Remember me
▼ Content

Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.



Page 2 of 2<12
13-08-2019 06:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Everything has a unique emissivity.

Nope.


Unique absorptivity, mixed those up.

IBdaMann wrote:
Please define "reactive."


My understanding is that a substance is "invisible" or that a wavelength passes right through it when it's not reactive (my words) and if it's reactive the wave length is transferred into kinetic energy of the substance, it's absorbed as thermal energy.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Retain, delay, pick your vocabulary to suit you.

Oh, in that case you are in egregious violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Dismissed.


To my thinking heat is a movement of thermal energy, reducing heat means slowing the movement and slowing = a delay. But I should say "slowing the movement of thermal energy" that work?

IBdaMann wrote:the thermal radiation you radiate knows to "slow down" if it is being radiated into a blanket?


It "reduces Heat" so the thermal energy change from ME to my Surroundings is slowed down correct?
(and no I'm not clear on how this works with radiance)

IBdaMann wrote: Are you a fundamentalist Christian?


No I'm not.
13-08-2019 18:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Everything has a unique emissivity.

Nope.


Unique absorptivity, mixed those up.

IBdaMann wrote:
Please define "reactive."


My understanding is that a substance is "invisible" or that a wavelength passes right through it when it's not reactive (my words) and if it's reactive the wave length is transferred into kinetic energy of the substance, it's absorbed as thermal energy.

Absorption does not necessarily result in conversion to thermal energy. Example: photosynthesis.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Retain, delay, pick your vocabulary to suit you.

Oh, in that case you are in egregious violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Dismissed.


To my thinking heat is a movement of thermal energy, reducing heat means slowing the movement and slowing = a delay. But I should say "slowing the movement of thermal energy" that work?

* You cannot slow or trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. There is no delay.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:the thermal radiation you radiate knows to "slow down" if it is being radiated into a blanket?


It "reduces Heat" so the thermal energy change from ME to my Surroundings is slowed down correct?

No. Heat is always flowing, even though it's been reduced. There is no delay.
tmiddles wrote:
(and no I'm not clear on how this works with radiance)

It makes no difference whether you are discussing radiant heat, convective heat, or conductive heat.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: Are you a fundamentalist Christian?


No I'm not.

The reason he asks is because you are making a fundamentalist argument. You are trying to prove a circular argument each time you try to justify the so-called 'greenhouse effect'.


The Parrot Killer
14-08-2019 03:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
Absorption does not necessarily result in conversion to thermal energy. Example: photosynthesis.


Ah right! And a big one would be the bonds between water molecules forming and breaking in it being converted to water vapor and then condensing into rain right?

Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot slow or trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. There is no delay.


So to use a traffic analogy: I think "Less traffic" and say the traffic has slowed. You're saying the cars move just as fast there are just fewer of them?

Into the Night wrote:
No. Heat is always flowing, even though it's been reduced. There is no delay.


It's not slower but it is a lower rate?

Into the Night wrote:
The reason he asks is because you are making a fundamentalist argument.


I thought Ibdamann's question about religion related to new species. I thought that the information we have seems to show that species have gone extinct without enough new species (or any?) popping up. I thought it took like a million years for a new species to evolve.
14-08-2019 06:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The reason he asks is because you are making a fundamentalist argument.


I thought Ibdamann's question about religion related to new species. I thought that the information we have seems to show that species have gone extinct without enough new species (or any?) popping up. I thought it took like a million years for a new species to evolve.


@ Into the Night - I underestimated you. I didn't expect you to catch that but you did. You called it correctly. Well done.

@ tmiddles - you don't get to play the "species just pop into existence" argument ... unless you are a fundamentalist Christian, which you are not.

[warning viewpoint=Darwinism]

All species that exist are in transition to some other species. We don't know what but evolution is a continual, ongoing process. Species don't just magically pop into existence.

Every specie is a new specie in the forming.. The moment there is a subpopulation that cannot breed with its parent population, you have a new specie and it happens all the time with plants and insects, usually due to geographic separation.

You can read all about what Charles Darwin had to say about The Origin of Species on Politiplex.


[/warning]

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-08-2019 07:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:

You can read all about what Charles Darwin had to say about


Yeah yeah two turtles can't get it on because the shells shapes change.

So are you saying that the number of species isn't declining?

I don't know but assumed that there were way less today than long ago.
14-08-2019 15:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
tmiddles wrote: So are you saying that the number of species isn't declining?

I'm not the one making any sort of claim.

Once again you are making a claim of something that is unknown being "what we know."

tmiddles wrote: I don't know but assumed that there were way less today than long ago.

That's more like it. You assume this to be the case because ... why? We can both agree that you were never presented with the "all the species" graph showing a decline in total number of species ... nor were you presented with any valid datset showing the rate of emergence of new species.

Your big red flag should have been that you were only presented information on one side of the issue, i.e. a claim of a rate of loss of species. There's a word for presenting only one side of an issue: "propaganda." This is entirely how religions work, especially the Global Warming religion, e.g. only hearing about glaciers that are receding and nothing of glaciers that are forming and growing, only hearing about places that are experiencing heat records and nothing of all the places experiencing cold records or how the rate of heat records is completely normal, only hearing about the rate of acidic precipitation falling into the ocean but no mention of sea water becoming more alkaline when CO2 is released back into the atmosphere by evaporation, etc...

Propaganda. Check for it. It is a form of dishonesty.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-08-2019 02:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:You assume this to be the case because ... why?
.


I heard it around! Yep, that's still a thing : )

But as you can see I'm not making a claim or taking a stand I was wondering if you knew something I didn't. You don't and that's cool.

I did try to look into it but it's hard to investigate since the "discover" a species that's been around a long time and that's all I found info on, discoveries.

I think I actually heard it in the context of creation science as it's viewed as supporting evidence for a creation and decline.

And no I don't believe in creation science but am familiar with it and find it interesting.
15-08-2019 03:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You assume this to be the case because ... why?
.


I heard it around! Yep, that's still a thing : )

Not in my book. I used to operate that way when I was a kid and I was wrong every time. The casual rumor mill doesn't get anything right.

tmiddles wrote: But as you can see I'm not making a claim or taking a stand I was wondering if you knew something I didn't. You don't and that's cool.

[warning viewpoint=Darwinism]
Actually, I observe many, many species ... evolving into other species before my eyes. That's a far cry from not knowing anything.
[/warning]

tmiddles wrote: I did try to look into it but it's hard to investigate since the "discover" a species that's been around a long time and that's all I found info on, discoveries.

[warning viewpoint=Darwinism]
Species don't ring a bell when they evolve into a new species. It's not like there's any mechanism to bring it to our attention. Nonetheless botanists and entomologists catalogue new species all the time. They don't come with little tags that indicate when they emerged as new species. The default presumption is always that they've always been around and only now discovered.

Disappearing species, on the other had, stand out. Someone asks "Hey, why aren't there any of X? I can't find any X!" The time and date is noted and quickly published as ANOTHER species gone. This stands in contrast to no species ever being categorized as "new species, never existed before." In fact, that category doesn't exit. All we have are "species that are now extinct."

You have only yourself to blame if you allow someone to manipulate you into believing that "we know" that species only disappear.
[/warning]

tmiddles wrote: I think I actually heard it in the context of creation science as it's viewed as supporting evidence for a creation and decline.

... but that is why I had to first ask if you were a fundamentalist Christian. I would have had a different response.

tmiddles wrote: And no I don't believe in creation science but am familiar with it and find it interesting.

Charles Darwin believed in Creationism ... until he didn't. Personally, I'm a huge fan of Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution but not everyone is, so I like to tailor my comments on this topic to fit within adopted frameworks.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-08-2019 03:36
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1378)
Everything produces mutations occasionally, but most never survive to reproduce. The chances of two getting together, with the same genetic mutation, are pretty small, and those unusual characteristic be expressed in the offspring also small. Occasionally, those new traits, are highly beneficial, and give it a much better chance for survival, and reproducing more.

'New' species are found all the time, but we don't know how long they have been around, before they were discovered. Some species are kind of rare and obscure, makes it pretty easy to claim extinction, if no specimens get found for a while. It's a very large planet, and we can't search ever square foot, daily.

Bias and differing opinions are one thing, but knowing the truth, all the facts, but only telling the parts that benefit you, is a lie of omission. People trying to sell you things, do this a lot, since providing you some of the facts, might cool your enthusiasm to buy, or effect the price they could get you to pay.
15-08-2019 04:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:
Actually, I observe many, many species ... evolving into other species before my eyes.
.


HarveyH55 wrote:
Everything produces mutations occasionally, but most never survive to reproduce.


Yeah I personally don't pretend to have a grasp on it but find it fascinating. Both as a subject and as an example of the representation on knowledge.
15-08-2019 19:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Absorption does not necessarily result in conversion to thermal energy. Example: photosynthesis.


Ah right! And a big one would be the bonds between water molecules forming and breaking in it being converted to water vapor and then condensing into rain right?

If bonds break in water molecules, it is no longer water.
A change of state does not change the substance.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot slow or trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. There is no delay.


So to use a traffic analogy: I think "Less traffic" and say the traffic has slowed. You're saying the cars move just as fast there are just fewer of them?

Heh. Fewer cars mean they can often move faster!
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. Heat is always flowing, even though it's been reduced. There is no delay.


It's not slower but it is a lower rate?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. To say there is reduced heat means there is less thermal energy flowing. That flow is determined by the difference between the two regions and coupling between them.

* you cannot trap light.
* you cannot trap thermal energy
* you cannot slow or trap heat

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The reason he asks is because you are making a fundamentalist argument.


I thought Ibdamann's question about religion related to new species. I thought that the information we have seems to show that species have gone extinct without enough new species (or any?) popping up. I thought it took like a million years for a new species to evolve.

No. A new species can evolve in literally hours, especially with certain insects.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2019 20:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

You can read all about what Charles Darwin had to say about


Yeah yeah two turtles can't get it on because the shells shapes change.

So are you saying that the number of species isn't declining?

I don't know but assumed that there were way less today than long ago.


Here's another one that's going to bug you.

We have no idea how many species there are in the world.

Part of the problem is that no one has really defined what a constitutes a 'new species'. There are variety of attempts, but there are differences between them.

Here's one simply example:
In Eastern Washington, rattlesnakes are fairly common. They are not found on the Wet Side because they don't like the marine climate over there.

But:
Say a couple of rattlesnakes manages to cross the Cascades and finds it LIKES the marine environment. These snakes reproduce and create a lot of little snakes that like the marine environment too. Over a period of a few years, you now find rattlesnakes in Western Washington. They look exactly like the ones in Eastern Washington.

Are they a new species?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-08-2019 20:06
15-08-2019 22:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Into the Night wrote:Here's one simply example:
In Eastern Washington, rattlesnakes are fairly common. They are not found on the Wet Side because they don't like the marine climate over there.

But:
Say a couple of rattlesnakes manages to cross the Cascades and finds it LIKES the marine environment. These snakes reproduce and create a lot of little snakes that like the marine environment too. Over a period of a few years, you now find rattlesnakes in Western Washington. They look exactly like the ones in Eastern Washington.

Are they a new species?

[warning viewpoint=Darwinism]

My favorite example is the spiny lobster (Palinuridae) of Panamá. Three million years ago, North America had not yet collided with South America at what is now Panamá. There were spiny lobsters widespread throughout vast oceanic regions, including within the gap where Panamá now resides. The two continents slowly collided, forcing some of those lobsters to the Pacific side and some to the Atlantic side, i.e. one interbreeding "population" became split into two geographically isolated populations ... that then began evolving separately.

Today, the physical differences can be examined in an afternoon by taking a short drive across the isthmus.

[/warning]

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-08-2019 16:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Here's one simply example:
In Eastern Washington, rattlesnakes are fairly common. They are not found on the Wet Side because they don't like the marine climate over there.

But:
Say a couple of rattlesnakes manages to cross the Cascades and finds it LIKES the marine environment. These snakes reproduce and create a lot of little snakes that like the marine environment too. Over a period of a few years, you now find rattlesnakes in Western Washington. They look exactly like the ones in Eastern Washington.

Are they a new species?

[warning viewpoint=Darwinism]

My favorite example is the spiny lobster (Palinuridae) of Panamá. Three million years ago, North America had not yet collided with South America at what is now Panamá. There were spiny lobsters widespread throughout vast oceanic regions, including within the gap where Panamá now resides. The two continents slowly collided, forcing some of those lobsters to the Pacific side and some to the Atlantic side, i.e. one interbreeding "population" became split into two geographically isolated populations ... that then began evolving separately.

Today, the physical differences can be examined in an afternoon by taking a short drive across the isthmus.

[/warning]

.

And yet, despite that, there is no moment you can really define when a new species occurred (or did it? After all, they are both still lobsters).


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2019 20:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Into the Night wrote:And yet, despite that, there is no moment you can really define when a new species occurred (or did it? After all, they are both still lobsters).

Correct. Even my assumption that there was one single species in a gap between two continents three million years ago is just that ... an assumption.

My favorite example is based on a bunch of assumptions ... very unscientific I must admit.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-08-2019 20:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
no one has really defined what a constitutes a 'new species'. ...They look exactly like the ones in Eastern Washington.

Are they a new species?


I think Darwin Galapagos turtles were unable to mate if she'll shapes didn't match but not being able to breed seems a bit convenient a dividing line between species.

When some behavioral/adaptive difference in groups of humans appear the phrase. "A new breed" is often used.

To the original point I think the question of if bio-"value" ? Even more than "diversity", can incline, decline, be measured, be managed, is a worthwhile question to ask.
16-08-2019 21:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
tmiddles wrote:To the original point I think the question of if bio-"value" ? Even more than "diversity", can incline, decline, be measured, be managed, is a worthwhile question to ask.

I'm sure that I'm the only one who had trouble parsing this statement. Would you be so kind as to "rephrase" for me?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-08-2019 21:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:To the original point I think the question of if bio-"value" ? Even more than "diversity", can incline, decline, be measured, be managed, is a worthwhile question to ask.

I'm sure that I'm the only one who had trouble parsing this statement. Would you be so kind as to "rephrase" for me?


Yeah I had trouble expressing it. There is a project to preserve all the seeds on Earth in case they may be needed in the future because some variety of plant disappears. That's sort of what I mean by the resource of biological value
16-08-2019 21:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:To the original point I think the question of if bio-"value" ? Even more than "diversity", can incline, decline, be measured, be managed, is a worthwhile question to ask.

I'm sure that I'm the only one who had trouble parsing this statement. Would you be so kind as to "rephrase" for me?


Yeah I had trouble expressing it. There is a project to preserve all the seeds on Earth in case they may be needed in the future because some variety of plant disappears. That's sort of what I mean by the resource of biological value

Are you talking about the one in Norway ... or Sweden ... or somewhere where it's cold?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-08-2019 01:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
no one has really defined what a constitutes a 'new species'. ...They look exactly like the ones in Eastern Washington.

Are they a new species?


I think Darwin Galapagos turtles were unable to mate if she'll shapes didn't match but not being able to breed seems a bit convenient a dividing line between species.

Having an f'ing mountain range in the way kind of puts a crimp on the act of reproducing, doncha think?

Domesticated turkeys cannot mate. They no longer fit together. The hens must be artificially inseminated. The get a syringe full from the Tom, then sit on a stool in the barn full of hens, grab one and give her a quick squirt before tossing her off to the side (Didja like that honey?). Are they a species?

The bananas you buy in the supermarket are not able to reproduce at all. Every single one of them comes from a cutting of the same plant. These bananas contain no seed. They are hybrids. Are they a species?

tmiddles wrote:
When some behavioral/adaptive difference in groups of humans appear the phrase. "A new breed" is often used.

More in a subjective way than anything else. Like I pointed out earlier, what constitutes a new species?
tmiddles wrote:
To the original point I think the question of if bio-"value" ? Even more than "diversity", can incline, decline, be measured, be managed, is a worthwhile question to ask.

Well, you're gonna have to define 'species' then.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 01:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
Well, you're gonna have to define 'species' then.


Yeah I think it doesn't matter what a "species" is. It's like asking what's alive and what's not. But doubtless there are valuable things to be found in all thats out there. You know the classic concern that we might cut down a rainforest and lose the cure for cancer hiding in some rare orchid.
17-08-2019 01:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:To the original point I think the question of if bio-"value" ? Even more than "diversity", can incline, decline, be measured, be managed, is a worthwhile question to ask.

I'm sure that I'm the only one who had trouble parsing this statement. Would you be so kind as to "rephrase" for me?


Yeah I had trouble expressing it. There is a project to preserve all the seeds on Earth in case they may be needed in the future because some variety of plant disappears. That's sort of what I mean by the resource of biological value


I am familiar with this project. They will never succeed for the reasons I described. What constitutes a new kind of seed? Just what IS a new species?

What about plants that have no viable seed, like the bananas you see today in the supermarkets?

What about the seeds of animals?


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 01:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Well, you're gonna have to define 'species' then.


Yeah I think it doesn't matter what a "species" is. It's like asking what's alive and what's not. But doubtless there are valuable things to be found in all thats out there. You know the classic concern that we might cut down a rainforest and lose the cure for cancer hiding in some rare orchid.


There is no single cure for cancer, and never will be.

Cancer is a tumor of aneuploid cells. They occur in different tissues for different reasons, usually when the defense system of the body is overloaded so it can't kill off these cells when they occur.

The cause may be a virus, ionizing radiation, worry or paranoia, a bacterium, a secondary effect of a disease attacking the immune system directly such as AIDS, a defect in the lymphatic system (which does most of the programming for immune system cells) or the peritoneum (which does a lot of this programming also), cardiovascular disorders (which weaken the body as a whole, including the immune system), etc.

Mouth cancer is best avoided by not using chewing tobacco.
Lung cancere is best avoided by not being harsh on your lungs.
Skin cancers are best avoided by avoiding 2nd degree and possibly 1st degree sunburns.
Cancers in general are best avoided by simply not living in paranoia and worry and staying away from intense neutron bombardment, and having a short life.

There are no guarantees.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 03:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
There is no single cure for cancer, and never will be.


Wow so confident about an unknowable like that

Might you be from the church of Knowitallism : )

Go watch Jurassic Park and let's talk about the value of preserving crap that goes extinct.
17-08-2019 09:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no single cure for cancer, and never will be.


Wow so confident about an unknowable like that

Might you be from the church of Knowitallism : )

Go watch Jurassic Park and let's talk about the value of preserving crap that goes extinct.


It is knowable. It is the current understanding of what cancer is.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 11:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
There is no single cure for cancer, and never will be.

Wow so confident about an unknowable like that


If you define "Cure" as "Problem solved" then it's certainly not knowable. It is absolutely possible (I think likely) that a solution to cancer that makes it a non-issue is on the horizon. Maybe that means someone lives a long healthy life to die of something else while cancer is still floating around inside, tamed. But that's still a win.
17-08-2019 22:20
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1378)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
There is no single cure for cancer, and never will be.

Wow so confident about an unknowable like that


If you define "Cure" as "Problem solved" then it's certainly not knowable. It is absolutely possible (I think likely) that a solution to cancer that makes it a non-issue is on the horizon. Maybe that means someone lives a long healthy life to die of something else while cancer is still floating around inside, tamed. But that's still a win.


Yeah, the 'cure' has been just on the horizon, for 50 years or more. Cancer research is big business anymore, and a steady, well paying job. The cause/cure, hasn't been a focus for a long time. Treatment and preventatives, are huge money makers for millions of people invested in them.

Everybody responds to treatment differently, some still don't respond at all. Even if the treatment is deemed 'successful, you still need to be checked and monitored, to catch it quick, if it returns. Chemotherapy is a horrible treatment, lot of unpleasant side effects. They are literally pumping you full of poison. Not potent enough to do any serious damage to your organs (hopefully), but strong enough to kill off weaker cells, the cancer among them. Fortunately, quite a few medication have been developed, to reduce the unpleasantness of of some of the side-effects. Been a long time, since I had to go along for the ride, doubt they really do much, except run up the doctor bill.

There are a lot of illnesses, that can only be treated, never cured. No cure for the common cold, no vaccine, no effective antiviral, 5-7 days, and your body should have gotten rid of it. The flu is similar, although occasionally deadly, so vaccines are available, as well as an antiviral. Neither of which are highly effective, you can still get the flu, and still suffer the symptoms same as an individual who stayed home, and sweated it out naturally. Flu shot is only good for one season, and only covers a few, of several dozen know strains of the virus.

I don't see it likely there will be a cure for any type of cancer. Even if somebody stumbled across something that looks genuinely promising, there would be a lot of opposition. Treatment generates profits, a cure, is a profit killer.
18-08-2019 04:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't see it likely there will be a cure for any type of cancer. Even if somebody stumbled across something that looks genuinely promising, there would be a lot of opposition.


It is a good point that there is a financial incentive to keeping things cronic.

But dead people tend to be late on paying bills.

Take HIV, it's cronic, lots of money to be made, but if you have it at 30 you can live into your 70s not:


So cured in the "Not dead" sense of the word.
19-08-2019 07:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
There is no single cure for cancer, and never will be.

Wow so confident about an unknowable like that


If you define "Cure" as "Problem solved" then it's certainly not knowable.

It is knowable, we can cure quite a few cancers now, if they're caught early enough.
tmiddles wrote:
It is absolutely possible (I think likely) that a solution to cancer that makes it a non-issue is on the horizon.

It's here. Early cancers are curable. Anything else the damage has already been done and the cancer is spreading throughout the body.
tmiddles wrote:
Maybe that means someone lives a long healthy life to die of something else while cancer is still floating around inside, tamed. But that's still a win.

Like I said. It's already here. We can cure quite a few cancers right now.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
9 Signs That Prove Climate Change Is Real and Affecting Everyone917-10-2019 03:22
Is reason for climate change correct?4830-08-2019 03:14
The Real, 'Green New Deal'419-08-2019 02:52
Because global warming from emissions is real...14409-08-2019 19:49
The right approach1917-05-2019 10:24
▲ 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