|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » L.A. Times Bans Climate Deniers - When Will the Rest of the Media Follow Suit?

Default L.A. Times Bans Climate Deniers - When Will the Rest of the Media Follow Suit?

October 22nd, 2013, 23:49
Read it DTE. Increased carbon dioxide amplifies the heating effect of orbital variations, but does not cause them. If we are at the tail of an ice age, and due for some increased solar flux anyway, increased carbon dioxide will amplify the effect.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#41

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,333

Default 

October 23rd, 2013, 00:04
OK, I'll accept that as undisputed fact even if it's not proven yet. All those global/stellar factors like Cycles that we can't do shit about, but our "amplification" is the driving factor in this equation. Got it. So what are we going to do about all the damn breathing and farting? Generates orders of magnitude more CO2 and methane than burning fossil fuels. Hell, based on the smell I think I just contributed to acid rain, too.

In typical leftie fashion, you're trying to save the world by working frantically on stuff that doesn't matter. Want to reduce CO2? Start a war in China or India. Your switch to neo-con politics is surprising, but I'm sure they'll welcome a fresh body. Honestly, though, they kinda creep me out.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#42

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,360

Default 

October 23rd, 2013, 00:08
It's a proven fact and can be duplicated in the lab. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas that reflects radiated thermal heat back down onto the Earth. That's basic scientific reasoning right there. Cmon DTE be serious. As I understand it, human (and our livestock) generated methane and CO2 is a drop in the bucket compared to the carbon dioxide fossil fuel burning. That will probably change once we run out though, but by then we'll all be dead anyway.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#43

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,333

Default 

October 23rd, 2013, 00:15
I don't see where I disputed that particular fact in the slightest.

You've called man's influence the driving factor in the equation, then introduced a laundry list of global/stellar mechanisms that minimized man's influence in the equation. The word you chose was "amplify", which implies it's not the primary signal. I've accepted your pet mechanism (Cycles) without dispute. I've agreed with your evidence and interpretation that man is merely the flea on the dog here. Mother Nature is moving the global temperature on an astronomical field while we're merely making a bad situation worse. I couldn't be more agreeable here.

So again, why are you so hot to trot on fossil fuels when that's a minor component of something that's merely an amplifier anyway?

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#44

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,360

Default 

October 23rd, 2013, 00:22
CO2 is not just a small amplifier. It's a big one. In fact it's so big, it can make "ice ages" just feel like someone turned on the air conditioner. Treat it as a mitigator to ice ages. It amplifies increased input from the sun, and mitigates decreases.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#45

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,333

Default 

October 23rd, 2013, 03:06
Then you should be out front of global population control. That's how you solve the CO2 problem, not pissing in the wind over fossil fuels. It's a dual-benefit too, since less people take up less space, leaving more land for plants. I'm not sure what the most effective manner to control population might be, but I expect an extended conventional war between China and India (if we're gonna throw out a crazy hypthetical, let's swing for the fences) would do the trick.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#46

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,360

Default 

October 23rd, 2013, 03:44
Get serious DTE.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#47

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,333

Default 

October 23rd, 2013, 04:08
True, it's rather silly to think we could get an extended conventional war between those two. One side or the other would go nuke after few years. Thing is, you've got to involve China or India or you're wasting your time, almost as bad as going after fossil fuels.

Seriously, though, you're missing the boat going after fossil fuels. Will it make a difference? Sure, I'm sure there's a decimal point in there for ya somewhere. Want to make a real difference? Your only real option is population reduction of some flavor or another.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#48

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,360

Default 

October 23rd, 2013, 05:40
Clearly you can't be taken seriously. The amount of CO2 from people breathing is miniscule compared to burning fossil fuels.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#49

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,333

Default 

October 23rd, 2013, 06:07
How do you choose to define "miniscule" for this particular discussion? You've got a long history of shifting goalposts when you get caught with your pants down, so I'd like to establish the numbers right up front.

Do you actually know the numbers for human respiration versus fossil fuels? Or are you just blindly following the enviro-nut lefty party line and hoping for the best?

Just so you know, I've done the math, but I won't tell you the answer just yet. How confident are ya, champ?

