Still confused about climate change...

Post Reply New Topic

may I add:

Coal rolling!


- one more reason, the rest of the world turned away from America for moral guidance.

What was it you were saying about people "knowing all the facts" before they comment?

Liquid oxygen can be used as a coolant. At temperatures over -183 (and standard pressure), oxygen is a gas. Gasses are not coolants.

Look, you are right about the importance of plants, but you are wrong about why they are important. Organic molecules are what matter in this context, not oxygen. To be honest, and there is no way of conveying this without seeming like a heartless jerk so you'll have to forgive me, you are betraying your fundamental lack of understanding of thermodynamics, as well as biochemistry.

The oxygen matters to the atmosphere.

This is my solution to the problem. Population reduction each generation due to less births. Bio engineering of each child conceived so they will have higher IQs than average so no one will use the argument population decrease means less chance for genius that propels mankind to greater discoveries. We will be sure the ones who are here can think.

We will bio engineer the species to be happier with less, too, so there won't be a longing to consume. We can house them in monolithic mega structures in certain zones leaving vast stretches of earth uninhabited by humans belonging only to plants and animals. Each zone will be capable of producing it's own food. These new humans will be quite happy thinking about a variety of subjects, and reading will delight them. They will be easy to please and find joy in simply existing to experience the mysteries and wonders of life.

^^^^^^^
Gattaca is meant to be dystopian rather than utopian science fiction.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhuman ... tic_divide

Moreover, it is nothing more than science fiction. We don't know how to bioengineer humans for increased intelligence, let alone being happier with less, delighted with reading, easy to please, or joyful to exist. I would suggest that humans would naturally want to travel, start families, and be close to nature.

It is not so trivial and it shows these people's thinking that they do try to trivialize it. Many people die due to this snow and cold.

-On the night of January 6?7, 2014 Detroit hit a low temperature of −14 °F (−26 °C) breaking the records for both dates".
-"Detroit had its snowiest winter on record".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_North_American_cold_wave


"As of March 13, 2014 daily record lows led record highs by about a 2.5-to-1 margin ? a sharp contrast to a heavily lopsided 2012 that featured about 5 times as many record highs as record lows".

Winter snow cover areal extent over the Lower 48 states was the 10th largest on record, dating to 1966, according to the Rutgers University Snow Lab.
http://www.weather.com/news/winter-ncdc ... 4-20140313

And 2015 is expected to be even colder.

People hear the terms used by people in the media who may know nothing about science. One day someone on tv is talking about how the increasing cold weather is caused by "climate change", and the next a scientist is on tv talking about how "climate change" means higher global temperatures. An inconsistent message, thus, it becomes unbelievable.

That is what has us in the mess we are in now. Besides if you are engineered to be happy you won't know what you are missing. You will be a happy bee.

And the fallacies of that comic are....

It wasn't always that cold in St. Louis.

Scientists have dug 1,000 feet into ice and found FARMING LAND in places now covered in ice.

The earth goes through changes in climate from hot to freezing. These changes take decades to centuries to unfold. We are COMING OUT of an ice age. We might be preparing to go back into another one.

You can't blame CO2 for this. It happened without us ever being here. It will continue in spite of what we do.

Nobody denies that the climate changes naturally. However, we are changing it more rapidly than it normally does.

"The climate changes without human interference; therefore, the climate cannot change as a result of human interference" does not logically follow.

Nice summary of the discussion:

A ? ?It?s too cold, so global warming is a hoax.?

B ? (Painstaking elaboration on what is actually going on according to scientific consensus and how it was established)

A ? ?It is too cold!?

Read, ?I don?t care about your arguments, nor do I feel any need to address them; I won?t change my mind.?

Wanting people to change their ways automatically puts you in a very weak position compared with those who simply resist you. People have a right to be unreasonable, to disregard evidence, to make unfair judgements and to refuse to coöperate to solve any problem, and even to profit from something that perpetuates or worsens it, especially when they?re willing to defend this right by force, fighting to the death if the need arises. It doesn?t matter if it?s about global warming, pollution, biodiversity, the situation of those less fortunate than you or an incoming asteroid about to hit the Earth. A single coal roller can negate the efforts of ten environmentalists and laugh at them in their faces.

In short, nothing will get done, period. Whatever will happen if people don?t change their ways, will happen, period.

Coal rolling is only symbolic and a fad that probably will pass like any other.
And screw what the rest of the world thinks.

That's probably the best argument for the existence of government. If people won't see sense, then we'll need to incentivise environmentalism, or else simply take away their ability to pollute the environment (you can leave the lights on all night, it won't matter once electricity generation is all but CO2 free).

Strongly disagree, domination over the environment appears to be linked with other forms of domination. One form of domination rationalizing another. I'm not saying all domination is bad (I believe in proletarian domination), but a specific form of domination that is domination in minority interest; which pretty much describes the state in a nutshell-- it rationalizes harm to the environment.

That's an interesting perspective. What makes you say, in particular, that "domination over the environment is linked to other forms of domination"?

Also, could you maybe provide an example of a stateless society that hasn't harmed the environment, or something similar?