AGW Theory - Discussion

Language: JP EN DE FR
New Items
2023-11-19
users online
Forum » Everything Else » Politics and Religion » AGW Theory - Discussion
AGW Theory - Discussion
First Page 2 3 ... 20 21 22 ... 39 40 41
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-10-08 15:01:04
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Greenland was called Greenland because it was quite warm when it was discovered.

Climate has been changing throughout human history.
Greenland was called Greenland as a real estate scam promotion. It was not warm then. If it were the glaciers would be tiny today and we would not be worried about them melting.

I may have been wrong on the specifics of that, but the greater point I was eluding to still exists:

Greenland has had a much warmer (and much colder) climate before.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-10-08 15:02:13
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Ivlilla said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
We can curb and even eliminate our CO2, and when global warming still occurs, we can find the next thing to *** about.

People constantly overlook that we are still, in fact, in the middle of an Ice Age, and that the current temperatures are not typical for Earth. Especially considering that when it was receiving much less isolation early in its history, but was still hotter.

I still say people are going to *** regardless.

Because that's human nature.
[+]
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-10-08 15:06:43
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
You're mischaracterizing,

you put the bar at turning the earth into venus. I'm pretty sure we would all be dead/no longer emitting co2 or anything else at some point before we hit 864 degrees Fahrenheit (which is venus' temperature... it's really really hot!)

also... some people are going to be skeptical of your climatology analysis Mr. Jumping off a ladder creates earthquakes.

When I said pumping co2 isn't going to turn the earth into venus, I meant it isn't going to make it so hot as to put humanity in danger anytime soon.

We'd probably start feeling the effects of CO2 poisoning from breathing air with .1% or 1% or 3% (or whatever it is) way before it started getting too hot for us to exist.

In its most general sense, the word earthquake is used to describe any seismic event — whether natural or caused by humans — that generates seismic waves. Earthquakes are caused mostly by rupture of geological faults, but also by other events such as volcanic activity, landslides, mine blasts, and nuclear tests.
 
Offline
Posts:
By 2015-10-08 15:08:02
 Undelete | Link | Quote | Reply
 
Post deleted by User.
[+]
VIP
Offline
Posts: 12259
By Jassik 2015-10-08 15:08:59
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Greenland was called Greenland because it was quite warm when it was discovered.

Climate has been changing throughout human history.
Greenland was called Greenland as a real estate scam promotion. It was not warm then. If it were the glaciers would be tiny today and we would not be worried about them melting.

I may have been wrong on the specifics of that, but the greater point I was eluding to still exists:

Greenland has had a much warmer (and much colder) climate before.

We already talked about Greenland with you on page 1....

Not just talked about, completely debunked the BS tagline.
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-10-08 15:18:25
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Jassik said: »
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Greenland was called Greenland because it was quite warm when it was discovered.

Climate has been changing throughout human history.
Greenland was called Greenland as a real estate scam promotion. It was not warm then. If it were the glaciers would be tiny today and we would not be worried about them melting.

I may have been wrong on the specifics of that, but the greater point I was eluding to still exists:

Greenland has had a much warmer (and much colder) climate before.

We already talked about Greenland with you on page 1....

Not just talked about, completely debunked the BS tagline.
Greenland has never been warm than it is today?
VIP
Offline
Posts: 12259
By Jassik 2015-10-08 15:20:58
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Jassik said: »
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Greenland was called Greenland because it was quite warm when it was discovered.

Climate has been changing throughout human history.
Greenland was called Greenland as a real estate scam promotion. It was not warm then. If it were the glaciers would be tiny today and we would not be worried about them melting.

I may have been wrong on the specifics of that, but the greater point I was eluding to still exists:

Greenland has had a much warmer (and much colder) climate before.

We already talked about Greenland with you on page 1....

Not just talked about, completely debunked the BS tagline.
Greenland has never been warm than it is today?

Warmer and colder, even in a completely different hemisphere at one point, but it most certainly was not significantly warmer when it was named by the Europeans as your little trope proclaims. You're welcome to go back and reread the previous conversation.
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-10-08 15:23:17
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Jassik said: »
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Greenland was called Greenland because it was quite warm when it was discovered.

Climate has been changing throughout human history.
Greenland was called Greenland as a real estate scam promotion. It was not warm then. If it were the glaciers would be tiny today and we would not be worried about them melting.

I may have been wrong on the specifics of that, but the greater point I was eluding to still exists:

Greenland has had a much warmer (and much colder) climate before.

We already talked about Greenland with you on page 1....

Not just talked about, completely debunked the BS tagline.
Greenland has never been warm than it is today?

Warmer and colder, even in a completely different hemisphere at one point, but it most certainly was not significantly warmer when it was named by the Europeans as your little trope proclaims. You're welcome to go back and reread the previous conversation.

The thread is about climate change.

I mentioned Greenland was warmer at one point in the past. I got the date wrong, so what? The greater point is still there and just as relevant.

Surely a smart man such as yourself can see that.
VIP
Offline
Posts: 12259
By Jassik 2015-10-08 15:31:26
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Jassik said: »
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Greenland was called Greenland because it was quite warm when it was discovered.

Climate has been changing throughout human history.
Greenland was called Greenland as a real estate scam promotion. It was not warm then. If it were the glaciers would be tiny today and we would not be worried about them melting.

I may have been wrong on the specifics of that, but the greater point I was eluding to still exists:

Greenland has had a much warmer (and much colder) climate before.

We already talked about Greenland with you on page 1....

Not just talked about, completely debunked the BS tagline.
Greenland has never been warm than it is today?

Warmer and colder, even in a completely different hemisphere at one point, but it most certainly was not significantly warmer when it was named by the Europeans as your little trope proclaims. You're welcome to go back and reread the previous conversation.

The thread is about climate change.

I mentioned Greenland was warmer at one point in the past. I got the date wrong, so what? The greater point is still there and just as relevant.

Surely a smart man such as yourself can see that.

Yeah, 250 million years ago when it was in the tropics it was warmer. The continents have moved a lot, oceanic currents and climates change when that happens. Taking an island and moving it 5000 miles toward the equator is not an analogue for AGW.

You said that they named it Greenland because it was a lot warmer when the Europeans found it. The only time it was significantly warmer than it is today was during large scale volcanic events.

These kinds of pointless arguments are why you're mocked when you pull the whole "why can't I ask questions" shtick.
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-10-08 15:35:48
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Jassik said: »
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Greenland was called Greenland because it was quite warm when it was discovered.

Climate has been changing throughout human history.
Greenland was called Greenland as a real estate scam promotion. It was not warm then. If it were the glaciers would be tiny today and we would not be worried about them melting.

I may have been wrong on the specifics of that, but the greater point I was eluding to still exists:

Greenland has had a much warmer (and much colder) climate before.

We already talked about Greenland with you on page 1....

Not just talked about, completely debunked the BS tagline.
Greenland has never been warm than it is today?

Warmer and colder, even in a completely different hemisphere at one point, but it most certainly was not significantly warmer when it was named by the Europeans as your little trope proclaims. You're welcome to go back and reread the previous conversation.

The thread is about climate change.

I mentioned Greenland was warmer at one point in the past. I got the date wrong, so what? The greater point is still there and just as relevant.

Surely a smart man such as yourself can see that.

Yeah, 250 million years ago when it was in the tropics it was warmer. The continents have moved a lot, oceanic currents and climates change when that happens. Taking an island and moving it 5000 miles toward the equator is not an analogue for AGW.

You said that they named it Greenland because it was a lot warmer when the Europeans found it. The only time it was significantly warmer than it is today was during large scale volcanic events.

These kinds of pointless arguments are why you're mocked when you pull the whole "why can't I ask questions" shtick.

Mock me all you want. Believe me I cry myself to sleep every night over the laughter of FFXI's own staunch "libertarian".

You don't have to look as far back as 250 million years ago to see the natural variations the planet has gone through in regards to it's climate. The latitudes around the poles get warmer and colder all on their own without the aid of man.
VIP
Offline
Posts: 12259
By Jassik 2015-10-08 15:57:17
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Variances? Like periods of change or like today is 67 degrees and the average for this date is 64?

I really don't see why you're hung up on Greenland unless you just can't let go of that nifty story about it's name.
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Offline
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2015-10-08 15:58:52
Link | Quote | Reply
 
The greater point is still nonsense.

Stupid ***like "climate has always changed" has no relevance. It's like saying that arson can't exist because lightning has caused forest fires before.

Climate isn't some mysterious, random entity that changes back and forth on its own volition. It reacts to change, and the different factors that climate has reacted to in the past have varied. A reduction in solar irradiance has caused an ice ages, but it's braindead to conclude that all ice ages have been caused by lower solar input.

Photosynthetic microorganisms were, at one time, abundant enough to change the composition of the atmosphere enough to cause one of the greatest mass extinctions in history. The notion that we're too insignificant to enact a similar change is ridiculous as we're effectively doing the exact same thing (in reverse). At least the cyanobacteria had a complete lack of autonomy as an excuse for inaction.
[+]
Offline
By Aeyela 2015-10-08 16:00:54
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
At least the cyanobacteria had a complete lack of autonomy as an excuse for inaction.

It's time those tiny *** were held responsible for their crimes!
[+]
 Asura.Ivlilla
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
user: cevkiv
Posts: 546
By Asura.Ivlilla 2015-10-08 16:12:34
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Aeyela said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
At least the cyanobacteria had a complete lack of autonomy as an excuse for inaction.

It's time those tiny *** were held responsible for their crimes!

Hey, the Oxygen Catastrophe was no joke! It was the first (as far as we know) mass extinction event, and possibly one of the worst from a point of biodiversity (we can't really know for sure, as microbes don't fossilize).

Never forget the destruction of uncounted species of anaerobic life!

Seriously, who knows how much amazing and novel cellular mechanisms and adaptations were lost because some things were too slow in adapting to the oxygen-rich environment?
 Siren.Mosin
Offline
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
user: BKiddo
By Siren.Mosin 2015-10-08 16:17:27
Link | Quote | Reply
 
sometimes I wonder if venus was super nice like this place was, and their intelligent life turned it into what it is now through hyper-nuclear war or massive pollution.

that probably has no relevance to this thread, so...

hi guys.
VIP
Offline
Posts: 12259
By Jassik 2015-10-08 16:26:12
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Siren.Mosin said: »
sometimes I wonder if venus was super nice like this place was, and their intelligent life turned it into what it is now through hyper-nuclear war or massive pollution.

that probably has no relevance to this thread, so...

hi guys.

Unlikely from what we know about it's history, but that is a way it could happen.
 Valefor.Sehachan
Guide Maker
Offline
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
user: Seha
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-10-08 17:05:16
Link | Quote | Reply
 
It's highly likely it had water at some point, and thus probably at least microbial life too. But then everything went to ***.
VIP
Offline
Posts: 12259
By Jassik 2015-10-08 17:16:40
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
It's highly likely it had water at some point, and thus probably at least microbial life too. But then everything went to ***.

It's a big leap from liquid water to microbial life. It would have had the components for organic molecules, but we don't know enough of the jump from there to life to make probability guesses. It's possible, but we'll probably never know due to the heat and corrosive nature of Venus.
 Valefor.Sehachan
Guide Maker
Offline
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
user: Seha
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-10-08 17:21:08
Link | Quote | Reply
 
I'm highly optimistic. I'm sure there was.

Like I'm sure they're still there on Mars.
Offline
By Aeyela 2015-10-08 17:22:18
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Jassik said: »
It's possible, but we'll probably never know due to the heart and corrosive nature of Venus.

It's time that searing and corrosive *** was held responsible for her crimes!
[+]
 Garuda.Chanti
Offline
Server: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 11096
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-10-08 18:54:23
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
....
I mentioned Greenland was warmer at one point in the past. I got the date wrong, so what? The greater point is still there and just as relevant....
You didn't get the date wrong. You got the geological era wrong.

The last time Greenland was warmer than today was when horses had five toes.

Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
....
You don't have to look as far back as 250 million years ago to see the natural variations the planet has gone through in regards to it's climate. The latitudes around the poles get warmer and colder all on their own without the aid of man.
Yeah but there was a time when Greenland wasn't near the north pole. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-10-09 09:34:32
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
The greater point is still nonsense.

Stupid ***like "climate has always changed" has no relevance. It's like saying that arson can't exist because lightning has caused forest fires before.

Climate isn't some mysterious, random entity that changes back and forth on its own volition. It reacts to change, and the different factors that climate has reacted to in the past have varied. A reduction in solar irradiance has caused an ice ages, but it's braindead to conclude that all ice ages have been caused by lower solar input.

Photosynthetic microorganisms were, at one time, abundant enough to change the composition of the atmosphere enough to cause one of the greatest mass extinctions in history. The notion that we're too insignificant to enact a similar change is ridiculous as we're effectively doing the exact same thing (in reverse). At least the cyanobacteria had a complete lack of autonomy as an excuse for inaction.
Pumping out Co2 isn't the climate equivalent of "arson". But extra points for a clever comparison to "sounding the alarm" nyuk nyuk.

Climate does react to change, and there have been countless changes to our climate that absolutely dwarf our current minuscule effect.

There is no way for humanity to cease our cumulative co2 effect without billions of people either dying or living permanently in third world style poverty. The kind where people don't eat and don't have clean drinking water. Why do you want people to live in such conditions?
[+]
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-10-09 09:37:13
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
....
I mentioned Greenland was warmer at one point in the past. I got the date wrong, so what? The greater point is still there and just as relevant....
You didn't get the date wrong. You got the geological era wrong.

The last time Greenland was warmer than today was when horses had five toes.

Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
....
You don't have to look as far back as 250 million years ago to see the natural variations the planet has gone through in regards to it's climate. The latitudes around the poles get warmer and colder all on their own without the aid of man.
Yeah but there was a time when Greenland wasn't near the north pole. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
That's not what I'm talking about, but please continue to hold onto that instead of actually contributing to the discussion.

This is almost equivalent to harping on someone's grammar,
 Sylph.Jeanpaul
MSPaint Champion
Offline
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
user: JeanPaul
Posts: 2623
By Sylph.Jeanpaul 2015-10-09 11:00:40
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
There is no way for humanity to cease our cumulative co2 effect without billions of people either dying or living permanently in third world style poverty. The kind where people don't eat and don't have clean drinking water. Why do you want people to live in such conditions?
Why are you assuming that people think completely cutting off fossil fuels is the answer? Nobody has said this, at least not on this site, and the only place you would find such a position would be on some radical environmental site.

We are all well aware that our activities have various impacts on the environment, small or large, seen or unseen, regardless of what we are doing. The issue is that we are observing changes at dangerously fast rates, and we can say with extremely high confidence that it is caused by our unchecked overuse of certain activities. You mentioned earlier that we have been able to do some incredible things due to our advances in technology since the Industrial Revolution, and I agree with that. However, I would argue that our industriousness has gotten out of hand, to the point where we are often producing too much useless and wholly inefficient ***. Due to skewed (often by policy) economic reasons and convenience, it becomes more profitable for certain business practices to continue despite that they may be on the whole detrimental. The real solution is to advance further beyond the wasteful and inefficient products and methods.

I just got up so I might not have expressed this as well as I could have.
[+]
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-10-09 12:29:39
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Sylph.Jeanpaul said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
There is no way for humanity to cease our cumulative co2 effect without billions of people either dying or living permanently in third world style poverty. The kind where people don't eat and don't have clean drinking water. Why do you want people to live in such conditions?
Why are you assuming that people think completely cutting off fossil fuels is the answer? Nobody has said this, at least not on this site, and the only place you would find such a position would be on some radical environmental site.

We are all well aware that our activities have various impacts on the environment, small or large, seen or unseen, regardless of what we are doing. The issue is that we are observing changes at dangerously fast rates, and we can say with extremely high confidence that it is caused by our unchecked overuse of certain activities. You mentioned earlier that we have been able to do some incredible things due to our advances in technology since the Industrial Revolution, and I agree with that. However, I would argue that our industriousness has gotten out of hand, to the point where we are often producing too much useless and wholly inefficient ***. Due to skewed (often by policy) economic reasons and convenience, it becomes more profitable for certain business practices to continue despite that they may be on the whole detrimental. The real solution is to advance further beyond the wasteful and inefficient products and methods.

I just got up so I might not have expressed this as well as I could have.

OK lets break this down a bit.

Pumping too much co2 into the air is warming the planet and acidifying the ocean faster than nature would otherwise permit.

So the question is; what rate of releasing CO2 would be appropriate? How is that number even determined and what is the "science" supporting it.

Realize of course that there is some scale out there that supposes to measure the alarmist heat contribution of every ppm of co2. It's put forth by the same industry who has been consistently wrong in their climate and temperature predictions for the last 40 years.

After that sinks in, realize that the big idea proposals out there that suppose to cut /slow co2, don't even pretend to claim to be able to stop the supposed increase in temperature, they instead suggest that in 100 years if we suffer great economic handicap we'll possibly be hundredths or even tenths of a degree cooler.

Any sane person should question the premise when someone tries to sell you a course of action that you cannot quantify for 100 years, and after 100 years, the action might not even be able to be quantified anyways.
[+]
VIP
Offline
Posts: 12259
By Jassik 2015-10-09 12:56:59
Link | Quote | Reply
 
I figured it out! Nausi, you're basing all your conclusions on a foundation of conjecture and misunderstanding.
 Siren.Mosin
Offline
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
user: BKiddo
By Siren.Mosin 2015-10-09 13:23:08
Link | Quote | Reply
 
what's the stupid earth done for me lately?
[+]
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Offline
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2015-10-09 15:50:31
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Pumping out Co2 isn't the climate equivalent of "arson". But extra points for a clever comparison to "sounding the alarm" nyuk nyuk.
It's an analogy, but, again, I don't want to be your English translator.

Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
OK lets break this down a bit.

Pumping too much co2 into the air is warming the planet and acidifying the ocean faster than nature would otherwise permit.

So the question is; what rate of releasing CO2 would be appropriate? How is that number even determined and what is the "science" supporting it.

Realize of course that there is some scale out there that supposes to measure the alarmist heat contribution of every ppm of co2. It's put forth by the same industry who has been consistently wrong in their climate and temperature predictions for the last 40 years.

After that sinks in, realize that the big idea proposals out there that suppose to cut /slow co2, don't even pretend to claim to be able to stop the supposed increase in temperature, they instead suggest that in 100 years if we suffer great economic handicap we'll possibly be hundredths or even tenths of a degree cooler.

Any sane person should question the premise when someone tries to sell you a course of action that you cannot quantify for 100 years, and after 100 years, the action might not even be able to be quantified anyways.
The IPCC reports contain multiple scenarios that take into account many variables, including overall CO2 reduction. (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf) They're constructed from information contained in the current scientific literature, which means they've taken peer-reviewed results and synthesized the data from those into a more comprehensive model prediction of potential future scenarios. For example, the A1T scenario models future conditions based on the assumption of rigorous economic growth using mainly non-fossil fuel energy.

There is no stopping the temperature increase in the near future. A hundred years worth of CO2 (not even including future emissions) can't be undone as quickly. What is feasible in that time period is a decrease in the trend or the rate at which the planet is warming. "If we can't fix it entirely, so why bother?" isn't an option, and I don't see how this differs from other long-term investments.

I mean, a quality investor doesn't put money into something at random. They use the information available to them to make an informed decision because that increases the likelihood that they'll make money from that transaction. Whether or not that investment pays out can't be known with complete certainty, but the more quality data there is on current and future economic conditions, the less uncertainty there is.

Right now, there is significant certainty that current anthropogenic activity will result in more widespread climate conditions that will be highly detrimental to many of Earth's natural ecosystems and those detriments will have direct and indirect effects on humans. This includes large economic impacts that could dwarf the impacts felt by immediate action on our part. Not doing anything (or worse, not even acknowledging the problem) is like asking to be dealt another card in blackjack when your hand is already at 20. Shitty odds.
[+]
 Siren.Mosin
Offline
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
user: BKiddo
By Siren.Mosin 2015-10-09 16:08:06
Link | Quote | Reply
 
basically we'll kill ourselves off and the problem will sort itself out. sounds like we've been throwing around the term 'intelligent life' pretty loosely.
[+]
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9658
By Asura.Saevel 2015-10-11 21:07:57
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
There is no way for humanity to cease our cumulative co2 effect without billions of people either dying or living permanently in third world style poverty. The kind where people don't eat and don't have clean drinking water. Why do you want people to live in such conditions?

That's actually the entire point. Progressive ideology requires most humans to die off so that the remaining ones can be managed more easily using 19th century agricultural techniques and a small energy footprint. They won't outright admit to this, but their ideology, when taken to it's logical conclusion, requires this to happen.

Most of what the posters here post is blatantly wrong, we're talking fairy tail land as-seen-on-TV or "the bible says it so it must be true" type wrong. You can't reason with them because it's a religious belief and you can't argue religion using rational thinking. The best one can do is prevent them from doing any serious harm to others and wait for them to die off. Eventually reality asserts itself, the laws of thermodynamics being what they are, and the cult that is AGW Theory will fall to the wayside.

The big thing is not let them draw you out into an area of their own choosing. Progressives are really good at arguing using emotions, I feel you are wrong therefor you are wrong, and frequently when you make them feel bad they will attempt to alter the conversation dynamic such that your arguing over feelings or some area where they can easily straw-man you. Don't fall for it and don't take any emotional language as worthy of a response.
First Page 2 3 ... 20 21 22 ... 39 40 41
Log in to post.