Remember me
▼ Content

The most important thing for you to protect


The most important thing for you to protect24-02-2019 20:28
Toloni
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
Please name one or more important things that you wish to protect for climate chenge : ex, ecosystems, science, pancakes, etc
24-02-2019 20:30
Toloni
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
For me it's :
-Planet
-Ocean
-Animal
-Science
-Life
You
24-02-2019 21:16
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.

Edited on 24-02-2019 21:16
24-02-2019 21:45
Toloni
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
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.
2. When temperature rise some places won't be able to hold life anymore and people will migrate. It could be because of higher temperatures or because the water level rises (higher temperature melt more ice) so beware if you live near the Equator or near a sea or Ocean.
3. It's important to be able to control ourselves and preserve our planet for future evolution on Mars or maybe Venus. This could help us learn essential skills as there isn't petrol on other planets so we have to learn.
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.

I hope you understand the meaning of this fight and will join the movement to save billion of lives. If I was unclear or you need further explanation feel free to ask.
24-02-2019 21:53
Toloni
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
Also please state what you want to protect the most from climate change
24-02-2019 23:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Toloni wrote:
Please name one or more important things that you wish to protect for climate chenge : ex, ecosystems, science, pancakes, etc


Define 'climate change'. I don't need to protect anything from a meaningless buzzword.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2019 23:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.
'break' instead of 'brake'. No, warmer temperatures are actually desirable. There is a reason most people live in warmer temperatures and not at the poles.
Toloni wrote:
2. When temperature rise some places won't be able to hold life anymore and people will migrate.
Probably towards warmer temperatures. If there is water, food, and warmth, people will live there.
Toloni wrote:
It could be because of higher temperatures or because the water level rises (higher temperature melt more ice)

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).
Toloni wrote:
so beware if you live near the Equator or near a sea or Ocean.
No fear! No need to panic.
Toloni wrote:
3. It's important to be able to control ourselves and preserve our planet for future evolution on Mars or maybe Venus.

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

If you want to go live in a frozen desert like Mars, or a molten lead pot like Venus, go right ahead. Terraforming isn't possible, you know. Don't believe science fiction movies as if they were real.

Toloni wrote:
This could help us learn essential skills as there isn't petrol on other planets so we have to learn.
Rocket fuel isn't petrol anyway, but yes...petrol (oil or methane) exists on other planets.
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.

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

You are not saving anything. Prohibiting the use of carbon based fuels will kill billions, not save them.
Toloni wrote:
If I was unclear or you need further explanation feel free to ask.

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


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2019 01:13
Toloni
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
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?
25-02-2019 02:17
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
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?


There's no way solar and wind can replace all other energy source. The best sites have already been used up and any addition of wind turbine by have marginal diminishing returns. To generate 40% of electricity in the US with wind you'll need millions of wind turbines. That's simply not possible economically speaking. Too much lubricant needed, too much servicing needed, too much demolition and replacement cost.
Edited on 25-02-2019 02:18
25-02-2019 05:44
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(981)
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.
25-02-2019 06:36
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
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. In fact, most penguins live in warm places. There are more penguins on Falklands than there are on Antarctica where they only live on the shore. Polar bears do better in warmer climate. Most bears live in warm places.
25-02-2019 08:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.
Actually, they do. They like the cold water. There is good food there.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In fact, most penguins live in warm places.
Not really.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
There are more penguins on Falklands than there are on Antarctica where they only live on the shore.
The Falklands is a warm place??
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.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Most bears live in warm places.

But not polar bears.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2019 12:30
Toloni
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
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.

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.

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.

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. 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 ); geothermic; under water turbines to put the ocean and many more in the following list http://www.altenergy.org/renewables/renewables.html. There are still many to be found so go research!!

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.

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.

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

But not polar bears.
[/quote]Thats why they're called Polar bears.

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 ). And please Into the Night answer my question about Pascal Wager's fallacy.
25-02-2019 12:32
Toloni
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
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]
25-02-2019 15:53
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
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?
Edited on 25-02-2019 16:17
25-02-2019 16:31
Toloni
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
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?
25-02-2019 21:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Toloni wrote:
Thank you for debating with me.

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

No problem. I don't make a meal of spelling mistakes like some people do here. I'll note some of them for you so you can improve your spelling.
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.

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

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

No need. There are people that live in hotter places than the Equator. (Yes, there ARE hotter places than the equator).
Toloni wrote:
I'm not so sure people will still like to live there.
...deleted Holy Link you regurgitated this from...

You are just quoting scripture from the Church of Global Warming. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to predict future temperatures of the Earth.
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,[/quote]
That's how you get clouds and rain the first place, dude.
Toloni wrote:
plants die because of drouts

No, you get rain. Fresh water. This is what happens now.
Toloni wrote:
and people are turned into crisp

No one is turning into a crisp. Rain still falls. Snow still falls.
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)).

I like science fiction too, but science fiction is NOT REAL.

You are trying to create energy out of nothing. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Energy comes from the Sun, not a Magick Holy Gas.

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...

WRONG! Ice is less dense than liquid water. That's why it floats!
Toloni wrote:
Also the reason why there are floods is because the soil can't soak up all of the icebergs

Soil doesn't soak up icebergs. Icebergs are floating ice at sea. There is no soil. Contextomy fallacy.
Toloni wrote:
near infinite supply of water

There is not an infinite supply of water. The amount of water on Earth is relatively fixed. Nothing is creating water, and nothing is consuming it. Whether it's salt water, fresh water, or ice, the amount of water on Earth is basically constant. We do destroy a small amount of water through electrolysis, and we create a small amount of water through burning carbon based fuels, but the amount of water on Earth is basically constant.
Toloni wrote:
so you get the idea there will be a rise in the sea level.

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

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

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 :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).[/quote]
Nope. Not possible. We simply don't have the ability to do so.
Toloni wrote:
I wouldn't have this debate with you if I didn't believe in climate change.

Define 'climate change'. This is a meaningless buzzword. Remember, you can't define a word with itself.
Toloni wrote:
By the way terraforming is possible

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.

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

No. It is simply not possible. Science fiction is not real.
Toloni wrote:
and if you say it's impossible we'll make it possible.

You can't.
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,

They are both hydrocarbons.
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.

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

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.
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.

Oil does not come from trees or dinosaurs. You were taught wrong stuff in school.
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.

Pascal's Wager fallacy.
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.

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.
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

Pascal's Wager fallacy.
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.

Yes it is. It is a religion. It is organized. It is a church. The Sunrise movement is nothing more than a radical branch of this religion.
Toloni wrote:
I am surprised, do you have any kids or anyone who might suffer from your actions?

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.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2019 22:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.

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.
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.

The ice is not melting. there is no data that the oceans are rising.
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.

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

Correct. Oil and natural gas are both renewable forms of energy as well. To a certain extent, so is nuclear.
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 );
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.
Toloni wrote:
geothermic;
Not available everywhere. It is expensive to produce. It really is only practical at all where geothermal activity is close to the surface and near the point of use (like Iceland).
Toloni wrote:
under water turbines to put the ocean
You have to have an ocean, and you have to anchor the thing somehow. Power from this is very limited. This essentially means tidal power.
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!!

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.
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.

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.

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.
This is my point.
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 ).

Define 'climate change'. Science has no theories based on void arguments.
Toloni wrote:
And please Into the Night answer my question about Pascal Wager's fallacy.

You didn't ask any. What do you want to know? What is the fallacy itself? Google Pascal's Wager. Blaise Pascal tried to use this same form of argument to justify Christianity. It is a fallacy.

Joining a religion out of fear is not a good reason to join a religion. Fear shortens lives.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2019 22:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Toloni wrote:
For the water level rising just look at what Great Britain and Ireland will look like in 2100 :


Not predictable. I have a bigger crystal ball than you do, trust me. I can't see the future in it, either.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2019 22:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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?


Quite true. If you read the Bible, it clearly says that no one knows the day or the hour of the end of the world (the second coming) save God himself. ref: Mathew 24:36

Anyone predicting it is just ignoring the Bible.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2019 22:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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?


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


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2019 01:30
Toloni
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
I see you all more as priest than me. My statistics that you're saying are fake are made from all of the laws you are citing. You cannot explain what Pascal Wager's fallacy is.

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

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

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.

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!!

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.

Into the Night wrote :You can't.
Science is about pushing the boundaries.

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)

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.

Into the Night wrote :Pascal's Wager fallacy.
Explain

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 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; 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.

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. You are old and will die sometime soon and there won't be any one to stop the supposed "church of climate change". You can not agree with what I'm saying, it's one of the principles of a democracy but you will not live forever and this world will soon be ours. All of the changes you are to afraid to do will be done.

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. I trust anybody can understand what climate change is and I just want to make you understand that you are wrong.

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.

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

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

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 never someone with such an ego. 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. You are afraid of change when you say that we are against change, it's contradictory. You were someone like me, you changed many things and now are afraid that we act as you did.

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.

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 ball is maybe not made of crystal.

[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>.
Prediction made by the science you used to support you evidence

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.

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 In 2100

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.

Into the Night wrote :That's how you get clouds and rain the first place, dude.
Thanks for telling me how clouds form.

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.

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.

I'm sorry that you don't accept the truth and you want to keep the old way of things. When people say the movement doesn't want to endorse the choice you have made it's because living beings haven't changed the climate as we have that we are trying to adapt ourselves. It's because the Earth doesn't belong to us that we respecting it. I'm just applying what you don't want to hear.
Edited on 26-02-2019 01:41
26-02-2019 04:36
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(981)
"I'm sorry that you don't accept the truth and you want to keep the old way of things. When people say the movement doesn't want to endorse the choice you have made it's because living beings haven't changed the climate as we have that we are trying to adapt ourselves. It's because the Earth doesn't belong to us that we respecting it. I'm just applying what you don't want to hear.", Toloni

We don't want to keep things the same, we accept that we can't change the weather, the climate, nad many other things. The great Climate Change battle, are for people afraid to face the future, and want to fight the changes, that naturally occur. It's the global warming folks that want to keep things the same, afraid to face the future. It's all fantasy (scenarios), and computer simulations (video games), not real at all, phantom fears. We get through the future challenges just fine, probably better, if you don't waste all your time, and resources, playing make-believe games.
26-02-2019 11:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Toloni wrote:
I see you all more as priest than me.

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

No. You are not using statistical math, you have no data, you are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Toloni wrote:
You cannot explain what Pascal Wager's fallacy is.

I guess Google is beyond you, is it? Okay. It is the use of catastrophic consequences to justify joining a religion that promises to prevent or mitigate the consequences. Try Google for examples of this fallacy, including Blaise Pascal's original form of it.
Toloni wrote:
Climate change : Is when the temperatures, water levels and other parameters change abruptly and kill of whole species.

Circular definition. You can't define a word with itself. You can't define 'climate change' as 'climate change'. The phrase remains undefined.
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.

You can't 'restore' the atmosphere. Mars is too small to have much of an atmosphere. It's gravity is too low to retain any greater atmosphere than it already has. You cannot create a magnetic field without a molten core. Mars has none. You will have to add a lot of mass to Mars, and rebuild the core of the planet. Further, it's too far from the Sun. You will have to shift the orbit of the planet towards the Sun (put it in Earth orbit). It won't be Mars anymore.

Toloni wrote:
Into the Night wrote :You can't.
Science is about pushing the boundaries.

WRONG! Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You cannot just discard theories of science on a whim. Engineering is about pushing boundaries, but it cannot go beyond theories of science.
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

Already did. Google it.
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

I already said they were. Fascism is one form of socialism. The other form is communism.
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;

A simpler version: fascism is where you get to keep your business and property, but the government tells you how to run it. It typically results in them telling you what you can make, who you can sell it to, who you have to sell it to, what price you can charge, and when you can sell it. You still take all the risk for the business. Like any socialism, it requires a dictator or oligarchy to implement it. People do not voluntarily give up their wealth to a thief.
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.

Yup. Fascism is but one form of socialism. Read the definitions you gave once again and try to comprehend them.
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.

WRONG! The United States is a federated republic, NOT a democracy. Republics have constitutions. Democracies do not. There is no functioning democracy existing in the world today. You are attempting to implement fascism by oligarchy. No thanks.
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".

Don't bet on it. There are plenty of people younger than me that will reject your fascism.
Toloni wrote:
You can not agree with what I'm saying,

I reject fascism.
Toloni wrote:
it's one of the principles of a democracy

No, it is not. It is fascism.
Toloni wrote:
but you will not live forever

Irrelevant.
Toloni wrote:
and this world will soon be ours.

No, it won't. You are forgetting the many other people of all ages that disagree with you.
Toloni wrote:
All of the changes you are to afraid to do will be done.

Don't bet on it.
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.

What do you plan to do? Something violent? March in the streets with cardboard signs pushing your fascism?

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

Define 'climate change' then. You seem to think it's easy. Let's see you do it.
Toloni wrote:
and I just want to make you understand that you are wrong.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying science. It is YOU that is denying mathematics. YOU deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOU deny statistical mathematics.
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

So you think that's obvious now? Apparently you missed it anyway!
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

I'm not going to list everything, but I will point out that oil and natural gas are renewable fuels. It is YOU that is ignoring what fascism is. You even ignore your own definition you gave of it.
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.

Argument of the stone fallacy. Insult fallacy. This isn't about ego. It's about what me and others like me have done.
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.

WRONG! Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That is all it is. Nothing more, nothing less.
Toloni wrote:
You are afraid of change

Change to fascism is not a good change.
Toloni wrote:
when you say that we are against change,

No, I am against fascism and socialism. I support constitutional government.
Toloni wrote:
it's contradictory.

Fallacy fallacy. No paradox exists here.
Toloni wrote:
You were someone like me,

Never was.
Toloni wrote:
you changed many things and now are afraid that we act as you did.

Compositional error fallacy. You are advocating change to fascism, not to improve processes and technology.
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.

What are you going to do? Something violent? March and carry cardboard signs promoting your fascism?
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.

*whooosh!* Missed THAT one dude!
[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

Think so?

State the following theories: the 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Explain how each of these three laws relate to the end of the world or to 'global warming'.
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.

No, religion is neither right nor wrong. It is simply based on a circular argument, or an argument of faith. Trying to prove a circular argument is the circular argument fallacy. That is what a fundamentalist (and you) are trying to do.
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...

Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
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.

Weather isn't climate. Define 'climate change'. Void argument fallacy. Non-sequitur fallacy.
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.

Certainly.
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.

Subjective term. What is 'normal' rainfall? How do you define 'abnormally low' rainfall? How do you quantify it? Is it a drought if it stops raining? How long does it have to stop raining before you call it a 'drought'?
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.

No. Most is floating. I have already directed you to data that shows the ice extent of Antarctica reached a record maximum in 2014 (the highest ever recorded). Greenland isn't melting either. If it was, there would be a heck of a river in northwest Greenland. It isn't there.
Toloni wrote:
I'm sorry that you don't accept the truth and you want to keep the old way of things.

Your religion is not the truth. I will stick with constitutional government. I'll have none of your proposed fascism.
Toloni wrote:
When people say the movement doesn't want to endorse the choice you have made

Too bad. You want to go to war, you will lose.
Toloni wrote:
it's because living beings haven't changed the climate as we have

Define 'climate change'.
Toloni wrote:
that we are trying to adapt ourselves.

One does not need to adapt to a meaningless buzzword.
Toloni wrote:
It's because the Earth doesn't belong to us that we respecting it.

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

Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-02-2019 11:50
26-02-2019 12:37
Toloni
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
LOL

You can only counter my evidence by shouting as loud as you can that what I'm saying is wrong. You name everything that you don't agree with as a fallacy, socialism, fascism or as a religion. You also so say that the laws you use are right but the application (application: the action of putting something into operation) of them is wrong : 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. You say that all of my defenitions are wrong (wrong: not correct or true; incorrect) because you don't like them. And last but not least you're ego is so big that it bends space and time and you don't understand that what you're thinking is running slower than what is happening.

Love, from planet Earth
Edited on 26-02-2019 12:39
26-02-2019 18:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Toloni wrote:
LOL

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

You have no evidence. You are denying science and mathematics. They say you are wrong.
Toloni wrote:
You name everything that you don't agree with as a fallacy,
No, a fallacy is an error in logic, just like a math error. Logic is a closed functional system, just like math. If you don't want me to call you on your fallacies, stop making them.
Toloni wrote:
socialism, fascism or as a religion.
You are involved in all three. No thanks. I don't support either socialism, fascism, or the Church of Global Warming.
Toloni wrote:
You also so say that the laws you use are right
No, they are existing theories of science. You cannot just ignore them. BTW, when you are going to state the theories I asked you to?
Toloni wrote:
but the application (application: the action of putting something into operation) of them is wrong :
'Application' is irrelevant. These laws apply everywhere, all the time, consistently.
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.

Strawman fallacy. This theory is not part of the debate. You probably don't understand it either.
Toloni wrote:
You say that all of my defenitions (definitions) are wrong (wrong: not correct or true; incorrect) because you don't like them.

No, because they aren't definitions.
Toloni wrote:
And last but not least you're ego is so big that it bends space and time
Inversion fallacy.
Toloni wrote:
and you don't understand that what you're thinking is running slower than what is happening.

No, it's telling you what science you are denying, what math you are denying, and what logic you are denying.
Toloni wrote:
Love, from planet Earth

This isn't a love post. It's a hate post. Earth does not post on forums. You do.


The Parrot Killer
15-03-2019 13:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
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.


Tim the UK Plumber, has your belief in Greenhouse Effect changed any over the last year and a half?

I just put up a post explaining the earth's global cooling. Have you had a chance to look at Stefan-Boltzmann or any other science that pertains to the topic?

Just wondering.


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




Join the debate The most important thing for you to protect:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Carbon tax killed auto industry in Ontario. Good thing for China. So who paid them?120-04-2019 00:00
If it's so important why don't some climate scientists kill themselves?028-03-2019 02:21
Name the most important things on Earth.226-02-2019 00:06
Climate is the Earth's Operating System(OS) and we definitely need to protect it.2423-12-2018 21:46
Important space and weather related events of 2018!1008-11-2018 00:43
▲ 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