Fortress Forever

Go Back   Fortress Forever > Off Topic > Debates & Arguments

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-16-2010, 05:07 AM   #21
Credge
FF Loremaster
Beta Tester
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts Rated Helpful 4 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrenchToast View Post
You're becoming Scuzzy.
Becoming isn't the word I'd use.
__________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Ronald Reagan
Credge is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-16-2010, 11:35 AM   #22
FrenchToast
The 1337est
D&A Member
 
FrenchToast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Omagosh Canada.
Posts Rated Helpful 9 Times
At least he used to try to form intelligent arguments instead of just being condescending.
__________________
James, while John had had 'had', had had 'had had' ; 'had had' had had a better effect on the teacher.
FrenchToast is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-16-2010, 01:59 PM   #23
Lost
Fear teh crowbar.
Retired FF Staff
 
Lost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Gametype: CTF ftw, yeh
Posts Rated Helpful 6 Times
Send a message via Yahoo to Lost
I think that the only theory that has remained sane and reasonable through the years is that we are contributing to it, not causing it. The ozone hole due to massive CFC's - yah, that was us. Huge algae blooms in the Pacific due to increasing oceanic temperatures - harder to figure out. Pollution in the form of fertilizers in those areas are components but again, very hard to do the science over such a large area.

I think we just need to be more conservative with our energy and resource usage overall. It'll help the future generations deal with the issues we're creating today. May not help but it sure as fuck won't hurt.
__________________
Do what you want cuz a pirate is free!

You are a pirate!
Lost is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-16-2010, 05:30 PM   #24
BinaryLife
Posts: 1 bajillion
D&A Member
Wiki Team
 
BinaryLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Gametype: CTF
Posts Rated Helpful 5 Times
Send a message via AIM to BinaryLife
I agree with Lost. The theory and science behind global warming is completely sound. The problem I see is that there is political motivations behind influencing it towards a goal. Instead of educating and understanding science is being used to spread political fear and motivate votes. We all agree this is wrong. But while the democrats are using it to gain power the republicans are simply dismissing it outright. If they really wanted to end the whole thing they should agree with the fact that there is a clear trend of warming tempatures that can be influenced by simple changes but not spread the same fear. They would win over votes from both sides easily and land themselves in good company. Of course they won't because when you stick science in the hands of politicians they look not for what it does say but what it can say.

Last edited by BinaryLife; 02-16-2010 at 05:32 PM.
BinaryLife is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-16-2010, 08:05 PM   #25
Credge
FF Loremaster
Beta Tester
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts Rated Helpful 4 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryLife View Post
The theory and science behind global warming is completely sound.
Well, that's sort of a problem because the theory and science behind it is that it's caused by man.

We already know that the Earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. This is observable from history records and other means. Obviously man did not have the carbon footprint that it had back in the medieval era that it does now, yet, the planet warmed.

What we are observing currently isn't even certain. Temperature stations show differing results depending on area and those used by the CRU (read: almost all of them) can't be trusted or used as it's been found that the data has been tampered with. Directly.

So, to make that leap and say that the science is sound is a bit off. The only science that is currently sound is that the Earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling. Beyond that, we do not know.

And there is no consensus either. A large number of scientists reject the CRU's claims but do not reject the claims of MMGW nor do they support it. Some say that the Earth is cooling, others say it's warming, while others say we are currently in a lull after the global warming stint that happened in the 70's (when, the same people that said global warming is occuring now, global cooling was the issue).

Green house gases are the only thing with any weight, but that has been blown so out of proportion that it's absurd. CO2? Really? That's what's bad? Sorry, but that's just absurd. Maybe in urban areas with little vegetation, but anywhere else, CO2 is a good thing. Methane is a larger problem in the green house gas area (vegetation doesn't tend to 'eat' methane), yet people rarely talk about it and scientists simply don't want to address it. This is where the politicization starts to take place. This is also where my opinion starts.

Now, the idea that "it can't hurt, so why not do things that make the environment better" argument sounds really nice, but what lengths are we talking? Are you really going to buy a car because it runs on bio-fuel? Are you only going to buy green products? Gonna start riding the bike to class/work? Going to make a compost heap?

The reality is that, no, you probably won't. Yeah, maybe you'll buy a green hard drive or something (whatever that means ) but it's nothing you'll actively be looking to do. Instead, people will push for legislation on what they view as pollutants.

Cap and Trade, as an example. Well, alright, sure. I'll buy that. So, what about our competition? China? India? Do you think they'll be giving much of a shit about it? No, not really. In fact, they'll gladly take the manufacturing jobs that we'll lose and do just what we did.

The only real difference that was made is that money was shifted from the Western world to India and China.

So, when you say things like "What harm could it possibly be?" you're not thinking economically, and that's just as important for our children as is the environment. Being hasty on decisions can be a bad thing.

If you put your money where your mouth is and you actually start doing 'green' things, that's fucking great! More power to you. But, if you just say "Yeah, we better do something... but by we I mean not me and someone else" then, hey, fuck you.
__________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Ronald Reagan

Last edited by Credge; 02-16-2010 at 08:07 PM.
Credge is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-17-2010, 06:24 AM   #26
uBeR
Not ****** Yet
D&A Member
 
uBeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenghisTron View Post
My question is (Since I don't wish to get into the dogma of the actual anthropogenic vs. natural warming debate), what happens when we find out that everything we're going through is perfectly natural and (mostly) out of our control? I'm no scientist by any mean or measure, but after taking an interest in Volcanology and reading a lot about it, it's obvious that Volcanology is the driving factor in Earth's climate, and there's still a TON we don't understand about how the Earth operates.

Another thing that makes me question the current science, is, remember how there was a supposed meteorite 60 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs? If this was accurate, and a meteorite did wipe out the dinosaurs, it would have flooded the Earth's atmosphere with massive amounts of c02, more massive than probably anything else the Earth had previously seen. But the Earth didn't 'die', in fact, it regulated itself back to what we could consider 'normal'. However, I do know that oxygen levels were much higher back during that period in Earth's history (which is why many of the creatures were so much larger).

I think the problem we're facing here, is that we (as a collective civilization) think we have the power to control everything, when in reality we don't. Sure, this isn't the 14th century, and we know for a fact that the Sun is the center of the solar system, but what if it turns out we're wrong about this whole climate thing? I think the root of the problem is our incapability of realizing humongous scales. Time, space, etc. The Earth has been around for billions of years. Billions. We're lucky to make it to 90. And even luckier to make it to 100. Our problem is, we grow up in a short span of time, and that is 'normal' to us. The sun is shining, it snows every winter, it rains in the summer, and it repeats itself. If there's any deviation from that cycle, people flip out. The problem with our is, the Earth's surface is constantly changing, with, or without, our help. There is no such thing as normality or a constant, when it comes to our climate. That's why you can find fossils of sea creatures in the rocks in Central Park. Does Pangaea ring a bell for anyone? It's pretty much accepted scientific fact that all the continents were conjoined at one period in time. It's also scientific belief that the Earth once went through a 'snowball' period, where the Earth froze up into a giant snowball. So it's pretty obvious that there really is no such thing as an 'abnormal' climate. And I guess my point is, people have a hard time realizing this very simple truism.

Also;



Water absorbs more infrared radiation (from the Sun) than anything else in our atmosphere, and there's far more water vapor in our atmosphere than there is c02. There's also more water vapor in polar/arctic regions than anywhere else.
You're wrong. It's not "obvious that Volcanology is the driving factor in Earth's climate." First, volcanology is the study of volcanoes; I'm not sure how our studying volcanoes is "the driving factor in Earth's climate." Second, even if you meant volcanism, that's also incorrect. Volcanoes don't play a large role in long-term global climate, namely because large-scale volcanism is sporadic (e.g. you might get a large eruption every few years). When you take the two major natural forcings often (incorrectly) associated with contemporary warming, that is, solar activity and volcanism, they've had a small effect on global temperatures, and the effect has been a small cooling. In other words, solar activity and volcanism together are responsible for cooling of the atmosphere since the mid-twentieth century. Of course, that cooling has been completely negated by anthropogenic forcing (e.g. greenhouse gas contributions). Not entirely surprising, given that explosive volcanism emits aerosols into the atmosphere, which has a cooling effect. Volcanic activity is responsible for only a tiny fraction of CO2 compared to human contributions, and the CO2 is quite distinct (in its isotopic makeup). That much should be clear, but you can find a basis in the IPCC's AR4.

So almost immediately we find that none of this is "perfectly natural." There's nothing natural to it. Human activity has a major influence on climate, which is precisely the reason scientists have been warning everyone. The question is if people are listening, and it appears like most of you are not.

As it's been previously noted, it's completely asinine to claim that somehow CO2 or even climate change in general will lead to Earth "dieing." There couldn't be a more outlandish strawman argument. No self-respecting scientist claims anthropogenic climate change is going to result in the destruction of the planet. What is stated, on the other hand, is that the effects of it are negative and will result in dire consequences for the existing life on the planet (e.g. humans). Like we could kill off every human being and the Earth would still survive, sure; but is that a desirable result? By what measure? It should be clear now that Carlin's point is completely moot. The planet will survive for billions of years. We should also be concerned for the life that inhabits the planet though, that is, if you have even a shred of morality.

There's just this silly notion that humans have no effect on their environment. Like we're not responsible for any of our actions. It sort of bewilders me to think that are people going around saying we can emit trillions of pounds of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and it won't change a thing. It sort of shocks the conscience. It's got to do with a poor command of elementary scientific concepts, but it's sort of sad to see that's the reality. "What if it turns out we're wrong about this whole climate thing?" What if it turns out you're wrong? That's rhetorical, because we already know. So what if the scientists, against all odds, are wrong? Well, if you'd follow the advice given, at worst, you'd have a more efficient energy supply, cleaner air, and perhaps even an increase in world GDP because of it.

Almost as egregious as the previous strawman, it's also claimed that somehow climate is supposed to stay "normal" or without variation. No one claims that--no one in their right mind. Evidence of past climate changes in no way disproves anthropogenic climate change (i.e. that humans are causing current climate change). That's elementary logic, first of all. (Like, just because forest fires have occurred naturally in the past doesn't mean humans can't create forest fires...) The point, however, is that contemporary warming is unique from past climate changes. It's anomalous. For example, it's much more rapid than any previous climate change. And we know why. There's a good theoretical basis that explains it perfectly, and we've understood it for well over a hundred years. So the point isn't that climate is supposed to stay "constant," but rather that we're influencing the climate and it has adverse effects. Well, that's an argument to stop influencing climate, and we know precisely how to do that.

I would also like to congratulate GenghisTron for making one true statement; water vapor does contribute to a large percent of the greenhouse gas effect. However, this claim by itself is completely devoid of any context or meaning. Water vapor has a very short atmospheric lifetime, like a couple of days. CO2 and other greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for decades and centuries. Thus, the radiative forcing of the latter gases are much higher than water vapor. Just a simple cursory reading of Wikipedia will easily yield you these conclusions. It should also be noted, however, that when greenhouse gases coming from human activity increase the atmospheric temperature, this will also increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (the Clausius–Clapeyron relation), and therefore amplify the greenhouse effect (i.e. a positive feedback).

By the way, for those wondering, the reason why you don't get more posts like these is because they are simply dismissed or ignored, or responded to with childish and boorish remarks. Those who cast their stones really should take a long look inward first.
__________________
OCCUPATION 101.

One would think a simple task would be, well, simple. Maybe not for simpletons.

Last edited by uBeR; 02-17-2010 at 06:37 AM.
uBeR is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-17-2010, 12:29 PM   #27
BinaryLife
Posts: 1 bajillion
D&A Member
Wiki Team
 
BinaryLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Gametype: CTF
Posts Rated Helpful 5 Times
Send a message via AIM to BinaryLife
See Credge you're making the same mistake. There are a lot of components that are added on. but the warming we see now is scientifically different from basic global warming trends. It is in all sorts of higher numbers than ever before. It dates do coincide with certain human activity... but even I agree that correlation is not causation, so that doesn't mean anything.

The core of the theory is perfectly sound. They do propose that we are the cause, but there isn't enough cause to deny the claim as well as make it. That's the point I was trying to make. The typical response is like yours. "I think this way which is different, so it's wrong." The response should be "Hmm, clearly there is something going wrong. Don't know about this part, but why don't we try and find out together." No one is choosing that second response.
BinaryLife is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-18-2010, 02:16 PM   #28
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Man contributes to climate change the same way a butterfly contributes to hurricanes.

