User Posted February 16 Report Posted February 16 7 hours ago, eyeball said: Why are you so stuck on this nonsense? Women give birth, babies come out of them. Have you ever seen that happen with your own eyes? I have, 3 times. BTW can you define what a man is in any meaningful way? I am only stuck on this nonsense inasmuch as there are people on this forum who believe this nonsense and want to push it onto society. When those same people sit here trying to pretend they are all for 'The Science! TM' I am going to mock them rightly, as they are not all for 'The Science! TM' A man is an adult human male, characterized by biological traits such as chromosomes and the ability to produce sperm. Quote
paxamericana Posted February 16 Author Report Posted February 16 (edited) 15 hours ago, Iceni warrior said: So you are saying that we've never been able to measure temperature changes more accurately than we can today? Another way of saying that is we should look at the macro trends instead of relying on data that as you say, been only collected in the past 175 years. It’s accurate to say that the planet has been experiencing periods of warming and cooling. It’s speculative to say that green house gases are the cause of a global climate change. That just violates the law of thermal dynamics. Energy conservation dictates that the energy has to come from somewhere. In the case, the vast majority is coming from the sun. Green house gases serves as an insulator and is a good thing when the earth is entering a period of cooling. That’s what I’m really saying. Global warming is a good thing. Edited February 16 by paxamericana Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 16 Report Posted February 16 7 minutes ago, paxamericana said: Another way of saying that is we should look at the macro trends instead of relying on data that as you say, been only collected in the past 175 years. It’s accurate to say that the planet has been experiencing periods of warming and cooling. It’s speculative to say that green house gases are the cause of a global climate change. That just violates the law of thermal dynamics. Energy conservation dictates that the energy has to come from somewhere. In the case, the vast majority is coming from the sun. Green house gases serves as an insulator and is a good thing when the earth is entering a period of cooling. That’s what I’m really saying. Global warming is a good thing. The greenhouse effect can be replicated in a lab though. How does it violate the law of thermodynamics? Where did you see that? They have data for more than 175 years... Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
paxamericana Posted February 16 Author Report Posted February 16 24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: The greenhouse effect can be replicated in a lab though. How does it violate the law of thermodynamics? Where did you see that? They have data for more than 175 years... Green house gases does not emit heat. It is an insulator, like your blanket. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 16 Report Posted February 16 1 hour ago, paxamericana said: Green house gases does not emit heat. It is an insulator, like your blanket. That's right, they keep heat in. The same effect as with a greenhouse. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
paxamericana Posted February 16 Author Report Posted February 16 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: That's right, they keep heat in. The same effect as with a greenhouse. So what is the disagreement? My assertion is that global warming is a good thing. Edited February 16 by paxamericana Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 16 Report Posted February 16 (edited) 8 minutes ago, paxamericana said: So what is the disagreement? My assertion is that global warming is a good thing. The only thing I ever argue on here is: Climate change is beyond all doubt caused by humans.. And It represents a risk that we have to look at ... I don't say we have to spend a lot of money on it. I don't say the world is ending. Those are my points. Those two and not much else. Edited February 16 by Michael Hardner Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
User Posted February 16 Report Posted February 16 5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: The only thing I ever argue on here is: Climate change is beyond all doubt caused by humans.. And It represents a risk that we have to look at ... I don't say we have to spend a lot of money on it. I don't say the world is ending. Those are my points. Those two and not much else. Except that climate change occurs regardless of humans, it is a constant factor in Earth's existence. Humans do not cause "climate change", which is precisely why using this terminology is purposefully deceptive. Not your doing, but those who push this are choosing this terminology instead of AGW. Humans can contribute to climate change. The question is: how much are they contributing, how bad is that, and what is the response? Quote
paxamericana Posted February 16 Author Report Posted February 16 8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: It represents a risk that we have to look at This part is not clear. Risk for who exactly? For North America? Global warming would open up Artic trade routes and make a desolate region otherwise habitable. Spur economic development. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 16 Report Posted February 16 9 minutes ago, paxamericana said: This part is not clear. Risk for who exactly? For North America? Global warming would open up Artic trade routes and make a desolate region otherwise habitable. Spur economic development. Yes that's one advantage. But there are a lot of disadvantages too. The risks are for everyone who resides on Earth. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
paxamericana Posted February 16 Author Report Posted February 16 (edited) 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: The risks are for everyone who resides on Earth. Yeah no, I don’t care about everyone. North America is priority 1. If India and China insist on polluting the planet with green house gas emission that benefits North America then be my guest. Edited February 16 by paxamericana Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 16 Report Posted February 16 7 minutes ago, paxamericana said: Yeah no, I don’t care about everyone. North America is priority 1. If India and China insist on polluting the planet with green house gas emission that benefits North America then be my guest. What about if it causes a risk for North Americans though? Do you care then? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
paxamericana Posted February 16 Author Report Posted February 16 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: What about if it causes a risk for North Americans though? Do you care then? That’s nebulous but since you insist. How much risk and what is the cost for abatement? See that’s the problem with the narrative, people don’t consider the total cost to be environmentally sustainable. 1 Quote
User Posted February 16 Report Posted February 16 5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Yes that's one advantage. But there are a lot of disadvantages too. The risks are for everyone who resides on Earth. What risks? You say you are not claiming doomsday messaging... so, what risks? 3 hours ago, herbie said: Don't worry, you are just shipping your coal to China to burn instead. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 2 hours ago, paxamericana said: How much risk and what is the cost for abatement? Yes, exactly the discussion that I want to have. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
paxamericana Posted February 17 Author Report Posted February 17 56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Yes, exactly the discussion that I want to have. Take a 3/4 ton diesel truck, there’s about 10k worth of emission related components in that already expensive truck. How many polar bears are we saving for that money and did we even want to save the freaking polar bears in the first place!? I’ve not heard of a compelling argument for the polar bears. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 11 hours ago, paxamericana said: Take a 3/4 ton diesel truck, there’s about 10k worth of emission related components in that already expensive truck. How many polar bears are we saving for that money and did we even want to save the freaking polar bears in the first place!? I’ve not heard of a compelling argument for the polar bears. Okay. I'm not qualified to lead the discussion. 1 Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
paxamericana Posted February 17 Author Report Posted February 17 5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Okay. I'm not qualified to lead the discussion. Well I guess the polar bears will have to be on a diet until I’m proven otherwise. Quote
herbie Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 Hes 'not qualified to argue as he's forgotten how to with reasoning below that of a 12 year old. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 2 hours ago, herbie said: Hes 'not qualified to argue as he's forgotten how to with reasoning below that of a 12 year old. When it turns to actual costs of choices, it gets complicated. And I doubt that my counterpart is going to quote IPCC economics papers at me so I would be forced to debunk actual economics claims. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
User Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 2 hours ago, herbie said: Hes 'not qualified to argue as he's forgotten how to with reasoning below that of a 12 year old. He likes a lot of your posts though... 9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: When it turns to actual costs of choices, it gets complicated. And I doubt that my counterpart is going to quote IPCC economics papers at me so I would be forced to debunk actual economics claims. Lets stick to more general concepts. You say you are not a doomsday person, but how bad of a problem to you think this is? Do you lean more towards adaptation or prevention? Quote
herbie Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 'nuther one who couldn't read all them three syllable words let alone understand them. Quote
User Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 1 minute ago, herbie said: 'nuther one who couldn't read all them three syllable words let alone understand them. He screamed into the void… Quote
herbie Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 Comprehension is something else, too. His usual reply when someone is laughing at him and he understands it as screaming at nothing in particular. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.