Remember me
▼ Content

A Better Way To Deal The Problem off Climate Change?



Page 2 of 2<12
26-11-2015 22:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
MK001 wrote:
Capatilism is the driving force behind my idea for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere and turning it into carbon fibre as governments will pay for it.
Nothing to do with global warming just exploiting the weak minded.


I don't think your business model will work. It is, for one thing, totally dependent on the vagarities of the government. It will also cost a lot of energy to accomplish it, which will tend to set the government against you.

Even if they accept it, they will also tend to nationalize your company. You will no longer have any control over it, but you will be expected to pay for all the risks of it.

The weak minded in government I'll certainly agree with! The problem is, these people are too stupid to see anything beyond sticking their finger up to find out which way the political wind blows.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2015 22:40
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Capatilism is the driving force behind my idea for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere and turning it into carbon fibre as governments will pay for it.
Nothing to do with global warming just exploiting the weak minded.


I don't think your business model will work. It is, for one thing, totally dependent on the vagarities of the government. It will also cost a lot of energy to accomplish it, which will tend to set the government against you.

Even if they accept it, they will also tend to nationalize your company. You will no longer have any control over it, but you will be expected to pay for all the risks of it.

The weak minded in government I'll certainly agree with! The problem is, these people are too stupid to see anything beyond sticking their finger up to find out which way the political wind blows.


take research funding to build a working system, i'm thinking of solar furnace using mirrors for the heat source keeps the real costs to a minimum then when it looks like it might work sell it to the highest big company bidder in go live in the south pacific. Just a thought
26-11-2015 23:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
MK001 wrote:Wow! no vulgarities.

Wow! Rational discussion. I wouldn't have believed it.

MK001 wrote:I really just wanted to see if you finally realised that I do not drink from the fountain of climate change being man made or being a bad thing.

I just wanted to see if you realised that you still have not defined your terms and that what you just wrote carries no meaning. What is this "climate change" anyway? For that matter, what is "climate"?

As far back as highschool math I learned that change over time is the first derivative. Would I be correct in assuming that "climate change" is the first derivative of the "climate" function?

MK001 wrote: I was just proposing an economic alternative to the current plans of the bulk of the politicos,

Yes, let's go back to that. What you proposed was essentially the kind of weapon that any doomsday lunatic would love to have, i.e. something that could wipe out life on earth. Then you turned into a major asshole when I simply pointed that out.

All I'm asking is why you think that sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere would amount to a viable economic alternative to anything. Thus far you have avoided delving into your reasoning that went into formulating that idea. Is it because you think that CO2 is a "pollutant"? Do you think CO2 is "poison"? Do you think CO2 can perform heat miracles or somehow control the weather? In short, what thought process led you to your suggestion?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-11-2015 23:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
MK001 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Capatilism is the driving force behind my idea for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere and turning it into carbon fibre as governments will pay for it.
Nothing to do with global warming just exploiting the weak minded.


I don't think your business model will work. It is, for one thing, totally dependent on the vagarities of the government. It will also cost a lot of energy to accomplish it, which will tend to set the government against you.

Even if they accept it, they will also tend to nationalize your company. You will no longer have any control over it, but you will be expected to pay for all the risks of it.

The weak minded in government I'll certainly agree with! The problem is, these people are too stupid to see anything beyond sticking their finger up to find out which way the political wind blows.


take research funding to build a working system, i'm thinking of solar furnace using mirrors for the heat source keeps the real costs to a minimum then when it looks like it might work sell it to the highest big company bidder in go live in the south pacific. Just a thought


But isn't this just stealing public money from you and me (and IBdaMann) basing the theft on the government's own incompetence?


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2015 23:15
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote:Wow! no vulgarities.

Wow! Rational discussion. I wouldn't have believed it.

MK001 wrote:I really just wanted to see if you finally realised that I do not drink from the fountain of climate change being man made or being a bad thing.

I just wanted to see if you realised that you still have not defined your terms and that what you just wrote carries no meaning. What is this "climate change" anyway? For that matter, what is "climate"?

As far back as highschool math I learned that change over time is the first derivative. Would I be correct in assuming that "climate change" is the first derivative of the "climate" function?

MK001 wrote: I was just proposing an economic alternative to the current plans of the bulk of the politicos,

Yes, let's go back to that. What you proposed was essentially the kind of weapon that any doomsday lunatic would love to have, i.e. something that could wipe out life on earth. Then you turned into a major asshole when I simply pointed that out.

All I'm asking is why you think that sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere would amount to a viable economic alternative to anything. Thus far you have avoided delving into your reasoning that went into formulating that idea. Is it because you think that CO2 is a "pollutant"? Do you think CO2 is "poison"? Do you think CO2 can perform heat miracles or somehow control the weather? In short, what thought process led you to your suggestion?


.

I seen yoou do this before the weapon thing really is not the intention.
Do I personally think that sucking CO2 out of the air will make a difference in real terms to anything, No. Then why propose it? because there are lots and lots and lots of people and governments who do believe that it would make a differeence and they would pay to do it! is that clear enough for you? nothing about pollutents or miricles or poisons nothing. The majority of the planet believes what they are being told and I think there is money to be made in helping them with their issues.

As for me turning into an asshole I think I called you Stupid; I did not suggest you kill yourself as you did along with the multiple fucks.

As for trying to get into a symantic argument over climate functions, who cares! Climate is clearly defined in websters, and climates change all the time its what they do no real mystery.
26-11-2015 23:18
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Capatilism is the driving force behind my idea for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere and turning it into carbon fibre as governments will pay for it.
Nothing to do with global warming just exploiting the weak minded.


I don't think your business model will work. It is, for one thing, totally dependent on the vagarities of the government. It will also cost a lot of energy to accomplish it, which will tend to set the government against you.

Even if they accept it, they will also tend to nationalize your company. You will no longer have any control over it, but you will be expected to pay for all the risks of it.

The weak minded in government I'll certainly agree with! The problem is, these people are too stupid to see anything beyond sticking their finger up to find out which way the political wind blows.


take research funding to build a working system, i'm thinking of solar furnace using mirrors for the heat source keeps the real costs to a minimum then when it looks like it might work sell it to the highest big company bidder in go live in the south pacific. Just a thought


But isn't this just stealing public money from you and me (and IBdaMann) basing the theft on the government's own incompetence?


No its redistribution of wealth, rather me than some Cap and trade merchant selling Carbon credits, I still cant believe people and companies really do that.
26-11-2015 23:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
MK001 wrote:I seen yoou do this before the weapon thing really is not the intention.

What? When have you observed me discussing weapons within the context of Global Warming?

MK001 wrote: Do I personally think that sucking CO2 out of the air will make a difference in real terms to anything, No.

We have already covered this. You are disposed to proposing something harmful when you know it will not yield the positive result for which it is billed/sold.

MK001 wrote: Then why propose it?

Yes. That is the primary question.

MK001 wrote: because there are lots and lots and lots of people and governments who do believe that it would make a differeence and they would pay to do it!

Then just admit up front: You want to scam gullible, scientifically illiterate people.

MK001 wrote: As for me turning into an asshole I think I called you Stupid; I did not suggest you kill yourself as you did along with the multiple fucks.

I don't care how or why you decided to be disrespectful, but if you aren't going to show respect then I'm not going to show you any. I don't care what words you use.

MK001 wrote:As for trying to get into a symantic argument over climate functions, who cares!

You care. You're the one using the term. Define it.

MK001 wrote:Climate is clearly defined in websters,

Great! Now we know that you believe the dictionary serves as a science textbook. Now we can judge your assertions accordingly.

MK001 wrote: and climates change all the time its what they do no real mystery.

You can't even define "climate" and you think the dictionary is a science textbook. I don't know if you really want to advertise that.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-11-2015 00:46
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote:I seen yoou do this before the weapon thing really is not the intention.

What? When have you observed me discussing weapons within the context of Global Warming?

MK001 wrote: Do I personally think that sucking CO2 out of the air will make a difference in real terms to anything, No.

We have already covered this. You are disposed to proposing something harmful when you know it will not yield the positive result for which it is billed/sold.

MK001 wrote: Then why propose it?

Yes. That is the primary question.

MK001 wrote: because there are lots and lots and lots of people and governments who do believe that it would make a differeence and they would pay to do it!

Then just admit up front: You want to scam gullible, scientifically illiterate people.

MK001 wrote: As for me turning into an asshole I think I called you Stupid; I did not suggest you kill yourself as you did along with the multiple fucks.

I don't care how or why you decided to be disrespectful, but if you aren't going to show respect then I'm not going to show you any. I don't care what words you use.

MK001 wrote:As for trying to get into a symantic argument over climate functions, who cares!

You care. You're the one using the term. Define it.

MK001 wrote:Climate is clearly defined in websters,

Great! Now we know that you believe the dictionary serves as a science textbook. Now we can judge your assertions accordingly.

MK001 wrote: and climates change all the time its what they do no real mystery.

You can't even define "climate" and you think the dictionary is a science textbook. I don't know if you really want to advertise that.


.

Good grief,
Its no wonder that no one else sticks around on this site to try and inform themselves or engage in some form of debate, when you continue to revisit the same stuff over and over again.
By the a dictionary is where words are defined! so by definition the definition of climate would be in a dictionary.
You are the one who introduced the concept of tthe CO2 sucker being a weapon not me, mainly because iit is clearly a ridiculous notion but anyway.
The rest of what you have said is just noise as usual and of no value as there are no points to discuss other than have already been dealt with.
One last thing, you should try to be a bit more civil and you might find that you could engage more people with your wit and charm.
27-11-2015 01:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
MK001 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
But isn't this just stealing public money from you and me (and IBdaMann) basing the theft on the government's own incompetence?

No its redistribution of wealth, rather me than some Cap and trade merchant selling Carbon credits, I still cant believe people and companies really do that.


Cap and trade companies can only survive if the government punishes people for not conforming. Sure, there will be a few losers, but aren't you preying upon them the same way a fortune teller or somebody selling magnet therapy does?

Redistribution of wealth is theft, plain and simple. That wealth that is redistributed has to come from somewhere. It comes from productive members of society. Why should they be forced to pay for financing your scam?


The Parrot Killer
27-11-2015 01:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
MK001 wrote:
Good grief,
Its no wonder that no one else sticks around on this site to try and inform themselves or engage in some form of debate, when you continue to revisit the same stuff over and over again.
By the a dictionary is where words are defined! so by definition the definition of climate would be in a dictionary.

The dictionary isn't going to help you here. Every dictionary I know defines climate in the same way, using some vague reference to 'a long time'. Science cannot work with such vagueness. Neither can logic nor mathematics, the twin pillars upon which science stands.
MK001 wrote:
You are the one who introduced the concept of tthe CO2 sucker being a weapon not me, mainly because iit is clearly a ridiculous notion but anyway.

Not so ridiculous. Building a machine to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere on a planetary scale is tantamount to building a machine to suck the oxygen out of the atmosphere.

One kills the plants (and we die), the other we just die. I don't think I could classify such a machine as anything but a weapon. A doomsday device of sorts.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-11-2015 01:09
27-11-2015 01:11
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Good grief,
Its no wonder that no one else sticks around on this site to try and inform themselves or engage in some form of debate, when you continue to revisit the same stuff over and over again.
By the a dictionary is where words are defined! so by definition the definition of climate would be in a dictionary.

The dictionary isn't going to help you here. Every dictionary I know defines climate in the same way, using some vague reference to 'a long time'. Science cannot work with such vagueness. Neither can logic nor mathematics, the twin pillars upon which science stands.
MK001 wrote:
You are the one who introduced the concept of tthe CO2 sucker being a weapon not me, mainly because iit is clearly a ridiculous notion but anyway.

Not so ridiculous. Building a machine to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere on a planetary scale is tantamount to building a machine to suck the oxygen out of the atmosphere.

One kills the plants (and we die), the other we just die. I don't think I could classify such a machine as anything but a weapon. A doomsday device of sorts.

come on not you to lets get this back on track the weaponisation of global air conditioning is not something that would work or be sensible. who wants to die ?
27-11-2015 03:44
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
come on not you to lets get this back on track the weaponisation of global air conditioning is not something that would work or be sensible. who wants to die ?

Apparently you.
27-11-2015 22:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
Surface Detail wrote: Don't mind IBdaMann, MK001. He has a profound and deeply-held religious conviction that climate is completely independent of the composition of the atmosphere, and no evidence to the contrary will convince him otherwise. It's sad, really.

I just noticed this. I had missed it before.

I don't mind you explaining my position to others, but I would appreciate it if you would get it right.

I am an atheist. I simply do not believe in the "climate" deity. I therefore have no religious view of "climate."

As you have seen 100% of the time I defer to warmizombies such as yourself to determine what "climate" is because you're the authority on that; not I.

Similarly, when I discuss Rapture with Christians, I always go with what they say it is.

In our discussions I believe I indicated that earth's thermal radiation adheres to Planck's Law which renders it independent of atmospheric composition (assuming the atmosphere remains equivalently transparent to visible light).

Any questions on that?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate A Better Way To Deal The Problem off Climate Change?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Real, 'Green New Deal'419-08-2019 02:52
The Senate Will Reject the Green New Deal. But It's Already Changing the Debate on Climate Change027-03-2019 17:27
The 3 Democrats Who Voted Against the Green New Deal027-03-2019 15:47
How much does it cost to rocket 1 billion tons of CO2 into space like Green New Deal does?022-03-2019 17:32
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Could Cost $93 Trillion, Group Says309-03-2019 05:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact