Global warming is not that bad

[Col. Tartleton]

1.34 mm a year actually, and yeah, that is a lot (it has been increasing at an increasing rate recently). Thank you for your layman assessment of what the ocean level should be.

The ocean level shouldn't be anything. It just is. Come to terms with the fact that nature isn't right or wrong. It just is.

We've all been bred with this mentality that people aren't part of nature and that our mistakes originate in us.

If we "destroy" the environment or the "balance" of the ecosystem or biosphere it was inevitable. If we preserve it that was inevitable. You're worried. I'm not. We all pull our side of the tug a war rope and someone wins and that's the reality and that's the only way it could have been.

Sundaland should be above water. Sahul should be above water. Britain should be a peninsula. All kinds of crap. But the thing is, they're not, so it doesn't matter. We weren't around then. We didn't melt the ice caps, but they melted. It got warmer. Biodiversity went down. People started running things. I figure hot is good for us.

Maybe there will be disease, or famine, or drought. I don't know. But the population will stop growing once we hit a ceiling. When the fossil fuels run out we won't be able to burn them. We'll have to start over from the beginning. The world will cool again and everything will get back to normal.

People die. Animals die. Species go extinct. They evolve. The world adapts to the world.

[Denny Crane!]

so you say it doesn't matter that he brings forth his sources, since you don't understand them?

I'm not saying that spartan is the almight god who we should all hear in awe as he spreads his wisdom on the matter over this thread. But he stated he has a good background knowledge, he can provide sources, so his arguments may stand, and as we don't know better than him, we can't blame him for that

Let me put it like this...

Debate this guy (Logios) on protein folding. Lets see how many posts you can make without being left with nothing to say because you have no frame of reference. Unless I've had the bad luck of saying that to a group of people with a great deal of medical research in their background then the example will serve.

If you know nothing about the science then telling him that cell-to-cell infecting agents in Alzheimers, the A-beta and Tau protein aggregates, are actually considered to be prions when he says they aren't well...why would you unless you know. Now that is a much more specific scientific debate than climate change which incorporates a much wider variety of scientific studies and data and you don't need a huge understanding of statistics or modelling in order to form your opinions. It isn't just empiricism with this topic, its so much more. That makes discussion of it to me, very difficult.

Especially when you consider that whatever action might be derived to be sensible from the positive conclusion of that argument would (the right actions mind) be considered sensible anyway considering we are running out of oil fast, nations need reductions in energy usage for economic reasons and we need energy security. Consider also that these changes are happening without governments purely for economic reasons. We should also strongly debate the crappy government policies that would be crappy regardless of whether the science is true or not.

Hopefully that clarifies my position.

[I WUB PUGS]

I live in Monterey. It is cold here all year round. I would like to at least have a proper summer for more than 2 days in July when it gets above 70 (do the conversion yourself Euros).

Clint Eastwood and Betty White live here too. They are old. They need warmth. Surely the Sea Otters and Sea Lions will appreciate it too.

We've all been bred with this mentality that people aren't part of nature and that our mistakes originate in us.

Science dweebs falling for religious dogma you say? Sir! No learned person can be influenced by fables!

OMG Denny, someone actually made a thread about Protein Folding. Jesus, now that is enthralling.

[Denny Crane!]

I live in Monterey. It is cold here all year round. I would like to at least have a proper summer for more than 2 days in July when it gets above 70 (do the conversion yourself Euros).

Clint Eastwood and Betty White live here too. They are old. They need warmth. Surely the Sea Otters and Sea Lions will appreciate it too.


Science dweebs falling for religious dogma you say? Sir! No learned person can be influenced by fables!

OMG Denny, someone actually made a thread about Protein Folding. Jesus, now that is enthralling.

It was a very interesting thread. If I ever get around to it I will open up a debate about hepatic stimulants and arthiritis and the curious effects that a product I had that worked in the most phenomonal way I could ever have imagined (as well as a number of other things like UTI's/dermatological problems and digestion/pancreas problems) and what the hell was going on.

[Aanker]

Let me put it like this...
Debate this guy (Logios) on protein folding. Lets see how many posts you can make without being left with nothing to say because you have no frame of reference. Unless I've had the bad luck of saying that to a group of people with a great deal of medical research in their background then the example will serve.

Bad luck, the poster you are responding to is a biochemist.

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

Bad luck, the poster you are responding to is a biochemist.

BAZINGA!

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

The ocean level shouldn't be anything. It just is. Come to terms with the fact that nature isn't right or wrong. It just is.

We've all been bred with this mentality that people aren't part of nature and that our mistakes originate in us.

If we "destroy" the environment or the "balance" of the ecosystem or biosphere it was inevitable. If we preserve it that was inevitable. You're worried. I'm not. We all pull our side of the tug a war rope and someone wins and that's the reality and that's the only way it could have been.

Sundaland should be above water. Sahul should be above water. Britain should be a peninsula. All kinds of crap. But the thing is, they're not, so it doesn't matter. We weren't around then. We didn't melt the ice caps, but they melted. It got warmer. Biodiversity went down. People started running things. I figure hot is good for us.

Maybe there will be disease, or famine, or drought. I don't know. But the population will stop growing once we hit a ceiling. When the fossil fuels run out we won't be able to burn them. We'll have to start over from the beginning. The world will cool again and everything will get back to normal.

People die. Animals die. Species go extinct. They evolve. The world adapts to the world.

if the ocean was a big puddle of hydrochloric acid because of human chemical waste, would that be normal?

[Col. Tartleton]

if the ocean was a big puddle of hydrochloric acid because of human chemical waste, would that be normal?

It would be perfectly natural. You could call it a "New Normal" because it's different from the present.

I'm not sure how such a thing would occur though. The ocean's PH is logically becoming more acidic due to the formation of H2O + CO2 and break down of H2CO3 (Carbonic Acid) into HCO3- and H+. This naturally increases water acidity.

See what's happening, in real terms, and this is fairly awesome if you think about it.

We're carbonating the ocean...



(Although yeah, apparently fish will die in sparkling water. You've got to use a flat water. Voss, Fiji if you don't have it.)

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

It would be perfectly natural. You could call it a "New Normal" because it's different from the present.

the thing is, up untill the 20th century 'normal' was created by nature, it's only since then that mass industry has had such an impact on nature that we started noticing it, and now we are supposed to deal with it.

I'm not sure how such a thing would occur though. The ocean's PH is logically becoming more acidic due to the formation of H2O + CO2 and break down of H2CO3 (Carbonic Acid) into HCO3- and H+. This naturally increases water acidity.

and there are a lot of cycles that counter acidity forming, that was an example of how we could screw up the ocean

[Aanker]

Although I agree with Col. Tarleton that humans (and our actions and constructions) are just as "natural" (I will return to the usage of this word later) as ants and their formations, I would have to say that some of the developments that we have been responsible for are not entirely in our favour, similar to how bacteria a billion or two years ago oxygenized the atmosphere to the point where they drove themselves extinct. Even though I tend to work from the basis that humans come first - this is a needed premise for our societies to function and progress so that each and every man and woman can attain happiness and thus productivity - we need to consider the long-term effects of our actions. An Earth without a sustainable biosphere will be uninhabitable and lead to misery and death. I'd say that's pretty bad for the continuation and survival of our species.

Let us take the Easter Island as an example. The first people to arrive there came to a densely forrested island abundant on wildlife and, above all, bird colonies. For some time, their societies prospered and their culture grew more intricate... To the point where someone decided that raising stone heads was a good idea. An immense competition between rivalling tribes began: the one tribe that could raise most of the largest stone heads was the most worthy tribe. Unfortunately, the process of raising stone heads required immense manpower (for which food was required) and wood (to roll the stone heads on). The forests disappeared, chunk by chunk, and the resident bird colonies were driven to extinction. The tribal structures collapsed into anarchy and war. Today, the island is a barren windworn turf of grass.

I don't have anything in particular against cutting down trees, or eating bird eggs. The problem is that we must also ensure that we find new sources of trees and bird eggs before the old ones run out, and that our consumption is proportionate to the discovery of new sources and the regeneration of the old. It's a bit like economy: ensuring that we don't build up debt. It should however be noted that the understanding of environmental impacts on the global economy is growing, and as a result, I expect private interests to better drive "green energy" sources than governments ever could. Indeed, governments under the yoke of environmentalist populism have produce nuclear energy bans, unsustainable business and ecology experiments that turned out... Bad...

On "natural": this word seems to originate from the philosophy where the artificial (human-built) is bad and the non-human is good. The word, when misused, turns into a slogan for ways of life that are about as advanced as those of the stone age, e.g. not very advanced at all. Neglecting modern development is a dangerous thing, as it might very well be so that the future, and not our highly praised, "natural" past, is the only sustainable course ahead. Imagine if the entire human population on Earth were to live as hunter-gatherers. Good luck with that.

[Col. Tartleton]

The thing is that we'd all be using virtually unlimited clean sustainable energy if it wasn't for the libtards freaking out about Nuclear power.

World History of Nuclear Power Plant Failures:

Fukushima: A massive earthquake and tsunami larger than anything they engineered for struck the site. 39 people were injured. 2 of which were radiation related. No one perished. Using completely made up numbers IMO they think it could possibly kill a few hundred people in the area via eventual cancer but that's effectively 0.

3 Mile Island: No one got hurt or died. No one is believed to have increased cancer risk as a result.

Chernobyl: The nutty Russians did it on purpose. They built reactors without containment on purpose. They intentionally removed all the safety mechanisms. Then they intentionally cranked it to 11 and watched it go to hell. But yeah, like 31 people died. No idea how many Rad-mutants it created, but again this was on purpose. You don't set your house on fire and then call it an accident. It's called arson.

[I WUB PUGS]

The thing is that we'd all be using virtually unlimited clean sustainable energy if it wasn't for the libtards freaking out about Nuclear power.

World History of Nuclear Power Plant Failures:

Fukushima: A massive earthquake and tsunami larger than anything they engineered for struck the site. 39 people were injured. 2 of which were radiation related. No one perished. Using completely made up numbers IMO they think it could possibly kill a few hundred people in the area via eventual cancer but that's effectively 0.

3 Mile Island: No one got hurt or died. No one is believed to have increased cancer risk as a result.

Chernobyl: The nutty Russians did it on purpose. They built reactors without containment on purpose. They intentionally removed all the safety mechanisms. Then they intentionally cranked it to 11 and watched it go to hell. But yeah, like 31 people died. No idea how many Rad-mutants it created, but again this was on purpose. You don't set your house on fire and then call it an accident. It's called arson.

Shutup. If we don't use the sun and wind you can't do it.

Oh wait, if you build massive solar plants in the desert you may interfere with the 5 species that live there. So no.

If you build wind you kill birds. So no.

The only acceptable form of power would be to run our Mac Books off of the constant negative brain activity of the Libtards.

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

Oh wait, if you build massive solar plants in the desert you may interfere with the 5 species that live there. So no.

If you build wind you kill birds. So no.

are you really standing by those arguments?

[Col. Tartleton]

are you really standing by those arguments?

No he's being facetious.

[Menelik_I]

The thing is that we'd all be using virtually unlimited clean sustainable energy if it wasn't for the libtards freaking out about Nuclear power.

World History of Nuclear Power Plant Failures:

Fukushima: A massive earthquake and tsunami larger than anything they engineered for struck the site. 39 people were injured. 2 of which were radiation related. No one perished. Using completely made up numbers IMO they think it could possibly kill a few hundred people in the area via eventual cancer but that's effectively 0.

For me Fukushima proves that the Japanese are the best engineers in the world and should be the only ones building Nuke plants for all eternity ... also they can build as many doomsday Mechas as they want, dude are qualified.

It is the biggest feat of engineering ever.

[Col. Tartleton]

For me Fukushima proves that the Japanese are the best engineers in the world and should be the only ones building Nuke plants for all eternity ... also they can build as many doomsday Mechas as they want, dude are qualified.

It is the biggest feat of engineering ever.

The point is, nuclear power is extremely safe. There are 440 commercial reactors running around the clock. There are 250 government reactors and 180 military reactors.

I live near a nuclear plant. Far less harmful to my health than a coal plant would be. It's not just Japan, it's all around the world. I'm glad that our universal fear of radiation insures high safety standards around the world, but it's sad how we make stupid decisions because we allow fear to rule reason.

[Menelik_I]

Though I still want a car that runs on gasoline.

Same here, I refuse any fuel configuration in which I can't grab a plastic bottle from trash to get enough juice to make to the nearest gas station.

The idea of batteries doesn't seem right to me either.

[Col. Tartleton]

I don't know why I deleted that sentence. I was going to clarify I think but then I didn't.

I tend to rewrite my posts like 3 times before I'm happy.

[Denny Crane!]

Bad luck, the poster you are responding to is a biochemist.

That was rather the point of my example

[The spartan]

The ocean level shouldn't be anything. It just is. Come to terms with the fact that nature isn't right or wrong. It just is.

We've all been bred with this mentality that people aren't part of nature and that our mistakes originate in us.

If we "destroy" the environment or the "balance" of the ecosystem or biosphere it was inevitable. If we preserve it that was inevitable. You're worried. I'm not. We all pull our side of the tug a war rope and someone wins and that's the reality and that's the only way it could have been.

Sundaland should be above water. Sahul should be above water. Britain should be a peninsula. All kinds of crap. But the thing is, they're not, so it doesn't matter. We weren't around then. We didn't melt the ice caps, but they melted. It got warmer. Biodiversity went down. People started running things. I figure hot is good for us.

Maybe there will be disease, or famine, or drought. I don't know. But the population will stop growing once we hit a ceiling. When the fossil fuels run out we won't be able to burn them. We'll have to start over from the beginning. The world will cool again and everything will get back to normal.

People die. Animals die. Species go extinct. They evolve. The world adapts to the world.

Ah, so you are a nihilist. Why are you on forums debating then? There isn't any point to try to convince anyone of anything, it is all natural, right? So please, by all means, just leave.