Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Ok how did they prove it?, and can we replicate what they have proven here in our homes?
    Yeah unfortunately that isn't how that works at all. I can't ever prove that pink flying dragons don't exist. However the Onus is on me to prove they do, if I am making the claim, HOWEVER, while that is a very cliche'd line, understand I am NOT a believer that all things claimed or rather believed NEED to have evidence for all or be PROVEN.

    But in the conventions of empirical science, the law, and the simple way we live our lives, demands a sustainable and reliable process. What your spiritual predilections or rather sources and inspiration for reason are irrelevant.

    If YOU are going to make a claim ANY claim and say other people ought to believe it, then you have the burden.


    And by the way there is no PROOF there isn't, but that is irrelevant. If someone asks for consideration from everything from observation by others or participation, YOU have to back that up with Logic or Reason or both.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Phlegethon View Post
    What drugs are you on?
    It has nothing to do with religion. The fact that you mention this and link any kind of religion to atheists and non-religious (see the issue here?) people truly makes you sound stupid. You must be one of them "I believe in a creator" piece of stupid
    Anyway, have fun with your "I am god" president (you do know he believes he is above your puny god right?)
    It's only religious to deny it. Science supports man-made climate change. Not sure what you want to achieve by framing your question the way you did.

    From reading some more of your replies OP, all I can say is, go and educate yourself on the subject, because you clearly lack essential information.


    erm, this whole post was meant to quote OP btw
    Last edited by Shiny212; 2017-06-12 at 09:55 AM.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Ok wouldn't the best thing to counter CO2 be to plant millions of large trees?. Even billions of trees because they would also suck up all the extra water. Imagine an extra 5 billion large trees, how much water and co2 would they displace?.
    What the fuck does WATER have to do with anything?

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    Exactly what have you proven in your home? Please, do tell.
    I have 5 ancient oak trees a giant coastal redwood about 80 ft tall and a giant sequoia about 20 ft tall so far, plus many other fruit trees, what more can I possibly do?.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Yeah just like people should trust their priest right?, what is the difference?. This is a new science, al gore with a larger carbon footprint than the state of Wyoming is going to lecture me on pollution. GTFO of here, seriously gore, dude from titanic, and other celebrities?. None of them practice what they preach, they only want to hand down this decision to us peasants.
    If you question religion, priests will say "take our word for it!"
    If you question science, scientists will say "here's all the published work, please study it and find out for yourself".

    Now, science can be so complex so it's out of reach for people of average intelligence, but that doesn't make scientists "priests that control the accepted knowledge". Everyone gets taught science, and schools encourage everyone to learn as much as they can. That's because we need bright minds to help us survive and thrive, with observable effect in THIS life, instead of our reward being promised for our afterlife. The reason why conservatives have problems denying climate change, evolution and things that affect their faith or wallets, is that intellectual champions that have the power to reject hundreds of years of scientific observations and research, usually don't.
    Mother pus bucket!

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    What the fuck does WATER have to do with anything?
    Isnt rising sea levels the other part of the climate change hysteria?

  7. #67
    There are actually 3 separate things to it.

    First is actual climate change, which is science topic. It's absolutely a thing, no discussion here, there is a lot of objective data, pretty stupid to deny it.

    Second thing, the anthropomorphic nature of it. Here it becomes alot more religious. All scientific research into it focuses on comparing data from pre-industrial periods and after, without taking into account that climate in cyclical thing, and everything that is happening now has already happened before, without anyone influencing it (at least no one we know of).

    Third thing is the impact of it. And here it's were people go nuts. Starting from global ocean level increase of 100 meters to geomagnetic poles switch (both has happened before btw) to Earth exploding. This is a pure religion topic as there is no clear data on both how strong of a factor humanity is in this process, or what should approximately happen based on previous cycles.