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-18-2010, 05:58 PM   #29
stray kitten
mjau
D&A Member
 
stray kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Class/Position: kittens are sneaky, spy
Gametype: Capture the mouse
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Water absorbs more infrared radiation (from the Sun) than anything else in our atmosphere, and there's far more water vapor in our atmosphere than there is c02. There's also more water vapor in polar/arctic regions than anywhere else.
Converting to a hydrogen based fuel source/economy will create more water vapor. I have found over the years when some articles talk about C02 in a negative way like "We are all going to die if we don't stop driving cars because C02 has caused x amount of of increase in the green house effect" Water vapor is conveniently removed, because it is not considered a green house gas.

Speaking of pollutants, Obama has stated that C02 is now a pollutant and a health risk. Of course in a normal world he wouln't have the power to do that, but in the national socialist world he does. So now C02 can be regulated without oversight or balance in the government. So guess what! That tasty beer you are drinking is leaking C02 and therefore the area around your glass of ice cold love, is a health hazard. Wait until they start taxing beer to cover national socialist health care. And soda pop.. and baking powder ... and biscuits and shit.
__________________
6 of the 10 richest counties in America now surround Washington D.C. Our "capitol" edged out Silicon Valley as the nation's richest metro area. Reality Distortion Field = 1. Stream the distractions: One percent, hoodies, and kony oh my.
stray kitten is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-18-2010, 07:23 PM   #30
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by stray kitten View Post
Converting to a hydrogen based fuel source/economy will create more water vapor. I have found over the years when some articles talk about C02 in a negative way like "We are all going to die if we don't stop driving cars because C02 has caused x amount of of increase in the green house effect" Water vapor is conveniently removed, because it is not considered a green house gas.

Speaking of pollutants, Obama has stated that C02 is now a pollutant and a health risk. Of course in a normal world he wouln't have the power to do that, but in the national socialist world he does. So now C02 can be regulated without oversight or balance in the government. So guess what! That tasty beer you are drinking is leaking C02 and therefore the area around your glass of ice cold love, is a health hazard. Wait until they start taxing beer to cover national socialist health care. And soda pop.. and baking powder ... and biscuits and shit.
I can't wait till I'm old and my Grandkids ask me about Obama and how the world viewed his historic presidency. My response will be: "In his first year his wife declared fat kids a national security risk and he stated that beer was an environmental hazzard that would destroy the planet."
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 03-24-2010, 12:11 AM   #31
FrenchToast
The 1337est
D&A Member
 
FrenchToast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Omagosh Canada.
Posts Rated Helpful 9 Times
This is for Scuzzy and the like:

http://www.stephenfry.com/2007/11/19...-overheated/3/

I don't expect that you'll read it with an open mind, consider it, or anything at all. It's just a very simply put intelligent argument by an intellectual hero of mine, and I ask you to read it.
__________________
James, while John had had 'had', had had 'had had' ; 'had had' had had a better effect on the teacher.
FrenchToast is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 03-24-2010, 01:42 PM   #32
Professional
Fortress Forever Staff
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Gametype: A/D
Affiliations: Un-
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by stray kitten View Post
So now C02 can be regulated without oversight or balance in the government.
So the government can regulate my breathing?
Professional is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 03-24-2010, 03:35 PM   #33
stray kitten
mjau
D&A Member
 
stray kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Class/Position: kittens are sneaky, spy
Gametype: Capture the mouse
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Yes, they can technically. If they ever went insane and chose too. And without congressional approval. Obama tried congress and failed because its fucking ridiculous, so he bypassed them and went to the EPA. Since your body produces C02, and the EPA can regulate C02 output outside of normal industrial emission standards, yo ass is pwned.

He did this with internet regulation as well: congress - failed - bypass. I think I know what hope and change means now. I saw a bumper sticker this morning from the election: "Got Hope?"

It means I HOPE Obama can CHANGE the country into National Socialists.
__________________
6 of the 10 richest counties in America now surround Washington D.C. Our "capitol" edged out Silicon Valley as the nation's richest metro area. Reality Distortion Field = 1. Stream the distractions: One percent, hoodies, and kony oh my.
stray kitten is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 03-24-2010, 06:58 PM   #34
uBeR
Not ****** Yet
D&A Member
 
uBeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
You're an idiot. Just thought you should know.
__________________
OCCUPATION 101.

One would think a simple task would be, well, simple. Maybe not for simpletons.
uBeR is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 03-24-2010, 08:30 PM   #35
stray kitten
mjau
D&A Member
 
stray kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Class/Position: kittens are sneaky, spy
Gametype: Capture the mouse
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Not really.

We all know, well maybe not you, that emissions can only be regulated by the EPA under authority from the Clean Air Act IF an emission is declared as an "air pollutant". Therefore C02 was interpreted and declared an "air pollutant" by the administration. So by definition of the EPA administrators proposal you are creating a public health hazard by breathing. Please desist from this function immediately as it can "endanger public health or welfare".
__________________
6 of the 10 richest counties in America now surround Washington D.C. Our "capitol" edged out Silicon Valley as the nation's richest metro area. Reality Distortion Field = 1. Stream the distractions: One percent, hoodies, and kony oh my.
stray kitten is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 03-25-2010, 12:32 AM   #36
Professional
Fortress Forever Staff
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Gametype: A/D
Affiliations: Un-
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
It would never hold up, it conflicts with my freedom of speech!
Professional is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 03-25-2010, 02:47 AM   #37
uBeR
Not ****** Yet
D&A Member
 
uBeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Thanks, stray kitten, for further proving my point. The fact you probably didn't read a single word from the EPA's proposal of regulating greenhouse gas emissions tells the whole story of how farcical you and your ilk are. The EPA, under these rules, can only regulate "air pollutants," which is defined as "the emissions of greenhouse gases and can be thought of as the flow that changes the size of the total stock." Respiration is nothing as the sort, as anyone paying attention in 7th grade chemistry could have easily told you. Instead, respiration is "part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural processes of photosynthesis (in plants) and respiration (in plants and animals) maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon dioxide from natural process is not included in greenhouse gas inventories." Again, this is something a young child could have told you.
__________________
OCCUPATION 101.

One would think a simple task would be, well, simple. Maybe not for simpletons.
uBeR is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 03-25-2010, 02:55 PM   #38
stray kitten
mjau
D&A Member
 
stray kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Class/Position: kittens are sneaky, spy
Gametype: Capture the mouse
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Why are you still here? Are you breathing into a carbon sink?

Please note this quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stray kitten
If they ever went insane and chose too.
You completely missed my point of the administration going around congress by stating c02 is an air pollutant and using the CAA.

ps I did read the proposal and a lot of documents related before I kindly asked you to desist. this one was interesting:

http://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse...2803-e-2222600
__________________
6 of the 10 richest counties in America now surround Washington D.C. Our "capitol" edged out Silicon Valley as the nation's richest metro area. Reality Distortion Field = 1. Stream the distractions: One percent, hoodies, and kony oh my.

Last edited by stray kitten; 03-25-2010 at 03:00 PM. Reason: addedd link
stray kitten is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 03-25-2010, 07:16 PM   #39
Etzell
D&A Member
 
Etzell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by stray kitten View Post
If they ever went insane and chose too.
Well, yeah, but if they ever went insane and chose to, they could make it mandatory for everyone to drink spaghetti sauce and fart rainbows. Doesn't mean it would, you know, work. So WTF's your point?
Etzell is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 03-25-2010, 07:56 PM   #40
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR View Post
Instead, respiration is "part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural processes of photosynthesis (in plants) and respiration (in plants and animals) maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Wow, that's a total lie. So the earth, somehow, just automatically has balanced itself so that the exact right amount of animals and plants exist to completely 100% balance this out eh? Talk about complete bullshit... But hey, maybe uBeR's right, and the earth intentionally makes people die in order to balance carbon dioxide levels. The war in Iraq is mother nature fixing a carbon dioxide balance in the middle east... according to uBeR, George W. Bush was doing natures work, anyone who's trying to stop him is guilty of crimes against the planet!!!

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.