I think you only hear what you want to hear.Prawn Connery wrote:Have you watched that video? Did you hear the parts where Freeman Dyson states that anthropomorphic climate change is categorically real? He said it at the start and at the end of the interview.Dick Fein wrote:Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He also said global warming had nothing to do with the sun.
Aren't you arguing this is all a conspiracy? Why do you keep presenting us with proof against your argument?
I bet you haven't even watched the video yourself You just keep throwing these things up thinking they're going to help you. But they're not. Sorry.
Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0
Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0
- Prawn Connery
- MPG Founder
-
Karma Bhudda
- Has bestowed Karma : 420 times
- Received Karma : 517 times
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 9:10 pm
Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0
No, I heard it all. The questions were very leading - and you could tell the interviewer was not happy with some of the answers HE didn't want to hear. However, Dyson said there was "no doubt" about anthropomorphic climate change - "it's very real". He also said increased levels of CO2 might not be so bad, as it could potentially green the planet. But then he also added that we would not know the true effects within our lifetime, as CO2 levels continued to rise over the next 50-100 years.Dick Fein wrote:I think you only hear what you want to hear.Prawn Connery wrote:Have you watched that video? Did you hear the parts where Freeman Dyson states that anthropomorphic climate change is categorically real? He said it at the start and at the end of the interview.Dick Fein wrote:Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He also said global warming had nothing to do with the sun.
Aren't you arguing this is all a conspiracy? Why do you keep presenting us with proof against your argument?
I bet you haven't even watched the video yourself You just keep throwing these things up thinking they're going to help you. But they're not. Sorry.
Dyson has previously been quoted as saying it would take a trillion trees to soak up man-made CO2 emissions, however he has also admitted to not "fully understanding" the world's climate (and claiming scientists in general don't understand it, either).
I guess if you don't understand it yourself, how would you know if others understood it or not? As evidenced, perhaps, by the fact Dyson mentioned a greening planet, but failed to mention it is the world's oceans that soak up most of its CO2, as well as release the majority of its oxygen through phytoplankton and other algae.
He also failed to mention only C3 plants would benefit from increased CO2 levels, and not C4 plants that feed most of the world's livestock and many of its people.
Ignoring the planet's oceans and focusing on trees is like ignoring the festering sore on the end of your dick because you can still piss out of it.
Trees aren't going to help us. Especially as we're cutting most of them down in the places that count.
So you see, I am fully versed on your argument - are you? Or are you just going to keep posting up oil and gas sponsored videos who claim most of the world's scientists are part of a "conspiracy" that they are not?
Come on. Convince me of why this is all some made-up argument with a money trail. Then tell us all where all the money leads. We're still waiting . . .
Licensed to Krill
Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am sharing science that is contrary to your comfort zone and I get that. Here is some more science on the nature of the sun. Give it a try if you can.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6qGwV1LMgQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Intrinsic
- Advanced Grower
-
Karma Hippie
- Has bestowed Karma : 1792 times
- Received Karma : 1578 times
- Posts: 7702
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am
Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0
what science? I only seen pseudoscience, opnions and lies, point out where are you presented science on GW or AGW?
Last edited by Intrinsic on Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Intrinsic
- Advanced Grower
-
Karma Hippie
- Has bestowed Karma : 1792 times
- Received Karma : 1578 times
- Posts: 7702
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am
Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0
And if you think I don't like being out of my comfort zone. Try quantum physics it'll make you sweat. Non-intuitive
A dollar to a doughnut you don't even know what science is.
what the scientific method is.
A dollar to a doughnut you don't even know what science is.
what the scientific method is.
- Prawn Connery
- MPG Founder
-
Karma Bhudda
- Has bestowed Karma : 420 times
- Received Karma : 517 times
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 9:10 pm
Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0
Sorry. I don't quite follow. What has this got to do with anthropological global warming?Dick Fein wrote:I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am sharing science that is contrary to your comfort zone and I get that. Here is some more science on the nature of the sun. Give it a try if you can.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6qGwV1LMgQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can you please explain what this video has to do with the title of this thread? I'm obviously a bit slow.
Licensed to Krill
- Prawn Connery
- MPG Founder
-
Karma Bhudda
- Has bestowed Karma : 420 times
- Received Karma : 517 times
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 9:10 pm
Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0
If you're not trying to convince me of anything, why would you want me to "eat my words" as you suggested earlier?Dick Fein wrote:I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am sharing science that is contrary to your comfort zone and I get that. Here is some more science on the nature of the sun. Give it a try if you can.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6qGwV1LMgQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And I'm really not seeing a lot of "science" being shared here - so it's unlikely to be "contrary to my comfort zone".
But I am seeing a lot of "petrochemical propaganda" - which is hardly the same thing as "science". Unless we're talking about the "science" of misinformation and exploitation for financial gain.
Licensed to Krill
Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0
I am not trying to convince YOU of anything.
I am not opposed to trying to convince a person with an open mind.
I pick my battles, not the other way around.
Some more good research out of Princeton today, https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/01/ ... loud-cycle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am not opposed to trying to convince a person with an open mind.
I pick my battles, not the other way around.
Some more good research out of Princeton today, https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/01/ ... loud-cycle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- rSin
- Karma Hippie
- Custom Title: world where everone gets
- Location: neck deep
- Has bestowed Karma : 1668 times
- Received Karma : 1063 times
- Posts: 7295
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:12 pm
Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0
Say dcik
You must be aware of the concept of
Significant digit
Are you missing that most
Of what your presenting
Is the argument that
We need to respect what
Multiplying a couple of hundredths
Says about the tens of thousandths?
You must be aware of the concept of
Significant digit
Are you missing that most
Of what your presenting
Is the argument that
We need to respect what
Multiplying a couple of hundredths
Says about the tens of thousandths?
the intolerance of the old order is emerging from the rosy mist in which it has hitherto been obscured.
- Intrinsic
- Advanced Grower
-
Karma Hippie
- Has bestowed Karma : 1792 times
- Received Karma : 1578 times
- Posts: 7702
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am
Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0
The problem with that argument is we still need to maintain some form of industrial activity and those activities are not going to be reformed or eliminated overnight. The fastest way to incentivise industrial reforms is to hit industry where it is most sensitive: cost of doing business. If the pecuniary penalty for polluting is higher than the cots of reform, then it will drive reform.Prawn Connery wrote:The problem with that argument is we still need to maintain some form of industrial activity and those activities are not going to be reformed or eliminated overnight. The fastest way to incentivise industrial reforms is to hit industry where it is most sensitive: cost of doing business. If the pecuniary penalty for polluting is higher than the cots of reform, then it will drive reform.Intrinsic wrote:Taxing is not a solution. Never is.
If it is wrong to do then it is wrong, stop doing it. As with CFCs.
Taxing people to coerce 'em to change is bullshit. It didn't work for cigs. It won't work for cannabis. Taxing is only for creating loopholes. People and corporations will find hacks and game the system then still claim they're green for the marketing value while still doing wrong.
It is just throwing money at a problem.
Any solution that starts with a tax is bullshit.
The solution is to stop polluting the common air. The financially cost <rolleyes> is not a solution. Wtf?? Don't tax to let 'em pollute, just stop. Fuking idiots.
Taxing won't stop Exxon. Taxing companies wont stop me from using all the plastic and other petroleum based gadgets I love, burning gas to survive.
Sure I ride a bike, walk for entertainment, have my own compost pile, charge solar when I can and heat with renewable wood from my land. But I love the plastic doodads for my garden's drip irrigation to the ulra-lightweight plastic spoon/fork for hiking. And I still want to use gas engines for hauling shit and I need to my chainsaw and weed whacker to stay legal or pay hefty fines.
/rant
I already have a fire tax, two of 'em, state and county. But I'm still required to maintain my property for wildfire prevention at my expense. Which is odd since I and everyone else here had been doing it anyway before taxes and fines; as common sense. Yet there is still 'patriotic' 4th of July firework displays here at taxpayers expense. Bullshit.
/end rant.
But no more taxes, because if we do it right then initially most everything will be more expensive, less available and different anyway.
The alternative is forced (legislated) wholesale reform, which would cost far more, because then you have to reform and close legitimate industries and compensate them for their losses.
You can't just stop burning hydrocarbons like you can stop producing CFCs - the whole of human civilisation is still reliant on fossil fuels, and that is not going to change any time soon.
But if there is a chance of staying legal and still do wrong then some bright greed heads will game the system. Hackers do it for fun.
The alternative is forced (legislated) wholesale reform, which would cost far more, because then you have to reform and close legitimate industries and compensate them for their losses.
Fuck that, Not in a free market under capitalism. That talk is bordering on Marxism.
Greedheads will still get rich, just different ones and not from carbon loopholes. But the smart ones catering to the new existing market.
I'm I being USA-centric there?
The alternative is forced (legislated) wholesale reform, which would cost far more, because then you have to reform and close legitimate industries and compensate them for their losses.
Yes forced with Regulation. We did not tax leaded gas to stop it's manufacture and sale, we regulated it away. Forced Retooling of factories to make cars run off unleaded gas only. Sure we could of used high tax coercion and would have eventually got the same result. But taken much longer at a very high rate of medical problems for people, for generations.
So I'm not convinced it faster or better.
I know getting legislators to write and pass regulation is the bottleneck, but same thing with passing new taxes.
Yes reform. Not close factories down but retool 'em. Say for solar panels or solar steam generators or better lithium batters or flywheels or whatever is needed.
Jobs are still there. Resources are still being used and distributed (yanno economy)
You can't just stop burning hydrocarbons like you can stop producing CFCs - the whole of human civilisation is still reliant on fossil fuels, and that is not going to change any time soon
oh yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with you. 'Specially since we are a petroleum economy.
But, .. yeah you knew a but was coming ..
But I don't see taxes addressing the problem there. A piecemeal laid out plan using regulation seems more optimal. Rather then with taxes hoping greedheads will adopt the solution you want 'em to take. Successful greed heads are not sheep.
Do I need to point out the earth does have a self-regulating check to the excessive co2 from Fossil Fuels. They are a limited resource, earth is running out.
But before we run out why not use this cheap energy to retool out factories. Then we still have some left for other things (fertilizer, plastics).
The models suggest there exist an amount of co2 from petrol we can pump into the system and not overload it.
I never meant to suggest we go cold turkey. Better people then me have presented these ideas.
When we started using fossil fuels new industries came about , others faded away. They weren't tax out of existence, Yanno economic darwism.
It is possible to do. Even with greedheads.
Not to sound rosy, as I said, if done right, initially things would be scarcer and more expensive, less average energy use per person, So why have additional tax burdens too. And the fact taxes are always passed to the consumer mitigating the burden and incentive initially. Sounds slow to me.