My post was part my opinion, as a member here. I’m allowed to do that. Then I mentioned that I’m a mod. That was not a warning to anyone in particular, just a reminder. Sorry if that caused confusion. I’m not really interested in this conversation. You can flag a post if you want moderation.
I made the above post before I saw the flagged posts. Those are under consideration.
I did not flag any posts. I am happy to confront big lies.
Yeah, I’m considering it too. Haven’t decided myself about it either.
You would think that fossil fuel companies would realize how finite their resources are and that without something renewable to market they will go under, that and no planet or humans to sell to either.
Here’s a paragraph from the rules that is relevant to this thread:
Generally speaking, inflammatory, hyperbolic or overly emotive rhetoric is the sign of a troll and should be avoided on the CFI Forum. This community exists, first and foremost, to foster inquiry. Inquiry does not flourish in an atmosphere of heated rhetoric, mutual vilification or recrimination. Disagreements should be kept, as much as possible, to the issues at hand and not become overly personalized. To take but one example, pointing out a person’s lack of scientific qualifications when discussing scientific issues is on-point, but referring to someone’s political beliefs is not. Since they risk degenerating into flame wars, abusive forum threads or posts are subject to immediate editing or deletion.
Which means I’m not going to get involved as a moderator in the quality of the science discussed. I’d rather not have to make judgment calls about what is a witty retort and what is inflammatory. And I especially don’t want to sort out “who started it”. If everyone would take a look at the rules, particularly #3(f), and police yourselves, that’d be great.
Tho I am not sure what he said in Swahili. Something involving excrement, so maybe not good.
Thanks for your input, Xain.
I know that it can be tricky, to not bring political beliefs into a discussion of a scientific (or, in this case, a pretend-scientific) topic. But in the case of climate change denial, we have political interests overriding the legitimate science that has been done. And those political interests have been very well funded and have existed for a long time. They can afford some of the best thinkers to lie in “scientifically seeming” ways.
https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/top-10-climate-deniers/
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/147382/epa-openly-promoting-climate-denial-think-tank
oh, and Indiana appears to be a Brit, so,
This topic is a political topic.
Wheatcroft, your old dinner date and next king to be, doesn’t agree with your pseudo-scientific ramblings.
Mriana, I’m not sure you meant to reply to me. I know the difference between CO2 and CO in what they do in plant and animal bodies, how they are produced, and what they will do to the environment. I did post a reply to Wheatcroft about an argument(?) he made though.
Last Thursday (Oct. 4) I posted a reply to the strangest excuse to not control CO2 emissions I had ever heard: the level of CO2 in our blood is what triggers our bodies to breath. The fact our bodies detect the CO2 level of our blood and use it to trigger our breathing reflex is not a reason to ignore the level of CO2 we produce. Would Wheatcroft advocate not saving someone who is drowning because humans will die without enough water to drink? The argument is, to put it very mildly, ludicrous.
I rarely use the internet between Thursday afternoon and Monday morning, so lots went on in my absence and maybe my post was mixed-up with another person’s.
I noticed that too, 3point. I also thought she may have meant to be addressing someone else, also.
3point14rat said,
Mriana, I’m not sure you meant to reply to me.
Quite true on all of what you just said. I may have mixed up the names in my mind when I posted and copied the wrong name. Sorry about that. Whoever appeared to me to be confusing the two at the time I posted was who I meant to address. As you said, a lot went on and I’m not sure what I was doing at 3:20 pm to be in such a hurry not to get it right Sunday afternoon. Sorry about that.
I noticed that too, 3point. I also thought she may have meant to be addressing someone else, also.It happens. I'm not on here all that much, so it's possible she confused us.
I wouldn’t have minded if the confusion meant I was mistaken for you or one of the other people on here who are much smarter than I am. But I wasn’t going to stand idly by while being mistaken for that cumberworld.
I may have mixed up the names in my mind when I posted and copied the wrong name. Sorry about that.It's all good. Your original post didn't sound like it was referring to anything I had said, so the most likely reason my name was mentioned was an innocent mistake.
All the replies have been abusive and ignorant.Ignorant, huh? I have been able to easily dispute every one of your "facts" that I have bothered to look into. Literally, the ones I posted about are the only ones I've looked into and I have a 100% success rate at finding information to dispute it. And I'm not getting this from left-wing liberal commies. I'm just looking up pure, unbiased facts. For instance, to show that your figures were wrong about insulating just 500 roofs saving more energy than a wind turbine can produce, I didn't go to "liberallies.com" to dispute it, I simply Googled "how much power can a single wind turbine produce" and came up with a web site that described the biggest wind farm in America. From there I did the math myself. X homes powered (divided) by Y winder turbines equals you're wrong.
Ignorant is repeating the same lies over and over and ignoring when people call you on it. Ignorant is ignoring the facts in favor of keeping your belief. Ignorant is not bothering to look past bigoilpropaganda.com for your “facts”. You could easily see, should you bother to check, that you don’t have “facts”, you have “talking points” from conservative and corporate interest groups. It took literally no effort at all to determine that your facts were wrong. You never bothered to check it yourself, nor did you bother to look into the checking I and others have done for you. Ignorant is refusing to budge when you’ve been shown to be wrong. It’s not the replies that have been ignorant, it’s the original posts.
The point was to call CO2 pollution is absurd. Half of what we eat is from O2, and about 15% of what we eat from man made CO2. Crop growth up 50% average since 1950 - for free! And using LESS water.
One of your cotery seems to be a gerbil, waffling on about CO. Jesus, what an intellect, eh?
Most/all on this site seem to have bought the doom and gloom BS metered out by the media. They make money on crises, panics, emergencies. Watch How not to be ignorant about the world | Hans and Ola Rosling on YouTube. CHIMPS doing BETTER than Swedes on tests of number of people starving; education of girls; wealth distribution etc.
You all seem unable to address issues that have raised. Is it better to insulate 500 roofs rather than build a windmill? Yes, it is impossible to transfer to alt. energy - several think tanks have run the numbers. Seawater is buffered naturally; is pH 7.9 to 9.2; is BASIC/alkaline NOT acid. Is LOGARITHMIC like our hearing and sight - to make your stereo 2 times louder, the amp needs to 100 times more powerful; 3 times louder, 1000 times.
Start discussing rationally. This site is BORING me.
The “issues you have raised” have all been easily disproved false “facts”, which you seem unwilling to accept as reality. If all of your “facts” are wrong, why should I entertain the core belief?
Of course this site is boring you. We aren’t saying what you want to hear. Go back to your conservative talking points from 2004 if you’re so bored. They’ll all say exactly what you want to hear and you will be dumber for having read them. We’re not here to placate you. And we’re not here to convince you that climate change is a real thing. That is not our job. It is not our purpose in life. We are not qualified or equipped to form opinions on sciences we are not trained to understand. That’s what scientists are for. And their job is to convince other scientists, which they have done. The real debate is over. The only debate that matters is the debate among those who understand the debate and that is finished. All of your talking points are garbage, biased nonsense from biased sources. My opinion comes from scientists because I am not qualified to form my own. I am smart enough to understand that I have to refer to the opinions of experts for things I cannot possibly understand without the proper degrees. I’m not going to make myself dumber just so that I can agree with you and neither is anybody here.
Mark Wheatcroft,
I am a skeptic about everything, including climate change and the role humans are playing in it.
Like Widdershins and the rest of the folks on here, I am neither qualified nor in possession of the data required to arrive at a position of certainty on this topic.
However, we are all (you included) able to look at the conclusions of the many people who are qualified and in possession of such data. When we do this without a predetermined position in our minds, we see the overwhelming consensus is that humans are in a position to either increase or decrease the rate of climate change through our actions.
Pretending this isn’t so is… something that requires me to use unkind words, so I won’t finish the sentence.
If reality bores you, I’m sorry, but you’re kinda stuck in it, and your way of thinking is only going to make it worse.
The myth that Indiana is trying to champion, here, is that CO2 in the atmosphere will reach a point of “saturation” in which added CO2 has no impact on further global warming.
This idea is erroneous. https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm
But much worse than being wrong, the purposeful use of this myth is that it is just one more tactic of fossil fuel think tanks and their lackies, like Indiana, to obfuscate the realities of climate change, just a wee bit longer. If they can keep the world confused, as they have for decades now, then at some point they can change their primary tactic to, woops!, climate change is too far advanced to worry about trying to transition away from fossil fuels.
Sorry you are bored Indiana. Maybe you should go buy some hash from terrorists, or get sloppy drunk in public and get your free ride home, or try to hook up with some just married princess, or build a plane, or redo some of your other exciting life exploits. You are quite a man, but you’re getting older. Do you really want to use your sunset years to make the world that has given you so much, a worse place?