User Tag List

First 91011121321 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 263

  1. #101
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert View Post
    Hmmm seems that this is a debate that cannot be won by either side if they can't even decide what the the best global temperature is suppose to be.
    It can actually. Since majority of people can agree that the best temperatures for this world as we know it is somewhere around the average temperature for the last 10000 years. So anything that would drive temperature out of that range and pretty quickly is bad for us as a species.

  2. #102
    Member Desert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    intj
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    It can actually. Since majority of people can agree that the best temperatures for this world as we know it is somewhere around the average temperature for the last 10000 years. So anything that would drive temperature out of that range and pretty quickly is bad for us as a species.
    Very interesting.
    Oh and I am sure that you are aware that as a fellow INTJ I don't care nor follow majority views

  3. #103
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    I think it has everything to do with mental illness.... I don't think too many scientists are asking for sickly people to be killed off to stave off global warming... rather that the average person turn their thermostat down a few degrees, limit their use of fossil fuels, buy food that is locally grown, be mindful of what they put down their drains, water their lawn less or not at all, try not to have 4 or 5 kids, support legislation that increases funding for renewable resources... you know stuff like that... I'm not really sure how that translates into kill off all of the sick people...

    Moreover if you're saying you're getting that kind of coded message from reading scientific data in support of manmade climate change then you really really really should see a licensed therapist...
    The idea that you are making the apocalypse preventable by such tiny changes stinks of an agenda.

    No, there is no code, I've been told this point blank. And no, I'm not hearing voices, either.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  4. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I don't want to be mean but that movie is fiction. I am getting your point but to commom people you have to explain that this so called scenario contains too much drama and everything happens just very quickly. Plus there are things that are simply impossble in that moves.

    I mean stuff like this movie is one of the things that creates so called skeptics. Since they think this is what global warming is about. While in reality it will take longer and people/regions over the world will die off slowly as they are destabilized with time. Untill in one moment you can realize that everyone will get "screwed" with time. (and then the mass panic starts)
    hence the quotes... If "common people" think a movie represents reality and can't see the comparison being made in my post then a person like that surely couldn't begin to interpret any scientific data presented to them... My faith in the "common person's" ability to understand these things is much higher than yours I think..

    For clarity no where did I say the events would take place overnight. The focus of my post was more on the aftermath of the events thus the time it took them to occur is really of no consequence... the point of the post is simply that when the world degenerates into chaos as it most certainly will if we do nothing to slow our negative impact on the environment then the shit will hit the fan... and I was merely commenting on whose more likely to either have or be able to fashion themselves an umbrella at that time...

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert View Post
    Very interesting.
    Oh and I am sure that you are aware that as a fellow INTJ I don't care nor follow majority views
    In this case it doesn't really matter what the majority view of anything is... equilibrium is a delicate situation... the funny thing about it is that you can perturb an equilibrium quite a bit and then all of a sudden the tiniest further addition drives the entire system to the other side of the spectrum...

    Thus, the ideal temperature is one that sustains life on this planet.. and I don't think it matters if the majority agrees or if you agree with the majority... the simple fact is there is a temperature at which we can longer sustain our way of life or life at all for that matter and once we hit that temperature I suspect we will all agree, laymen and scientists alike that that temperature (range of temperatures) is no longer ideal.

    Seriously people if you don't believe that mankind can effect the environment then I have a little science experiment you can try out... Go into your garage (if you have one) and to make this fair you can bring with you a bunch of trees and plants and shit from the local flower shop or home and garden center... turn on your car and see how long it takes for you to run out of breathable air... We'll ignore suffocation by CO as a possible cause of death and just look at the fact that the CO2 will turn your blood to acid over time... Thus one of two things will happen... you will happen to sprout newly evolved lungs that convert CO2 into energy your body can use in lieu of oxygen or you just end up dead...

    that being said the planet is not unlike your garage... there is an equilibrium at play here.. and we are just talking about one aspect of it when we speak of greenhouse gasses and breathable air.. there are many many many many other equilibriums that are important and also interconnected that matter... If those plants in your garage don't produce air faster than your car produces CO2 you will die a very nasty death... that's just true... if the plants on this planet cannot out produce our input of things like CO2 we will eventually die very nasty deaths... just from that one aspect alone...

