Remember me
▼ Content

Because global warming from emissions is real...



Page 1 of 4123>>>
Because global warming from emissions is real...16-05-2019 02:24
Ken Fabian
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Because the climate problem is real all these imagined reasons scientists keep saying it is real - are false. Because the problem is real and crosses all national boundaries nations need to work together to address it effectively.

Dave - you are wasting yourself obsessing over "mistakes" that a more thorough understanding of mainstream science would show are resolved; trying to explain global warming that is already well understood but without the fossil fuel emissions (and conspiracies amongst scientists) isn't going to work.

Into the Night - your (and other's) special understanding that no-one can even know if the world is warming or cooling is pure bunk. It is warming and increasingly, it is confirmed by real world experiences as well as multiple independent kinds of measurement.

Dehammer - your imagined (and other's) conspiracy of Marxists planning to take over the world is nonsense. The extremists at the fringe? The majority don't listen to them. More importantly those developing appropriate policy don't listen to them. That majority of reasonable and reasoning people like me who are legitimately concerned are supporting a transition to low emissions by means that don't involve Socialist global dictatorships.

IbdaMann - your (and other's) green marxist religious scam is pure delusional nonsense; back in the real world taking mainstream expert advice seriously is entirely rational and reasonable and isn't religion no matter how often you say it. Saying so over and over might help convince yourself but from here, in the midst of people who want action of emissions there is not a single sign of dictatorial marxist tendencies.

Of course, within nations with elected governments with the rule of law there is a spectrum of views on where the line on government interventions on matters of what governments should be doing and what taxation levels should be - and that is not a case of people who want emissions regulation or carbon pricing promoting Marxist dictatorship, just democratic processes and the rule of law at work. A whole different debate.

Meanwhile you guys are going to have to continue to suck it up, because the climate issue is not ever going to go away, not ever in the lifetimes of any person now living. As more and more extreme real world impacts occur view like yours will be consigned to history - you are already at the fringes, barely worth engaging with.

Reasonable and informed people want strong emissions policies because the problem is real. Having the constructive contributions of the political Right would be welcomed by most of us - which kind of makes a point by itself.
16-05-2019 03:30
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Because the climate problem is real
The problem is it has never been proven.

If you think it is, bring out your proof.
16-05-2019 04:42
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
The extremists at the fringe? The majority don't listen to them.
Every heard of a politician named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Bernie Sanders? Kamala Harris? In fact have you heard of any democrat running for president? Everyone wants to turn the country socialist to STOP global warming.

What about James Hansen? Socialist.
John Cook? Socialist.
Naomi Oreskes? Socialist.
Michael Mann? Socialist.

Name any scientist pushing it and they are all socialist. Everyone wants to redistribute OTHER people's money (not their own of course).

It isn't the fringe, but the mainstream alarmist that want socialist.
you guys are going to have to continue to suck it up, because the climate issue is not ever going to go away,
One way or the other it will.

Co2 could not prevent the Ice age (started millions of years ago and is still continuing) from happening when it was 1500 ppm. It certainly will not end it at 1000 ppm. In about 5000 years we will be solidly into the major glaciation period and nothing can stop that. In the mean time the maximum temperature will continue to fall and nothing can stop that. The current temperature will always fluctuate SOME where below the maximum. Considering the current maximum is only 1.3°C above current, there is no way it will ever get to 2°, no matter how much co2 we release.
16-05-2019 04:54
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1177)
It's our ability to adapt to the environment, that has kept us alive for such a long time, not evolution. We didn't acquire a thick hairy exterior through the ice age years, like most mammals. The climate changes, the environment changes, and we survive through adaptation and innovation. The only real 'climate change crisis' is on a computer screen, simulating on a virtual earth, a fantasy theory. Carbon based fuels are the demon, and an imperceptible, unmeasurable (with current instruments) temperature change. At best, science can only take measurements that can only provide a rough estimate. The margin of error, greatly exceeds the tiny, fractional numbers, computer generated, since we haven't that precision to work with. The claim is 1 degree celsius increase, spread over a couple hundred years. The current CO2 content of the atmosphere is 0.04%. The daily high/low temperature readings on any thermometer on the planet, will have a difference of 10-30 degrees. It's not science, if you can't repeat the observation/experiment. This is a first time experience for our species, nothing in our history to compare the results with. We have no records from the pre-ice age, or even during the last great ice age to draw on. It's only a theory, that can't be tested. Believing in something, doesn't make it so. Confidence games work, through manipulating the beliefs of the 'mark', the victims. Millions of people get sold on perpetual motion machines, free energy devices, miracle medical cures, every year...
This crisis only exists in a video game, some people have difficulty separating their virtual experiences, from the real world. I'm more convinced that it's a deliberate attempt to manipulate beliefs (scam), than a delusion of some people that need to get outside the computer lab a little more often.

