Why don't people take individual action to help stop climate change?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Why don't people take individual action to help stop climate change?

Page 1 of 2

Why don't people take individual action to help stop climate change?09-09-2019 18:32
harry5102 ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	What do you think are the main reasons people aren't willing to take more individual actions to stop climate change (ie eating less meat, buying fewer clothes etc)? We're doing research for a new climate action concept and would love as many opinions as possible. Thank you!
09-09-2019 22:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	You first have to define 'climate change'. Otherwise, any measures taken are as meaningless as the phrase itself. I'll eat all the meat I want, buy all the clothes I want, etc.
10-09-2019 00:07
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	harry5102 wrote: ... main reasons people aren't willing to take more individual actions ... It's fair to say there is willingness and actuon. Why don't you throw out a top 3 action you'd like to see and why. And don't mind those insisting we can't talk about this like Into The Night. I'd love to talk about it.
10-09-2019 00:48
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	harry5102 wrote: What do you think are the main reasons people aren't willing to take more individual actions to stop climate change (ie eating less meat, buying fewer clothes etc)? We're doing research for a new climate action concept and would love as many opinions as possible. Thank you! The issue is that "climate change" isn't even defined. It's kinda hard to "take action" to "stop" an undefined thing, is it not?
10-09-2019 00:49
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: harry5102 wrote: ... main reasons people aren't willing to take more individual actions ... It's fair to say there is willingness and actuon. Why don't you throw out a top 3 action you'd like to see and why. And don't mind those insisting we can't talk about this like Into The Night. I'd love to talk about it. I'd love to talk about it too. The first step to talking about something is defining WTF you are even talking about. In this case, that is "climate change". Define "climate change".

10-09-2019 01:05
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: The issue is that "climate change" isn't even defined. The argument that "WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT!!!" is a popular way to short circuit the debate. It's temperature change and in fact it's well defined, though some may disagree with if it's happening or not. The theory is that energy use causes CO2 from fossil fuels (also well defined link) to be released into the atmosphere and that this results in the temperature of the ground level and lower atmosphere to increase. So the issue is one of reducing energy use as well as producing energy in a manner that does not increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Edited on 10-09-2019 01:06
10-09-2019 01:17
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	harry5102 wrote: What do you think are the main reasons people aren't willing to take more individual actions to stop climate change (ie eating less meat, buying fewer clothes etc)? We're doing research for a new climate action concept and would love as many opinions as possible. Thank you! Human beings are omnivores, meat is an essential part of a healthy diet. While I will agree that some over indulge (not just meat either). It silly to suggest that we can do eat less, than our diets require, and not expect to pay a price in our health. Sure it's technically possible, to only eat plant, but it's hard work, you have to eat a lot more food, and more often. Herbivores have a larger stomach and different digestive system, to handle the bulk, and plant materials, sort of pre-process all that green, so we don't have to do the work. You'll notice from nature, herbivores spend most of their time eating every day. Isn't great we don't have to do that? Not sure what clothes have to do with anything, we are limited by our closet space. Think the people who frivolously by lots of clothes, are also the ones who hop on their private jets, to fly a couple hundred miles. When I start seeing some of those people, the ones telling me what I should do, personally, to combat Climate Change, I'd be inclined to take it a little more serious. If it's not important for Al Gore, or Bernie Sanders, why should it matter to me? The burn more fuel than I do, buy more meat (those fundraiser dinners aren't vegan), and obviously can't wear the same suit twice...
10-09-2019 02:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: harry5102 wrote: ... main reasons people aren't willing to take more individual actions ... It's fair to say there is willingness and actuon. Why don't you throw out a top 3 action you'd like to see and why. And don't mind those insisting we can't talk about this like Into The Night. I'd love to talk about it. What's there to talk about? Define 'climate change'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-09-2019 02:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: The issue is that "climate change" isn't even defined. The argument that "WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT!!!" is a popular way to short circuit the debate. Void argument fallacy. What are you talking about? Define 'climate change'. tmiddles wrote: It's temperature change 'Climate change' is temperature change?? Why not just say 'temperature change'? From when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time not significant? tmiddles wrote: and in fact it's well defined, Not a fact. A buzzword fallacy. Learn what 'fact' means. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth. tmiddles wrote: though some may disagree with if it's happening or not. What is 'it'? Define 'temperature change' or redefine 'climate change'. tmiddles wrote: The theory is that energy use causes CO2 from fossil fuels Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. tmiddles wrote: (also well defined link) Dictionaries do not define words. In this case, the dictionary is wrong. Neither coal, oil, or natural come from fossils. tmiddles wrote: to be released into the atmosphere and that this results in the temperature of the ground level and lower atmosphere to increase. * You can't create energy out of nothing. * You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. * You can't trap heat. * You can't trap light. * You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat. * You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. tmiddles wrote: So the issue is one of reducing energy use as well as producing energy in a manner that does not increase CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. It IS a necessary gas for life on Earth. Reducing it only threatens life on Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-09-2019 06:19
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote:meat is an essential part of a healthy diet. Fair to say eating meat is the symbol of success here. If you're a winner you eat steak. In past we ate a lot less: Into the Night wrote:Define 'climate change'. Gonna pretend you don't know what "temperature" means? Guess what every planet has one. The bit that concerns us (from ground level up a few meters) does more specifically. Pretend all you like that's beyond comprehension but it's not. Into the Night wrote:Why not just say 'temperature change'? Just did. Moving on. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: (also well defined link) Dictionaries do not define words. In this case, the dictionary is wrong. Neither coal, oil, or natural come from fossils. We all define words. You are solidly outvoted on this. Into the Night wrote: * You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. Who knows what you even mean. You refuse to discuss thermodynamics so you have no point to make at all: ITN dodges the question, what happens when the radiance of the walls around him reach his skin! It's a warmazombie conspiracy!!! He must not answer that question! Into the Night wrote: CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. What's it doing over on Venus there champ? (It is so easy to expose ITN for not believing in any data of any kind). Edited on 10-09-2019 06:19
10-09-2019 07:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:meat is an essential part of a healthy diet. Fair to say eating meat is the symbol of success here. If you're a winner you eat steak. In past we ate a lot less: How do you know? tmiddles wrote: Oh, I see. You grabbed another graph of randU numbers. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Define 'climate change'. Gonna pretend you don't know what "temperature" means? Try saying 'temperature'. tmiddles wrote: Guess what every planet has one. The bit that concerns us (from ground level up a few meters) does more specifically. Pretend all you like that's beyond comprehension but it's not. Trying to deny Kirchoff's law again, eh? tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Why not just say 'temperature change'? Just did. Moving on. Okay. You have shown that you wish to not use English anymore. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: (also well defined link) Dictionaries do not define words. In this case, the dictionary is wrong. Neither coal, oil, or natural come from fossils. We all define words. You are solidly outvoted on this. [/quote] It's not up to a vote. Coal, oil, and natural gas do not come from fossils. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: * You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. Who knows what you even mean. * You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas.[/quote] tmiddles wrote: You refuse to discuss thermodynamics so you have no point to make at all: ITN dodges the question, what happens when the radiance of the walls around him reach his skin! It's a warmazombie conspiracy!!! He must not answer that question! Repetitious questions already answered. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. What's it doing over on Venus there champ? (It is so easy to expose ITN for not believing in any data of any kind). Repetitions questions already answered. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-09-2019 08:06
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:In past we ate a lot less: How do you know? Do you seriously doubt the record keeping of the US meat industry? Into the Night wrote:another graph of randU numbers. You think everything is randU, even when it's not. Proof: link Into the Night wrote: Trying to deny Kirchoff's law again, eh? How did you learn about Kirchoff's law? I doubt you understand it at all. Into the Night wrote:Coal, oil, and natural gas do not come from fossils. People name things as they please. If you don't like it tough. Guess how much real cotton is in cotton candy? You're just a pest. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: You refuse to discuss...: ITN dodges the question, what happens when the radiance of the walls around him reach his skin!...! tmiddles wrote: What's it doing over on Venus there champ? (It is so easy to expose ITN for not believing in any data of any kind). Repetitious questions already answered. Nope you're still running.
10-09-2019 17:28
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: The argument that "WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT!!!" is a popular way to short circuit the debate. I'm ready to talk about it. First, the word needs to be defined. Define "climate change". Describe for me precisely how a climate "changes"... tmiddles wrote: It's temperature change Then why not just say 'temperature change'? tmiddles wrote: and in fact it's well defined, No, it's not. It's merely a buzzword. tmiddles wrote: though some may disagree with if it's happening or not. Assuming that you mean 'temperature change' when you say 'it', define "temperature change"... From what point in time to what point in time? Why is that time period considered "holy" as opposed to any other time period? tmiddles wrote: The theory is that energy use causes CO2 from fossil fuels (also well defined link) to be released into the atmosphere We do not use fossils for fuel. They don't burn very well. This dictionary is wrong. tmiddles wrote: and that this results in the temperature of the ground level and lower atmosphere to increase. So you've falsified the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? How so? tmiddles wrote: So the issue is one of reducing energy use as well as producing energy in a manner that does not increase CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. CO2 is necessary for our survival. Plants love CO2. I love CO2.
10-09-2019 17:42
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:In past we ate a lot less: How do you know? Do you seriously doubt the record keeping of the US meat industry? Yes, I do. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: another graph of randU numbers. You think everything is randU, even when it's not. Proof: link It IS randU. They're simply making up numbers and putting them onto a pretty looking chart that looks "authoritative" to people such as yourself.
10-09-2019 17:46
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:meat is an essential part of a healthy diet. Fair to say eating meat is the symbol of success here. If you're a winner you eat steak. In past we ate a lot less: *Deleted all the trollish, off-top crap, that should be left in the original threads... Yelling loudly, publicly, repeatedly, doesn't make your mommy buy you candy, to shut you up. Most kids got rewarded with something else, and another reason to scream and cry. I'd only guess, but the chart would represent meat purchased at a store, which use to be pretty expensive, compared to going out and shooting or fishing your own dinner (basically free). You could also bypass the stores, and USDA, and go to a farm or ranch, and purchase in bulk, at a much lower price, and butcher it yourself. Does the chart take into consideration income, and population growth? Does it take into consideration the welfare system, and how easy it became to get on the Food Stamp program? 40-50 years ago, you had to desperately be in need of assistance. Now, it's pretty much just if you want some free food, including MEAT. Of course, the chart doesn't really quantify much of anything, is it just fresh meat, or every meat product, including the various processed or canned meat products, like SPAM, hot dogs, and sausage, which are of questionable meat content...

10-09-2019 19:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	HarveyH55 wrote: tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:meat is an essential part of a healthy diet. Fair to say eating meat is the symbol of success here. If you're a winner you eat steak. In past we ate a lot less: Deleted all the trollish, off-top crap, that should be left in the original threads... Yelling loudly, publicly, repeatedly, doesn't make your mommy buy you candy, to shut you up. Most kids got rewarded with something else, and another reason to scream and cry. I'd only guess, but the chart would represent meat purchased at a store, which use to be pretty expensive, compared to going out and shooting or fishing your own dinner (basically free). You could also bypass the stores, and USDA, and go to a farm or ranch, and purchase in bulk, at a much lower price, and butcher it yourself. Does the chart take into consideration income, and population growth? Does it take into consideration the welfare system, and how easy it became to get on the Food Stamp program? 40-50 years ago, you had to desperately be in need of assistance. Now, it's pretty much just if you want some free food, including MEAT. Of course, the chart doesn't really quantify much of anything, is it just fresh meat, or every meat product, including the various processed or canned meat products, like SPAM, hot dogs, and sausage, which are of questionable meat content... Heh. Probably more true about that chart. It obviously doesn't cover every sale at every store either. When we went out and hunted for some of our meat, we made our own sausage, and we knew what was going in it. I still enjoy fishing. You just can't get that fresh caught taste from a grocery store. Me and paw would go out with our clam guns and get some nice ones too. Since I build instrumentation for a living now, I install some of these in food processing plants. I know what goes into most of the sausage you buy today. It's not that much different from when we made it. Don't worry about it. The stories about 'questionable meat content' stem from the Church of Green. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles* Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-09-2019 19:24
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Into the Night wrote: Since I build instrumentation for a living now, I install some of these in food processing plants. I know what goes into most of the sausage you buy today. It's not that much different from when we made it. Don't worry about it. The stories about 'questionable meat content' stem from the Church of Green. Good to know! I've always had an uneasy feeling about that Oscar Myer fella. So that shit is actually edible? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
10-09-2019 19:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: Since I build instrumentation for a living now, I install some of these in food processing plants. I know what goes into most of the sausage you buy today. It's not that much different from when we made it. Don't worry about it. The stories about 'questionable meat content' stem from the Church of Green. Good to know! I've always had an uneasy feeling about that Oscar Myer fella. So that shit is actually edible? Yup. It's all beef, ground fine. The source is the cuttings and trimmings that are too small to make into a steak, but it's beef all the same. Different sausages require different levels of fat in the meat. Hot dogs are no exception. It's the same ground beef stuff you buy for hamburgers at the grocery store, just finely ground. Like any ground beef, you can get it with different levels of fat, which adds flavor, and calories. The USDA and the FDA closely watch sausage and hot dog production in the United States. Enjoy your All American Hot Dog! A great tasting German recipe! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-09-2019 20:57
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: Since I build instrumentation for a living now, I install some of these in food processing plants. I know what goes into most of the sausage you buy today. It's not that much different from when we made it. Don't worry about it. The stories about 'questionable meat content' stem from the Church of Green. Good to know! I've always had an uneasy feeling about that Oscar Myer fella. So that shit is actually edible? Yup. It's all beef, ground fine. The source is the cuttings and trimmings that are too small to make into a steak, but it's beef all the same. Different sausages require different levels of fat in the meat. Hot dogs are no exception. It's the same ground beef stuff you buy for hamburgers at the grocery store, just finely ground. Like any ground beef, you can get it with different levels of fat, which adds flavor, and calories. The USDA and the FDA closely watch sausage and hot dog production in the United States. Enjoy your All American Hot Dog! A great tasting German recipe! I can tell you that one plant, doesn't represent an entire company. But if you look at the packages, they don't claim 100% beef, there is quite a list of other ingredients. Some of those ingredients are sort of vague and generic. I don't believe that any, do anything deliberately harmful or misleading, but it's not going to be like homemade, nor is it the same as hamburger. But, I guess it makes it easier to stomach... Fortunately, I'm not a picky eater, well, except SPAM (something just never sat right), and most processed meat products don't bother me. Bologna is another exception, but that's a different thing, got sick on some questionable/spoiled, and it never went away. Food poisoning is some bad shit to go through.
10-09-2019 22:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	HarveyH55 wrote: Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: Since I build instrumentation for a living now, I install some of these in food processing plants. I know what goes into most of the sausage you buy today. It's not that much different from when we made it. Don't worry about it. The stories about 'questionable meat content' stem from the Church of Green. Good to know! I've always had an uneasy feeling about that Oscar Myer fella. So that shit is actually edible? Yup. It's all beef, ground fine. The source is the cuttings and trimmings that are too small to make into a steak, but it's beef all the same. Different sausages require different levels of fat in the meat. Hot dogs are no exception. It's the same ground beef stuff you buy for hamburgers at the grocery store, just finely ground. Like any ground beef, you can get it with different levels of fat, which adds flavor, and calories. The USDA and the FDA closely watch sausage and hot dog production in the United States. Enjoy your All American Hot Dog! A great tasting German recipe! I can tell you that one plant, doesn't represent an entire company. But if you look at the packages, they don't claim 100% beef, there is quite a list of other ingredients. Some of those ingredients are sort of vague and generic. Some companies don't describe beef trimmings very well. The other ingredients are the casing, various spices (using their chemical names sometimes!), various preservatives, maybe a bit of food dye. Some of them use pork or turkey for their meat, and it's marked on the package (unless the sausage in question normally uses pork). HarveyH55 wrote: I don't believe that any, do anything deliberately harmful or misleading, but it's not going to be like homemade, nor is it the same as hamburger. It's basically the same as hamburger, just more finely ground and stuffed into a casing (for those that use a casing). Casings may be natural (such as the small intestines...the Scots used a sheep stomach!), or synthetic (made of polymerized gelatin). The source gelatin usually comes from the animal itself. If a casing is used, they are usually synthetic these days. Polymerization is triggered using a weak acid, such as acetic acid (vinegar) or a weak alkaline (such as baking soda). Of course all this stuff is listed in the ingredients. To give you an example of the kind of thing the Church of Green does, they once accused McDonald's of putting worm meat in their hamburgers. Ray Kroc, then CEO of McDonald's, responded this way: Yeah, we looked into that, and we found that worm meat is more expensive than beef, so we use beef. The Church of Green just sort of crawled away under a rock after that one! HarveyH55 wrote: But, I guess it makes it easier to stomach... Fortunately, I'm not a picky eater, well, except SPAM (something just never sat right), Probably the salt. SPAM contains a LOT of salt. The stuff is a favorite in Hawaii now, they can't keep enough of the stuff stocked on the shelves! They fry it up as a breakfast meat and use it in sushi. HarveyH55 wrote: and most processed meat products don't bother me. Good. Just because someone ground it up, added some spices to it, put some preservatives in it and used an assembly line to do it shouldn't bother anyone. HarveyH55 wrote: Bologna is another exception, but that's a different thing, got sick on some questionable/spoiled, and it never went away. Probably spoiled from not being stored properly. It is meat, and must be stored properly. HarveyH55 wrote: Food poisoning is some bad shit to go through. Literally! Fortunately, our gut knows when something is wrong and will work to expel the contents out the nearest method. It's not pretty, but it's your body working to save your life. Usually, you're cleaned out in less than 24 hours and things return to normal. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 10-09-2019 23:01
10-09-2019 23:57
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/meat-preparation/hot-dogs-and-food-safety/CT_Index This is what the government allows, and of course everyone follows the rules...
11-09-2019 06:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	HarveyH55 wrote: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/meat-preparation/hot-dogs-and-food-safety/CT_Index This is what the government allows, and of course everyone follows the rules... They actually do. The risk of civil lawsuits is pretty high with food manufacturing. Then of course are the government fines (the minor penalty!). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-09-2019 10:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: Then why not just say 'temperature change'? I did. gfm7175 wrote: ... define "temperature change"... From what point in time to what point in time? Why is that time period considered "holy" The temperature on Earth has an annual cycle so annual temp, comparing year over year for a period of time, as well as highs and lows all make good sense. How would you do it? gfm7175 wrote: This dictionary is wrong. People decide by consensus what words mean. No dictionary is ever wrong. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: and that this results in the temperature of the ground level and lower atmosphere to increase. So you've falsified the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? How so? So I didn't personally invent the theory, I certainly don't consider it proven and have my doubts, but I'd be happy to debate it with you. Maybe the thread here:do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right
11-09-2019 12:17
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: Deleted all the trollish, off-top crap, that should be left in the original threads... Yelling loudly, publicly, repeatedly, doesn't make your mommy buy you candy, to shut you up. So Harvey are you pointing the finger at me or ITN? The post you deleted "Trollish" things from goes as follows: -1- thoughtful response from me about US Meat consumption -5 repsonses to ITN: tmiddles wrote:* HarveyH55 wrote:meat is an essential part of a healthy diet. Fair to say eating meat is the symbol of success here. If you're a winner you eat steak. In past we ate a lot less: Into the Night wrote:Define 'climate change'. Gonna pretend you don't know what "temperature" means? Guess what every planet has one. The bit that concerns us (from ground level up a few meters) does more specifically. Pretend all you like that's beyond comprehension but it's not. Into the Night wrote:Why not just say 'temperature change'? Just did. Moving on. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: (also well defined link) Dictionaries do not define words. In this case, the dictionary is wrong. Neither coal, oil, or natural come from fossils. We all define words. You are solidly outvoted on this. Into the Night wrote: * You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. Who knows what you even mean. You refuse to discuss thermodynamics so you have no point to make at all: ITN dodges the question, what happens when the radiance of the walls around him reach his skin! It's a warmazombie conspiracy!!! He must not answer that question! Into the Night wrote: CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. What's it doing over on Venus there champ? (It is so easy to expose ITN for not believing in any data of any kind).
11-09-2019 19:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Then why not just say 'temperature change'? I did. Finally, after I pressured you into defining 'climate change'. Now you just call it 'temperature change'. You might as well call it 'global warming'. None of it is defined. gfm7175 wrote: ... define "temperature change"... From what point in time to what point in time? Why is that time period considered "holy" The temperature on Earth has an annual cycle so annual temp, comparing year over year for a period of time, as well as highs and lows all make good sense.[/quote] Which two years? Why those two years and not any other two years? tmiddles wrote: How would you do it? I don't think he would bother. YOU are the one making the claim that the Earth is warming. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: This dictionary is wrong. People decide by consensus what words mean. No dictionary is ever wrong. So is this dictionary wrong? Maybe you should see the Wordsmith thread. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: and that this results in the temperature of the ground level and lower atmosphere to increase. So you've falsified the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? How so? So I didn't personally invent the theory, I certainly don't consider it proven and have my doubts, but I'd be happy to debate it with you. No, you would be happy to preach. You don't debate. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-09-2019 19:40
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Then why not just say 'temperature change'? I did. After you got pressured to do so. Beforehand, you were saying "climate change". tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: ... define "temperature change"... From what point in time to what point in time? Why is that time period considered "holy" The temperature on Earth has an annual cycle so annual temp, comparing year over year for a period of time, as well as highs and lows all make good sense. Okay. So which two years? Why are those two years "holy" as opposed to any other two years? tmiddles wrote: How would you do it? There's no reason for me to do it. I am not the one claiming that the Earth is warming. I am not a member of the Church of Global Warming. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: This dictionary is wrong. People decide by consensus what words mean. No dictionary is ever wrong. Even "THE MANUAL"?? Dictionaries do contradict each other, you know... They can't all be correct. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: and that this results in the temperature of the ground level and lower atmosphere to increase. So you've falsified the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? How so? So I didn't personally invent the theory, I certainly don't consider it proven and have my doubts, but I'd be happy to debate it with you. Maybe the thread here:do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right I haven't seen you debate on here. From what I have seen on here, you seem to more or less throw whiny temper tantrums whenever someone does not adhere to your religion.
12-09-2019 11:32
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Finally, after I pressured you into defining 'climate change'. Now you just call it 'temperature change'. You might as well call it 'global warming'. None of it is defined. . "Temperature Change" isn't defined huh? Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: How would you do it? I don't think he would bother. This is your goal. No debate or discussion at all gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: How would you do it? There's no reason for me to do it. I am not the one claiming that the Earth is warming. I am not a member of the Church of Global Warming. Is your argument that it's being analyzed incorrectly? No one can make you debate this though your desire not to does beg the question why are you here. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: No dictionary is ever wrong. Even "THE MANUAL"?? Dictionaries do contradict each other, you know... They can't all be correct. ...I haven't seen you debate on here. Yes even IBDs glossary. Words can and do have multiple and conflicting meanings. No one will debate here. Including you apparently. All any of you say is that we can't talk about it. That we can only discuss why it's foolish to discuss anything at all.
12-09-2019 18:22
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Finally, after I pressured you into defining 'climate change'. Now you just call it 'temperature change'. You might as well call it 'global warming'. None of it is defined. . "Temperature Change" isn't defined huh? Correct. It needs to be defined. From what time period to what time period? Why is that time period considered "holy" instead of any other time period? tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: How would you do it? I don't think he would bother. This is your goal. No debate or discussion at all Inversion Fallacy. That is YOUR goal. This is your religion. You are the one claiming that the Earth is warming. You are the one claiming that we are all doomed if we simply "do nothing". I simply see no reason to bother with those types of measurements. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: How would you do it? There's no reason for me to do it. I am not the one claiming that the Earth is warming. I am not a member of the Church of Global Warming. Is your argument that it's being analyzed incorrectly? No one can make you debate this though your desire not to does beg the question why are you here. No. My argument is that there is no data to begin with. The supposed "data" is simply random numbers being pulled out of some "expert's" ass and then inputted into a computer program so the output can appear "legitimate" to people such as yourself who are illiterate in logic, science, and mathematics. All the pretty looking charts and graphs you see are RIDDLED with math errors. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: No dictionary is ever wrong. Even "THE MANUAL"?? Dictionaries do contradict each other, you know... They can't all be correct. ...I haven't seen you debate on here. Yes even IBDs glossary. Words can and do have multiple and conflicting meanings. I have no idea what you just said. Too much confliction... tmiddles wrote: No one will debate here. Except for all the people who are debating here day in and day out? tmiddles wrote: Including you apparently. I'm ready to debate. Once you stop being a whiny bitch and present an argument of some sort, then we can begin debating. Of course, that might prove to be difficult with all of the "multiple and conflicting meanings" that words have... What I'm saying right now might be the complete opposite of what I actually said. Damn, now I've confused myself... Thanks a lot, Ipiddlemyself... tmiddles wrote: All any of you say is that we can't talk about it. No, it just seems to blow your mind when someone tells you that it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, or to measure global CO2 content. tmiddles wrote: That we can only discuss why it's foolish to discuss anything at all. Okay. Let's discuss the topic of this thread, then. The thread is entitled "Why don't people take individual action to help stop climate change?" Let's start off by defining our terms. What is "climate change"? Which specific climate(s) do you wish to talk about? How does a climate "change", exactly? From what time period to what time period is this "change" occurring? Why is that specific time period deemed "holy" over all other time periods? How can someone be expected to "take action" regarding something which hasn't even been defined? Edited on 12-09-2019 18:28
12-09-2019 19:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Finally, after I pressured you into defining 'climate change'. Now you just call it 'temperature change'. You might as well call it 'global warming'. None of it is defined. . "Temperature Change" isn't defined huh? Nope. From when to when? Why are those two times significant? Why are any other two times NOT significant? What temperature is it changing? Where is the change taking place? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 12-09-2019 19:53
13-09-2019 00:39
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: [b]tmiddles wrote:[quote] "Temperature Change" isn't defined huh? Nope. Calling your bluff. You got nothing at all. Give an example of something that IS defined according to you. And ______________nothing at all

13-09-2019 00:51
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: I'm ready to debate. Once you stop being a whiny bitch and present an argument of some sort, then we can begin debating. Debate that a cooler bodies radiance can/can't be absorbed here: Net Radiance Debate the science behind global warming with me here here:do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right (You implied you want to respect the topics) Without addressing basic thermodynamics you can't talk about how they play out on Earth and then what to do about it. gfm7175 wrote: Okay. Let's discuss the topic of this thread, then. The thread is entitled "Why don't people take individual action to help stop climate change?" Let's start off by defining our terms. What is "climate change"? OK do you acknowledge that the Earth and our Moon have different "Climates"?
13-09-2019 01:14
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	tmiddles wrote: OK do you acknowledge that the Earth and our Moon have different "Climates"? First you describe Earth's climate and I'll tell you if the moon is different. Fair enough? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
13-09-2019 01:37
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: OK do you acknowledge that the Earth and our Moon have different "Climates"? First you describe Earth's climate and I'll tell you if the moon is different. Fair enough? Totally fair. So first off "Climate" used to describe geographic areas or the entire planet, simply means the weather long term and in general. So "What's the weather like this weekend" asks for a specific point in time at a single spot while "The climate of Las Vegas is much dryer and hotter than Seattle" compares a large area. On Earth with our annual seasons Climate refers to the whole annual cycle for the subject identified. So the Earth's Climate consist primarily of: Temperature at ground level:-88C to 58C with an average of ~ 14 C Humidity, wind and clouds: skip (none on the moon)
13-09-2019 01:45
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: OK do you acknowledge that the Earth and our Moon have different "Climates"? First you describe Earth's climate and I'll tell you if the moon is different. Fair enough? Totally fair. So first off "Climate" used to describe geographic areas or the entire planet, simply means the weather long term and in general. So "What's the weather like this weekend" asks for a specific point in time at a single spot while "The climate of Las Vegas is much dryer and hotter than Seattle" compares a large area. On Earth with our annual seasons Climate refers to the whole annual cycle for the subject identified. So the Earth's Climate consist primarily of: Temperature at ground level:-88C to 58C with an average of ~ 14 C Humidity, wind and clouds: skip (none on the moon) You have just described several climates. I asked for Earth's climate....singular. Try again? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
13-09-2019 01:50
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	GasGuzzler wrote: You have just described several climates. Your response was unclear so you'll need to try again. How does the ground level temp of Earth have "several climates" and "Las Vegas" does not? Or even your backyard? I'm glad you do accept Climate is defined and can use it. Try again. Edited on 13-09-2019 01:51
13-09-2019 02:36
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: OK do you acknowledge that the Earth and our Moon have different "Climates"? First you describe Earth's climate and I'll tell you if the moon is different. Fair enough? Totally fair. So first off "Climate" used to describe geographic areas or the entire planet, simply means the weather long term and in general. So "What's the weather like this weekend" asks for a specific point in time at a single spot while "The climate of Las Vegas is much dryer and hotter than Seattle" compares a large area. On Earth with our annual seasons Climate refers to the whole annual cycle for the subject identified. So the Earth's Climate consist primarily of: Temperature at ground level:-88C to 58C with an average of ~ 14 C Humidity, wind and clouds: skip (none on the moon) Now, apply that average locally, and what percentage of the planet actually experiences that climate, ever? How often? Do you sort of see how meaningless those numbers really are, and how they don't really apply to anything? Here in Florida, it doesn't often get down to 14 C (57 F), except during the winter, at night, with the Yankee Wind blowing down from the north. If that average applied globally, much of the planet, would fall near those numbers, all the time.
13-09-2019 02:37
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: OK do you acknowledge that the Earth and our Moon have different "Climates"? First you describe Earth's climate and I'll tell you if the moon is different. Fair enough? Totally fair. So first off "Climate" used to describe geographic areas or the entire planet, simply means the weather long term and in general. So "What's the weather like this weekend" asks for a specific point in time at a single spot while "The climate of Las Vegas is much dryer and hotter than Seattle" compares a large area. On Earth with our annual seasons Climate refers to the whole annual cycle for the subject identified. So the Earth's Climate consist primarily of: Temperature at ground level:-88C to 58C with an average of ~ 14 C Humidity, wind and clouds: skip (none on the moon) Now, apply that average locally, and what percentage of the planet actually experiences that climate, ever? How often? Do you sort of see how meaningless those numbers really are, and how they don't really apply to anything? Here in Florida, it doesn't often get down to 14 C (57 F), except during the winter, at night, with the Yankee Wind blowing down from the north. If that average applied globally, much of the planet, would fall near those numbers, all the time.
13-09-2019 03:07
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: You have just described several climates. Your response was unclear so you'll need to try again. How does the ground level temp of Earth have "several climates" and "Las Vegas" does not? Or even your backyard? I'm glad you do accept Climate is defined and can use it. Try again. What? You're having difficulty defining a global climate? Climate only includes temp?? I have accepted nothing. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 13-09-2019 03:08
13-09-2019 03:13
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: Now, apply that average locally, and what percentage of the planet actually experiences that climate, ever? How often? Do you sort of see how meaningless those numbers really are, I think you consider 14C as a rough global average to be meaningless when you compare one part of Earth to another, in a different season, on a different day. That fair? What about compared to the moon? How about we try to get some definitions and common understanding on the board. Can you ever know the exact temperature of anything and is the temperature of anything ever perfectly uniform. I'd say that's No and No.
13-09-2019 03:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: [b]tmiddles wrote:[quote] "Temperature Change" isn't defined huh? Nope. Calling your bluff. You got nothing at all. Give an example of something that IS defined according to you. And ______________nothing at all Questions already answered. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate Why don't people take individual action to help stop climate change?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
How exactly does an entire message board stop posting?	26	23-12-2023 02:25
Physicists 'entangle' individual molecules for the first time, bringing about a new platform for	17	21-12-2023 13:02
Optical tweezers building qubits out of individual molecules, this is the first step toward	0	08-12-2023 03:08
People Do Not Care About Climate Change Environment If They Still Have Money Economy Issue	5	03-12-2023 18:39
Worsening warming is hurting people in all regions, US climate assessment shows	29	23-11-2023 02:17