    Care to take a swim in the acid ocean... you can go in there to cool off after your skin is microwaved off from the UV rays. There is a bright side though... with the very likely increase of cancer maybe just maybe we'll get mutant babies that can survive the new environment (SciFi style) hopefully they also defy all commonly held scientific principles and are able to eat whatever they crap out... Like maybe they could eat and crap dirt... cos I don't know what else would be left for them to consume... maybe some seriously intense bacteria... mmmm tasty.

    For a better illustration of how equilibrium functions think back to the acid base titration experiment that you might have done in general chemistry... At first you're happily going along adding your droplets of NaOH to the solution and even though equilibrium is shifting it's undetectable to you... since phenolphthalein takes a certain PH in order to provide you with the "drastic" color change... thus you will add and add and add your base thinking nothing is going to happen and then prestochangeo pink sol in one drop... the straw that broke the camel's back if you will... this is what we are doing to our planet.. by the time the changes get drastic it will be to late to shift the equilibrium back.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    The idea that you are making the apocalypse preventable by such tiny changes stinks of an agenda.

    No, there is no code, I've been told this point blank. And no, I'm not hearing voices, either.
    If you don't jump off of a bridge you wont die from jumping off of a bridge.. that says nothing about death by random hit and run in the intersection.

    your logic is flawed.. preventing death by one method doesn't guarantee that you won't die from something else.. Still I would chose to sky dive with my parachute even if it won't prevent me from getting cancer later on.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  6. #106
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    hence the quotes... If "common people" think a movie represents reality and can't see the comparison being made in my post then a person like that surely couldn't begin to interpret any scientific data presented to them... My faith in the "common person's" ability to understand these things is much higher than yours I think..

    For clarity no where did I say the events would take place overnight. The focus of my post was more on the aftermath of the events thus the time it took them to occur is really of no consequence... the point of the post is simply that when the world degenerates into chaos as it most certainly will if we do nothing to slow our negative impact on the environment then the shit will hit the fan... and I was merely commenting on whose more likely to either have or be able to fashion themselves an umbrella at that time...

    Well I was just saying that perhaps it is not wise to mention that moves since it distorts ...... quite alot of things.

    Also I think that so called common people are able to understand the problem. However I have doubts that they will ever get the real data and correct interpretation of it. Since the main problem is in political sphere from the start. (which fall somewhere in the time after the WW2)


    Read my last and the biggest point in my "huge" post from a few hours ago and you will realize from where my skepticism comes from. In other words by the time people figure this puzzle it will be too late. (if we presume that it already is not).

  7. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Well I was just saying that perhaps it is not wise to mention that moves since it distorts ...... quite alot of things.

    Also I think that so called common people are able to understand the problem. However I have doubts that they will ever get the real data and correct interpretation of it. Since the main problem is in political sphere from the start. (which fall somewhere in the time after the WW2)


    Read my last and the biggest point in my "huge" post from a few hours ago and you will realize from where my skepticism comes from. In other words by the time people figure this puzzle it will be too late. (if we presume that it already is not).
    no matter what you say people that base their opinions off of whichever side of the debate "feels" right to them or even worse the opinion of someone else that they've scarcely attempted to analyze for accuracy or clarity are not going to be swayed by data of any kind and certainly can't be tarnished with metaphors based on fictional screenplays.

    My first post in this thread presented actual scientific data and the ensuing discussion never even come close to addressing any of the data that was presented.

    That is hardly the result of movies like "The day after tomorrow"... that is the result of people having very strong opinions about things they don't fully understand... In the "crusade" to raise awareness to global warming the true enemy is laziness. Tell me what can anyone do to present data to a person that would rather be spoon fed his/her opinion than take the time to do the required research to formulate one by themselves? Politicians and lobbyists know this, thus they get away with the bullshit they spew.. They know all too well that certain people would rather be told their opinion then make one for themselves - especially on complex issues that take time to research and understand.. Thus you have certain people that would rather believe mankind is not harming the environment and changing the climate - since it is much easier to drive your SUV and have your 5 kids etc etc when you believe that way.. so it "feels" like the lobbyist and the politicians against environmentally sound decisions are right...

