deny legitimate science that contradicts the Bible, but they think basically anything that is scientifically proven is a conspiracy.

They incorrectly think that nothing the Left says, is true.  But the most devious thing the Left can do, is tell the truth ;-)

Global warming/Climate change == Follow the money.
Cui bono?

Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2018, 01:32:23 AM
Global warming/Climate change == Follow the money.
Cui bono?

It is all about carbon trading, and sending money to the UN.  Yes.  But the actual thing to do, if you really think the carbon cycle is a villain, is to stop driving, don't use public transportation ... and just walk.  If that isn't enough, then you need to stop breathing.

I will just carry on breathing for a little while longer, thank you.
Not far to go now, I am in my 75th year now.

Odd thing is, no one complains about burning the oil to the last drop. Strange that.

Those whining about the climate are driving expensive cars, have private jets and big mansions.
This tells me that it is not as bad as they make it out.

Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2018, 09:47:00 AM
I will just carry on breathing for a little while longer, thank you.
Not far to go now, I am in my 75th year now.

Odd thing is, no one complains about burning the oil to the last drop. Strange that.

Those whining about the climate are driving expensive cars, have private jets and big mansions.
This tells me that it is not as bad as they make it out.

...Are you serious? Science is wrong because some people drive nice cars?

Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2018, 09:47:00 AM
I will just carry on breathing for a little while longer, thank you.
Not far to go now, I am in my 75th year now.

Odd thing is, no one complains about burning the oil to the last drop. Strange that.

Those whining about the climate are driving expensive cars, have private jets and big mansions.
This tells me that it is not as bad as they make it out.

VP Al Gore ... is a prime example.

Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2018, 10:34:24 AM
...Are you serious? Science is wrong because some people drive nice cars?

If you were a good Leftist, you would put out caltrops to stop those nice cars.

Science is right, politics is wrong.  Americans are spoiled children.  Stop all petroleum and coal, make them eat each other.

Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2018, 01:32:23 AM
Global warming/Climate change == Follow the money.
Cui bono?

Somebody told me that about 10 years ago so I did. Know what I found out?

Every single one of the prominent global warming deniers of the time was getting funding from organizations funded by the oil and gas industry.

Want to know what Exxon's official position on climate change is these days?

QuoteThe risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

All food products now are produced by the tobacco companies, aren't they?

Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2018, 09:47:00 AMThose whining about the climate are driving expensive cars, have private jets and big mansions.
This tells me that it is not as bad as they make it out.

If only Al Gore lived in a cardboard box, then this whole global warming thing would be legit.

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 04, 2018, 07:58:05 PM
If only Al Gore lived in a cardboard box, then this whole global warming thing would be legit.

If only hypocrisy wasn't the primary MO of humans.

Quote from: Baruch on May 04, 2018, 08:44:10 PM
If only hypocrisy wasn't the primary MO of humans.

Let's say you're right and global warming activists are all secretly driving gas-guzzlers, living large on palatial mansions with the thermostat 72 degrees with all the windows wide open.  What relevance do you think that has on the facts on the ground - on climate data all across the world?

(https://media0.giphy.com/media/l46CxmW82zcQiRghG/giphy.gif)


>Make a joke thread parodying people who come up with the stupidest reasons to question global warming
>Turns into a serious thread with the stupidest reasons to question global warming
>10/10, would watch the world burn again




------




Semi-related note, but my mother asked me a few days ago, "It's cool (some city) is putting in white concrete to reflect light and reduce the temperature of the city, but isn't that energy going to be reflected back at the sun and cause it to burn out faster or have some type of issues?"


She was dead ass serious.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 04, 2018, 09:17:54 PM>Make a joke thread parodying people who come up with the stupidest reasons to question global warming
>Turns into a serious thread with the stupidest reasons to question global warming

I honestly feel kinda bad about that.  I was just pretending to be an idiot saying the stupidest crap imaginable, who knew I'd get real idiots advancing similar arguments?!  The whole point is to NOT be the fool!

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 04, 2018, 08:52:32 PM
Let's say you're right and global warming activists are all secretly driving gas-guzzlers, living large on palatial mansions with the thermostat 72 degrees with all the windows wide open.  What relevance do you think that has on the facts on the ground - on climate data all across the world?

Then kill all the humans ... that will stop the warming.  Where are the Daleks when you need them?

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 04, 2018, 09:29:04 PM
I honestly feel kinda bad about that.  I was just pretending to be an idiot saying the stupidest crap imaginable, who knew I'd get real idiots advancing similar arguments?!  The whole point is to NOT be the fool!

And I understood that (given the day of the post).  But that isn't the reason behind the reasoning ... the reason is always politics.

Reality check.
What can be done, what will be done to avert global disaster caused by man's folly?
Other than money changing hands, I mean.

Are you willing to give up your car, gadgets, lifestyle? Back to the 18th century?
Even if it is done, which is very unlikely, will it help?

Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2018, 11:24:24 PM
Reality check.
What can be done, what will be done to avert global disaster caused by man's folly?
Other than money changing hands, I mean.

Are you willing to give up your car, gadgets, lifestyle? Back to the 18th century?
Even if it is done, which is very unlikely, will it help?

No, utopia is possible in Robespierre-ville ... if we just kill the nobility who are holding us back out glorious destiny!

Shiranu - it isn't nice to make fun of Mother nature ... or your own mother.

But what about the "Developing" countries? Should they "develop"?
We used to call them "Third World" which is no longer politically correct.

Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2018, 11:31:03 PM
But what about the "Developing" countries? Should they "develop"?
We used to call them "Third World" which is no longer politically correct.

No, every Chinese is entitled to a HumV gas guzzler ...

Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2018, 11:24:24 PM
Reality check.
What can be done, what will be done to avert global disaster caused by man's folly?
Other than money changing hands, I mean.

Are you willing to give up your car, gadgets, lifestyle? Back to the 18th century?
Even if it is done, which is very unlikely, will it help?

:huh:  Have you ever, like, you know, read a single non-crazy news article in the last 20 years or so?  Hell, I've even posted a lot about efforts to turn the situation around.  You'd have to be a complete idiot to not be aware of this stuff!

Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2018, 11:31:03 PM
But what about the "Developing" countries? Should they "develop"?
We used to call them "Third World" which is no longer politically correct.

There was this thing back in 1991 that kinda played a big role in that term falling out of favor, but sure, it's political correctness run amok.

So, what is the solution? Is there one at all? Other than imposing another tax?

Why was "global warming" rebranded to "climate change"?

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 04, 2018, 11:36:16 PM
There was this thing back in 1991 that kinda played a big role in that term falling out of favor, but sure, it's political correctness run amok.

Now the Third World is coming, to collect their house slaves and field slaves ;-)

Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2018, 11:38:10 PM
So, what is the solution? Is there one at all?

Why was "global warming" rebranded to "climate change"?

Karl Marx is our lord and savior ...

Bourgeoisie are always the same ... they have no sacrifice to offer, but they can save the poor thru virtue signaling.  It will be a good thing for the Middle Class to be liquidated.

Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2018, 11:38:10 PM
Why was "global warming" rebranded to "climate change"?

Because people got tired of idiots saying, "HUUUUR IT'S SNOWIGN OUTSIDE SO GLOBAL WRMING IS FAKE!".


More seriously; climate change is more accurate description of the effect global warming is causing. While global warming is the root problem, it's symptoms include all sorts of climatological issues such as more severe winters, more hurricanes/typhoons (and more powerful storms), ocean temperatures shifting (particularly important in the Pacific where the water is essentially sloshing from Asia to the Americas and effects where fish cluster [which causes countries like Chile to become more and more aggressive in fishing waters that don't legally belong to them]), and so on.

Global warming I think is perfectly acceptable, but in reality climate change more accurately describes the effect of global warming.


As for what we can do, I don't think there is anything we can do at this point to stop it... but I don't get why this means we should just throw our hands in the air and continue to make it worse.

Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2018, 11:38:10 PM
So, what is the solution? Is there one at all? Other than imposing another tax?

I guess that settles that question.

QuoteWhy was "global warming" rebranded to "climate change"?

Is this like that time you thought Daesh was a PR attempt to distance ISIS from Islam?  And then we all told you that Daesh is actually insulting to them, and you didn't seem to understand because it didn't fit your narrative.  Same thing here?

*edit - what Shiranu said.  Though what it's called is the least important thing about it.  A rose is a rose, after all.

Let's say that I am a skeptic about "Climate change".

But those true believers, who say YOU MUST BELIEVE, just like in a religion you must believe in Jesus or Allah or else you are a non-person?

A non-believer? Shame on you! GTFO!

But you, dear True Believer, what are you doing or propose to do about it?
Pray? Burn incense? Spread the Gospel?  What!  Anything, nothing?

Probably a luittle too drunk to answer, bujt...

Believe whatever the fuck you want ws. I'm mnot going to beg you to believe in glbal warming, I'm just going to thinjk your an idiot if you want to question tnhe overwhelming majority of scientists. No difrfeenrt than flat earthers.

Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2018, 09:47:00 AM
I will just carry on breathing for a little while longer, thank you.
Not far to go now, I am in my 75th year now.

Odd thing is, no one complains about burning the oil to the last drop. Strange that.

Those whining about the climate are driving expensive cars, have private jets and big mansions.
This tells me that it is not as bad as they make it out.

What would it take to change your mind?  What facts or experiences would cause you to agree that humans are the cause of the current climate change.  Just curious.

Quote from: pr126 on May 05, 2018, 03:33:10 AM
Let's say that I am a skeptic about "Climate change".

But those true believers, who say YOU MUST BELIEVE, just like in a religion you must believe in Jesus or Allah or else you are a non-person?

A non-believer? Shame on you! GTFO!

But you, dear True Believer, what are you doing or propose to do about it?
Pray? Burn incense? Spread the Gospel?  What!  Anything, nothing?

You sound just like the theists who claim that Evolutionism is a religion.

Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2018, 10:34:24 AM
...Are you serious? Science is wrong because some people drive nice cars?

It's one of the responses they're supposed to use. The list is long and somewhat hilarious.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 04, 2018, 09:17:54 PM
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/l46CxmW82zcQiRghG/giphy.gif)


>Make a joke thread parodying people who come up with the stupidest reasons to question global warming
>Turns into a serious thread with the stupidest reasons to question global warming
>10/10, would watch the world burn again

Semi-related note, but my mother asked me a few days ago, "It's cool (some city) is putting in white concrete to reflect light and reduce the temperature of the city, but isn't that energy going to be reflected back at the sun and cause it to burn out faster or have some type of issues?"


She was dead ass serious.

Yeah, my Dad was stupid too.  He watched only Fox News.---

Quote from: Shiranu on May 05, 2018, 03:37:15 AM
Probably a luittle too drunk to answer, bujt...

Believe whatever the fuck you want ws. I'm mnot going to beg you to believe in glbal warming, I'm just going to thinjk your an idiot if you want to question tnhe overwhelming majority of scientists. No difrfeenrt than flat earthers.

Neither he nor I question the scientists.  He and I despise the Left politicians who want to make hay out of this.  Also the bourgeoisie hypocrisy ... let someone else stop driving their car, let someone else stop heating their house in winter etc.  Humanity can't extinct soon enough ... so I say do nothing.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 04, 2018, 11:49:32 PM
Because people got tired of idiots saying, "HUUUUR IT'S SNOWIGN OUTSIDE SO GLOBAL WRMING IS FAKE!".


More seriously; climate change is more accurate description of the effect global warming is causing. While global warming is the root problem, it's symptoms include all sorts of climatological issues such as more severe winters, more hurricanes/typhoons (and more powerful storms), ocean temperatures shifting (particularly important in the Pacific where the water is essentially sloshing from Asia to the Americas and effects where fish cluster [which causes countries like Chile to become more and more aggressive in fishing waters that don't legally belong to them]), and so on.

Global warming I think is perfectly acceptable, but in reality climate change more accurately describes the effect of global warming.


As for what we can do, I don't think there is anything we can do at this point to stop it... but I don't get why this means we should just throw our hands in the air and continue to make it worse.

Are you still breathing?  Then you are making it worse.

Quote from: pr126 on May 05, 2018, 03:33:10 AM
Let's say that I am a skeptic about "Climate change".

But those true believers, who say YOU MUST BELIEVE, just like in a religion you must believe in Jesus or Allah or else you are a non-person?

A non-believer? Shame on you! GTFO!

But you, dear True Believer, what are you doing or propose to do about it?
Pray? Burn incense? Spread the Gospel?  What!  Anything, nothing?

Yes, the true gospel of Marx, Lenin etc.  Let us be your dictator ... and we won't be like Hitler or Stalin ...

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 05, 2018, 08:43:11 AM
It's one of the responses they're supposed to use. The list is long and somewhat hilarious.

Have you stopped driving?  Have you stopped heating your home in Winter?  If not, you are a running dog of Capitalism ... death squad for you!

Quote from: Cavebear on May 05, 2018, 09:14:22 AM
Yeah, my Dad was stupid too.  He watched only Fox News.---

If you had any children, they would think you are stupid too.  Not trying to embarrass ... just stating a fact about offspring ;-)

I do not have a car, and I do not drive since 2004, when I retired.

I think I am more careful about “Climate change” than any of the zealots here.

Quote from: pr126 on May 05, 2018, 09:47:59 AM
I do not have a car, and I do not drive since 2004, when I retired.

Do you have heat or AC?  Do you use electrify other than solar/wind?  Then you are guilty as charged.  The commissar for electricity (from the Labor Party) will be visiting soon.  But then I think you are self aware enough to at least be aware of any hypocrisy you might have ... and you clearly aren't a hypocrite on energy issues.  I haven't read you self flagellating over your "consumer" guilt.

Funny that no one here comes up with a viable solution/recommendation.

Believing is not enough.

Here is a thought, every time you fill up your car it helps toward a nice new mosque down your street.

Isn’t that good?
LOL.

Quote from: pr126 on May 05, 2018, 09:54:27 AM
Funny that no one here comes up with a viable solution/recommendation.

Believing is not enough.

Here is a thought, every time you fill up your car it helps toward a nice new mosque down your street.

Isn’t that good?
LOL.

Haven't discovered Google yet? Here's one solution: clean energy. Many nations and energy companies have taken the initiative to make the transition to clean energy and dramatically
reduce carbon emissions. Wanna help? Pay for clean energy, if it is available in your area. It's not expensive, so money isn't an issue. A second way you could help is by not voting for Right Wing nutjobs who think that scientists are colluding together in some global conspiracy.

Quote from: pr126 on May 05, 2018, 03:33:10 AM
Let's say that I am a skeptic about "Climate change".

But those true believers, who say YOU MUST BELIEVE, just like in a religion you must believe in Jesus or Allah or else you are a non-person?

A non-believer? Shame on you! GTFO!

But you, dear True Believer, what are you doing or propose to do about it?
Pray? Burn incense? Spread the Gospel?  What!  Anything, nothing?

It's not about 'believing'.  You can (and people do) 'believe' what they want to.  Global warming is based upon hypothesis that have been proven which makes them a theory.  The current theory (I say current because one can still use facts to disprove any theory) leads us to think (not believe) that human activity is affecting the earth's climate (and weather).  We should be talking facts and not beliefs.  As an atheist you should understand that, yet you chose to use the language (and apparently thought process) of a theist.  Why would you want to do that????

Quote from: pr126 on May 05, 2018, 09:47:59 AM
I do not have a car, and I do not drive since 2004, when I retired.  I think I am more careful about “Climate change” than any of the zealots here.

I think that is commendable.

Quote from: pr126 on May 05, 2018, 09:54:27 AM
Funny that no one here comes up with a viable solution/recommendation.
Believing is not enough.

No, believing isn't enough. 

Denial was the first argument to oppose any action against warming, and it was advanced by the oil companies, who created the meme that global warming isn't real precisely because they didn't like the solution.  That meme now remains a political reality for much of the right wing, even though the oil industry now embraces the scientific reality of global warming publically.  Oil execs are intelligent enough to understand the chemistry and physics caused by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is changing the Earth's climate and ocean currents.  They no longer have to play the role of the fool, because the fools they helped to create will now do their political work for them.

Denial sounds more compassionate than "I don't give a shit," so it tends to be the position that is voiced by those who don't want to take action.  But it's not an honest position.  There is actually more intellectual honesty in, "I don't give a shit."  But the right wing is already up to its eyeballs in being perceived as the asshole that it's afraid to tip the balance and expose its true motivation for its denial.

Most people wouldn't deny that you are half blinded by ideology, and those familiar with human psychology might even be a bit forgiving.  But I think most people, here anyway, believe you are  intelligent enough to follow the physics and chemistry of climate change and to see where it leads.

As a Texan, I'm not entirely sure what the alternative to own a car is anyways. My commute to the nearest city to work is basically the distance of crossing your entire county (slight exaggeration, but not all that inaccurate either).

I don't think Europeans grasp just how big America is and the necessity of owning a car. My state is larger than almost all your countries.

Quote from: Blackleaf on May 05, 2018, 10:50:28 AM
Haven't discovered Google yet? Here's one solution: clean energy. Many nations and energy companies have taken the initiative to make the transition to clean energy and dramatically
reduce carbon emissions. Wanna help? Pay for clean energy, if it is available in your area. It's not expensive, so money isn't an issue. A second way you could help is by not voting for Right Wing nutjobs who think that scientists are colluding together in some global conspiracy.

Solar and wind are good.  Disconnect from the grid yourself.  Use solar and wind only.  Then I will believe you.  Problem is, collectivists don't want individual action, they want collective action, led by political monsters.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 05, 2018, 02:51:01 PM
As a Texan, I'm not entirely sure what the alternative to own a car is anyways. My commute to the nearest city to work is basically the distance of crossing your entire county (slight exaggeration, but not all that inaccurate either).

I don't think Europeans grasp just how big America is and the necessity of owning a car. My state is larger than almost all your countries.

Ride a horse.  Horses are renewable and biodegradable.  And get a Stetson while you are at it ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDz6lgDiCt8

But you want to keep and eat your cake at the same time.

Quote from: pr126 on May 05, 2018, 09:54:27 AM
Funny that no one here comes up with a viable solution/recommendation.

Believing is not enough.

Here is a thought, every time you fill up your car it helps toward a nice new mosque down your street.

Isn’t that good?
LOL.

Well I DO drive a gas-powered car.  I need one to haul a a utility trailer for mulch, compost from a recycling center, and a small boat.  But I bought it in 2006 and it has only 27,000 miles on it.   I keep waiting for "that good electric or fuel cell vehicle", but it has to haul a few hundred pounds of compost from the recycling center.

Quote from: pr126 on May 05, 2018, 09:54:27 AMHere is a thought, every time you fill up your car it helps toward a nice new mosque down your street.

It's so strange that you would bring that up.  You of all people should be ideologically opposed to our current over-reliance on oil, given your pet issue.

Every time someone fills up, some of that money goes to Saudi Arabia and other oil rich predominantly muslim countries.  And a part of that money goes to Wahabi madrassas.  With renewables, all that is gone.  Instead of our paychecks going to the Saudis, they go to local clean energy providers (creating more local jobs, to boot!)  Don't you want to cut off Islamic extremists' funding?

Additionally, global warming has the potential to cause a lot of drought and water/food scarcity in some regions in the world, especially the Middle East.  And guess what the end result is of all this deprivation and misery?  Refugee crisis. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/15/study-finds-that-global-warming-exacerbates-refugee-crises)  Granted, I'm sure you already have a solution in mind, but here's another way:  we just stop the situation before it happens.  We just take the pot off the burner before it starts boiling over.  Less climate catastrophes = less refugees.   An ounce of prevention and all that.  Sound desirable?

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 05, 2018, 09:55:58 PM
It's so strange that you would bring that up.  You of all people should be ideologically opposed to our current over-reliance on oil, given your pet issue.

Every time someone fills up, some of that money goes to Saudi Arabia and other oil rich predominantly muslim countries.  And a part of that money goes to Wahabi madrassas.  With renewables, all that is gone.  Instead of our paychecks going to the Saudis, they go to local clean energy providers (creating more local jobs, to boot!)  Don't you want to cut off Islamic extremists' funding?

Additionally, global warming has the potential to cause a lot of drought and water/food scarcity in some regions in the world, especially the Middle East.  And guess what the end result is of all this deprivation and misery?  Refugee crisis. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/15/study-finds-that-global-warming-exacerbates-refugee-crises)  Granted, I'm sure you already have a solution in mind, but here's another way:  we just stop the situation before it happens.  We just take the pot off the burner before it starts boiling over.  Less climate catastrophes = less refugees.   An ounce of prevention and all that.  Sound desirable?

I agree that fuel could be more perfect.  But nothing is perfect.  Even electric vehicles require electricity and that is often from coal-burning plants.  So, I should be operating on solar power.  But that would require cutting down a dozen mature oaks and gum trees.  Reducing native habitat, oxygen-producing trees, and passive solar cooling on the house.

Its hard to win on this.  I'm not ready to retreat into a cave and live in a non-electric world of semi-twilight.  The nearest food store is 6 miles away.  That's a long bike ride and I would need freezer packs to keep the meat and dairy products safe and guess where THEY come from?  My electric refrigerator.  And pedaling a bike 6 miles there and back would probably get me killed in a few years.  What would you suggest I do?

Quote from: Cavebear on May 05, 2018, 10:30:25 PM
I agree that fuel could be more perfect.  But nothing is perfect.  Even electric vehicles require electricity and that is often from coal-burning plants.  So, I should be operating on solar power.  But that would require cutting down a dozen mature oaks and gum trees.  Reducing native habitat, oxygen-producing trees, and passive solar cooling on the house.

Yeah, well no solution is 100% perfect.  As ever, going from really bad to less bad is the path forward.

QuoteIts hard to win on this.  I'm not ready to retreat into a cave and live in a non-electric world of semi-twilight.  The nearest food store is 6 miles away.  That's a long bike ride and I would need freezer packs to keep the meat and dairy products safe and guess where THEY come from?  My electric refrigerator.  And pedaling a bike 6 miles there and back would probably get me killed in a few years.  What would you suggest I do?

You're thinking too small (and too much like Barauch, who paints this bizarre do-nothing-or-live-in-a-cave false dilemma).  Do you have any idea how many gallons of gasoline get used every single day in the United States?  It's just shy of 400 million gallons.  And that's just gasoline.

While "think globally, act locally" is a nice slogan, this isn't the sort of problem that you can effectively beat that way.  Nor should you risk your life to shave off a couple gallons from that behemoth national number.  Every little bit helps, but that's far too minor and slow a change to really matter.

What absolutely has to happen (and happen yesterday) is a complete restructuring of the national energy system.  We have to phase out coal plants and bring new and greener alternatives online.  We have to improve auto fuel economy and embrace electric.  We have to improve city planning so that you can get groceries without a car and without risking your life.

Of course, all this costs money.  But if we make it happen, we secure energy independence (anyone here remember the 1973 oil crisis?), citizens pay less for energy, we create jobs at home, and we flip the script on global warming, much like we did with the ozone layer.  Plus, there's the added benefit of less pollution.  I consider that a win.  Sure, it's costly - but it's a short-term cost for a long-term payout.  Or we could fritter that money away on another war (anyone here want to guess at the fuel economy of American tanks? It's not super high, lol) or another tax cut for the rich.  Which sounds like the better option?

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 05, 2018, 11:03:56 PM
Yeah, well no solution is 100% perfect.  As ever, going from really bad to less bad is the path forward.
You're thinking too small (and too much like Barauch, who paints this bizarre do-nothing-or-live-in-a-cave false dilemma).  Do you have any idea how many gallons of gasoline get used every single day in the United States?  It's just shy of 400 million gallons.  And that's just gasoline.

While "think globally, act locally" is a nice slogan, this isn't the sort of problem that you can effectively beat that way.  Nor should you risk your life to shave off a couple gallons from that behemoth national number.  Every little bit helps, but that's far too minor and slow a change to really matter.

What absolutely has to happen (and happen yesterday) is a complete restructuring of the national energy system.  We have to phase out coal plants and bring new and greener alternatives online.  We have to improve auto fuel economy and embrace electric.  We have to improve city planning so that you can get groceries without a car and without risking your life.

Of course, all this costs money.  But if we make it happen, we secure energy independence (anyone here remember the 1973 oil crisis?), citizens pay less for energy, we create jobs at home, and we flip the script on global warming, much like we did with the ozone layer.  Plus, there's the added benefit of less pollution.  I consider that a win.  Sure, it's costly - but it's a short-term cost for a long-term payout.  Or we could spend that money on another war or fritter it away on another tax cut for the rich.  Which sounds like the better option?

Yes, I remember the 1973 energy crisis.  I sat in long lines with the most gas-effective car I could afford (A stripped Chevy Chevette Scooter).  I reluctantly ditched my beloved Pontiac Bonneville Convertible in favor of the cheaper better gas mileage Scooter.  And you will probably criticize me for owning THAT!  I had to drive to a job in order to pay my rent among 5 guys in a 2 bedroom roach infested apartment in a bad building and ate pasta sprinkled with hamburger for years.  And when the car broke down and I could fix it myself, I walked a mile to the bus stop.  To be technical, a 1.25 miles.

So let's get off the moral high ground and stop this "environmentally-perfect" world you dream of.  Tell me how to live in suburbia more environmentally excellent than you think I can.  Be specific.  Every solution you have will also have a downside.  Try me.

The path forward ... Gasoline Commissar ... get your coupons here, if you voted for the right D-candidate.

Quote from: Cavebear on May 05, 2018, 11:25:01 PMAnd you will probably criticize me for owning THAT!

Guess again.  I have no desire to sit in judgement on people's individual environmental efforts, nor have I made any indication to that effect.  So why this reaction?

QuoteI had to drive to a job in order to pay my rent among 5 guys in a 2 bedroom roach infested apartment in a bad building and ate pasta sprinkled with hamburger for years.  And when the car broke down and I could fix it myself, I walked a mile to the bus stop.  To be technical, a 1.25 miles.

So let's get off the moral high ground and stop this "environmentally-perfect" world you dream of.

I made a pretty big showing of NOT doing that - of acknowledging that on an individual level, there's only so much that can realistically be done and that you shouldn't live a life of privation over it.  I even explicitly said that you shouldn't risk your life to save a gallon of gas.

I also explictly stated that "perfect" isn't the goal here.  It'd be nice, but it's not realistic.  The goal is here is national/international improvement, not perfection.

QuoteTell me how to live in suburbia more environmentally excellent than you think I can.  Be specific.  Every solution you have will also have a downside.  Try me.

Did you not see my post at all?

I tried to emphasize that the national energy system needs to be overhauled from the ground up - that's what's going to generate the most change.  What you're doing individually is good and I give you props for doing what you can.  Like I said earlier, every bit helps.  But the problem is just so vast that it needs a much more comprehensive solution than just individual efforts from concerned citizens.

Yes, the Jimmy Carter solution ... I remember that one ... our first gasoline commissar failed.

Cavebear:  I think I've figured out the disconnect.  It was probably when I said "you're thinking too small".  Probably came of a bit arrogant, maybe even a bit conceited.

I could've phrased that a more diplomatically.  I meant to turn your attention to the vast scale of the problem (and thus any potential solution) that the individual barely registers on the map.

If you go grocery shopping in a Hummer, a Leaf, or a miniature black hole that sucks in only smog and creates artisinal craft beer, it doesn't much matter.  It's like worrying about a single leaky sink in the midst of a practically apocalyptic water crisis on an entire continent.  Sure, every little bit helps, but to put it bluntly, your sink is the least of our worries.

Because of our different senses of scale, we're talking past each other a little bit.

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 06, 2018, 01:07:03 AM
Cavebear:  I think I've figured out the disconnect.  It was probably when I said "you're thinking too small".  Probably came of a bit arrogant, maybe even a bit conceited.

I could've phrased that a more diplomatically.  I meant to turn your attention to the vast scale of the problem (and thus any potential solution) that the individual barely registers on the map.

If you go grocery shopping in a Hummer, a Leaf, or a miniature black hole that sucks in only smog and creates artisinal craft beer, it doesn't much matter.  It's like worrying about a single leaky sink in the midst of a practically apocalyptic water crisis on an entire continent.  Sure, every little bit helps, but to put it bluntly, your sink is the least of our worries.

Because of our different senses of scale, we're talking past each other a little bit.

The very definition of collectivism.  Of course we do have a society in addition to individuals.  Society will do what it will do ... but don't ever expect it to do what you want ... it doesn't work that way for anyone.

In general, to the crazy folks out there ... if you worry about something you have no impact on (whether you are right or not about that) then you are in a pathology.  Don't worry, be happy.  And it may be a good thing for the Earth to be destroyed, or humanity to be extinct ... how would you know ... are you G-d?

Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2018, 08:49:36 AM
Don't worry, be happy. 

Just don't stop hating Hillary, at least until no one knows who she is anymore.

Quote from: SGOS on May 06, 2018, 09:16:09 AM
Just don't stop hating Hillary, at least until no one knows who she is anymore.

My quoting that Caribbean song, is irony.  I am anything but happy.  But then old age and the state of the world does that.

Actually, I don't hate anyone personally, not even Hitler.  I hate what they stand for ... crazy monkey memes.

So you tell me, how can we get rid of the crazy monkey memes, without killing all the monkeys?

And no, I don't think anyone can do anything about old age or the state of the world.  Futile megalomania if you think you can.

Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2018, 11:07:13 AM
Actually, I don't hate anyone personally

You need to stop believing that.

I was in a graduate-level ecology class, and one of the students started ranting about how Al Gore had apparently forgotten about the cow farts, termites and volcanoes, and how global warming was bullshit because of that. I have always wondered what sort of grade he got in that class.

Quote from: SGOS on May 06, 2018, 02:28:00 PM
You need to stop believing that.

I have transformed my annoyance at monkey farts ... against the collective intestine of humanity.  I don't consider any one intestine more farty than another ;-)

Of course we could try love, but my love beads were lost around 1968.  John Lennon is dead, no matter what direction you spin the LP.

Quote from: Mermaid on May 06, 2018, 02:52:35 PM
I was in a graduate-level ecology class, and one of the students started ranting about how Al Gore had apparently forgotten about the cow farts, termites and volcanoes, and how global warming was bullshit because of that. I have always wondered what sort of grade he got in that class.

The question of Al Gore is a question for political science class, not ecology class.  Clearly the carbon cycle etc is complicated, and humans impact it.

And as I posted earlier, the Earth doesn't have one temperature on a given day, regardless of the chart usually presented.  The chart oversimplifies, because humans can't grasp such concepts.

But another aspect is "global warming" is liberal "doom porn".  Conservatives do something similar "communists under the bed" for example.  People who take a view of a situation to extremes (either we do something or we all die immediately) are usually given to extreme counter-measures.  Such people I fear, legitimately.  Individual action to reduce carbon footprint, isn't something to fear.  It would be healthy.

Quote from: Mermaid on May 06, 2018, 02:52:35 PM
I was in a graduate-level ecology class, and one of the students started ranting about how Al Gore had apparently forgotten about the cow farts, termites and volcanoes, and how global warming was bullshit because of that. I have always wondered what sort of grade he got in that class.

I love that creationists...sorry, I mean GW denialists (I get those two confused sometimes) think scientists who have studied this stuff for decades aren't aware of basic stuff like that.

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 06, 2018, 05:24:17 PM
I love that creationists...sorry, I mean GW denialists (I get those two confused sometimes) think scientists who have studied this stuff for decades aren't aware of basic stuff like that.

They are ignorant, sometimes deliberately so.  And no, any kind of skeptic, isn't a Creationist.  In fact, since a Creationist posits something, they are not a skeptic at all.  Unless you deny everything, you aren't a true skeptic.  Scientists study lots of things.  Egyptology for example.  But I don't conclude that the Egyptian gods are real.

What policy conclusions one should draw from any confirmed research (what is confirmation?) ... is a political decision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEYuYCKv5Vo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0

Quote from: Mermaid on May 06, 2018, 02:52:35 PM
I was in a graduate-level ecology class, and one of the students started ranting about how Al Gore had apparently forgotten about the cow farts, termites and volcanoes, and how global warming was bullshit because of that. I have always wondered what sort of grade he got in that class.

Well, you take Al Gore's factors that are causes of global warming, and then you add the causes he left out, and that cancels out global warming.  No wait.  I need to think about this some more.

OK, OK.  Try this.  When I first heard about global warming, the scientific calculations led scientists to conclude that we wouldn't see any actual effects for 100 years, but now we are ahead of that schedule, so global warming probably isn't real.  No wait.  Let me think.  I can do this.  I know I can.  I just need more time.  I'll have to get back to you later.

Quote from: SGOS on May 08, 2018, 09:50:32 AM
Well, you take Al Gore's factors that are causes of global warming, and then you add the causes he left out, and that cancels out global warming.  No wait.  I need to think about this some more.

OK, OK.  Try this.  When I first heard about global warming, the scientific calculations led scientists to conclude that we wouldn't see any actual effects for 100 years, but now we are ahead of that schedule, so global warming probably isn't real.  No wait.  Let me think.  I can do this.  I know I can.  I just need more time.  I'll have to get back to you later.

I saw the cyclic global warming chart ... I don't know how many years ago.  Before it was a political issue.  This was first suggested in the late 19th century, and first published in modern form in a 1975 issue of Science in an article by Columbia University scientist Prof Wally Broecker.

I also first saw and heard (attended a lecture by the main researcher, Dr Hubbert) that peak oil in the US would be declared in to be 1971 ... in 1973.  Shale oil production has changed that somewhat ...

https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/07/us-oil-production-will-exceed-its-1971-p

Here is the original projection by Dr Hubbert ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

Of course eventually there will be peak US oil and peak World oil ... because we consume it faster than geology is making new oil.

Weather prediction is even less reliable than geophysical prediction.  But it remains the case, that the chart of Dr Broecker is very much in the style of Club of Rome as was the original Hubbert chart.  The Earth doesn't have one temperature at any given time, and arguing from averages ... is fraught with peril in any data set.  I know the weather tomorrow will be different than the weather today, both here and elsewhere.  But otherwise I don't know.  But like the peak oil prediction, it depends on what large numbers of people do in the future.  Nobody predicted shale oil back in 1971.

Club of Rome ... isn't that yet another European genocide project ... to save the world, we need to radically reduct the total population?

Europeans are desperate for the Darwin Award.

You have a weird obsession with being wrong about literally everything you open your mouth about...

Quote from: pr126 on May 08, 2018, 08:57:38 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEYuYCKv5Vo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0

Do either of those two have an education in any science that would give them authority to speak on global warming? No? Then I don't care.

Quote from: pr126 on May 08, 2018, 01:12:27 PM
Europeans are desperate for the Darwin Award.

Third time's a charm ... WW I, WW II ... WW III?

Yes, guy with Nobel Prize in physics is wrong, guys who have no Nobel in anything ... priceless.

But I won't trust my weatherman's predictions, no matter how many Swedish prize committee ladies he makes out with ...

Quote from: SGOS on May 08, 2018, 09:50:32 AM
Well, you take Al Gore's factors that are causes of global warming, and then you add the causes he left out, and that cancels out global warming.  No wait.  I need to think about this some more.

OK, OK.  Try this.  When I first heard about global warming, the scientific calculations led scientists to conclude that we wouldn't see any actual effects for 100 years, but now we are ahead of that schedule, so global warming probably isn't real.  No wait.  Let me think.  I can do this.  I know I can.  I just need more time.  I'll have to get back to you later.

Better more modern measurements have resulted in better more accurate predictions. 

Quote from: Blackleaf on May 08, 2018, 05:39:45 PM
Do either of those two have an education in any science that would give them authority to speak on global warming? No? Then I don't care.

In the world of arguments there is no authority. There are good arguments and there are bad arguments - and the arbitrary accolades of the makers of these arguments is non-influential on the goodness or badness of the arguments themselves.

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 06, 2018, 01:07:03 AM
Cavebear:  I think I've figured out the disconnect.  It was probably when I said "you're thinking too small".  Probably came of a bit arrogant, maybe even a bit conceited.

I could've phrased that a more diplomatically.  I meant to turn your attention to the vast scale of the problem (and thus any potential solution) that the individual barely registers on the map.

If you go grocery shopping in a Hummer, a Leaf, or a miniature black hole that sucks in only smog and creates artisinal craft beer, it doesn't much matter.  It's like worrying about a single leaky sink in the midst of a practically apocalyptic water crisis on an entire continent.  Sure, every little bit helps, but to put it bluntly, your sink is the least of our worries.

Because of our different senses of scale, we're talking past each other a little bit.

I agree.  And I think we can discuss this on larger terms.  Let's say I am thinking of replacing my 2005 Toyota Highlander that gets 18 MPG.  But I only drive 2,000 miles per year.  How much is buying a Chevy Bolt going to help the planet?  At 2,000 miles per year, it doesn't matter much.  And I recycle everything possible, compost anything that can be composted, and have LED lights I leave off in the house whenever possible.  Maybe that makes up for it.

But maybe the larger issues matter a lot more.  And perhaps you are better-prepared to address that.

btw 'global warming' was in fact an inaccurate description of what is going on. That's why it's now called 'climate change.' This amendment to the term wasn't made for nothing - it was made to reflect a more accurate description of reality; one that allows for certain contentions that the old 'global warming' theory didn't allow for, such as the idea that we are on the cusp of an ice age.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 01:53:25 AM
btw 'global warming' was in fact an inaccurate description of what is going on. That's why it's now called 'climate change.' This amendment to the term wasn't made for nothing - it was made to reflect a more accurate description of reality; one that allows for certain contentions that the old 'global warming' theory didn't allow for, such as the idea that we are on the cusp of an ice age.

I agree completely.  "Climate change" is much more accurate a term.  In some places, the more active weather patterns cool some places but heat other up more over time.  What it really means is higher fluctuations in weather patterns, bringing more active weather patterns to most places and with a global average temperature increase.  Caused by human activity.  That is one point I will not relent on.

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 02:14:48 AM
I agree completely.  "Climate change" is much more accurate a term.  In some places, the more active weather patterns cool some places but heat other up more over time.  What it really means is higher fluctuations in weather patterns, bringing more active weather patterns to most places and with a global average temperature increase.  Caused by human activity.  That is one point I will not relent on.

Few people outright deny human affect on climate change, in my estimation. Rather, they disagree with the *extent* to which humans affect it. Without human industrialisation, we know that climate change would happen - and that this change would include global average temperature rise.

btw if you really care about the climate all y'all should go vegan since animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of all man-made greenhouse gasses, which is more than every vehicle on earth is responsible for.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 02:33:47 AM
Few people outright deny human affect on climate change, in my estimation. Rather, they disagree with the *extent* to which humans affect it. Without human industrialisation, we know that climate change would happen - and that this change would include global average temperature rise.

btw if you really care about the climate all y'all should go vegan since animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of all man-made greenhouse gasses, which is more than every vehicle on earth is responsible for.

You haven't listened to what US Republicans say about "climate change", have you?  They all deny it is IN ANY WAY caused by humans.

As far as "vegan" goes, it is really very difficult and inherently unhealthy overall.  Humans are naturally omnivores.  If it helps, my typical evening meal includes about 3 oz of meat (I weigh out portions), a large tossed salad with olive oil/vinegar, and 2 sides of various color veggies.  And multiple fresh fruits for "dessert" (snacks actually) for several hours before going to bed.

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 02:57:47 AM

As far as "vegan" goes, it is really very difficult and inherently unhealthy overall. 

It is not unhealthy. One can get all their essential nutrients without animals as a food source. Also, vegan diet (or a vegetarian diet that is sufficiently close enough to being a vegan diet) is the only known way to reverse heart disease. Saturated fat, which animal products are rich in, are known to cause inflammation and heart disease in humans, and all the statistics show that carnists, relative to vegans, develop cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases at a higher rate. Carnism literally kills you - because animal product as a 'food' source is carcinogenic to humans.

QuoteHumans are naturally omnivores.

Humans are herbivores. Atherosclerosis is a disease only herbivores can get - and they get it from consuming animal products. Humans get this disease, and they get it by eating animal products; therefore we are herbivores. Humans have been eating meat for way less of their evolutionary history than they were eating plant life for. We evolved as herbivores - our minds allowed us the intelligence to become faux opportunity eaters, but that's not what we evolved to be; we are not suited for carnism.

Going vegan is easy as fuck tbh. Our sick society conditions us to eat at least 3 times a day, and that a meal isn't complete without an animal food source. Both of these habits are detrimental to our health. I personally eat 2 vegan meals a day, and both in the span of the same 4 hours every day (intermittent fasting.)

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 05:48:02 AM
It is not unhealthy. One can get all their essential nutrients without animals as a food source. Also, vegan diet (or a vegetarian diet that is sufficiently close enough to being a vegan diet) is the only known way to reverse heart disease. Saturated fat, which animal products are rich in, are known to cause inflammation and heart disease in humans, and all the statistics show that carnists, relative to vegans, develop cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases at a higher rate. Carnism literally kills you - because animal product as a 'food' source is carcinogenic to humans.
Humans are herbivores. Atherosclerosis is a disease only herbivores can get - and they get it from consuming animal products. Humans get this disease, and they get it by eating animal products; therefore we are herbivores. Humans have been eating meat for way less of their evolutionary history than they were eating plant life for. We evolved as herbivores - our minds allowed us the intelligence to become faux opportunity eaters, but that's not what we evolved to be; we are not suited for carnism.

Going vegan is easy as fuck tbh. Our sick society conditions us to eat at least 3 times a day, and that a meal isn't complete without an animal food source. Both of these habits are detrimental to our health. I personally eat 2 vegan meals a day, and both in the span of the same 4 hours every day (intermittent fasting.)

What we have here is a denial of our evolution and overall health. 

1.  Humans are NOT herbivores.  If we were, we would look like cows or gorillas.
2.  Our bodies are not built for an herbivore diet.  Our guts are too small and our intestines too short.
3.  There are  some essential minerals and vitamins that Vegans need supplements for.
4.  Among those are proteins, iron, zinc, calcium, B-12 (which does not exist naturally in any non-animal forms) Vitamin D, and Omega-3 fatty acids.
5.  Our complex brains were evolved partially in response to the acquisition on meat, and furthered by cooking it before consumption.

We are omnivorish "enough" that people can survive without eating meat so long as they get supplements for what they lack by eating meat.

And that is not to say I regard a "carnivorish" diet to be healthy either.  I would make some of the same arguments to a true human carnivore, and an long-time friend was one.  He considered the onion and pickle on his usual hamburgers "his veggies" (and he rarely ate much of the bun).  And he he a nearly constant problem with nearly fainting if he didn't eat every couple of hours.  What HE lacked was slow-released carbs.  It took me almost 2 decades to get him to understand that I could go about my life to hard work eating only 2-3 meals a day because actual vegetables (as opposed to a pickle on a hamburger) were longer-lasting sources of energy.  Eventually, he learned to eat raw broccoli florets, raw asparagus. and (later) chinese restaurant meals and he admitted his health was much better.

Some I'm not "for" either diet, just recognize that neither extreme is totally right.  Both extremes lack things we need.  As in politics, extremism is never good.

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 06:26:49 AM
There are  some essential minerals and vitamins that Vegans need supplements for.

Nope:

QuoteAmong those are proteins, iron, zinc, calcium, B-12 (which does not exist naturally in any non-animal forms) Vitamin D, and Omega-3 fatty acids.

Out of all of those, b12 and vit d are the only thing that a vegan diet is at risk for being deficient in. If a vegan becomes deficient in anything other than these then they are retarded because non-animal food sources readily provide everything else we need - people just need to educate themselves to find out what food sources contain what - shouldn't take longer than half an hour on the internet. (By the way both b12 and vit d deficiency are among the most common deficiencies in people - period - carnists and vegans alike.) Your contention that b12 exists naturally only in animals is false. Microorganisms, primarily bacteria, are the only known organisms that manufacture b12. The animals and their products (eggs, dairy) you eat which have b12 in are added artificially. It used to be humans derived b12 from the water they drank. We drink treated water now, and so do factory-farmed animals - which also need b12 - and so the meat and dairy industry supplement the animals.

Because vegans don't consume supplemented animal flesh, eggs, or dairy; dairy alternatives to a large degree supplement their products. For example virtually all dairy-free milks (almond milk, soy milk, coconut milk, ect.) have vitamin d and b12 added. Vegans do not need to supplement these things.

Veganism, if done properly, is fundamentally healthier than the best possible form of carnism, because animal food sources are literally carcinogenic to humans.

it is also ethically superior and environmentally superior.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 06:41:20 AM
Nope:
Out of all of those, b12 and vit d are the only thing that a vegan diet is at risk for being deficient in. If a vegan becomes deficient in anything other than these then they are retarded because non-animal food sources readily provide everything else we need - people just need to educate themselves to find out what food sources contain what - shouldn't take longer than half an hour on the internet. (By the way both b12 and vit d deficiency are among the most common deficiencies in people - period - carnists and vegans alike.) Your contention that b12 exists naturally only in animals is false. Microorganisms, primarily bacteria, are the only known organisms that manufacture b12. The animals and their products (eggs, dairy) you eat which have b12 in are added artificially. It used to be humans derived b12 from the water they drank. We drink treated water now, and so do factory-farmed animals - which also need b12 - and so the meat and dairy industry supplement the animals.

Because vegans don't consume supplemented animal flesh, eggs, or dairy; dairy alternatives to a large degree supplement their products. For example virtually all dairy-free milks (almond milk, soy milk, coconut milk, ect.) have vitamin d and b12 added. Vegans do not need to supplement these things.

Veganism, if done properly, is fundamentally healthier than the best possible form of carnism, because animal food sources are literally carcinogenic to humans.

it is also ethically superior and environmentally superior.

I checked some vegan sites for this: 

"Vegans have more dietary restrictions than vegetarians. In addition to not consuming meat, vegans do not eat any animal products. Thus, getting adequate amounts of B12 can be extremely difficult for vegans. Beneficial bacteria in your gut synthesizes vitamin B12, but it is not readily absorbed. Similarly, some believe that eating fermented foods provides sufficient amounts of B12, but science has not proven this. However, some vegan cereals contain 100% of the daily value for vitamin B12."

Where do you think they got the B-12 from?

LOL!

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 01:43:19 AM
Better more modern measurements have resulted in better more accurate predictions.

We can hope.  Please take that to Vegas, and see how much money you make ;-)

I can flip a coin, and it almost never lands on edge.  I can measure that with an electron microscope, but my betting wins aren't any better.  Accuracy in prediction doesn't overcome randomness that is already there.

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 01:51:51 AM
I agree.  And I think we can discuss this on larger terms.  Let's say I am thinking of replacing my 2005 Toyota Highlander that gets 18 MPG.  But I only drive 2,000 miles per year.  How much is buying a Chevy Bolt going to help the planet?  At 2,000 miles per year, it doesn't matter much.  And I recycle everything possible, compost anything that can be composted, and have LED lights I leave off in the house whenever possible.  Maybe that makes up for it.

But maybe the larger issues matter a lot more.  And perhaps you are better-prepared to address that.

Commissar for transportation ... Comrade, you have too many vehicles.  You are not party official.  You shouldn't have dacha.  Give now to Party please.

Yes, at least some people are plants, not animals.  Didn't you see the miniseries ... Roots ;-)

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 06:54:03 AM
I checked some vegan sites for this: 

"Vegans have more dietary restrictions than vegetarians. In addition to not consuming meat, vegans do not eat any animal products. Thus, getting adequate amounts of B12 can be extremely difficult for vegans. Beneficial bacteria in your gut synthesizes vitamin B12, but it is not readily absorbed. Similarly, some believe that eating fermented foods provides sufficient amounts of B12, but science has not proven this. However, some vegan cereals contain 100% of the daily value for vitamin B12."

Where do you think they got the B-12 from?

LOL!

I *know* that some vegans get their b12 from supplemented food sources, and other vegans just supplement it directly. Same with literally any human who isn't getting it from stream water.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 07:24:59 AM
I *know* that some vegans get their b12 from supplemented food sources, and other vegans just supplement it directly. Same with literally any human who isn't getting it from stream water.

Life is more difficult to manage at the molecular level, but it can be done.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 07:24:59 AM
I *know* that some vegans get their b12 from supplemented food sources, and other vegans just supplement it directly. Same with literally any human who isn't getting it from stream water.

You are evading.  Not from "stream water".  Be honest.  Where do you think the B-12 comes from?

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 08:58:08 AM
You are evading.  Not from "stream water".  Be honest.  Where do you think the B-12 comes from?

(https://i.warosu.org/data/biz/img/0066/54/1516304545364.png)

In the previous page I told you where B12 comes from. It comes from bacteria. Humans in the first world for the most part do not get their B12 from stream water, anymore, like they - and every other animal - had done for all of their evolutionary history. Instead they drink treated water which does not have B12 in it, so they get their B12 now from either supplements, directly, or food sources which have themselves been supplemented.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 09:13:42 AM
(https://i.warosu.org/data/biz/img/0066/54/1516304545364.png)

In the previous page I told you where B12 comes from. It comes from bacteria. Humans in the first world for the most part do not get their B12 from stream water, anymore, like they - and every other animal - had done for all of their evolutionary history. Instead they drink treated water which does not have B12 in it, so they get their B12 now from either supplements, directly, or food sources which have themselves been supplemented.

Ah you are against treated water!  Took me a bit to figure that out.  Wikipedia says that B-12 comes from Animals, Plants Fungi, Microbials, fortified foods, and supplements.  Sadly for you, B-12 is not absorbed in the small intestines.  The good news is that rabbits produce B-12 in their feces.  Feel free to eat all the rabbit feces you want.  I sure won't stop you!

The B-12 you get from drinking untreated water is not available to you because it only gets processed in the large intestines and GUESS WHAT?  Humans can't absorb it from there!

In return for drinking untreated water, (which you recommend for Vegans) you can get Pernicious Anemia, Cholera, Campylobacteriosis, Amoebiasis, Cryptosporidiosis, Typoid Fever, Gastric Flu, Shigellosis, Giardiasis, Hepatitis A, SARS, Adenovirus Infection,  and E.Coli Infection.  Again, please feel free to drink untreated water in order to get a small amount of B-12.

But please stop recommending it to others.  You may cause some deaths...

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 09:40:14 AM
Ah you are against treated water!  Took me a bit to figure that out.

You didn't figure anything out. I'm not against treated water.

 

QuoteWikipedia says that B-12 comes from Animals, Plants Fungi, Microbials, fortified foods, and supplements.  Sadly for you, B-12 is not absorbed in the small intestines.  The good news is that rabbits produce B-12 in their feces.  Feel free to eat all the rabbit feces you want.  I sure won't stop you!

B12 is produced naturally only by bacteria. It is found in other things only when those things have been fortified artificially with it - intentionally, by humans.

QuoteThe B-12 you get from drinking untreated water is not available to you because it only gets processed in the large intestines and GUESS WHAT?  Humans can't absorb it from there!

False.

QuoteIn return for drinking untreated water, (which you recommend for Vegans) you can get Pernicious Anemia, Cholera, Campylobacteriosis, Amoebiasis, Cryptosporidiosis, Typoid Fever, Gastric Flu, Shigellosis, Giardiasis, Hepatitis A, SARS, Adenovirus Infection,  and E.Coli Infection.  Again, please feel free to drink untreated water in order to get a small amount of B-12.

But please stop recommending it to others.  You may cause some deaths...

I've never recommended it in my life.

(https://i.imgur.com/vO7lRZ7h.jpg)

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 09:50:16 AM
You didn't figure anything out. I'm not against treated water.

  B12 is produced naturally only by bacteria. It is found in other things only when those things have been fortified artificially with it - intentionally, by humans.
False.

I've never recommended it in my life.

You posted "Same with literally any human who isn't getting it from stream water."

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 09:55:28 AM
You posted "Same with literally any human who isn't getting it from stream water."

Yes.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 10:05:39 AM
Yes.

So, then why aren't you agreeing with me? I'm not looking for some admission of failure or incorrectness.  Just getting to an agreement about one particular subject in one spot in the universe would be worth all the damn typing!

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 10:32:14 AM
So, then why aren't you agreeing with me? I'm not looking for some admission of failure or incorrectness.  Just getting to an agreement about one particular subject in one spot in the universe would be worth all the damn typing!

I'm not agreeing with your contention that I advise people to drink untreated water, or that I hate treated water/

I'm agreeing with your contention that I said people used to get their b12 from untreated water.

If in your mind you cannot rectify how one can simultaneously disagree with the former but agree with the latter then I'm going to have to post another retard.png, buddy.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 01:48:16 AM
In the world of arguments there is no authority. There are good arguments and there are bad arguments - and the arbitrary accolades of the makers of these arguments is non-influential on the goodness or badness of the arguments themselves.

No. If you want to claim to be an authority, you need to have credentials to justify that authority. You wouldn't call a pastor an authority on the Big Bang, would you? While pastors love to talk like they know everything they need to know about the Big Bang, physicists are the ones who have authority in that subject. A pastor operates on false assumptions and a lack of knowledge, while a physicist has devoted years of his life to the study of the aspect of the universe that concerns the Big Bang. Likewise, if you want to convince me against that something that is near universally accepted as true by experts, such as climate change, you'd better have the credentials to back up your claims.

Quote from: Blackleaf on May 09, 2018, 11:05:34 AM
No. If you want to claim to be an authority, you need to have credentials to justify that authority.

This has no relation to what I said.

QuoteLikewise, if you want to convince me against that something that is near universally accepted as true by experts, such as climate change, you'd better have the credentials to back up your claims.

You just defined ideological possession. Good arguments are good regardless of who they come from. *You* look to the argument makers character - their ideology - before considering their argument. You listen only to people who you already agree with. Ideological possession. It's not something to be proud of.

Quoteyou'd better have the credentials to back up your claims.

Credentials don't back up claims. Evidence and argumentation do.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 10:36:32 AM
I'm not agreeing with your contention that I advise people to drink untreated water, or that I hate treated water/

I'm agreeing with your contention that I said people used to get their b12 from untreated water.

If in your mind you cannot rectify how one can simultaneously disagree with the former but agree with the latter then I'm going to have to post another retard.png, buddy.

So why was it "Same with literally any human who isn't getting it from stream water" and not "Same with literally any human who WERN'T getting it from stream water"?  As a past tense.  You can't dodge this forever.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 11:19:33 AM
This has no relation to what I said.
You just defined ideological possession. Good arguments are good regardless of who they come from. You look to the argument makers character - their ideology - before considering their argument. You listen only to people who you already agree with. Ideological possession. It's not something to be proud of.
Credentials don't back up claims. Evidence and argumentation do.

You made claims as if from authority.  OK, so you don't have credentials about B-12 coming from untreated water.  But now claim "Evidence and argumentation do".  What is your "evidence and argumentation"?

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 11:19:33 AM
This has no relation to what I said.

"In the world of arguments there is no authority."

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 11:19:33 AMYou just defined ideological possession. Good arguments are good regardless of who they come from. *You* look to the argument makers character - their ideology - before considering their argument. You listen only to people who you already agree with. Ideological possession. It's not something to be proud of.
Credentials don't back up claims. Evidence and argumentation do.

Sorry, but science can't be countered with arguments from self-appointed experts. Evolution didn't become a theory because some people got together and made some really good arguments for it. It became a theory because of objective verifiable evidence. And no, I do not only listen to people I already agree with. I gave that up when I stopped being a Christian. I listen to people who know what they're talking about. "Character" has nothing to do with this.

Quote from: Blackleaf on May 09, 2018, 11:39:32 AM
"In the world of arguments there is no authority."

Sorry, but science can't be countered with arguments from self-appointed experts. Evolution didn't become a theory because some people got together and made some really good arguments for it. It became a theory because of objective verifiable evidence. And no, I do not only listen to people I already agree with. I gave that up when I stopped being a Christian. I listen to people who know what they're talking about. "Character" has nothing to do with this.

You've... gotten better at posting, if I may be allowed to offer a compliment!

Quote from: Blackleaf on May 09, 2018, 11:39:32 AM
"In the world of arguments there is no authority."

"If you want to claim to be an authority, you need to have credentials to justify that authority."

In what way is your statement relevant? I never said anything about claims to authority, yet that is the sole subject of your statement. No relation, bud.

QuoteSorry, but science can't be countered with arguments from self-appointed experts. Evolution didn't become a theory because some people got together and made some really good arguments for it. It became a theory because of objective verifiable evidence.

You seem to think arguments and verifiable instances are necessarily separate things. Rather the latter informs the former, which then creates a theory. A theory is a description of reality. Verifiable evidence is the reality itself, and argumentation connects the two.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 11:50:53 AM
"If you want to claim to be an authority, you need to have credentials to justify that authority."

In what way is your statement relevant? I never said anything about claims to authority, yet that is the sole subject of your statement. No relation, bud.
You seem to think arguments and verifiable instances are necessarily separate things. Rather the latter informs the former, which then creates a theory. A theory is a description of reality. Verifiable evidence is the reality itself, and argumentation connects the two.

Well, to be be technical about it, there are first, suppositions to be tested, then experiments and observation to test the supposition, then if the tests support the supposition it may become a hypothesis.  And if other people test the hypothesis and find similar results, it may be accepted as a theory.  If it can be mathematically demonstrated over time, it may become a law. 

I always crack up when some detective says "my theory is"...

Expounding on my previous post:

For example:

(Mutations between offspring and progenitor naturally occur.) < This is a description of an observation of reality.
(A white bear born among brown bears - a genetic mutation - is more likely to survive in a snowy climate.) < This is a description of an observation of reality.

(Mutations between offspring and progenitor naturally occur.
A white bear born among brown bears - a genetic mutation - is more likely to survive in a snowy climate.                   
Therefore mutations can cause preferable attributes, which will allow the mutation a higher likelihood of being passed down to another generation.)

^The above is an argument.

Evolution is a theory, supported by the above argument, with is itself informed in verifiable instances of reality.

Arguments can, have, and do dispute theories. The scientific method itself is literally a model of argumentation.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 12:04:29 PM
Expounding on my previous post:

For example:

(Mutations between offspring and progenitor naturally occur.) < This is a description of an observation of reality.
(A white bear born among brown bears - a genetic mutation - is more likely to survive in a snowy climate.) < This is a description of an observation of reality.

(Mutations between offspring and progenitor naturally occur.
A white bear born among brown bears - a genetic mutation - is more likely to survive in a snowy climate.                   
Therefore mutations can cause preferable attributes, which will allow the mutation a higher likelihood of being passed down to another generation.)

^The above is an argument.

Evolution is a theory, supported by the above argument, with is itself informed in verifiable instances of reality.

Arguments can, have, and do dispute theories. The scientific method itself is literally a model of argumentation.

Did you think I was going to disagree with the obvious?  That's practically "my bread and butter" as they say.

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 12:11:21 PM
Did you think I was going to disagree with the obvious?  That's practically "my bread and butter" as they say.

I'm contesting blackleafs erroneous idea that science can't be countered with arguments.

In following the scientific method, one literally is constructing an argument, where the hypothesis is the conclusion and every experiment informing the hypothesis' truth value is a premise.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 12:15:55 PM
I'm contesting blackleafs erroneous idea that science can't be countered with arguments.

You left off the last part of his quote and that it something I'm going to rip you for!  His quote was actually "science can't be countered with arguments from self-appointed experts".  You quoted only a portion, and THAT is the sign of a falsificating mind.  That has no reason to exist here.  Anyone who tries to change the meaning of a persons quote should be immediately castigated, cast out, and banned.

So, would you like to add a post (acknowledging your CRIME against the forum) or just be considered trash?

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 12:24:01 PM
You left off the last part of his quote and that it something I'm going to rip you for!  His quote was actually "science can't be countered with arguments from self-appointed experts".  You quoted only a portion, and THAT is the sign of a falsificating mind.  That has no reason to exist here.  Anyone who tries to change the meaning of a persons quote should be immediately castigated, cast out, and banned.

So, would you like to add a post (acknowledging your CRIME against the forum) or just be considered trash?

I cut it out because surprisingly it makes his statement even more erroneous and because even if included, my argument need not change to account for it.

I mean, we all know an argument stands on its own merits alone, and not on the character of its maker. Right?

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 12:34:34 PM
I cut it out because surprisingly it makes his statement even more erroneous and because even if included, my argument need not change to account for it.

I'm not surprised you are incapable of admitting error in even the most obvious and provable ways.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 12:36:45 PM
I mean, we all know an argument stands on its own merits alone, and not on the character of its maker. Right?

Never, ever, ever cut out a part of someone's quote jJUST because it makes your argument seem better!  Do you understand that?

You can when it goes on forever or doesn't change the meaning,  But not for a post advantage.

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 12:48:55 PM
I'm not surprised you are incapable of admitting error in even the most obvious and provable ways.

We're having a discourse. You know when two normal people disagree on something and then have a back-and-forth about it? Each in turn attempting to falsify the most previous points forwarded by the other? That's argumentation.

Then there's retards who do stupid things like define their opponents argument as an inability to accept that they're wrong. It's literally formatted like, "You forwarded a counter-argument therefore you are unable to accept being wrong."

90% chance you don't even comprehend what I'm saying here but instead somehow interpret it as me making pains to explain what argumentation is or something.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/307/431/d04.png)

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 12:56:47 PM
We're having a discourse. You know when two normal people disagree on something and then have a back-and-forth about it? Each in turn attempting to falsify the most previous points forwarded by the other? That's argumentation.

Then there's retards who do stupid things like define their opponents argument as an inability to accept that they're wrong. It's literally formatted like, "You forwarded a counter-argument therefore you are unable to accept being wrong."

90% you don't even comprehend what I'm saying here but instead somehow interpret it as me making pains to explain what argumentation is or something.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/307/431/d04.png)

We aren't having a "discourse",  You said one thing in a previous post and denied it afterwards.

And, BTW, what you are suggesting "falsify the most previous points forwarded by the other", isn't something I do.  It is something "win at all cost" unethical "debaters for the sake of debate" people do.  I'm not here to win some election any way I can.  I'm here to slowly grind the truth out of people like you one fact at a time until you are exposed as a false-arguer.  I'm relentless like that.  You will speak what you actually think eventually.

Or you will give up making bad arguments and leave.  Either is fine with me.

(https://img.fireden.net/v/image/1506/93/1506930536542.jpg)

"ur r a false arguer"

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 01:45:55 PM
(https://img.fireden.net/v/image/1506/93/1506930536542.jpg)

"ur r a false arguer"

Was that an accusation, a claim, or just another Trumpian "I'm not but you are" playground argument? 

Damn ... all out of popcorn!

A common argument used by deniers is that the Earth's warming we are now experiencing is something that has always happened.  And indeed, extreme changes in the Earth's climate have been calculated by science, and theories of a cyclical nature have been advanced by scientists.  Deniers say, "Therefore, warming or cooling is going to happen with or without man."  That part of their argument is factual and supported by the geologic record in the Earth's crust.  But in order to justify a strategy of 'take no action,' they then abandon the environmental argument at mid point and claim that therefore, man's atmospheric pollution has no effect. <think about the logic of that> 

By picking and choosing scientific predictions according to their degrees of convenience and ignoring the parts of physics and chemistry that are inconvenient, they conclude that man caused climate change is harmless because it simply mimics natural change.  Hence "There is nothing to see here, Folks.  Please move on."  What they leave out of their pseudo factual reasoning is that man caused change does not take the place of natural change.  It's added to the natural effects (which are anything but desirable in the first place) and compounding what we don't want to happen anyway. 

And on top of that, deniers act like man's brief stay on Earth is probably just a week or two less than the age of the Earth anyway, and man has lived through all the extremes the Earth has ever gone through, while coming out of all that this smelling like a rose.  "So what's the problem?"

Quote from: SGOS on May 10, 2018, 07:21:25 AM
A common argument used by deniers is that the Earth's warming we are now experiencing is something that has always happened.  And indeed, extreme changes in the Earth's climate have been calculated by science, and theories of a cyclical nature have been advanced by scientists.  Deniers say, "Therefore, warming or cooling is going to happen with or without man."  That part of their argument is factual and supported by the geologic record in the Earth's crust.  But in order to justify a strategy of 'take no action,' they then abandon the environmental argument at mid point and claim that therefore, man's atmospheric pollution has no effect. <think about the logic of that> 

By picking and choosing scientific predictions according to their degrees of convenience and ignoring the parts of physics and chemistry that are inconvenient, they conclude that man caused climate change is harmless because it simply mimics natural change.  Hence "There is nothing to see here, Folks.  Please move on."  What they leave out of their pseudo factual reasoning is that man caused change does not take the place of natural change.  It's added to the natural effects (which are anything but desirable in the first place) and compounding what we don't want to happen anyway. 

And on top of that, deniers act like man's brief stay on Earth is probably just a week or two less than the age of the Earth anyway, and man has lived through all the extremes the Earth has ever gone through, while coming out of all that this smelling like a rose.  "So what's the problem?"

Denying bad news is normal human psychology.  Are you abnormal?

Yes, a major climate swing would be no picnic.  But at least we can eat all the socialists.

Quote from: Baruch on May 10, 2018, 07:23:14 AM
Denying bad news is normal human psychology.  Are you abnormal?

Actually, I find solace in bellowing doom and gloom, which also ranks high in "normal" human psychology.  And the deniers can point their fingers at me, while they look forward to the end of mankind, where everyone but themselves are thrown into a burning lake of fire.  So doom/denial, they use both depending on whatever half thought they are having at the moment, and that's normal human psychology also.

This thread is only reinforcing my fear that once anthropogenic climate change has reached the point that even deniers can't deny it anymore, humanity's last chance to do something about it will be lost when the "intellectual" (I use the word advisedly) heirs of today's climate change deniers will waste what little time is left us, arguing about whose fault it is nothing got done rather than actually doing something.

The risk analysis really is this obvious: if we follow the recommendations of the researchers and reduce our planetary carbon footprint, if we move to renewable and/or non-polluting power sources (and yes, that does include nuclear), and it turns out to have been a misinterpretation of the data, we're left with a cleaner sustainable world and the bonus of breaking the Middle East's outsized petroleum-based influence on the rest of the world.

If we follow the recommendations of deniers and do nothing and they prove wrong, billions die as the planet grows too warm to support the necessary agricultureâ€"and in the tropics, simply too warm for humans to live thereâ€"and the ice caps melt and flood coastal cities, and if it's a non-reversible process and just keeps getting hotter, we go extinct.

I know on which option I'll place my bet.

It completely baffles me as to why people were absolutely fine with banning CFC's because of the problem with the ozone layer, but absolutely refuse to use energy efficient products to reduce other pollutants in the atmosphere.

Quote from: Jason78 on May 10, 2018, 01:31:54 PM
It completely baffles me as to why people were absolutely fine with banning CFC's because of the problem with the ozone layer, but absolutely refuse to use energy efficient products to reduce other pollutants in the atmosphere.

Especially since the CFC ban demonstrated that collective action on the environment works: the ozone hole is on its way to closing up (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/antarctic-ozone-hole-healing-fingerprints/).

Quote from: Jason78 on May 10, 2018, 01:31:54 PM
It completely baffles me as to why people were absolutely fine with banning CFC's because of the problem with the ozone layer, but absolutely refuse to use energy efficient products to reduce other pollutants in the atmosphere.

We are dicks.  Governments are committees of dicks.  We can reduce shit by killing the people who make it.

Quote from: trdsf on May 10, 2018, 01:36:24 PM
Especially since the CFC ban demonstrated that collective action on the environment works: the ozone hole is on its way to closing up (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/antarctic-ozone-hole-healing-fingerprints/).

Communism works ... police state works ... tyranny works ... but the physics doesn't matter, the only reason for humans doing anything, is to score political points, and become dictator .. in order to maximize death.  We are Highlander, only one will see the end ... keep your katana sharp!

Or more recently Game of Thrones or Thanos ... that is it.  You are what you anime.  You all want to be Thanos.  Destroying the Earth isn't enough, must destroy the multiverse ...

Oppenheimer - "I am become death, the shatterer of worlds".  I know about this, been there done that.

Quote from: pr126 on May 08, 2018, 08:57:38 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEYuYCKv5Vo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0

CAPS LOCK is cruise control for TEH SMaRTz.

Quote from: Baruch on May 10, 2018, 05:15:19 PM
We are dicks.  Governments are committees of dicks.  We can reduce shit by killing the people who make it.

How about;  We stop being dicks?  Can we try that?

Well, Baruch probably thinks there are only dicks, pussies and assholes, as per Team America, so the alternatives aren't much better.

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 11, 2018, 01:41:12 PM
Well, Baruch probably thinks there are only dicks, pussies and assholes, as per Team America, so the alternatives aren't much better.

It isn't turtles all the way down, it is monkeys "Barrel of Monkeys", the fake color of the plastic monkeys aren't meant to "trigger" any sensitive liberals.

https://www.axios.com/what-liberals-get-wrong-about-climate-change-1513304923-7409357f-2200-4853-ada8-be27868d2b6e.html

Also recent study shows that liberals are less likely to do anything personal about their environmental concerns (not that anyone does much anyway).

Quote from: Jason78 on May 11, 2018, 01:20:27 PM
How about;  We stop being dicks?  Can we try that?

I wish.  Feminists are working on that ... true artificial insemination, then no need for men.  A lesbian paradise.

Quote from: Baruch on May 11, 2018, 08:04:46 PM
I wish.  Feminists are working on that ... true artificial insemination, then no need for men.  A lesbian paradise.

Yup. Feminists are man-hating lesbians. You are so totally right.

Quote from: Mermaid on May 11, 2018, 08:08:49 PM
Yup. Feminists are man-hating lesbians. You are so totally right.

Not all women are man hating, but I can understand why they would.  I certainly don't like men that way, the way most women do ;-)  Feminists per French Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc ... Leftist all.

Quote from: Mermaid on May 11, 2018, 08:08:49 PM
Yup. Feminists are man-hating lesbians. You are so totally right.

You get so triggered every time somebody criticises feminism - and it's literally always the same shit when you do; a sarcastic paraphrase. Fastest way to tell if someone is below 90 IQ is if they employ the sarcastic paraphrase.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2018, 09:01:44 PM
You get so triggered every time somebody criticises feminism - and it's literally always the same shit when you do; a sarcastic paraphrase. Fastest way to tell if someone is below 90 IQ is if they employ the sarcastic paraphrase.

Perhaps a presumption of innocence of Feminism is reasonable here?  Not all women are Parisian fishwives intent on destroying society.  But in order to force every working woman to make the same salary as every working man, we all have to have the same salary, and that can only happen in a paradise like Venezuela.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2018, 09:01:44 PM
You get so triggered every time somebody criticises feminism - and it's literally always the same shit when you do; a sarcastic paraphrase. Fastest way to tell if someone is below 90 IQ is if they employ the sarcastic paraphrase.

Fastest way to tell if someone has an IQ below 90 is to give them an IQ test. Frequent use of the ad hominem fallacy doesn't help one's case, however, and you're way off base here.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2018, 09:01:44 PM
You get so triggered every time somebody criticises feminism - and it's literally always the same shit when you do; a sarcastic paraphrase. Fastest way to tell if someone is below 90 IQ is if they employ the sarcastic paraphrase.

No, you're wrong. My IQ is 91.
It's not criticism that pisses me off, it's complete lies.

Quote from: Blackleaf on May 12, 2018, 11:21:57 AM
Fastest way to tell if someone has an IQ below 90 is to give them an IQ test. Frequent use of the ad hominem fallacy doesn't help one's case, however, and you're way off base here.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/01/8e/aa/018eaa147a59f7c692a00db9db007adf.jpg)

Republican congressman explains sea-level rise: it's rocks falling into the sea (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/17/republican-congressman-mo-brooks-sea-level-rise-rocks)

QuoteA member of Congress has suggested that the White Cliffs of Dover tumbling into the English Channel was causing rising sea levels.

Republican Mo Brooks of Alabama pushed back at the notion that rising sea levels were the result of global warming in a hearing of the House Science, Space and Technology on Wednesday.

Instead, Brooks pointed to silt deposition as well as erosion as a cause of rising sea levels. Questioning scientist Phil Duffy of the Woods Hole Research Center, Brooks postulated that silt and mud washed by rivers into the ocean caused water levels to rise as it settled on the sea floor. “Now you have got less space in those oceans because the bottom is moving up,” he said.

He went on: “What about the White Cliffs of Dover … [and] California, where you have the waves crashing against the shorelines, and time and time again you have the cliffs crashing into the sea? All of that displaces water which forces it to rise, does it not?”

Duffy answered: “I’m pretty sure on human timescales, those are minuscule effects.”

The questioning went on as Brooks argued the Antarctic ice sheet was actually growing. A recent study reported that the ice sheet had shrunk by 1,463km from 2010 to 2016.

Duffy disagreed, noting that “we have satellite records clearly documenting a shrinkage of the Antarctic ice sheet and an acceleration of that shrinkage”, citing “the National Snow and Ice Data Center and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration” for his data.

However, Brooks insisted: “Well, I’ve got a Nasa base in my district, and apparently, they’re telling you one thing and me a different thing.”

Brooks said: “There are plenty of studies that have come that show with respect to Antarctica that the total ice sheet, particularly that above land, is increasing, not decreasing. Now, you could make a different argument if you want to talk about Greenland or the Arctic.”

Brooks, a graduate of Duke University and University of Alabama School of Law, was first elected to Congress in 2010 from his North Alabama district. In 2017, he mounted an unsuccessful bid for the US Senate vacated by attorney general Jeff Sessions. Brooks finished third in the Republican primary behind the eventual nominee Roy Moore as well as appointed incumbent Luther Strange.

This would be funny if it weren't so damned serious.

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 17, 2018, 07:35:55 PM
Republican congressman explains sea-level rise: it's rocks falling into the sea (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/17/republican-congressman-mo-brooks-sea-level-rise-rocks)




This would be funny if it weren't so damned serious.

Let's test this theory by throwing Congress into the sea.

First thing man needs to do is stop flushing his toilet.  Every time you flush, it creates water that eventually finds its way to the sea.  With over 5 billion people flushing their toilet 10 times a day, we are adding too much water to the Earth, along with a whole lot of disgusting waste that ends up bobbing around and washing up on the beach.

People in Asia flush their toilets mostly during day.  When Asians go to sleep, then America starts flushing.  This is what causes the tides.  Everyone should study oceanography and learn.

QuoteHe went on: “What about the White Cliffs of Dover … [and] California, where you have the waves crashing against the shorelines, and time and time again you have the cliffs crashing into the sea? All of that displaces water which forces it to rise, does it not?”

I'm curious to know how he thinks volcanoes work.

QuoteBrooks said: “There are plenty of studies that have come that show with respect to Antarctica that the total ice sheet, particularly that above land, is increasing, not decreasing. Now, you could make a different argument if you want to talk about Greenland or the Arctic.”

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

Brooks is my congressional rep. I can assure you he is really a lot worse than you think he is.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on May 18, 2018, 06:43:00 AM
Brooks is my congressional rep. I can assure you he is really a lot worse than you think he is.

Democracy = if your party or rep suck, it is because you and the other voters suck.

Quote from: Baruch on May 18, 2018, 06:49:28 AM
Democracy = if your party or rep suck, it is because you and the other voters suck.

Probably, but it at least this area helped keep Roy Moore out of the Senate...

(https://emsnews.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/screen-shot-2017-12-13-at-6-43-46-am.png)

We are the little blue island at the top.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on May 18, 2018, 06:43:00 AM
Brooks is my congressional rep. I can assure you he is really a lot worse than you think he is.

I see two possibilities here:

First, is that he is smarter than his constituency and doesn't really believe that, but is just playing to the crowd.  This is possible because we know that all politicians lie, some much more blatantly than others.

Second, is that he is stupid or a moron.  Ocean silting isn't even part of the standard talking points of the deniers, so he must have come up with this on it's own.  It's so stupid, that even the majority of stupid people would think it was stupid.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on May 18, 2018, 07:05:13 AM
Probably, but it at least this area helped keep Roy Moore out of the Senate...

(https://emsnews.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/screen-shot-2017-12-13-at-6-43-46-am.png)

We are the little blue island at the top.

Not good to provide an electoral map, so Putin, buddy of Trump, knows where to drop the Russian nukes ;-)

Well Roy Moore seemed to be a loser, and confirmed it on election day.  Unfortunately one of the damn candidates will win.  Two bad both can't lose to "none of the above".  Congress has a 10% approval rating, if it were Parliament, we could have a public vote of no confidence, and shit can all the incumbents.

Quote from: SGOS on May 18, 2018, 08:43:48 AM
I see two possibilities here:

First, is that he is smarter than his constituency and doesn't really believe that, but is just playing to the crowd.  This is possible because we know that all politicians lie, some much more blatantly than others.

Second, is that he is stupid or a moron.  Ocean silting isn't even part of the standard talking points of the deniers, so he must have come up with this on it's own.  It's so stupid, that even the majority of stupid people would think it was stupid.

He might as well blame sea-level rise on all the boats in the water that displace the sea, causing it to rise.

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 18, 2018, 01:23:24 PM
He might as well blame sea-level rise on all the boats in the water that displace the sea, causing it to rise.

Or propose a sponge-breeding program to suck up any excess water if it does rise.

Climate change denial puts few arguments out that are even half way plausible.  This one was probably near the top of the list of stupid arguments.

Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2018, 03:36:29 PM
Or propose a sponge-breeding program to suck up any excess water if it does rise.

Don't invite Congressmen to breed!

Quote from: SGOS on May 18, 2018, 08:43:48 AM
I see two possibilities here:

First, is that he is smarter than his constituency and doesn't really believe that, but is just playing to the crowd.  This is possible because we know that all politicians lie, some much more blatantly than others.

Second, is that he is stupid or a moron.  Ocean silting isn't even part of the standard talking points of the deniers, so he must have come up with this on it's own.  It's so stupid, that even the majority of stupid people would think it was stupid.

I really liked that "even the majority of stupid people would think it was stupid."  That takes a heap of "stupid" but I think you are right.

Quote from: Baruch on May 18, 2018, 06:22:21 PM
Don't invite Congressmen to breed!

Don't invite Congressmen to breathe.

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 19, 2018, 02:10:35 PM
Don't invite Congressmen to breathe.

I'm irresistably reminded of the late great Linda Smith's comment about not giving some British political figure (I think it was Jeffrey Archer) "the oxygen of publicity": "I'm not that happy with him having the oxygen of oxygen, actually."

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 19, 2018, 02:10:35 PM
Don't invite Congressmen to breathe.

Well, what would we do without a Kennedy in office.  The liberals would feel cheated of the name and the conservatives would have to focus on a Clinton.  Oh, wait...

Oh oh, if you mention a Kennedy Baruch'll be compelled to mention Chappaquiddick.



Wow, I actually spelled it right first try! ;-)

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 19, 2018, 05:15:38 PM
Oh oh, if you mention a Kennedy Baruch'll be compelled to mention Chappaquiddick.



Wow, I actually spelled it right first try! ;-)

First try?  Ya gotta be kidding me.  I can't even type Burach's name on the first try... 

OK, read this, close the post, type this into word [HEY, NO COPYING]
into any program by memory...

Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

Quote from: Cavebear on May 19, 2018, 05:23:40 PM
First try?  Ya gotta be kidding me.  I can't even type Burach's name on the first try... 

OK, read this, close the post, type this into word [HEY, NO COPYING]
into any program by memory...

Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

Is that near Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwlll­lantysiliogogogoch?

Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2018, 07:14:27 PM
Is that near Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwlll­lantysiliogogogoch?

Yes

Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2018, 07:14:27 PM
Is that near Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwlll­lantysiliogogogoch?

About 3,000 miles apart and thank the vowels for the difference.  Yours is in Wales and mine is in Massachusetts, US.