see that's you not putting any sort of effort into it
Ugh how many times does this same climate change argument have to be retread, you deniers are [U]wrong[/U]. It's a fucking global consensus among climatologists that AGW exists, and i'm a little more biased towards what an actual scientist that has studied this field for his entire career says than what some guy on the internet who's been proven wrong on almost every issue he's brought up does.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23507970]Okay, save the planet, kill a human.[/QUOTE]
Because that's the reasonable jump to take once you realize anthropogenic climate change is real based on solid evidence. (It is.)
[editline]11:19PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23507987]Ugh how many times does this same climate change argument have to be retread, you deniers are [U]wrong[/U]. It's a fucking global consensus among climatologists that AGW exists, and i'm a little more biased towards what an actual scientist that has studied this field for his entire career says than what some guy on the internet who's been proven wrong on almost every issue he's brought up does.[/QUOTE]
It's not even just the consensus, the data is clearly in favor of AGW, even with no background in the area it's clear as day.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23507970]Okay, save the planet, kill a human.[/QUOTE]
false dichotomy
[QUOTE=Lambeth;23507981]see that's you not putting any sort of effort into it[/QUOTE]
That's the summed up version.
Extended version: So, CO2 is a pollutant, right?
And humans are a major player in that, right?
So would it no make sense to get rid of any major contributors of Co2?
Humans drive cars that pollute, make disposable items that pollute , make factories that pollute, [b]Breath out the very pollutant[/b], etc.
So shouldn't the best answer be to kill all humans and animals? We don't want any More CO2 now do we? So a world with no CO2 producer should cause CO2 levels to go down and cool down the planet. Too bad no one will be left to appreciate it when we're all done, but that's the price for "Saving the Planet"
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23508067]Because that's the reasonable jump to take once you realize anthropogenic climate change is real based on solid evidence. (It is.)
[editline]11:19PM[/editline]
It's not even just the consensus, the data is clearly in favor of AGW, even with no background in the area it's clear as day.[/QUOTE]
That too, you can look at the studies, check out the reports, and see this is real and happening. The only way you can support an opposing view is through cherry picking and flat out ignoring contradicting evidence. Even without the appeal to authority (which isn't a fallacy when the authority is valid) you can see the science behind it and what it says.
[editline]10:27PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508176]That's the summed up version.
Extended version: So, CO2 is a pollutant, right?
And humans are a major player in that, right?
So would it no make sense to get rid of any major contributors of Co2?
Humans drive cars that pollute, make disposable items that pollute , make factories that pollute, [B]Breath out the very pollutant[/B], etc.
So shouldn't the best answer be to kill all humans and animals? We don't want any More CO2 now do we? So a world with no CO2 producer should cause CO2 levels to go down and cool down the planet. Too bad no one will be left to appreciate it when we're all done, but that's the price for "Saving the Planet"[/QUOTE]
Strawman strawman straaaawwwmaaaannnnnn
No one has ever said that humans are the biggest producer of CO2 and other greenhouse gases because we breathe them out, what the fuck? The argument is that we should limit the pollution producing elements in our civilization. We're the biggest producer because of the hundreds of millions of pollution belching cars we drive and especially the thousands of factories dumping out millions of tons of pollutants. You're just trying to make the opposing argument sound stupid and easily defeated because [U]you don't have an argument[/U]. If you did you wouldn't have to make up some absurd shit like "kill humans, get rid of CO2".
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508176]That's the summed up version.
Extended version: So, CO2 is a pollutant, right?
And humans are a major player in that, right?
So would it no make sense to get rid of any major contributors of Co2?
Humans drive cars that pollute, make disposable items that pollute , make factories that pollute, [b]Breath out the very pollutant[/b], etc.
So shouldn't the best answer be to kill all humans and animals? We don't want any More CO2 now do we? So a world with no CO2 producer should cause CO2 levels to go down and cool down the planet. Too bad no one will be left to appreciate it when we're all done, but that's the price for "Saving the Planet"[/QUOTE]
No one is arguing that. At all, you're making a stupid leap with a huge strawman.
Humans as a society can be CO2 negative if we try, with carbon sequestration, and green technologies for transportation and industry.
~sinp~
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23508190]That too, you can look at the studies, check out the reports, and see this is real and happening. The only way you can support an opposing view is through cherry picking and flat out ignoring contradicting evidence. Even without the appeal to authority (which isn't a fallacy when the authority is valid) you can see the science behind it and what it says.
[/QUOTE]
An appeal to authority based on scientific consensus (Not the thoughts of one quirky scientist) on a highly complex topic that involves rigorous years of study, such as this one, is an acceptable thing for the general public. While I do think the general public has to take a bigger interest in science, (as not doing so is increasingly unwise and may imperil you one day) I don't expect people to make themselves fully informed on every topic. When you're not, you have to trust the consensus of experts.
However, if you're in a place to make policy on this sort of thing, you should also educate yourself as best you can, so you can understand why the consensus exists.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508275]Hello, i'm no one[/QUOTE]
Ok sorry, no one in their right mind/no one not blatantly pulling shit out of their ass
EDIT: Can't hide from me
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508275]Hello, I'm no one.[/QUOTE]
lol you have no data or any evidence
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23508234]No one is arguing that. At all, you're making a stupid leap with a huge strawman.
Humans as a society can be CO2 negative if we try, with carbon sequestration, and green technologies for transportation and industry.[/QUOTE]
Let me ask you, what gas do we breath out our bodies?
[QUOTE=Glaber;23507970]Okay, save the planet, kill a human.[/QUOTE]
Can you volunteer to be the first victim?
It's to save the planet, after all!
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23508283]An appeal to authority based on scientific consensus (Not the thoughts of one quirky scientist) on a highly complex topic that involves rigorous years of study, such as this one, is an acceptable thing for the general public. While I do think the general public has to take a bigger interest in science, (as not doing so is increasingly unwise and may imperil you one day) I don't expect people to make themselves fully informed on every topic. When you're not, you have to trust the consensus of experts.
However, if you're in a place to make policy on this sort of thing, you should also educate yourself as best you can, so you can understand why the consensus exists.[/QUOTE]
Oh, of course. It's just crap that the people making our laws and such big decisions as congress and the senate are aren't more well informed, or sometimes even deliberately ignorant. The public as a whole certainly needs to be way better educated with regards to science, the state we're in now is just sad
[editline]10:34PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508304]Let me ask you, what gas do we breath out our bodies?[/QUOTE]
Oh fuck you, you're just arguing for the sake of it now. If you're gonna go with that insane reasoning, let's kill every oxygen breathing thing in the world
EDIT: This is all a political ideology, you don't have any real thought backing your position, you just see what your political ilk believe and go with that.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508304]Let me ask you, what gas do we breath out our bodies?[/QUOTE]
Let me ask you, do you realize that that is probably the most negligible net effect our activities on the climate?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23508322]Can you volunteer to be the first victim?
It's to save the planet, after all![/QUOTE]
No, we must all go at once. Somebody has to set off a series of nuclear bombs. (Am I scarring anybody yet?)
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23508324]
EDIT: This is all a political ideology, you don't have any real thought backing your position, you just see what your political ilk believe and go with that.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I'm just arguing crazy now.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23508356]Let me ask you, do you realize that that is probably the most negligible net effect our activities on the climate?[/QUOTE]
Let me ask you seriously now. Do you realize that regardless to the net effect our activities on the climate, Our Government could very well try to regulate us for Breathing!? This is why I make my insane argument! I know it's insane because I designed it to be.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508425]No, we must all go at once. Somebody has to set off a series of nuclear bombs. (Am I scarring anybody yet?)
Actually, I'm just arguing crazy now.[/QUOTE]
you mean trolling.
You may be trolling, but my point is still valid.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23508460]you mean trolling.[/QUOTE]
Call it that if you will, My point is that you'd have to be crazy to regulate a life gas just for "Saving the Planet". And if this warrants a ban. So be it.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508425]
Let me ask you seriously now. Do you realize that regardless to the net effect our activities on the climate, Our Government could very well try to regulate us for Breathing!? This is why I make my insane argument! I know it's insane because I designed it to be.[/QUOTE]
What. You're not even making sense at this point.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23506803]See bold.[/QUOTE]
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It causes temperatures to rise when the amount of it in an atmosphere increases. It's why Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. Look at this chart for more info:
[IMG]http://www.ess.washington.edu/~steig/images/epicagore.gif[/IMG]
Notice the relation of temperature vs CO2 levels.
Now if you look at how the Milankovitch cycles works, this graph will show you that the CO2 levels are increasing when they should be decreasing (and that the temperature is in a odd flux when it should also be decreasing). It also shows that the levels of CO2 directly affect the temperature.
[url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg[/url]
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508566]Call it that if you will, My point is that you'd have to be crazy to regulate a life gas just for "Saving the Planet". And if this warrants a ban. So be it.[/QUOTE]
Cause "regulating a life gas" is the exact same as trying to limit cars and factories from releasing hundreds of millions of tons of pollution that sure as hell ain't a gas good for life
[img_thumb] http://www.facepunch.com/fp/emoot/downs.gif [/img_thumb]
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508566]Call it that if you will, My point is that you'd have to be crazy to regulate a life gas just for "Saving the Planet". And if this warrants a ban. So be it.[/QUOTE]
Okay, you can watch the bread basket of America turn into a desert, then. Not regulating it would cause major damage.
Just because it's "natural" or a "Life gas (What?)", doesn't mean it's a good or okay thing. Arsenic is produced by plants, but you wouldn't want loads of that floating around in the atmosphere.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23508570]What. You're not even making sense at this point.[/QUOTE]
Ever heard of "[b]Cap and Trade[/b]"?
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23508604]Okay, you can watch the bread basket of America turn into a desert, then. Not regulating it would cause major damage.[/QUOTE]
By that time, China would had blown away in a dust storm. (Look at their levels of CO2)
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508304]Let me ask you, what gas do we breath out our bodies?[/QUOTE]
Carbon Dioxide
[editline]08:53PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508629]Ever heard of "[b]Cap and Trade[/b]"?[/QUOTE]
Nobody is gonna regulate breathing
Now that I'm thinking about it more, if we want' to be carbon negative, we have to go after China. Otherwise, our efforts will be for naught.
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews[/url]
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508629]Ever heard of "[b]Cap and Trade[/b]"?
By that time, China would had blown away in a dust storm. (Look at their levels of CO2)[/QUOTE]
Except humans don't produce that much CO2 via breathing. One human in eighty years will produce about 30 tons of CO2, or about the same as a midsized car over 110K miles which is done far faster.
Also climate is global, just because China is throwing out a lot, doesn't mean it will be localized to that area.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508690]Now that I'm thinking about it more, if we want' to be carbon negative, we have to go after China. Otherwise, our efforts will be for naught.[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes we should, every modernized country should work to limit it's emissions.
That also means America, which you're trying to push the focus away from :colbert:
And completely ignore the fact that would make us look like hypocrites?
[QUOTE=Glaber;23507337]I believe that it happens, do I believe that we are responsible as Al Gore and others were trying to get us to believe? Hell No. But really, if we are responsible, the only answer is death. Think about it for a moment, why cull other animals in Australia for farting and burping when humans do that stuff and drive cars too? Don't we as a race produce more CO2 than any other species?
No think about it again, the very gas this whole thing is about is a [b]TRACE GAS[/b], and it has little to no effect on this planet on global warming or Climate change. If you're so concerned about Global warming, then go after water vapor! Why go after the grain of sand when the problem is the mountain behind you, if it even is a problem?
[/QUOTE]
You are not a scientist, stop talking like one.
You are also not an economist or historian, keep these in mind for other threads
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
