Remember me
▼ Content

carbon footprint



Page 5 of 5<<<345
08-06-2019 05:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
keepit wrote:
I appreciate you trying explain your point of view.

There are an awful lot of misconceptions in there though.
You don't know nearly as much economics as you do science and engineering.


Argument of the stone fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-06-2019 05:15
08-06-2019 07:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
keepit wrote: Sorry that i'm simplistic here but there are no closed systems other than the universe.


This is a lame pretense to avoid a discussion. The idea of a "closed system" is conceptual. It signifies what is being considered in the system and what is considered external to the system.

Are you saying that you are incapable of "considering" or "imagining" or "classifying"?

So, the correct answer is that there as many closed systems as humanity wishes to make.

keepit wrote: Even considering the universe as a whole there are scientists who believe they have found evidence that out universe has experienced a collision with another universe.

The subjective beliefs of a few specific people are immaterial. The 2nd law of thermodynamics still has not been shown to be false despite the unknown number of universes that might have actually collided. In fact, the 2nd law of thermodynamics still holds despite all those near misses our universe has had.


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
09-06-2019 04:51
James___
★★★★☆
(1711)
IBdaMann wrote:

The subjective beliefs of a few specific people are immaterial.



Do you mean like you and itn? I have to agree with you. And while you sound just like parott I know that you and him only happen to share the same view. Your beliefs are subjective and immaterial.
09-06-2019 20:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

The subjective beliefs of a few specific people are immaterial.



Do you mean like you and itn? I have to agree with you. And while you sound just like parott I know that you and him only happen to share the same view. Your beliefs are subjective and immaterial.


Contextomy. Pay attention to the conversion, dope.


The Parrot Killer
Page 5 of 5<<<345





Join the debate carbon footprint:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Anyone tried calculating & tracking their CO2 footprint over time?829-10-2019 04:26
Why cant we suck carbon out of the air?1226-08-2019 19:25
Uses for solid carbon2413-08-2019 18:21
The field of carbon sequestration?706-08-2019 19:17
Alberta throne speech followed by bill to repeal provincial carbon tax023-05-2019 09:20
▲ 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