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#50

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,360

Default 

October 23rd, 2013, 09:41
It's a pretty stupid assertion nonetheless. People also grow crops that take CO2 out of the air. You better count that too, if you want to consider every human activity that effects CO2. But I know cherry picking extraneous stuff, and ignoring mitigating factors is your modus operadi.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#51

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,333

Default 

October 23rd, 2013, 10:12
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Then you should be out front of global population control. That's how you solve the CO2 problem, not pissing in the wind over fossil fuels. It's a dual-benefit too, since less people take up less space, leaving more land for plants. I'm not sure what the most effective manner to control population might be, but I expect an extended conventional war between China and India (if we're gonna throw out a crazy hypthetical, let's swing for the fences) would do the trick.
Ah, that is a fair point. The man made global climate change. The global climate change is the responsibility of all because it is the doing of all.

Evidence: everyone breathes. So breathing must be the first thing to control.

Because actually, if when you pinpoint other factors as essential, it might appear that not everyone consumes that much fossil energy. And it will no longer be a man made phenonemum.

Among humanity, there are:

-breathers
-breathers that consume heavily fossil energy.

And it is a man made phenonenom. Additionally, it should also remember that consumption of fossil energy is the very same as breathing: man can not use fossil energy (as shown by stone age people) as man can not breathe. It is a matter of will.

Evidence: when people choose not to breathe long enough, the man made global climate change is solved.

Funny how some people have taken humanity as a hostage. Anything that goes must go for the whole humanity.

Man made global climate change, so curb the world population or… Blackmailing, blackmailing, blackmailing over again.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#52

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,221

Default 

October 23rd, 2013, 20:15
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Yeah, you got me really good
*chuckles* Yeah.

But I can't take all the credit; You did most of the work. Just in case you missed it…

Originally Posted by SirJames
Those who cannot attack the thought instead attack the thinker
Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Those who invent an attack for every response will create a war in a time of potential peace.
— This response is an attack on the thinker and not the thought! OOPS

Don't worry, I thought that was adorable! I wouldn't usually stoop to pointing it out, because it makes me look fickle while making you a little smarter, but have +1 wisdom for being such a good sport. Go on, I insist! B)
SirJames is offline

SirJames

SirJames's Avatar
Sentinel

#53

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 567

Default 

October 23rd, 2013, 20:29
Originally Posted by detowner
I'm not sure what the most effective manner to control population might be
Vaccines and GMO seeds
SirJames is offline

SirJames

SirJames's Avatar
Sentinel

#54

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 567

Default 

October 24th, 2013, 01:10
Since we're on the topic, I like how this guy breaks it down:
http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with…ely-obsolete-7
Maylander is offline

Maylander

SasqWatch

#55

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 5,657
Send a message via MSN to Maylander

Default 

October 24th, 2013, 02:41
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_…l#.Umhc3LZTD4g

Interesting set of papers here, and of course, nowhere is mentioned human farting and human exhalation as an even marginal source of greenhouse gasses.

DTE, if you think otherwise, let's see the proof. I'm sure you think you are smarter than thousands of scientists.

EDIT:

Of course, I was right, once again. See this:

When people breathe, they exhale carbon dioxide. Does this contribute to climate change? HINT: The answer is NO.

This "synthesis" report is a summary report that's pretty well put together and easily digestible. Burp!
Last edited by Thrasher; October 24th, 2013 at 02:54.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#56

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,333

Default 

October 24th, 2013, 15:53
Interesting. As usual, you're in such a hurry that you've failed to read what I've actually typed. It is a nice change to see that you've actually done some research for a change beyond regurgitating from esteemed points of light like HuffPo and DailyKos.

I'll say it slowly. Prove…that…man's…influence…is…bigger…than…nature's . Nobody's denying man's influence. Does it really matter compared to drivers that occur at the cosmic level?

Anyway, let's take a look at your references. The EPA states that exhaled CO2 is just returning the carbon that was temporarily held in plants. OK. I'm good with that. Now, think hard here. Where does oil come from? All together now, class. Dead plants and animals. So, if "returning CO2 temporarily held by plants to the system" is a completely natural part of the carbon cycle, then why would it be different burning a barrel of oil versus eating McDonalds?