Messing with CO2 levels is dangerous, and a serious threat. We need it for the plants, which feed us all, the source of the carbon, that every organic chemical that makes life work on this planet. We don't eat coal, or drink oil, nor does anything else (few bacteria, maybe). Plants convert CO2 from the atmosphere, into food everything else consumes. Warmer climate, more CO2, healthier plants, more food, life is good.
16-05-2019 04:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
Ken Fabian wrote:
Because the climate problem is real

Which climate? Desert? Tropical rain forest? Temperate plains? Arctic? Deciduous forest? Swamp? What problem is real about any of them?
Ken Fabian wrote:
all these imagined reasons scientists keep saying it is real - are false.

Nah. It's just the scientists that are imagined.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Because the problem is real

What problem? Define 'real'. I don't think you know what it means.
Ken Fabian wrote:
and crosses all national boundaries

Some climates only cover a single room in a house. Hardly international.
Ken Fabian wrote:
nations need to work together to address it effectively.

Why? What does Southern Africa care about a room in my house in Seattle?
Ken Fabian wrote:
Dave - you are wasting yourself obsessing over "mistakes" that a more thorough understanding of mainstream science

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'mainstream science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Ken Fabian wrote:
would show are resolved;

How do you resolve a meaningless buzzword?
Ken Fabian wrote:
trying to explain global warming that is already well understood

What 'global warming'? From when to when? Define 'global warming' first.
Ken Fabian wrote:
but without the fossil fuel emissions

We don't use fossils for fuel. They don't burn.
Ken Fabian wrote:
(and conspiracies amongst scientists)

Scientists have conspiracies all the time, just like most people do. They might conspire to go see a movie without inviting a colleague just because they don't like him. Fortunately, science is not about conspiracies, consensus, or even scientists. It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Into the Night - your (and other's) special understanding that no-one can even know if the world is warming or cooling is pure bunk.

Mathematics is not pure bunk.
Ken Fabian wrote:
It is warming

Argument from randU fallacy. You have no idea what the temperature of the Earth is.
Ken Fabian wrote:
and increasingly, it is confirmed by real world experiences

Define 'real'. Void argument fallacy.
Ken Fabian wrote:
as well as multiple independent kinds of measurement.

Void argument fallacy. State these measurements. Please show the instrumentation used, when it was last calibrated, who took the measurements and when, where the instruments involved are located, and show all mathematics in producing your summary.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Dehammer - your imagined (and other's) conspiracy of Marxists planning to take over the world is nonsense.

He never made that argument. Pay attention.
Ken Fabian wrote:
The extremists at the fringe?

That would be the Church of Global Warming.
Ken Fabian wrote:
The majority don't listen to them.

More and more that is true. The Church of Global Warming is failing as we speak.
Ken Fabian wrote:
More importantly those developing appropriate policy don't listen to them.

Who decides 'appropriate policy'? You? Who made you the Great Dictator of the World?
Ken Fabian wrote:
That majority of reasonable

You are not being reasonable.
Ken Fabian wrote:
and reasoning people like me

You are not reasoning. You are chanting mindlessly the scripture of the Church of Global Warming.
Ken Fabian wrote:
who are legitimately concerned

Your concern isn't legitimate. You must first define 'global warming' or 'climate change' before you can even talk about it intelligently. Being concerned about meaningless buzzwords is pointless.
Ken Fabian wrote:
are supporting a transition to low emissions

Of what? CO2? Why do you want to limit CO2?
Ken Fabian wrote:
by means that don't involve Socialist global dictatorships.

No one is making this argument. No is even bringing it up except you.
Ken Fabian wrote:
IbdaMann - your (and other's) green marxist religious scam is pure delusional nonsense;

The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx. It is just another technique to further the cause of the Church of Karl Marx.
Ken Fabian wrote:
back in the real world

Define 'real world'. Buzzword fallacy.
Ken Fabian wrote:
taking mainstream expert advice

Define 'mainstream'. Define 'expert'. Define 'advice'. Buzzword fallacies.
Ken Fabian wrote:
seriously is entirely rational

You are not being rational. You are basing your entire religion on undefined words.
Ken Fabian wrote:
and reasonable

You are not being reasonable. Reason from you is quite out to lunch.
Ken Fabian wrote:
and isn't religion

The Church of Global Warming IS a religion. It is based on an initial circular argument (or argument of faith), which states the Earth is warming (as yet an undefined concept), and extends arguments from that initial argument. That IS a religion. You are trying to prove that circular argument, thus committing the Circular Argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does. The Church of Global Warming is not only a religion, it is a fundamentalist style religion.
Ken Fabian wrote:
no matter how often you say it.

Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that making the same chants over and over. I am simply responding to them.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Saying so over and over might help convince yourself but from here, in the midst of people who want action of emissions there is not a single sign of dictatorial marxist tendencies.

The Church of Global Warming wants to 'solve the problem' using 'policies' dictated to energy markets by an oligarchy or dictatorship. That's socialism, dude. That's Marxism.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Of course, within nations with elected governments with the rule of law there is a spectrum of views on where the line on government interventions on matters of what governments should be doing and what taxation levels should be - and that is not a case of people who want emissions regulation or carbon pricing promoting Marxist dictatorship,

Nope. That's Marxism, dude. You are now locked in paradox. This position is irrational in and of itself.
Ken Fabian wrote:
just democratic processes

The United States is not a democracy. There are currently no democracies anywhere in the world.
Ken Fabian wrote:
and the rule of law at work.

Democracies are not rule of law. They are rule by mob. The United States is organized as a federated republic. We have constitutions here. You want to overrule and destroy them by giving the government more power than is authorized by those constitutions.
Ken Fabian wrote:
A whole different debate.

Nope. Same debate.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Meanwhile you guys are going to have to continue to suck it up,

Nah. We just reject your religion. If you wish, you may consider me the Great Satan in your religion. I seek to utterly destroy the influence of your religion.
Ken Fabian wrote:
because the climate issue is not ever going to go away,

Buzzword fallacy. Void argument fallacy. What climate do you have an issue with?
Ken Fabian wrote:
not ever in the lifetimes of any person now living.

It is YOU that has an issue with some climate or another. You don't get to speak for anybody else but you. Valar morghulis.
Ken Fabian wrote:
As more and more extreme real world

Define 'real world'.
Ken Fabian wrote:
impacts occur

Void argument. Are you referring to asteroid impacts? Molecular impacts? Advertising impacts?
Ken Fabian wrote:
view like yours will be consigned to history -

They already are. What I wrote in this post just a few lines ago from now is already history.
Ken Fabian wrote:
you are already at the fringes, barely worth engaging with.

Yet you are engaging with. Paradox. Which is it, dude? Why are you here?
Ken Fabian wrote:
Reasonable and informed people

You are not being reasonable and you certainly aren't informed. See the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, actual theories of science that you and the Church of Global Warming ignore. See the rules of statistical and probability mathematics, actual mathematics that you and the Church of Global Warming ignore.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Ken Fabian wrote:
want strong emissions policies

You are not the King. You are not the Dictator. You don't get to make policy. You don't get to dictate to the energy markets.
Ken Fabian wrote:
because the problem is real.

Define 'real'. Define 'problem'. Define what climate you have a 'problem' with.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Having the constructive contributions of the political Right would be welcomed by most of us -

Dream on, dude. Expecting conservatives to simply agree with the liberals to be 'constructive' is not going to happen. Liberals are destructive, not constructive.
Ken Fabian wrote:
which kind of makes a point by itself.

Assumption fallacy, a form of circular argument fallacy. You can't win by simply declaring you have won.


The Parrot Killer
16-05-2019 05:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
Because the climate problem is real
The problem is it has never been proven.

If you think it is, bring out your proof.


The proof against the so-called 'climate problem' is simple. It's a void argument fallacy. The statement itself is not even a valid argument.

The proof against the Earth warming due to CO2 or any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere is the external consistency check, required in all theories of science, and the internal consistency check, required of all theories (whether scientific or otherwise), since 'global warming' has no defined time interval or time of event specifiedand is therefore itself not defined. It also depends on a value that can't be measured.


The Parrot Killer
16-05-2019 07:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
The extremists at the fringe? The majority don't listen to them.
Every heard of a politician named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Bernie Sanders? Kamala Harris? In fact have you heard of any democrat running for president? Everyone wants to turn the country socialist to STOP global warming.

What about James Hansen? Socialist.
John Cook? Socialist.
Naomi Oreskes? Socialist.
Michael Mann? Socialist.

Quite true. Why do you keep calling me one of these names? I am not a socialist.
dehammer wrote:
Name any scientist pushing it and they are all socialist.

That DOES tend to be true. Fortunately, science isn't scientists.
dehammer wrote:
Everyone wants to redistribute OTHER people's money (not their own of course).

Socialism can only exist by wealth from others. Here you are spot on.
dehammer wrote:
It isn't the fringe, but the mainstream alarmist that want socialist.

Define 'mainstream'. Define how an alarmist can be 'mainstream'.
dehammer wrote:
you guys are going to have to continue to suck it up, because the climate issue is not ever going to go away,
One way or the other it will.

It probably won't. The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist religion. Like all religions, it is based on a circular argument. Such arguments can never be proven True or False, therefore they can never be falsified or proven. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, so it is not possible to prove the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same temperature. Such changes MUST specify the time interval of the change and the absolute time of the change. These are undefined by the Church of Global Warming or anybody else. If someone DOES define them, they have to justify those values.
dehammer wrote:
Co2 could not prevent the Ice age (started millions of years ago and is still continuing) from happening when it was 1500 ppm. The last Ice Age ended a mere 11,700 years ago. The next one is due in about 1500 years or so.
[quote]dehammer wrote:
It certainly will not end it at 1000 ppm.

It has no capability to warm the Earth. It cannot end or start Ice Ages.
dehammer wrote:
In about 5000 years we will be solidly into the major glaciation period and nothing can stop that.

About 1500 years so.
dehammer wrote:
In the mean time the maximum temperature will continue to fall and nothing can stop that.

No way to measure it.
dehammer wrote:
The current temperature will always fluctuate SOME where below the maximum.

No way to measure it.
dehammer wrote:
Considering the current maximum is only 1.3°C above current,

Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
dehammer wrote:
there is no way it will ever get to 2°, no matter how much co2 we release.

Fortune telling. You have no idea of future temperatures of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
16-05-2019 07:31
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Why do you keep calling me one of these names?
Because your "science" is just as bad as theirs.
Define 'mainstream'. Define how an alarmist can be 'mainstream'.
The alarmist have their mainstream, then they have their extremist. Kind of hard to tell the difference to be honest.
No way to measure it.
Measure it? No. But its possible to "guesstimate" an approximation.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
By tracking a reasonable guesstimation, its possible to vague see the future as a possibility. I would not try to set a picnic time using it, but....
Edited on 16-05-2019 07:32
16-05-2019 16:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
dehammer wrote:Measure it? No. But its possible to "guesstimate" an approximation.

Nope, not to any usable accuracy.

Of course you can walk outside with a thermometer, take a temperature reading and simply declare that to be the earth's average temperature. I can show you mathematically that if you average your one single measurement that it will end up being the average global temperature.

The problem is that your margin of error will be completely unacceptable for any application. No one will buy your "guesstimate." I think you understand why this is.

This problem doesn't go away if you take two readings, or fifty, or two hundred, or even two thousand. Due to the size of the earth and due to temperature variability, you need hundreds of millions of evenly distributed, synchronized, calibrated thermometers to achieve a usable accuracy.

This is why if you want a usable "guesstimate" that you have to declare up front what you consider to be an acceptable margin of error. This has to be done first. Then you must acquire a dataset that supports a temperature calculation within that margin of error.

If you see average global temperature data without a declared margin of error acceptability, accompanied by a dataset supporting results within that margin of error, then it goes right in the trash.

So, while we're on the topic, what margin of error do you personally consider to be acceptable? One degree Celsius? A tenth of a degree? Two degrees? What?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
16-05-2019 17:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
Why do you keep calling me one of these names?
Because your "science" is just as bad as theirs.

You consider the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law (the equations were given to you) to be 'bad science'??? These are existing theories of science, dude. You can't just discard them and call it 'bad science'!
dehammer wrote:
Define 'mainstream'. Define how an alarmist can be 'mainstream'.
The alarmist have their mainstream, then they have their extremist. Kind of hard to tell the difference to be honest.

So you have no definition.
dehammer wrote:
No way to measure it.
Measure it? No. But its possible to "guesstimate" an approximation.

No, that is called 'guessing'.
dehammer wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
By tracking a reasonable guesstimation, its possible to vague see the future as a possibility. I would not try to set a picnic time using it, but....

You can't determine a possibility of a future by guessing.

Stay outta 'Vegas, dude.


The Parrot Killer
16-05-2019 17:39
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
You consider the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law (the equations were given to you) to be 'bad science'???
Knowing the names or equation and knowing how to use them is two different animals.

You can't determine a possibility of a future by guessing.
Statistically, you can predict that given enough tries every number on a roulette wheel will come up the same number of times. THAT is science.

Once again, you deny that science outside of your narrow view exist.
Edited on 16-05-2019 17:41
16-05-2019 17:43
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
No one will buy your "guesstimate."
Except that real scientist do.
16-05-2019 19:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
You consider the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law (the equations were given to you) to be 'bad science'???
Knowing the names or equation and knowing how to use them is two different animals.

Nope. They are the same animal. Theories of science are active all the time. Everywhere. There is no 'application' for a theory of science.

You are confusing engineering and science.

dehammer wrote:
You can't determine a possibility of a future by guessing.
Statistically, you can predict that given enough tries every number on a roulette wheel will come up the same number of times.

WRONG. You cannot make any such prediction with probability mathematics. I knew you didn't understand it! Math error. A roulette wheel is a randR system. No slot on the wheel becomes 'due'...ever. Probability mathematics does not have the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics. Neither does statistics. The reason is the use of random number mathematics, which are imported from a different math Domain (and which you probably never learned either).

Stay outta 'Vegas.

dehammer wrote:
THAT is science.

No, that is probability mathematics. Science has nothing to do with it.
dehammer wrote:
Once again, you deny that science outside of your narrow view exist.

Science is not mathematics. Mathematics is not science. Do not conflate the two. You are denying probability mathematics, statistical mathematics, and random number mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
16-05-2019 19:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
No one will buy your "guesstimate."
Except that real scientist do.


True Scotsman fallacy. All scientists are real scientists. Climate 'scientists' are not scientists. They neither use nor create any theory of science.

Science isn't guessing. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-05-2019 19:04
16-05-2019 19:30
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
All scientists are real scientists.
I use the term "real scientist" as oppose to people like you.
16-05-2019 20:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
All scientists are real scientists.
I use the term "real scientist" as oppose to people like you.


Irrelevant insult fallacy and a True Scotsman fallacy.

Science is not scientists. It is a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer
16-05-2019 22:16
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
What every you say Michael.
16-05-2019 22:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
What every you say Michael.


You don't know my name. It's not Michael though. You might try just using the moniker I have chosen to use here.


The Parrot Killer
16-05-2019 22:46
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
As I said, I call you that because you show the same level of fake science he does.
17-05-2019 00:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
As I said, I call you that because you show the same level of fake science he does.


As who does? There are a LOT of Michaels in the world.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are not fake science. They are actual theories of science that you are ignoring. Their equations are straightforward. There is nothing magickal about what they mean.

You just deny them.

You also have a tendency to conflate science and mathematics, and you are apparently ignorant of statistical math, probability math, and random number math.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-05-2019 00:48
17-05-2019 00:53
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Michael Mann. You throw out terms and formulas as if it is a shield against any science that disagrees with your religion.
17-05-2019 01:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
Michael Mann. You throw out terms and formulas as if it is a shield against any science that disagrees with your religion.


I assume you mean the twit at Pennsylvania State rather than the film director. I don't condone the Church of Global Warming. What make you think I do?

I am not arguing a religion. I am arguing against YOUR belief in the Church of Global Warming. If anything, I would think you LIKE Michael Mann (the twit). He is making the same arguments YOU are!

What about
radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
doesn't make sense to you?

What about
entropy(t0) <= entropy(t1)
do you not comprehend?

What about
dE = Q - W
do you not understand?

You deny all three of these equations. They keep your perpetual motion machine from working. They keep the 'greenhouse gas' model from doing what it claims.

These equations are the formalized forms of the theories you deny. They always apply...everywhere...all the time. There is no special trigger for any one of them to apply.

These are not beliefs or religion. They are equations formed out of theories of science.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-05-2019 01:10
17-05-2019 01:10
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
God, you are such a joke. My argument is almost exactly opposite his. My entire point was, if there was such as risk, they would have done what ever they had to to stop it. The fact that they refuse to do something so simple is proof they are not sincere.
17-05-2019 01:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
God, you are such a joke.

Insult fallacy. Since you believe in a god, do you normally go around cursing him?
dehammer wrote:
My argument is almost exactly opposite his.

Liar. It is the SAME as his. YOU are the one trying to argue that proxies produce usable data. That is what he bases his entire viewpoint around!
dehammer wrote:
My entire point was, if there was such as risk, they would have done what ever they had to to stop it.

Terraforming is not an available technology. Who is to say what the 'correct' conditions are anyway? You?? Me?? Some dictator you haven't identified yet??
dehammer wrote:
The fact that they refuse to do something so simple is proof they are not sincere.

Not a proof. There is nothing they can do (except jump up and down and whine like you do).
Their belief is quite sincere. Fundamentalist religions are rather like that.


The Parrot Killer
17-05-2019 01:32
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
The name God is a male. I believe in the Lady


ALL scientist know that proxies can be used, only religious zealots say they have no use. Michael Mann uses them wrong (deliberately).

We are already terraforming. If you turn a river into a lake and irrigate a desert, you are terraforming the area.

Who is to say what the 'correct' conditions are anyway?
strawman fallacy. No one is arguing that so bringing it up means you are fighting something that is not there.

There is nothing they can do
There are tons of things they could do, if it were real. The point is, they do not even try. ALL they do is demand that the government be given control over everyone's life. We would be dependent on them for food shelter and jobs. They would have total control and that is what they want.
17-05-2019 02:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
The name God is a male.

There is no gender. The use of 'him' can refer to either gender. Learn English. It works better.
dehammer wrote:
I believe in the Lady

You believe in God. You cursed him earlier.
dehammer wrote:
ALL scientist know that proxies can be used, only religious zealots say they have no use. Michael Mann uses them wrong (deliberately).

You are agreeing with Michael Mann. Proxies are not data. They are not used in science. No religion is involved with that statement.
dehammer wrote:
We are already terraforming.

Apparently you have never heard of this term either. You need to watch more science fiction. May I suggest the Firefly series?
dehammer wrote:
Who is to say what the 'correct' conditions are anyway?
strawman fallacy. No one is arguing that

Fallacy fallacy. Liar. YOU are. So is the Church of Global Warming.
dehammer wrote:
so bringing it up means you are fighting something that is not there.

It is there. You are now denying your own argument!
dehammer wrote:
There is nothing they can do
There are tons of things they could do, if it were real.

What?
dehammer wrote:
The point is, they do not even try.

Try to what?
dehammer wrote:
ALL they do is demand that the government be given control over everyone's life.

That is the purpose of the Church of Global Warming. It stems from the Church of Karl Marx.
dehammer wrote:
We would be dependent on them for food shelter and jobs.

It will fail like always.
dehammer wrote:
They would have total control and that is what they want.

It will fail like always. It will not happen in the United States. The people won't let it. Trump is dead right about that one.


The Parrot Killer
17-05-2019 02:34
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Once again your anti science religion rears its ugly head.
17-05-2019 02:38
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1177)
dehammer wrote:
The name God is a male. I believe in the Lady


ALL scientist know that proxies can be used, only religious zealots say they have no use. Michael Mann uses them wrong (deliberately).

We are already terraforming. If you turn a river into a lake and irrigate a desert, you are terraforming the area.

Who is to say what the 'correct' conditions are anyway?
strawman fallacy. No one is arguing that so bringing it up means you are fighting something that is not there.

There is nothing they can do
There are tons of things they could do, if it were real. The point is, they do not even try. ALL they do is demand that the government be given control over everyone's life. We would be dependent on them for food shelter and jobs. They would have total control and that is what they want.


Any guess what sort of food they plan on feeding us? Past few years, they have been stressing the need to cut back on meat and dairy products. Grazing animals produce methane, another carbon-based planet killer, like CO2. Turning human into grazers isn't going to change the methane production, probably make it worse, since our digestive systems aren't really in tune with exclusively vegetation based diets. No meat or dairy means vegan. I occasionally google 'vegan'+any strange and unappealing meat or dairy food, and surprisingly, there is an imitation, vegan version. The have something that looks like pretty much any food you could imagine (I have a very active imagination). They obtain these culinary delights by grinding up a mix of mystery ingredients (come prepackaged, for convenience), just add a few other basic ingredients, a little artistry magic. Basically, the bulk of the diet, is a preprocessed mix. I can't stop think this is a lot like a movie from the 70s called Soylent Green. People were starving to death (literally) in some filthy, over-populated big city up north. Basically, so hungry they would eat anything, even kill other for their food. Turned out, Soylent Green, was made up of anything, partly the dead bodies of the people dying of starvation. Recycling is a good thing, right? The point is that the grazing animals take care of a lot of the bulk we would need to eat, sort of preprocess it for use. The only way a compete plant-based diet would work for humans, is a lot of supplements, and pre processed foods. Basically, there could be anything in those items, and nobody would ever know.
17-05-2019 04:08
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Studies have proven that prison populations that do not eat meat are less likely to be aggressive and are more likely to follow authorities orders. I'm certain that they are expecting people that do not eat meat will as the result of draconian orders would be less likely to revolt once it become obvious that the government is treating them like slaves.
17-05-2019 10:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
The name God is a male. I believe in the Lady


ALL scientist know that proxies can be used, only religious zealots say they have no use. Michael Mann uses them wrong (deliberately).

We are already terraforming. If you turn a river into a lake and irrigate a desert, you are terraforming the area.

Who is to say what the 'correct' conditions are anyway?
strawman fallacy. No one is arguing that so bringing it up means you are fighting something that is not there.

There is nothing they can do
There are tons of things they could do, if it were real. The point is, they do not even try. ALL they do is demand that the government be given control over everyone's life. We would be dependent on them for food shelter and jobs. They would have total control and that is what they want.


Any guess what sort of food they plan on feeding us?

Fortunately, they will never get to say.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Past few years, they have been stressing the need to cut back on meat and dairy products.

I know a few ranchers that have other ideas.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Grazing animals produce methane, another carbon-based planet killer, like CO2.

So do we. Ever drink a lot of beer or soda?
HarveyH55 wrote:
Turning human into grazers isn't going to change the methane production, probably make it worse, since our digestive systems aren't really in tune with exclusively vegetation based diets. No meat or dairy means vegan. I occasionally google 'vegan'+any strange and unappealing meat or dairy food, and surprisingly, there is an imitation, vegan version.

Vegan by law. Fortunately, there are enough ranchers out there with other plans, enough hunters out there with other plans, enough fisherman out there with other plans. etc.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The have something that looks like pretty much any food you could imagine (I have a very active imagination). They obtain these culinary delights by grinding up a mix of mystery ingredients (come prepackaged, for convenience), just add a few other basic ingredients, a little artistry magic. Basically, the bulk of the diet, is a preprocessed mix. I can't stop think this is a lot like a movie from the 70s called Soylent Green. People were starving to death (literally) in some filthy, over-populated big city up north. Basically, so hungry they would eat anything, even kill other for their food. Turned out, Soylent Green, was made up of anything, partly the dead bodies of the people dying of starvation. Recycling is a good thing, right? The point is that the grazing animals take care of a lot of the bulk we would need to eat, sort of preprocess it for use. The only way a compete plant-based diet would work for humans, is a lot of supplements, and pre processed foods. Basically, there could be anything in those items, and nobody would ever know.

That kind of dictatorship will never happen in the United States. The people won't allow it.


The Parrot Killer
17-05-2019 10:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
Studies have proven that prison populations that do not eat meat are less likely to be aggressive and are more likely to follow authorities orders.

Studies are not a proof. Neither do I believe this study is valid. Prisoners have been known to riot over food before.
dehammer wrote:
I'm certain that they are expecting people that do not eat meat will as the result of draconian orders would be less likely to revolt once it become obvious that the government is treating them like slaves.

Won't happen. The revolt would come first.


The Parrot Killer
17-05-2019 13:27
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
It doesn't matter if you believe it or not or even if its true, the socialist believe it is true.
17-05-2019 13:58
paramount99
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
dehammer wrote:
Because the climate problem is real
The problem is it has never been proven.

If you think it is, bring out your proof.


Quite right dehammer...
There's nothing been proved because it doesn't exist. The weather or climate (or whatever the liberal left tree-huggers want to call it) is just as it has always been - virtually no change whatsoever. What these disillusioned types should do is go study some weather patterns going back hundreds, and thousands, and millions of years - as I have for 30 years now - and they might (you never know though?!?) understand some reality.
Yes you could use the words climate change is real, as the climate or weather or environment does, has, will and always will change... Though so far not with man's (or woman's) hand. Most of the industrial revolution smog or crap or pollution has already been filtered through the planet's natural filtration systems and networks, and even most of the recent pollution, just like when a mega eruption like Toba kicks out (erupts - in case the liberal minded don't understand) the equivalent of thousands of industrial revolutions in one big poof... The planet sorts it out eventually - without silly eco-warriors with nothing better to do...
17-05-2019 20:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
It doesn't matter if you believe it or not or even if its true, the socialist believe it is true.


So what? They are outnumbered in the United States.


The Parrot Killer
17-05-2019 22:25
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
It doesn't matter if you believe it or not or even if its true, the socialist believe it is true.


So what? They are outnumbered in the United States.
Congress thinks they are not. In congress they are getting larger and larger. Its only a matter of time before they start making laws to push us slowly that way. The good thing about Trump is he stirred up the pot and made it plain what their agenda is.

Also they are pushing for more laxed voting regulations and such so that it will be easier for illegal aliens to vote for more socialist that promise them they will be able to stay in the US.
Edited on 17-05-2019 22:26
17-05-2019 23:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
It doesn't matter if you believe it or not or even if its true, the socialist believe it is true.


So what? They are outnumbered in the United States.
Congress thinks they are not.

Congress doesn't have the power to change that.
dehammer wrote:
In congress they are getting larger and larger.

Irrelevant. The people won't let it happen.
dehammer wrote:
Its only a matter of time before they start making laws to push us slowly that way.

Such laws are illegal. That will only cause a revolt that will push them out of office.
dehammer wrote:
The good thing about Trump is he stirred up the pot and made it plain what their agenda is.

Yes he has. He does seem to have a unique ability to do that. He's not the first, though. He won't be the last.
dehammer wrote:
Also they are pushing for more laxed voting regulations and such so that it will be easier for illegal aliens to vote for more socialist that promise them they will be able to stay in the US.

That's a felony in every State. Any election official that tries to follow such regulations could be prosecuted and jailed. Congress has NO authority to change the Constitution of the United States.


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2019 00:14
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Every heard of the new green deal.

The plan would take baby steps. Like a lobster in a pot, if you see the plan all at once, you would fight against it. But if they turn the heat up a little at a time, they can take away your rights one tiny step at a time.
For instance, make illegal to carry a gun with bullets in the gun itself, or limit the number of bullets it can hold.
The make it illegal to carry it from your home to a shooting range.
Then make it illegal to have it loaded at your residence.
Then restrict the number of bullets you can own. Then make it illegal to have the bullets at your residence.
Finally, you cant own a gun.

In case you aren't aware, some of these have already passed in many parts of the country.
18-05-2019 01:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
dehammer wrote:
Every heard of the new green deal.

Yup. A radical plan to implement policies of the Church of Green and the Church of Global Warming.
dehammer wrote:
The plan would take baby steps. Like a lobster in a pot, if you see the plan all at once, you would fight against it. But if they turn the heat up a little at a time, they can take away your rights one tiny step at a time.

The Green New Deal does not address guns or gun control.
dehammer wrote:
For instance, make illegal to carry a gun with bullets in the gun itself, or limit the number of bullets it can hold.

Such laws have already been attempted and overturned.
dehammer wrote:
The make it illegal to carry it from your home to a shooting range.

Such laws have already been attempted and overturned.
dehammer wrote:
Then make it illegal to have it loaded at your residence.

Such laws have already been attempted and overturned.
dehammer wrote:
Then restrict the number of bullets you can own.

Such laws have already been attempted and overturned.
dehammer wrote:
Then make it illegal to have the bullets at your residence.

Such laws have already been attempted and overturned.
dehammer wrote:
Finally, you cant own a gun.

Such laws have already been attempted and overturned.
dehammer wrote:
In case you aren't aware, some of these have already passed in many parts of the country.

And many of them have been overturned either by a court, an initiative, or even a direct threat by gun owners against their own government (already happened in a couple of cases recently).


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2019 04:30
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1177)
What sort of hunting would someone need a semi-automatic rifle for anyway? Does it really take 30 rounds, fast as you can pull the trigger, to bring down Bambi's mom? My experience as a youth, was you usually only get on shot, sometimes a second, and that's pretty much it for a while. There are already enough idiots in the woods during hunting season, who start shooting when they see a bush move a little. Can't imagine being out there, with someone spraying thirty rounds everywhere.

For home defense, a shotgun is usually the best choice. Got the best chance of hitting your intended target, while not as likely to kill anyone else by accident. A rifle bullet can fly a good distance, and still be lethal. It's not like in the movies, those stray bullets go some place, If you have to take the time to chamber each round, you are going to be more careful where you shoot it, less waste, less risk to others you don't intend to hurt.

I don't believe semi-automatic weapons should be so easy for anyone to own. Just no real good reason to have one, unless you intent to kill people, with little regard. I'd like to see more open carry, and those people should be required to take a test annually, to demonstrate that hey can actually hit what their shooting at, and not place others at risk. Takes practice, it's a big responsibility, and guns aren't toys. Even our police officers are getting a little careless these days. Been two accidental discharges in the past month, where a bystander was injured, and several others earlier this year. That's just locally, not sure about the state, or nationally. Should never happen with a highly trained professional.

Firearms aren't going away. If people can buy them, it's not that hard to make them, if you want one bad enough. It's really best, that people can legally buy and own them though. The laws are a little outdated, and too many people want to used them in populated areas. It's nothing like when the laws were written. People used there guns often, it was important to learn to shoot, and shoot well, since all firearms were single shot, muzzle loaded, could afford to miss often, and not much chance of hitting a neighbor, when you did. A person caught in the act of committing a crime, should accept the consequences. Running, is an admission of guilt, and should be a shooting offense. It's a public service, since that individual would only just go find another potential victim, a short time later. Most of the crimes that plague us, wouldn't be so appealing, not worth dying for.
18-05-2019 06:03
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
That type of gun has long been banned. No one seriously cared. But there are attempts not to limit your guns to only 1 or 2 bullets. There are others that want to require that you only get one shot per trigger pull. There are some places that want to require that you keep your bullets in a different building. How do you have home protection if you have to run out to the shed to get bullets?

It doesn't matter if people want to use them in populated areas, since that's where you are most likely going to be attacked by criminals that do not bother to follow the laws.

Personally, it would not bother me, since I was trained in the construction and firing of wrist bows. These are multi-shot (usually 3 on each side of the wrist, 12 in total) mini crossbows. There are no laws governing them since they are so rare.
Edited on 18-05-2019 06:05
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate Because global warming from emissions is real...:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.6819-08-2019 07:18
The Real, 'Green New Deal'419-08-2019 02:52
O'Rourke releases plan to fight climate change with $5 trillion investment and net-zero emissions by 029-04-2019 18:46
"We Are in Deep Trouble": Carbon Emissions Break Record in Devastating Global Setback731-03-2019 17:14
India's carbon dioxide emissions up 5%027-03-2019 22:10
▲ 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