    I think that it's pretty stupid to focus on human influence in this process: even if we are a major factor in this process we cannot realistically decrease our impact dramatically. Also, even if we could this process would go on regardless, albeit probably would slow down somewhat.
    R5 5600X | Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme | MSI MAG B550 Tomahawk | 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4-3600/CL16 | MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X | Corsair RM650x | Cooler Master HAF X | Logitech G400s | DREVO Excalibur 84 | Kingston HyperX Cloud II | BenQ XL2411T + LG 24MK430H-B

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    I have 5 ancient oak trees a giant coastal redwood about 80 ft tall and a giant sequoia about 20 ft tall so far, plus many other fruit trees, what more can I possibly do?.
    If I had a clue what you were talking about, maybe I might have an answer. But since you so far have done nothing but spout gibberish, I can only hope that someone will arrive shortly and administer your meds.

    (PS. If you honestly think a few trees are going to somehow offset societies carbon footprint, I can only laugh. Trees are small time players. Ocean borne algae blooms are where the real shit happens).

  9. #69
    The Lightbringer Lollis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    What facts?, Climate change is believing in something without any proof what so ever. You cant measure any CO2 can you?. That's called blind faith, the exact same as religion.
    "I can't do it by myself so it cannot possibly be real"

    Do you even see how idiotic it sounds?
    Speciation Is Gradual

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Isnt rising sea levels the other part of the climate change hysteria?
    Rising sea levels are a potential effect, sure. Planting a bunch of trees isn't going to do jack shit in that regard however. Why not get really creative? Hollow out the center of the USA? Take all of the landlocked states, strip mine the top of them all off until they are all several thousand feet below sea level, use the excavated earth to raise the ground level of the Coastal states, and then dig channels out to connect the new pit to the ocean. You could probably drain a good 10 feet off of the oceans that way.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    Rising sea levels are a potential effect, sure. Planting a bunch of trees isn't going to do jack shit in that regard however. Why not get really creative? Hollow out the center of the USA? Take all of the landlocked states, strip mine the top of them all off until they are all several thousand feet below sea level, use the excavated earth to raise the ground level of the Coastal states, and then dig channels out to connect the new pit to the ocean. You could probably drain a good 10 feet off of the oceans that way.
    I think you are absolutely wrong for 2 reasons, number 1: giant sequoias store more carbon than any other living thing on earth, number 2: they can also absorb 6500 gallons of water per day when full grown. So If future sea level rising is a problem, and massive floods from freshwater, wouldn't the best way of countering that to be plant trees that will be gigantic in the future?>. Why make something more complicated than it has to be?.

    All the leftists are so organic and nature this and that but when it comes to climate change they are all about science. They don't want to plant no trees, they want the money for research.
    Last edited by Hooked; 2017-06-12 at 09:58 AM.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It seems that climate change science has morphed into a quasi-religion for especially atheists and otherwise non religious people. Is climate change science paganism? and if so should there be a separation of church and state?
    People can be stupid, religious or atheist it doesn't matter.
    Now, the theories that supports climate change are rock solid and even though all papers and reports might not be correct, enough of them are.

    However, you don't quite seem to understand how science works, OP.

  13. #73
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,696
    Quote Originally Posted by tankbug View Post
    If you question religion, priests will say "take our word for it!"
    Wrong, some might others may have other sources which they would provide as basis. It also depends entirely on whom you are speaking about.


    If you question science, scientists will say "here's all the published work, please study it and find out for yourself".
    No they also won't either, because again it all depends, rarely have I run across a scientist that speaks in a lot of definitive, some things they do, but most things they don't.



    Now, science can be so complex so it's out of reach for people of average intelligence, but that doesn't make scientists "priests that control the accepted knowledge". Everyone gets taught science, and schools encourage everyone to learn as much as they can. That's because we need bright minds to help us survive and thrive, with observable effect in THIS life, instead of our reward being promised for our afterlife. The reason why conservatives have problems denying climate change, evolution and things that affect their faith or wallets, is that intellectual champions that have the power to reject hundreds of years of scientific observations and research, usually don't.
    Much of science is a trend thing now and revolve around buzzwords made popular like "Facts" or "The Truth" and the Truth is many people who have way too big of an ego, watched too much YouTube or Discovery Channel, like a lot other discipline like "The Law" or "Medicine" and make claims they shouldn't based on assumptions they got WRONG.

    Scientist and experts get shit wrong all the time, which is exactly why they are the best sources for knowledge, because even when the experts who study something their whole life get many things wrong imagine your average person.


    Climate Change is real and it's definitive, and it supported by a lot of guys who have been wrong so many times they worked out what is still always give caution even when they are certain.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  14. #74
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,295
    Quote Originally Posted by tankbug View Post
    If you question religion, priests will say "take our word for it!"
    If you question science, scientists will say "here's all the published work, please study it and find out for yourself".
    That is not correct. There are published works in any religion that you can read and find out for yourself - you don't even need a priest unless you have a problem or don't want to read. And scientists don't recommend reading most of the time, they just tell you with authority how things are and majority of people just believes them, because reading science is hard, really hard. There were/are very few good science publicists who can make science easy to understand. Most of them are dead by now. Like Sagan and Feynman. We have Neil DeGrasse Tyson taking the charge right now. That's it.
    All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    All the leftists are so organic and nature this and that but when it comes to climate change they are all about science. They don't want to plant no trees, they want the money for research.
    They are also intelligent enough to know that planting a bunch of trees that take 200 to 300 years to reach full maturity right now, is not going to save them when they are knee deep in seawater in 100 years. Never mind that those trees may be absorbing 6500 gallons of water a day, but they sure as fuck aren't keeping it, so it doesn't exactly help much now does it....... That's about as fucking stupid as suggesting that since human beings can all drink several gallons of water a day, and since there are billions of us, that if we all just drink water, the problem will be solved..... You can't seriously be that fucking stupid.

  16. #76
    The Lightbringer Lollis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    I think you are absolutely wrong for 2 reasons, number 1: giant sequoias store more carbon than any other living thing on earth, number 2: they can also absorb 6500 gallons of water per day when full grown. So If future sea level rising is a problem, and massive floods from freshwater, wouldn't the best way of countering that to be plant trees that will be gigantic in the future?>. Why make something more complicated than it has to be?.

    All the leftists are so organic and nature this and that but when it comes to climate change they are all about science. They don't want to plant no trees, they want the money for research.
    Yes, and how many years does it take for a giant sequoia to be fully grown? If you think planting trees that take 100years + to fully grow is a viable solution then you really are clueless.

    There is no doubt that planting trees can help, but we are deforesting at such a huge rate that planting is basically still a losing battle. The best way of doing anything is to change the way we manufacture energy. Whether that is through solar/wind/nuclear/hydro or something entirely different, it doesn't really matter. But the one thing you cannot do is just plant a few trees and just expect that they will offset all the shit that is going into the atmosphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    Never mind that those trees may be absorbing 6500 gallons of water a day, but they sure as fuck aren't keeping it, .


    Turns out transpiration is something you learn about in primary school geography.
    Last edited by Lollis; 2017-06-12 at 10:13 AM.
    Speciation Is Gradual

  17. #77
    I am Murloc! Ravenblade's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany - Thuringia
    Posts
    5,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    I think you are absolutely wrong for 2 reasons, number 1: giant sequoias store more carbon than any other living thing on earth, number 2: they can also absorb 6500 gallons of water per day when full grown. So If future sea level rising is a problem, and massive floods from freshwater, wouldn't the best way of countering that to be plant trees that will be gigantic in the future?>. Why make something more complicated than it has to be?.

    All the leftists are so organic and nature this and that but when it comes to climate change they are all about science. They don't want to plant no trees, they want the money for research.
    Planting mixed forests of tree is arduous and takes a lot of time. Room and especially time is also a thing they need in order to grow. Most types of trees however can't really consume salt water as found in the oceans. They would die a slow agonizing death from it. So you would need to desalinate it first which would consume a lot of energy and create even more carbon footprint. It is a highly unfeasible endeavour to begin with.
    WoW: Crowcloak (Druid) & Neesheya (Paladin) @ Sylvanas EU (/ˈkaZHo͞oəl/) | GW2: Siqqa (Asura Engineer) @ Piken Square EU
    If builders built houses the way programmers built programs,the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization. - Weinberg's 2nd law

    He seeks them here, he seeks them there, he seeks those lupins everywhere!


  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    That is not correct. There are published works in any religion that you can read and find out for yourself - you don't even need a priest unless you have a problem or don't want to read.
    Glossing over the fact, of course, that for pretty much all of those published works, the answer to any serious question is still: because God Said So, with the followup corollary of "But that's Wrong" being: "No it's not, God is never wrong".
    Last edited by Surfd; 2017-06-12 at 10:13 AM.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    That is not correct. There are published works in any religion that you can read and find out for yourself - you don't even need a priest unless you have a problem or don't want to read. And scientists don't recommend reading most of the time, they just tell you with authority how things are and majority of people just believes them, because reading science is hard, really hard. There were/are very few good science publicists who can make science easy to understand. Most of them are dead by now. Like Sagan and Feynman. We have Neil DeGrasse Tyson taking the charge right now. That's it.
    Neil degrasse Tyson is more of a science journalist than an actual scientist. He just takes what real scientists figure out and break it down and explain it in non technical terms for non scientists.

  20. #80
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,696
    Quote Originally Posted by OneWay View Post
    Yeah, well I agree with that. I agree that going "so, meh" is not the way but I was more aiming at this - We have doctors who should be pristine example of society, they are giving false diagnosis. That would be somewhat "fine" if they are in minority but when they become the half or majority that becomes catastrophic problem because then you don't know if those "academic authorities" are legit. How can one be so sure that this does not happen in other fields and then if so, how can we know what the real problem is?
    Doctors are human, they make mistakes, and often times the conventional wisdom science or not is that often times just like if you clone or replicate the same ideas, you can and will be stuck at the same problem. Medicine is a science but also a discipline.

    Which is why Group think is something typically discouraged, the error is believing anything is sure fire, but also that there aren't better methods than others for determining what is or isn't.

    If the doctors didn't get it right about the cancer, guess what, It sure as shit isn't going to be some random person out of nowhere that will, and if you are going to hedge your bets on one over the other and your life is in another hands, you damn sure don't want that person less than totally serious about the fact for all the things you could know, you need to count on them to know.


    As for how can we know, Just like you know that if you want to ride on an airplane you NEED to be able to rely on the system of checks and balances that are in place to make sure you are being flown by someone who knows how to operate the plane.

    Because you don't, and if every person has to learn how to fly a plane and develop the same skill as the pilot or any other system we NEED to be able to trust and rely on, well then we as a species are heading for our end.



    If you wan't to challenge an academic or theory or science DO IT, GO FOR IT, but don't do so from simply the fact others can be wrong. YOU need to follow the discipline, learn what they know or don't know before you can discard anything or anyone and say they are wrong.


    That is the problem we have right now with this whole Climate Change issue, people speaking out of their asses and some with the audacity to make bullshit claims about these scientist who spent their entire lives studying and have argued and debated with each other before coming to that over all general consensus.

    Climate Change is real, it isn't a produce of the China or Al Gore, and if we reverse course on what is already a very serious situation, people are for sure going to be impacted some in very catastrophic ways.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Neil degrasse Tyson is more of a science journalist than an actual scientist. He just takes what real scientists figure out and break it down and explain it in non technical terms for non scientists.
    I actually don't even like Neil Degrasse Tyson, but none the less what is your background or resume to compete with his?

    I mean he could be wrong about a range of issues, but science, compared to you, or me probably isn't going to be one of them.


    Or Bill Nye vs Sarah Palin
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •