you were just schooled on proof vs. science... and still you persist! Comprehension fail, hey!
easy for yout to bleat out isn't it? Just another of your porkies.
Confessions of a Climate Change Denier
- Thread starter grainfedpraiboy
- Start date
you were just schooled on proof vs. science... and still you persist! Comprehension fail, hey!
easy for yout to bleat out isn't it? Just another of your porkies.
... And stil nothing.
Thanks fer comin' out waldo... Let's see if Vana has a consolation prize for ya... Maybe a nice down blanket to ward-off all that Global Warming
Yes, it is easy... Too easy in fact
Well, that's about it. You have your knowledge people, who know stuff but, let's face it, they aren't to electrifying on the podium. That's where your PR folks come in--your Mark Steyns, your Greenpeaces. These people don't give a rat's azz about facts. they just want to win the argument. Nad that's where the debate in the public arena ends up.
True. But perhaps not as relevant as the fact that taxslave's claim is entirely false.
Have you noticed Captain that all new global warming "converts" are just like the newly "Born again Christians"?
They simply feel the need, almost religiously, to convert others to their faith....?
Then you take Tony.....He's like the Old Christian, he knows that those who don't believe will rarely change their faith and it's not worth the trouble, and he will just stick a comment in once in a while....lol
And you read what he says, because he's not a goof about it. And you pick up what he's laying down, and you learn something from him.
Very well said
And with that ability to form some kind of semblance of a 2-way communication, the debate turns into a discussion and there is an ability to actually learn and expand a knowledge base.\
Where we are now (myself incl in certain company) is a he said/she said, yo mama insult fest.
Well they usually leave no room for anything else.
Just think, if you and I couldn't communicate, I'd still think Gasland was an actual documentary, or fracking was the ultimate evil.
Funny how that works eh?
No, it doesn't, and no it isn't. Let's start with growth first. Geometric growth would mean the rate of change is increasing yearly. It isn't. At the turn of the century we were adding 80 million people per year. Now we're down to 70 million per year. i.e. the growth rate is declining, and the curve is bending down instead of up. Now, the core issue is how much is emitted, and how much the sinks take up. Full stop. Any number above the uptake means the atmosphere becomes more opaque and retains more heat. It doesn't matter how the total emission value changes, whether the number of people goes down, or the efficiency goes up, or a new non-emitting disruptive technology replaces another, or we find ways to sequester more, etc. etc.
Any claims that one is more important than the other is ridiculous. A reduction in 5 tonnes is a reduction in 5 tonnes, it doesn't matter how it happens. Any claims to the contrary is right up there with the moonbats who think organic Vitamin C supplements are better than synthetic vitamin C supplements. If the chemical composition and structure are the same, it doesn't matter where it came from.
Making it about population growth is simply attempting to force the conversation into a box where the only option is limiting personal choices, which makes it unpalatable as an option to most people. That's what makes this rhetorical technique popular among those who deny the science.
Of course, but that's far off. Efficiency is just one example I used. As I said above, a reduction in 5 tonnes is a reduction in 5 tonnes, it doesn't matter how it was achieved.
Managed forest lots can increase carbon sequestration. That's one of the adaptation/mitigation strategies some places have used. In Sweden they've found that intensively managed forests sequester more carbon than those left to be undisturbed. So, economic benefit, and more carbon sequestered.
That's actually called a win-win. Hardly a problem with unpalatable options. Science informs us of more than just risks, it also communicates benefits, and evaluating outcomes as well.
Amazing how a little knowledge goes a long way.
Every one of us has a skill set and/or area of knowledge, and sharing that knowledge (regardless of how expert it is) yields big dividends for anyone that is prepared to listen and discuss. An individual that keeps an open mind will have a far better opportunity at understanding the overall issue(s) and can at least form their position from a base of knowledge as opposed to a position founded on emotion or preconceived notions.
We're still not through the calendar year
World Population Clock: 7 Billion People (2014) - Worldometers
Fuel Sources (Cooking) in Developing Nations
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/cooking.pdf
No matter how you cut it, assuming that anthro emissions are the culprit, the # of emitters is the key variable. Efficiency of the energy generation use falls behind it.
As I mentioned, it is the clearest and most defined component in the equation.
I'm also happy to provide some reference points on the practices of slash/burn and clear cutting. There is a distinct pattern of what parts of the globe this is still being practiced.... You can cross reference the population data from there
Actually my claim is entirely true Back before your time on the AWG thread there is ample proof that the IPCC and East Angela flat out lied.
IF you are old enough to remember Stumpy, the stump the ecoterrorists were packing around the globe to protest logging on the West coast of Vancouver Island you will remember that it did NOT come from where they said it did. Fact is all the save the planet types are full of **** and have proved it many times over. You can only cry wolf so many times and people quit believing you. That is when there might be a really big problem because the law of averages dictates even greenies will be right once. Trouble is no one will believe them that time either.
No it doesn't, no matter how many times you cut it.
Five is still five in your world, I will assume. So why would you assert 5 less people emitting one tonne a year is more valid than 5 million people who all told emit 5 fewer tonnes per year? You're going to have to explain this logic. On a global scale, which is the scale we're talking about, both scenarios are equal. If you`re assuming anthro emissions are the culprit, and not the number of people, then it bloody well doesn`t matter which scenario.
If it does to you, well that`s some really fuzzy logic.
The IPCC consists of several thousand scientists who contribute on a voluntary basis. Among those are many skeptical scientists. There is no evidence of your claim. There is widespread support for the IPCC in the scientific community. There findings are accetped by most governments, including the Government of Canada.
I don't remember that. I do remember the Clayquot when I was younger though. The fact is, in the final analsysi, the BC foirestry industry had to change its practices. It tried everything. Even the unions and the industry magnates teamed up to go to Europe to sort the Euroweenies out. But, eventually, they had to adapt their practices to what the consumer demanded.
I'm not out to save the planet. I just have an abiding interest in quantum physics adn thermodynamics.
yup - I asked him to provide a cite and his shadow Cappy pulled his favourite 'googleBitch' play on me... once again! Of course, taxslave's comeback is to simply say, "he read about it another prior thread"! Geezaz, these denier types around here will say just about anything in their postured "thruthiness"!
Yer all about solutions eh? What's your solution for solar climate change? Every chunk in this solar system exibits the same rate of physical change, a process far outside, just about infinitely outside of human control. Human contribution just barely registers against the magnitude of the driving forces of planetary climate. There's been some talk about population controls.Do you want to fix the climate or the population or are you completely mad and think you can do either or possibly both? I think a stabalized climate would perhaps spur population growth. Have they fooledd you into not replaceing your old snow shovel?
What kind of "scientist" are you exactly? I'm just sort of curious as you don't often encounter educated people who believe AGW is a hoax.
since your quote had a reference to.... to me... let me alert you to the fact I am anything but a "new convert". I've experienced denier lightweights, like you, for a very long time. You're all bluster and fluster and have absolutely no ability to support anything you ever say. Same ole, same ole. I most certainly have no thoughts toward flock conversion... this is just about the ****s&giggles you denier types provide!
I bet he encounters many educated people who know for certain that AGW is complete and total science fiction. Of course being educated isn't the same as being right, is it?
Sunspot AR 2192
Science is selling 5th generation toothpaste to improve the planets smile.