Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Climate change..

Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:00:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I am finding the people on the two primary sides of the issue quite ridiculous. One side is pretty much the creationist crowd who don't know a flying sh*t about science, and the other side is just as bad, their like a regulation crazy cult.

Lets examine some facts.

The temperature WAS going up.

The temperature HAS STOPPED going up.

Co2 has been and still is going up.

People have tried put two and two together and say that Co2 was causing the rise in temperature because the charts seemed to match very closely.

But many other completely random things can match as well, such as the rise in people naming their child a certain name, it doesn't necessarily mean their connected.

There is however something that seems to match up even better than the rise in Co2. The rise and fall of solar activity matches up almost perfectly. The Sun controlling temperature? Who would have thought of that?

When the solar activity went up, so did the temperature of the Earth, when it went down, so did the Earth.

Conclusion: Climate change is real, but we are not causing it, and there are very little things we can do about it. One thing that will not help is "going green", not to say that it doesn't have other uses.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:08:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 7:00:21 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Conclusion: Climate change is real, but we are not causing it, and there are very little things we can do about it. One thing that will not help is "going green", not to say that it doesn't have other uses.

Agreed, though I question the entire "solar flares" thing. Solar flares are not a viable enough force to heat up the planet on such a huge scale, at least not unless we're talking about major radiation bearing down on us, which isn't what occurred, since you know, we're not all horribly mutated or dead by now.

The planet is warming, and its cooling, and its doing a whole bunch of crazy sh*t we're rarely aware of. The best we can hope for is to brace ourselves for the effects of what may happen within the next hundred years, because something will most likely occur. Not on a wiping-out-humanity scale, but something that will definitely ruin our nice little technologically-and-stability-happy picnic.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:14:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 7:09:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

That is hilarious, thank you for sharing.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:19:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Do note that the vast majority of scientists attribute climate change to human activities and that no scientific body dissents from this opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:22:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 7:19:57 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Do note that the vast majority of scientists attribute climate change to human activities and that no scientific body dissents from this opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org...

So? They also admit to sprucing up their numbers in order to make their graphs appear more dramatic and oo-scary.

I don't flow with the crowd on this issue. I'm too pragmatic. And for heaven's sake, we've probably already run out of time by now.

Pollution should be reduced for health and safety reasons, not to mention efficiency. Just come out and say it, people will still support it.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:23:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 7:19:57 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Do note that the vast majority of scientists attribute climate change to human activities and that no scientific body dissents from this opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Right, anything that a bunch of respected people say must be true. Unless you actually come up with a reason for why I'm wrong, your not giving any real contribution to the discussion. Link are always appreciated though.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:24:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Nonharmful "pollution" will be reduced out of popular demand for 'green' products.
Harmful pollution (the real pollution) will be reduced with a surge of civil lawsuits.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:35:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
at least not unless we're talking about major radiation bearing down on us, which isn't what occurred, since you know, we're not all horribly mutated or dead by now.

The "horrible mutation" variety of radiation is a very small amount of what the sun outputs, and ozone tends to stop most of it from going far.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:39:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 7:35:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The "horrible mutation" variety of radiation is a very small amount of what the sun outputs, and ozone tends to stop most of it from going far.

Aye, I was kidding. Most radiation will rarely have enough effect to even mutate living tissue. It'll just kill you.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:40:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 7:39:01 PM, Volkov wrote:
Aye, I was kidding. Most radiation will rarely have enough effect to even mutate living tissue. It'll just kill you.

For a second you had me worried.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:43:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 7:39:01 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/30/2009 7:35:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The "horrible mutation" variety of radiation is a very small amount of what the sun outputs, and ozone tends to stop most of it from going far.

Aye, I was kidding. Most radiation will rarely have enough effect to even mutate living tissue. It'll just kill you.

That's funny right there.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:49:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 7:43:52 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 11/30/2009 7:39:01 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/30/2009 7:35:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The "horrible mutation" variety of radiation is a very small amount of what the sun outputs, and ozone tends to stop most of it from going far.

Aye, I was kidding. Most radiation will rarely have enough effect to even mutate living tissue. It'll just kill you.

That's funny right there.

Its true, though? I fail to see how its funny.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 9:05:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 7:23:43 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 11/30/2009 7:19:57 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Do note that the vast majority of scientists attribute climate change to human activities and that no scientific body dissents from this opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Right, anything that a bunch of respected people say must be true. Unless you actually come up with a reason for why I'm wrong, your not giving any real contribution to the discussion. Link are always appreciated though.

I'm not giving you a reason for why you're wrong, because you don't know the reason you're right. The issue of climate change is not moral or political. It is statistical and analytical. You can't tell me you understand the math and analysis behind this issue

Much like with evolution, all I can say is that the overwhelming majority of scientists specialized in the very subject do no side with your position.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 9:11:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 9:05:04 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

Much like with evolution, all I can say is that the overwhelming majority of scientists specialized in the very subject do no side with your position.

I wouldn't say I know too much about climate change, but I'm not a scientist and yet I think I understand the premises, arguments, and general evidence for evolution quite well despite not being a scientist.

Evolution is not like climate change in this regard.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 9:18:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 9:11:33 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/30/2009 9:05:04 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

Much like with evolution, all I can say is that the overwhelming majority of scientists specialized in the very subject do no side with your position.

I wouldn't say I know too much about climate change, but I'm not a scientist and yet I think I understand the premises, arguments, and general evidence for evolution quite well despite not being a scientist.

Evolution is not like climate change in this regard.

This is what I meant by my analogy.

If you want to debunk the theory of evolution (and be taken seriously), get a Ph.D. on the subject, because nearly the entire scientific community is against you.

Similarly, if you want to debunk the fact that humans are the primary reason for climate change (and be taken seriously), get a Ph.D. on the subject, because nearly the entire scientific community is against you.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 9:20:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have read that the black plague and other large pandemics in history have created huge increases in temperature, because of the large amounts of dead, human corpses.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 9:21:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 9:20:09 PM, Harlan wrote:
I have read that the black plague and other large pandemics in history have created huge increases in temperature, because of the large amounts of dead, human corpses.

As opposed to living, moving, food-burning corpses?

Good lord that's just fail.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 9:25:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 9:21:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

As opposed to living, moving, food-burning corpses?

Good lord that's just fail.

Agreed, maybe the increase in all those "living corpses" is whats causing climate change??
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 9:28:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 9:21:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/30/2009 9:20:09 PM, Harlan wrote:
I have read that the black plague and other large pandemics in history have created huge increases in temperature, because of the large amounts of dead, human corpses.

As opposed to living, moving, food-burning corpses?

Good lord that's just fail.

I might be describing it wrong, but this is what I read, and it was supported by some research. It was an essay entitled "The cold we caused," in an issue of Harper's.

I suppose that a decomposing corpse may produce a greater amount of green house gasses.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 9:29:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I doubt it. Humans have killed off a number of competing large mammals on the way to our rise to the top of the food chain. Even assuming the effects aren't negligible (which, wild guess here, but I'd think they are), the rise in one is accompanied by a decrease in another. Biology isn't quite like a free market, it's significantly nearer zero sum.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 9:33:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 9:28:29 PM, Harlan wrote:
At 11/30/2009 9:21:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/30/2009 9:20:09 PM, Harlan wrote:
I have read that the black plague and other large pandemics in history have created huge increases in temperature, because of the large amounts of dead, human corpses.

As opposed to living, moving, food-burning corpses?

Good lord that's just fail.

I might be describing it wrong, but this is what I read, and it was supported by some research. It was an essay entitled "The cold we caused," in an issue of Harper's.

I suppose that a decomposing corpse may produce a greater amount of green house gasses.

Let's assume greenhouse gases are what matters.

I'm producing greenhouse gases every second I breathe. Corpses don't breath. They might rot, but somehow I doubt bacteria digest more than I do. Maybe more pound for pound, but I'm more pounds, at least for those bacteria that only activate on death.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 9:36:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 9:33:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/30/2009 9:28:29 PM, Harlan wrote:
At 11/30/2009 9:21:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/30/2009 9:20:09 PM, Harlan wrote:
I have read that the black plague and other large pandemics in history have created huge increases in temperature, because of the large amounts of dead, human corpses.

As opposed to living, moving, food-burning corpses?

Good lord that's just fail.

I might be describing it wrong, but this is what I read, and it was supported by some research. It was an essay entitled "The cold we caused," in an issue of Harper's.

I suppose that a decomposing corpse may produce a greater amount of green house gasses.

Let's assume greenhouse gases are what matters.

I'm producing greenhouse gases every second I breathe. Corpses don't breath. They might rot, but somehow I doubt bacteria digest more than I do. Maybe more pound for pound, but I'm more pounds, at least for those bacteria that only activate on death.

They also cremated the corpses, though, and polluted the earth and water supply with the dead, which may harm wildlife.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 9:47:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 9:36:37 PM, Harlan wrote:
At 11/30/2009 9:33:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/30/2009 9:28:29 PM, Harlan wrote:
At 11/30/2009 9:21:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/30/2009 9:20:09 PM, Harlan wrote:
I have read that the black plague and other large pandemics in history have created huge increases in temperature, because of the large amounts of dead, human corpses.

As opposed to living, moving, food-burning corpses?

Good lord that's just fail.

I might be describing it wrong, but this is what I read, and it was supported by some research. It was an essay entitled "The cold we caused," in an issue of Harper's.

I suppose that a decomposing corpse may produce a greater amount of green house gasses.

Let's assume greenhouse gases are what matters.

I'm producing greenhouse gases every second I breathe. Corpses don't breath. They might rot, but somehow I doubt bacteria digest more than I do. Maybe more pound for pound, but I'm more pounds, at least for those bacteria that only activate on death.

They also cremated the corpses, though
Cremation means the mass dieoff is not the cause, simply related to it. Yes, fire warms things up. How much globally I dunno, but somehow I doubt it's good reasoning just because you say it is:)

and polluted the earth and water supply with the dead, which may harm wildlife.
Harming wildlife means a cooler planet, not a warmer one. Incidentally why the hell did you bring them up? It's almost like you think someone is claiming the Black Death is a good thing.

Btw, should've said this earlier:

"

If you want to debunk the theory of evolution (and be taken seriously), get a Ph.D. on the subject, because nearly the entire scientific community is against you.

Similarly, if you want to debunk the fact that humans are the primary reason for climate change (and be taken seriously), get a Ph.D. on the subject, because nearly the entire scientific community is against you."
This is both an ad authoritatem and an argument from intimidation all wrapped up into one.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 9:51:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
OK, agreed. I didn't say that because you merely expressed your "doubts" and not "conclusions," so I thought that would be unfair and hypocritical.

But, as an aside, I wasn't claiming that the heat from cremations raised the global temperature. That would be dumb. I was talking about the smoke caused by burning vast amounts of human flesh, which pollutes the atmosphere.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 10:58:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Darkening the skies, reducing the amount of heat absorbed from the sun? :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 11:01:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 10:58:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Darkening the skies, reducing the amount of heat absorbed from the sun? :)

Hmm, just because it's so in the matrix doesn't mean.... nevermind.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 11:03:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I've never seen the matrix. Lol.

But volcanoes are known to do that for one thing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.