    Whatever compass they are using to guide themselves in this endeavor is clearly broken yet they are content to stumble around blindly and carelessly vomit their ignorance all over any conversation they have on the subject matter. It is also reflected in their voting records as well.. Like an intelligence eating cancer they vote year after year for people who couldn't connect two dots drawn on a sheet of paper if their lives depended on it. There is nothing that scientists can do about this problem.. This is a result of the failure of our education system and certain aspects of laziness that are on the rise in many cultures.

    You could shove the data directly up their ass and they still would not discuss it with you in any kind of meaningful way. Willful ignorance is difficult to combat.

    Just my two cents.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  8. #108
    Member Desert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    intj
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post

    In this case it doesn't really matter what the majority view of anything is... equilibrium is a delicate situation... the funny thing about it is that you can perturb an equilibrium quite a bit and then all of a sudden the tiniest further addition drives the entire system to the other side of the spectrum...

    Thus, the ideal temperature is one that sustains life on this planet.. and I don't think it matters if the majority agrees or if you agree with the majority... the simple fact is there is a temperature at which we can longer sustain our way of life or life at all for that matter and once we hit that temperature I suspect we will all agree, laymen and scientists alike that that temperature (range of temperatures) is no longer ideal.
    Could you indicate to me what the current equilibrium numbers are for sustainable human life as well as at which numbers it will tilt?

  9. #109
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    no matter what you say people that base their opinions off of whichever side of the debate "feels" right to them or even worse the opinion of someone else that they've scarcely attempted to analyze for accuracy or clarity are not going to be swayed by data of any kind and certainly can't be tarnished with metaphors based on fictional screenplays.

    My first post in this thread presented actual scientific data and the ensuing discussion never even come close to addressing any of the data that was presented.

    That is hardly the result of movies like "The day after tomorrow"... that is the result of people having very strong opinions about things they don't fully understand... In the "crusade" to raise awareness to global warming the true enemy is laziness. Tell me what can anyone do to present data to a person that would rather be spoon fed his/her opinion than take the time to do the required research to formulate one by themselves? Politicians and lobbyists know this, thus they get away with the bullshit they spew.. They know all too well that certain people would rather be told their opinion then make one for themselves - especially on complex issues that take time to research and understand.. Thus you have certain people that would rather believe mankind is not harming the environment and changing the climate - since it is much easier to drive your SUV and have your 5 kids etc etc when you believe that way.. so it "feels" like the lobbyist and the politicians against environmentally sound decisions are right...

    Whatever compass they are using to guide themselves in this endeavor is clearly broken yet they are content to stumble around blindly and carelessly vomit their ignorance all over any conversation they have on the subject matter. It is also reflected in their voting records as well.. Like an intelligence eating cancer they vote year after year for people who couldn't connect two dots drawn on a sheet of paper if their lives depended on it. There is nothing that scientists can do about this problem.. This is a result of the failure of our education system and certain aspects of laziness that are on the rise in many cultures.

    You could shove the data directly up their ass and they still would not discuss it with you in any kind of meaningful way. Willful ignorance is difficult to combat.

    Just my two cents.

    Well I agree with you that we never an issue. Everything you wrote here actually are pieces of the puzzle because of which I said that problem starts in politics.

    Especially since I consider GW scientifically settled matter.


    However since I think that this thread needs some visual data I will post some.









































  10. #110
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert View Post
    Could you indicate to me what the current equilibrium numbers are for sustainable human life as well as at which numbers it will tilt?
    Why do you insist on having an opinion about something you clearly don't understand? Which equilibrium are you referring to? Do you have any idea how many parameters are involved in the system we call planet earth? There is no exact number that will suffice for the entire planet at every instance. I think you need to really read up on dynamic systems etc before you could realistically understand any of the data I could give you and perhaps that would help you ascertain why your question is ridiculous as it is not my job to teach you basic science.

    Still in the hopes that you might actually want to learn something you can start with the links provided below and I would suggest following up with a related science textbook at your appropriate level prior to actually attempting to interpret data provided on global warming and climate change - which can be found in a great abundance at any university library by accessing their scifinder scholar and searching the topic to your heart's content.

    - Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance
    - Radiation Balance
    - Heat Transfer, Conduction, Convection and Radiation
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

Similar Threads

  1. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  2. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  3. Heat Wave Blamed On Global Warming
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-05-2012, 04:57 PM
  4. Current update on Global Warming!
    By swordpath in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 12-21-2008, 02:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO