The most important thing for you to protect

Toloni wrote:
Please name one or more important things that you wish to protect for climate chenge : ex, ecosystems, science, pancakes, etc

Toloni wrote:
Well there are quite a few problems:
1. Warmer temperatures would brake and destroy ecosystems (remember we're part of most ecosystems) so we would have to keep these animal alive in some costu way to stay alive ourselves.

Toloni wrote:
2. When temperature rise some places won't be able to hold life anymore and people will migrate.

Toloni wrote:
It could be because of higher temperatures or because the water level rises (higher temperature melt more ice)

Toloni wrote:
so beware if you live near the Equator or near a sea or Ocean.

Toloni wrote:
3. It's important to be able to control ourselves and preserve our planet for future evolution on Mars or maybe Venus.

Toloni wrote:
This could help us learn essential skills as there isn't petrol on other planets so we have to learn.

Toloni wrote:
4. By acting now your are saving humanity from the greatest genocide ever. If we don't act people are going to die, me included. I am young and I know this is a fight for my survival.

Toloni wrote:
I hope you understand the meaning of this fight and will join the movement to save billion of lives.

Toloni wrote:
If I was unclear or you need further explanation feel free to ask.

Into the Night wrote :No, warmer temperatures are actually desirable. There is a reason most people live in warmer temperatures and not at the poles.

Into the Night wrote :Probably towards warmer temperatures. If there is water, food, and warmth, people will live there.

Into the Night wrote :Most ice is floating. It won't raise the sea level one iota if it melts. The stuff on land isn't enough to raise sea levels much. It really comes down to the ratio of land based ice to the total volume of the worlds oceans, and the amount of land based ice that actually MAKES it to the oceans (instead of just soaking into the soil).

Into the Night wrote :We really couldn't destroy our planet even if we wanted to. We simply don't have that kind of power.

Into the Night wrote :Rocket fuel isn't petrol anyway, but yes...petrol (oil or methane) exists on other planets.

Into the Night wrote :Pascal's Wager fallacy.

Into the Night wrote :You are not saving anything. Prohibiting the use of carbon based fuels will kill billions, not save them.

Into the Night wrote :Nah. The 'explanations' are quite clear. It's the usual doom and gloom predictions from the Church of Global Warming.

Toloni wrote:
Thank you for debating with me.

Now if you'll excuse my spelling mistakes we'll focus on the matter at hand:

Into the Night wrote :No, warmer temperatures are actually desirable. There is a reason most people live in warmer temperatures and not at the poles.

I understand I too like warm temperatures but when temperature will rise up about a few degrees at the Equators it will be deadly. In Europe (which not particularly close to the Equator) a heat wave killed about 70.000 people so imagine it at the Equator it's just unlivable. I'm not so sure people will still like to live there.http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/06/20/heat-waves-2100/#.XHMaGqTTXYU

Into the Night wrote :Probably towards warmer temperatures. If there is water, food, and warmth, people will live there.

Yeah fair enough but if water evaporates due to heat, plants die because of drouts and people are turned into crisp well you see they will migrate up and up and up till they find themselves at the poles and there they will not be able to escape their terrible fate( unless they build a rocket and escape ( I'm allowed to like science fiction)).

Into the Night wrote :Most ice is floating. It won't raise the sea level one iota if it melts. The stuff on land isn't enough to raise sea levels much. It really comes down to the ratio of land based ice to the total volume of the worlds oceans, and the amount of land based ice that actually MAKES it to the oceans (instead of just soaking into the soil).

The problem is that not all I've is immerged under water and that ice is more compact than water.[img]https://goo.gl/images/1LkGnX[/img][img]https://goo.gl/images/BfjUqz[/img]
Also the reason why there are floods is because the soil can't soak up all of the icebergs near infinite supply of water so you get the idea there will be a rise in the sea level. There is supposed to be a rise of 1 m by the end of the century and as much as 2 billion refugees in total that even may be including you.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170626105746.htm

Into the Night wrote :We really couldn't destroy our planet even if we wanted to. We simply don't have that kind of power.

Sadly for us we can destroy our planet (here I'm talking as human and not a science fiction fan). I wouldn't have this debate with you if I didn't believe in climate change. By the way terraforming is possible on such planets it just takes a lot of time and if you say it's impossible we'll make it possible.

Into the Night wrote :Rocket fuel isn't petrol anyway, but yes...petrol (oil or methane) exists on other planets.

Petrol and methane aren't the same thing, I know that methane exists on other planets because the only reason spacex uses is it as a fuel is because it's on Mars. Petrol or oil doesn't exist as it is form by dead trees over millions of years and even if Mars ( it's the only planet where there could have been trees )had life on it there hasn't been any proof that there were trees on it.

Into the Night wrote :Pascal's Wager fallacy.

So are you telling me that it's better to believe that climate change doesn't exist and the changes will be minimal or are you telling me the contrary. If you're expressing the first idea know that I and all other humans are not really happy that you gamble with their life because of your stubbornness. But if it's the second one just look up, where do you live if it's in Europe you know there was a big heat wave you could walk around in a t-shirt, this is February and spring is nearly there why are temperatures so high : climate change. I could get more examples but this one is the easiest to picture.

Into the Night wrote :You are not saving anything. Prohibiting the use of carbon based fuels will kill billions, not save them.

Well of course if you prohibit something as important as that there will be consequences but if you replace it little by little until every bit of oil is replaced by renewable energy I wouldn't see any negative consequences.

Into the Night wrote :Nah. The 'explanations' are quite clear. It's the usual doom and gloom predictions from the Church of Global Warming.

Well sorry I'm just saying what is going to happen if no one reacts and the greatest problem is that our movement is not organized yet so call us factions or something else but we're not a church yet.

I am surprised, do you have any kids or anyone who might suffer from your actions?

HarveyH55 wrote:
They only things at risk from Climate Change, are my savings, my 401k (lost $13k last quarter), my house (paid off years ago).

The few degrees warming over a century's time, is no big deal. I like a warmer climate, and so do most of the life on this planet, except maybe the polar bears and penguins. Neither of which seem to be crucial to the ecosystem. Freezing climate kills more life forms, than a hot climate. Of course, the argument goes, that without the killing freeze, bugs, rodents, and all the pests, will over populate. But, those things are food for other critters, which would prefer a more natural diet, rather than raiding our garbage cans.

Solar farms and wind farms take up a lot of real estate. What sort of eco-damage do you think will be done constructing these alternatives? Biofuels take a lot of crop material too, and we still need the food crops, more land taken from the ecosystem. Really can't say that fighting the phantom Climate Change, is good for the ecosystem, or environment. The world has been in constant change, as far back as we can tell, basically since the beginning. It's never stop changing, like never will. We have no control over it, never had, never will, nor should we try. It can only go badly for us, and we don't have a backup planet to move to. You can't just live in the past, and try to preserve the memories. We've survived this long, because we adapt and grow with the changes. This fight to keep things the same, is ridiculous and futile, pathetic.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
They only things at risk from Climate Change, are my savings, my 401k (lost $13k last quarter), my house (paid off years ago).

The few degrees warming over a century's time, is no big deal. I like a warmer climate, and so do most of the life on this planet, except maybe the polar bears and penguins. Neither of which seem to be crucial to the ecosystem. Freezing climate kills more life forms, than a hot climate. Of course, the argument goes, that without the killing freeze, bugs, rodents, and all the pests, will over populate. But, those things are food for other critters, which would prefer a more natural diet, rather than raiding our garbage cans.

Solar farms and wind farms take up a lot of real estate. What sort of eco-damage do you think will be done constructing these alternatives? Biofuels take a lot of crop material too, and we still need the food crops, more land taken from the ecosystem. Really can't say that fighting the phantom Climate Change, is good for the ecosystem, or environment. The world has been in constant change, as far back as we can tell, basically since the beginning. It's never stop changing, like never will. We have no control over it, never had, never will, nor should we try. It can only go badly for us, and we don't have a backup planet to move to. You can't just live in the past, and try to preserve the memories. We've survived this long, because we adapt and grow with the changes. This fight to keep things the same, is ridiculous and futile, pathetic.

Polar bears and penguins do not prefer to live in a cold place.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In fact, most penguins live in warm places.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
There are more penguins on Falklands than there are on Antarctica where they only live on the shore.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Polar bears do better in warmer climate.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Most bears live in warm places.

HarveyH55 wrote:The few degrees warming over a century's time, is no big deal. I like a warmer climate,

HarveyH55 wrote:and so do most of the life on this planet, except maybe the polar bears and penguins. Neither of which seem to be crucial to the ecosystem.

HarveyH55 wrote (same idea expressed by Tai Hai Chen):Solar farms and wind farms take up a lot of real estate. What sort of eco-damage do you think will be done constructing these alternatives? Biofuels take a lot of crop material too, and we still need the food crops, more land taken from the ecosystem. Really can't say that fighting the phantom Climate Change, is good for the ecosystem, or environment.

HarveyH55 wrote:The world has been in constant change, as far back as we can tell, basically since the beginning. It's never stop changing, like never will. We have no control over it, never had, never will, nor should we try. It can only go badly for us, and we don't have a backup planet to move to. You can't just live in the past, and try to preserve the memories. We've survived this long, because we adapt and grow with the changes. This fight to keep things the same, is ridiculous and futile, pathetic.

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In fact, most penguins live in warm places.

Not really.

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Polar bears do better in warmer climate.

No, they prefer the colder climates near the arctic seas, where there is plenty of food.

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Most bears live in warm places.

But not polar bears.

Toloni wrote:
For the water level rising just look at what Great Britain and Ireland will look like in 2100 : [img]https://goo.gl/images/ftssfs[/img]

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
They said year 2000 was the end of the world. Then they said 2012 was the end of the world. What a bunch of liars. By 2100 nothing happens and they'll say the end of the world happens on 2200. Who the **** cares what liars say?

Toloni wrote:
Thank you for debating with me.

Now if you'll excuse my spelling mistakes we'll focus on the matter at hand:

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :No, warmer temperatures are actually desirable. There is a reason most people live in warmer temperatures and not at the poles.

I understand I too like warm temperatures but when temperature will rise up about a few degrees at the Equators it will be deadly.

Toloni wrote:
In Europe (which not particularly close to the Equator) a heat wave killed about 70.000 people

Toloni wrote:
so imagine it at the Equator it's just unlivable.

Toloni wrote:
I'm not so sure people will still like to live there.
...deleted Holy Link you regurgitated this from...

Into the Night wrote :Probably towards warmer temperatures. If there is water, food, and warmth, people will live there.

Toloni wrote:
plants die because of drouts

Toloni wrote:
and people are turned into crisp

Toloni wrote:
well you see they will migrate up and up and up till they find themselves at the poles and there they will not be able to escape their terrible fate( unless they build a rocket and escape ( I'm allowed to like science fiction)).

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :Most ice is floating. It won't raise the sea level one iota if it melts. The stuff on land isn't enough to raise sea levels much. It really comes down to the ratio of land based ice to the total volume of the worlds oceans, and the amount of land based ice that actually MAKES it to the oceans (instead of just soaking into the soil).

The problem is that not all I've is immerged under water and that ice is more compact than water....deleted Holy Link...

Toloni wrote:
Also the reason why there are floods is because the soil can't soak up all of the icebergs

Toloni wrote:
near infinite supply of water

Toloni wrote:
so you get the idea there will be a rise in the sea level.

Toloni wrote:
There is supposed to be a rise of 1 m by the end of the century

Toloni wrote:
and as much as 2 billion refugees in total that even may be including you....deleted Holy Link you regurgitated this from...

Into the Night wrote :We really couldn't destroy our planet even if we wanted to. We simply don't have that kind of power.

Toloni wrote:
I wouldn't have this debate with you if I didn't believe in climate change.

Toloni wrote:
By the way terraforming is possible

Toloni wrote:
on such planets it just takes a lot of time

Toloni wrote:
and if you say it's impossible we'll make it possible.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :Rocket fuel isn't petrol anyway, but yes...petrol (oil or methane) exists on other planets.

Petrol and methane aren't the same thing,

Toloni wrote:
I know that methane exists on other planets because the only reason spacex uses is it as a fuel is because it's on Mars.

Toloni wrote:
Petrol or oil doesn't exist as it is form by dead trees over millions of years

Toloni wrote:
and even if Mars ( it's the only planet where there could have been trees )had life on it there hasn't been any proof that there were trees on it.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :Pascal's Wager fallacy.

So are you telling me that it's better to believe that climate change doesn't exist and the changes will be minimal or are you telling me the contrary. If you're expressing the first idea know that I and all other humans are not really happy that you gamble with their life because of your stubbornness. But if it's the second one just look up, where do you live if it's in Europe you know there was a big heat wave you could walk around in a t-shirt, this is February and spring is nearly there why are temperatures so high : climate change. I could get more examples but this one is the easiest to picture.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :You are not saving anything. Prohibiting the use of carbon based fuels will kill billions, not save them.

Well of course if you prohibit something as important as that there will be consequences but if you replace it little by little until every bit of oil is replaced by renewable energy I wouldn't see any negative consequences.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :Nah. The 'explanations' are quite clear. It's the usual doom and gloom predictions from the Church of Global Warming.

Well sorry I'm just saying what is going to happen if no one reacts

Toloni wrote:
and the greatest problem is that our movement is not organized yet so call us factions or something else but we're not a church yet.

Toloni wrote:
I am surprised, do you have any kids or anyone who might suffer from your actions?

Toloni wrote:
First off all could you please tell me your actual age (I'm 16). Let's just see who in this thread is going to suffer the consequences of this debate.

Toloni wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:The few degrees warming over a century's time, is no big deal. I like a warmer climate,

Yeah I understand but don't forget that the reason all of the ice melting and the oceans are rising is the higher temperatures. As I said earlier that makes for 2 billion climate refugees.

Toloni wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:and so do most of the life on this planet, except maybe the polar bears and penguins. Neither of which seem to be crucial to the ecosystem.

Well they are essential: Do you know the example of an ecosystem where all of the wolves get killed and the deer just don't stop multiplying and eat grass to quickly so there is a famine.

Toloni wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote (same idea expressed by Tai Hai Chen):Solar farms and wind farms take up a lot of real estate. What sort of eco-damage do you think will be done constructing these alternatives? Biofuels take a lot of crop material too, and we still need the food crops, more land taken from the ecosystem. Really can't say that fighting the phantom Climate Change, is good for the ecosystem, or environment.

There isn't only there forms of renewable energy.

Toloni wrote:
You forgot some of the best ones : hydraulic ( we are not gonna fill earth with dams but we should quite a few as they provide a stable energy outlet );

Toloni wrote:
geothermic;

Toloni wrote:
under water turbines to put the ocean

Toloni wrote:
and many more in the following list http://www.altenergy.org/renewables/renewables.html. There are still many to be found so go research!!

Toloni wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:The world has been in constant change, as far back as we can tell, basically since the beginning. It's never stop changing, like never will. We have no control over it, never had, never will, nor should we try. It can only go badly for us, and we don't have a backup planet to move to. You can't just live in the past, and try to preserve the memories. We've survived this long, because we adapt and grow with the changes. This fight to keep things the same, is ridiculous and futile, pathetic.

Indeed there have been quite a few changes but they've all been created by meteorites or massive volcanic eruptions, never has one exintinction climate change been cause by a loving specie. You could say we are some kind of group who wants to keep the "old ways" well if we would like to keep them we would just sit and watch people building new factories while we choack and die so I'd say you are the people who don't want to change anything.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In fact, most penguins live in warm places.

Not really.

Well it's true penguins migrate there are a few colonies who stay all year in places like South Africa[img]https://goo.gl/images/Rrd1f7[/img].

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Polar bears do better in warmer climate.

No, they prefer the colder climates near the arctic seas, where there is plenty of food.

So why do they migrate when they have kids. Because there aren't enough ressources they have to leave to be able to feed their kids.
Polar bears don't migrate. They have their kids right there under a snowbank. They essentially make their own igloo and hibernate and raise their cubs there. Mama bear raises the cubs. Papa bear is out hunting to feed them.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Most bears live in warm places.

But not polar bears.

Thats why they're called Polar bears.

Toloni wrote:
I understand your skepticism of climate change but remember that this is not the world you'll be living in ( unless one of you is about the same age as me ).

Toloni wrote:
And please Into the Night answer my question about Pascal Wager's fallacy.

Toloni wrote:
For the water level rising just look at what Great Britain and Ireland will look like in 2100 :

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Toloni wrote:
For the water level rising just look at what Great Britain and Ireland will look like in 2100 : [img]https://goo.gl/images/ftssfs[/img]

They said year 2000 was the end of the world. Then they said 2012 was the end of the world. What a bunch of liars. By 2100 nothing happens and they'll say the end of the world happens on 2200. Who the **** cares what liars say?

Toloni wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
They said year 2000 was the end of the world. Then they said 2012 was the end of the world. What a bunch of liars. By 2100 nothing happens and they'll say the end of the world happens on 2200. Who the **** cares what liars say?

I'm no conspiracy theorist and I don't think the world is going to disappear for 2100. How can you associate the generation z to any of these fake theory if we weren't born?

Into the Night wrote :1) No. There won't.
2) It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
3) Anything, like Venice, is flooding not because of sea level changes, but because the land it is sitting on is sinking, or a river delta is silting up, or some other such cause.

Into the Night wrote :This is regurgitated from the Church of Global Warming. It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is simply not enough land based ice on Earth to raise the sea level by 1m, even IF it all melted. The ice is not melting.

Into the Night wrote :The level of Puget Sound has not changed one iota. It is not possible to predict global sea level. It is not possible to MEASURE the global sea level. There is no valid reference point.

Into the Night wrote :No, it isn't. The condition of a planet is determined by its size, the materials it is made out of, and its distance from a sun.
To terraform a planet, you have to:
1) Change what it is made of,
2) Change the orbit of the planet,
3) Change the size of the planet.

In other words, you will have to change every aspect of what defines it as a planet.

Into the Night wrote :You can't.

Into the Night wrote :There is almost none on Mars. Measured concentration of methane on Mars is near 0.000001% of the atmosphere of Mars. Spacex won't find any methane fuel there! Methane isn't used as rocket fuel anyway.

Into the Night wrote :WRONG! Oil is a hydrocarbon. It is formed from hydrogen and carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide) using heat, pressure, and an iron catalyst. See the Fischer-Tropsche process. We can synthesize oil from these materials. These are the same conditions as found underground. The Earth itself is a Fischer-Tropsche reactor. Oil (and methane) is a renewable resource. It is found well below any fossil layer. It is why you can drain a well dry, cap it for a while, and find the well is full again. Oil tends to come closest to the surface near plate edges, especially where spreading action is taking place. This is why you find oil fields in the Gulf, the North Sea, the North Slopes of Alaska, the Mid-East, off the coast of California, etc.

Into the Night wrote :Pascal's Wager fallacy.

Into the Night wrote :You are suggesting a form of government called fascism. YOU don't get to control energy markets by dictat. No thanks. There is NEVER justification for fascism. This is a form of socialism. It can only exist by stealing wealth.

Into the Night wrote :They are not suffering, and yes I do. They understand the science the Church of Global Warming denies. They understand the mathematics the Church of Global Warming denies. They are happy and productive.

You are concerned with the length of your own life. I have no problem with that. Be aware, however, that needless fears will shorten life.

Don't Panic. The concept of 'climate change' is not real. The concept of 'global warming' is not real. Neither term can even be defined. The concept of a 'greenhouse' gas violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The requirements of statistical mathematics is why you can't calculate the global temperature, the global sea level, the global CO2 concentration, the total ice content of Earth, or the albedo of Earth.

The ice is not melting. In 2014, there was actually a record MAXIMUM ice extent recorded for Antarctica. There was more ice there than had ever been recorded. The years before and after that had less ice than this.

Polar ice recedes and advances every year with the seasons. It will vary depending on local weather conditions at that pole.

The only thing that warms the Earth is the Sun. It hasn't changed appreciably. The distance of Earth from the Sun hasn't changed either, other than the usual perihelion and aphelion that takes place every year.

You say you are 16 years of age. This is a lot for you to take in at this point, and you have been indoctrinated by the 'schools' rather than educated. A lot of what they teach you is wrong.

You are simply regurgitating scripture from the Church of Global Warming. You figure you are part of a new movement, but it is the same religion it has always been. It stems from the Church of Karl Marx. It is socialism. It is an attempt to implement fascism by oligarchy.

You do not want to live under fascism...trust me.

Into the Night wrote :No one suffers the consequences of a debate. No one suffers the consequences of a meaningless buzzword except the person using the meaningless buzzword. You still have to define what 'global warming' or 'climate change' actually mean. Remember, you can't define a word with itself.

Into the Night wrote :Strawman. You set artificial conditions, then blame the famine on those conditions. This is a fallacy.

Into the Night wrote :Dams can only be built in certain locations. A dam is useless without sufficient rain or snow to fill the reservoir. Dams work best in mountainous regions where there is sufficient rain or snow.

Into the Night wrote :This list is incomplete, and ignores two readily available renewable fuels we already use. Oil and natural gas.

Energy markets determine the best source of energy for a particular use or for a particular location. Interference with any market is price controls. Price controls never work. They always cause shortages. Fascism doesn't work.

Into the Night wrote :Change for change's sake isn't productive or even sensible.

While you whine and complain, people like me have been improving factories so they are more efficient. The reason is simple: Money. It's costly to waste materials. It's costly to be inefficient. I am not doing it by forcing people, I am doing it (and quite successful at it!) because I am saving them money! There are LOT of engineers that do the same thing, each in their own way. It is THEY that designed the EGR systems in cars that practically removed smog from cities. It is THEY that developed scrubbers and more efficient burners for coal plants, making them so they no longer produce acid rain or soot. It is THEY that designed the transport systems for natural gas and made it work, providing yet another useful fuel for the energy market. It is THEY that designed the FADEC engine found in all modern cars today, improving fuel mileage and reliability. It is THEY that designed wider and safer roads and all the safety systems incorporated into the modern highway today.

NONE of this was done by government. It was done by engineers and scientists like me, looking to improve things by designing more efficient and cleaner systems.

The modern factory is possible because of people like me, not because of people like you.

Good old capitalism did all this. Yet YOU want to replace it with fascism.

Into the Night wrote :Joining a religion out of fear is not a good reason to join a religion. Fear shortens lives.

Into the Night wrote :[/bNot predictable. I have a bigger crystal ball than you do, trust me. I can't see the future in it, either.]

[b]Into the Night wrote :Because you are no different than any other that is predicting the end of the world on <insert random date here>.

Into the Night wrote :Anyone predicting it is just ignoring the Bible.

Into the Night wrote :First, it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Second, a few degrees difference is not going to change anything anywhere. Daily and seasonal changes are far greater and people and wildlife simply copes with it.

Into the Night wrote :That is a heat wave. It was not global in scope. It is not a climate.You can't point to a weather event and call it a global event.

Into the Night wrote :That's how you get clouds and rain the first place, dude.

Into the Night wrote :No, you get rain. Fresh water. This is what happens now.

Into the Night wrote :Soil doesn't soak up icebergs. Icebergs are floating ice at sea. There is no soil. Contextomy fallacy.

Toloni wrote:
I see you all more as priest than me.

Toloni wrote:
My statistics that you're saying are fake are made from all of the laws you are citing.

Toloni wrote:
You cannot explain what Pascal Wager's fallacy is.

Toloni wrote:
Climate change : Is when the temperatures, water levels and other parameters change abruptly and kill of whole species.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :1) No. There won't.
2) It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
3) Anything, like Venice, is flooding not because of sea level changes, but because the land it is sitting on is sinking, or a river delta is silting up, or some other such cause.

1) There will be
2) It is possible there are maps
3) I never talked about Venice. Venice is being flooded because the number of boats that come in and that destroy the lagoon
No. It is because the land under Venice is sinking.

Toloni wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote :This is regurgitated from the Church of Global Warming. It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is simply not enough land based ice on Earth to raise the sea level by 1m, even IF it all melted. The ice is not melting.

Everything written in the quote is false and I've already answered this.
Argument of the stone fallacy. Neither have you answered anything. You just keep spewing your scripture over and over.

Toloni wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote :The level of Puget Sound has not changed one iota. It is not possible to predict global sea level. It is not possible to MEASURE the global sea level. There is no valid reference point.

Not true!!
Okay. Describe the reference point and the method of measurement.

Toloni wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote :No, it isn't. The condition of a planet is determined by its size, the materials it is made out of, and its distance from a sun.
To terraform a planet, you have to:
1) Change what it is made of,
2) Change the orbit of the planet,
3) Change the size of the planet.

In other words, you will have to change every aspect of what defines it as a planet.

For planets like Mars you can install magnets to restore the magnetic field and atmosphere the making it livable.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :You can't.

Science is about pushing the boundaries.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :There is almost none on Mars. Measured concentration of methane on Mars is near 0.000001% of the atmosphere of Mars. Spacex won't find any methane fuel there! Methane isn't used as rocket fuel anyway.

It is : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family)
This is a launch engine. It uses a combination of methane and liquid oxygen. It will find no fuel on Mars, even if they used one to take a spacecraft to Mars instead of simply a 1st stage engine.

Toloni wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote :WRONG! Oil is a hydrocarbon. It is formed from hydrogen and carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide) using heat, pressure, and an iron catalyst. See the Fischer-Tropsche process. We can synthesize oil from these materials. These are the same conditions as found underground. The Earth itself is a Fischer-Tropsche reactor. Oil (and methane) is a renewable resource. It is found well below any fossil layer. It is why you can drain a well dry, cap it for a while, and find the well is full again. Oil tends to come closest to the surface near plate edges, especially where spreading action is taking place. This is why you find oil fields in the Gulf, the North Sea, the North Slopes of Alaska, the Mid-East, off the coast of California, etc.

The problem with that is that exploiting it is a non environmental friendly process.
Void argument fallacy. Define 'environmental friendly process' as it relates to oil. Does this mean anything beyond a political buzzword?

Toloni wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote :Pascal's Wager fallacy.

Explain

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :You are suggesting a form of government called fascism. YOU don't get to control energy markets by dictat. No thanks. There is NEVER justification for fascism. This is a form of socialism. It can only exist by stealing wealth.

Fascism and Socialism are two different things

Toloni wrote:
and because you don't have a clue what they are here are the definitions :

Fascism : often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition, a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control;

Toloni wrote:
Socialism : a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :They are not suffering, and yes I do. They understand the science the Church of Global Warming denies. They understand the mathematics the Church of Global Warming denies. They are happy and productive.

You are concerned with the length of your own life.
I have no problem with that.
Be aware, however, that needless fears will shorten life.

Don't Panic. The concept of 'climate change' is not real. The concept of 'global warming' is not real. Neither term can even be defined. The concept of a 'greenhouse' gas violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The requirements of statistical mathematics is why you can't calculate the global temperature, the global sea level, the global CO2 concentration, the total ice content of Earth, or the albedo of Earth.

The ice is not melting. In 2014, there was actually a record MAXIMUM ice extent recorded for Antarctica. There was more ice there than had ever been recorded. The years before and after that had less ice than this.

Polar ice recedes and advances every year with the seasons. It will vary depending on local weather conditions at that pole.

The only thing that warms the Earth is the Sun. It hasn't changed appreciably. The distance of Earth from the Sun hasn't changed either, other than the usual perihelion and aphelion that takes place every year.

You say you are 16 years of age. This is a lot for you to take in at this point, and you have been indoctrinated by the 'schools' rather than educated. A lot of what they teach you is wrong.

You are simply regurgitating scripture from the Church of Global Warming. You figure you are part of a new movement, but it is the same religion it has always been. It stems from the Church of Karl Marx. It is socialism. It is an attempt to implement fascism by oligarchy.

You do not want to live under fascism...trust me.

We live under democracy.

Toloni wrote:
You are old and will die sometime soon and there won't be any one to stop the supposed "church of climate change".

Toloni wrote:
You can not agree with what I'm saying,

Toloni wrote:
it's one of the principles of a democracy

Toloni wrote:
but you will not live forever

Toloni wrote:
and this world will soon be ours.

Toloni wrote:
All of the changes you are to afraid to do will be done.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :No one suffers the consequences of a debate. No one suffers the consequences of a meaningless buzzword except the person using the meaningless buzzword. You still have to define what 'global warming' or 'climate change' actually mean. Remember, you can't define a word with itself.

The time I'm losing debating with you is lost instead of actually acting.

Toloni wrote:
I trust anybody can understand what climate change is

Toloni wrote:
and I just want to make you understand that you are wrong.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :Strawman. You set artificial conditions, then blame the famine on those conditions. This is a fallacy.

Its a real life example, not some kind of myth.
No, its a strawman fallacy. It is not a real life example. Nothing is killing all the wolves. Other things eat deer (including us!).

Toloni wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote :Dams can only be built in certain locations. A dam is useless without sufficient rain or snow to fill the reservoir. Dams work best in mountainous regions where there is sufficient rain or snow.

Thanks captain obvious

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :This list is incomplete, and ignores two readily available renewable fuels we already use. Oil and natural gas.

Energy markets determine the best source of energy for a particular use or for a particular location. Interference with any market is price controls. Price controls never work. They always cause shortages. Fascism doesn't work.

Then please complete the list. I never talked about controlling prices and please learn you're definition of fascism

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :Change for change's sake isn't productive or even sensible.

While you whine and complain, people like me have been improving factories so they are more efficient. The reason is simple: Money. It's costly to waste materials. It's costly to be inefficient. I am not doing it by forcing people, I am doing it (and quite successful at it!) because I am saving them money! There are LOT of engineers that do the same thing, each in their own way. It is THEY that designed the EGR systems in cars that practically removed smog from cities. It is THEY that developed scrubbers and more efficient burners for coal plants, making them so they no longer produce acid rain or soot. It is THEY that designed the transport systems for natural gas and made it work, providing yet another useful fuel for the energy market. It is THEY that designed the FADEC engine found in all modern cars today, improving fuel mileage and reliability. It is THEY that designed wider and safer roads and all the safety systems incorporated into the modern highway today.

NONE of this was done by government. It was done by engineers and scientists like me, looking to improve things by designing more efficient and cleaner systems.

The modern factory is possible because of people like me, not because of people like you.

Good old capitalism did all this. Yet YOU want to replace it with fascism.

Ive (I've) never (seen) someone with such an ego.

Toloni wrote:
One of the philosophies of science is to find something exploit and learn from it to destroy it and us it a better way to find the next thing.

Toloni wrote:
You are afraid of change

Toloni wrote:
when you say that we are against change,

Toloni wrote:
it's contradictory.

Toloni wrote:
You were someone like me,

Toloni wrote:
you changed many things and now are afraid that we act as you did.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :Joining a religion out of fear is not a good reason to join a religion. Fear shortens lives.

I'm not praying I'm acting so that what I'm saying becomes a reality.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :[/bNot predictable. I have a bigger crystal ball than you do, trust me. I can't see the future in it, either.]

If you say so all of you're answers based on the same science are also fake. You cristal (crystal) ball is maybe not made of crystal.

[b]Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :Because you are no different than any other that is predicting the end of the world on <insert random date here>.

Prediction made by the science you used to support you evidence

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :Anyone predicting it is just ignoring the Bible.

So you're saying religion is wrong and then you're it's right, another contradiction.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :First, it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Second, a few degrees difference is not going to change anything anywhere. Daily and seasonal changes are far greater and people and wildlife simply copes with it.

There are maps of average temperature ...deleted Holy Links, Images, and random numbers...

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :That is a heat wave. It was not global in scope. It is not a climate.You can't point to a weather event and call it a global event.

Also I'm sorry what I meant with the heat wave in Europe example was that before it had killed less people than now, proving an increase in death due to climate change.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :That's how you get clouds and rain the first place, dude.

Thanks for telling me how clouds form.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :No, you get rain. Fresh water. This is what happens now.

It seems you don't understand the word Droughts : a prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall, leading to a shortage of water.

Toloni wrote:

Into the Night wrote :Soil doesn't soak up icebergs. Icebergs are floating ice at sea. There is no soil. Contextomy fallacy.

The greatest part of the ice is not floating but on a continent called Antarctica or Greenland.

Toloni wrote:
I'm sorry that you don't accept the truth and you want to keep the old way of things.

Toloni wrote:
When people say the movement doesn't want to endorse the choice you have made

Toloni wrote:
it's because living beings haven't changed the climate as we have

Toloni wrote:
that we are trying to adapt ourselves.

Toloni wrote:
It's because the Earth doesn't belong to us that we respecting it.

Toloni wrote:
I'm just applying what you don't want to hear.

Toloni wrote:
LOL

You can only counter my evidence by shouting as loud as you can that what I'm saying is wrong.

Toloni wrote:
You name everything that you don't agree with as a fallacy,

Toloni wrote:
socialism, fascism or as a religion.

Toloni wrote:
You also so say that the laws you use are right

Toloni wrote:
but the application (application: the action of putting something into operation) of them is wrong :

Toloni wrote:
for example you could talk to me about the special relativity theory and if I talked to you about the equation E = mc^2 you'd say it's wrong.

Toloni wrote:
You say that all of my defenitions (definitions) are wrong (wrong: not correct or true; incorrect) because you don't like them.

Toloni wrote:
And last but not least you're ego is so big that it bends space and time

Toloni wrote:
and you don't understand that what you're thinking is running slower than what is happening.

Toloni wrote:
Love, from planet Earth

Tim the plumber wrote:
Please tell me what exactly you think is going to be bad about a slightly warmer and wetter world.

I need it to be suficently bad that any single local council in the world will have to spend at least as much as it spends on traffic lights to sort it out.