The point in all of this is that you need to think and question. When it comes to climate change, questioning is not allowed. People that didn't buy into the hockey stick study were ridiculed and written off as crackpot deniers, same empty insults your hurl at me any time I have the poor manners to question your schtick. Then we find out those crackpot deniers were right because the hockey stick study was FRAUDULENT. Strangely enough, I didn't hear too many apologies to the crackpots after that. The attitude hasn't changed in the slightest even though the lesson is clear.

We don't understand jackshit about all the inputs to the problem but we're damn certain we know the answer to the question. That's arrogant and dumb. Use your brain, Thrasher. Even if it does turn about that man is master of the universe and Mother Nature is a pussy (I'd love to get some action on that bet), the thinking will still be worthwhile.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#57

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,360

Default 

October 24th, 2013, 20:04
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
So, if "returning CO2 temporarily held by plants to the system" is a completely natural part of the carbon cycle, then why would it be different burning a barrel of oil versus eating McDonalds?
Haha. Ok, create dionosaurs out of oil rather than turn it into CO2, and you might make sense. But in either case, you're off in wacko land again. Human food production sequesters the CO@ humans create. It balances out the equation. The total resulting CO2 input to the atmosphere is around zero. There is no balancing side to burning oil that ends up sequestering the produced CO2 back into Oil, unless you want to wait millions of years. Doesn't help with the short term problems. It's really not that complicated, unless you are purposely looking for excuses to be irresponsible.

Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
The point in all of this is that you need to think and question.
I call bullshit. Your point is to continually deny facts and experts knowledge with crazy ass notions that are untrue and make no sense, for the only reason that it fits your political views, not because you want to better understand the universe and how it works. This is how you've always been and how you always will act, as far as I can tell.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#58

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,333

Default 

October 24th, 2013, 20:24
Originally Posted by SirJames View Post
*chuckles* Yeah.

But I can't take all the credit; You did most of the work. Just in case you missed it…
I think I missed it, yeah

Then again - I keep missing the obvious - like the perfection known as the Dark Souls character system.

— This response is an attack on the thinker and not the thought! OOPS
You mean it's another example of inventing an attack to have a war in a time of potential peace?

I can agree with that.

Don't worry, I thought that was adorable! I wouldn't usually stoop to pointing it out, because it makes me look fickle while making you a little smarter, but have +1 wisdom for being such a good sport. Go on, I insist! B)
That's sweet of you - thanks!
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#59

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 15,258

Default 

October 24th, 2013, 21:25
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
I call bullshit. Your point is to continually deny facts and experts knowledge with crazy ass notions that are untrue and make no sense, for the only reason that it fits your political views, not because you want to better understand the universe and how it works. This is how you've always been and how you always will act, as far as I can tell.
Not so, good man, not so. I have denied none of the information that you've presented. My stance all along has been that we have no definitive evidence whether man is 99% of the overall problem or 1% of the overall problem. Fossil fuel use is absolutely not 0% of the overall problem. About the only thing that I continually deny, to use the word slightly inaccurately, is the immediate assumption among the enviro-nuts and their fraudulent friends in academia that man is 99% of the overall problem.

I'll even grant you, with certain reservations, that man is 99% of the portion of the problem we understand. That is not the same as 99% of the overall problem and that difference is critical. Because if we go to great effort and expense and cut fossil fuel use in half tomorrow (regardless of how realistic that might be), we might see a 50% reduction in 1% of the overall problem. That's a horrible use of manpower and money, even if it would have all the enviro-nuts suffering from dehydration from all their orgasms.

The funny thing is that, by bringing all those lofty but largely unproven theories like Malovich Cycles and such into the picture, you've really demonstrated my exact point- there's a lot going on and we barely understand a sliver of it.

I still think you'd get much better results via population control. There's a lot of effect multipliers down that road that you don't get from simply plugging all the oil wells, but that's neither here nor there.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#60

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,360
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » L.A. Times Bans Climate Deniers - When Will the Rest of the Media Follow Suit?
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:14.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch