Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,256,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Is Global Warming a Hoax?

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 526 to 538 of 538
  1. #526
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No, I think it's an apt question.
    To stand under and understand is all the same
    -Shakespeare: "Two Gentlemen of Verona"

    If you can't understand the answers, then either A) you're not trying to or B) you're not smart enough to

    I've been leaning on A, but the longer it goes on, the more I consider B an option.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Extinct species? So what? Unless we're talking about people, chicken, or cows, then who fucking cares.
    I'm hearing you say that you perceive that there are at least some species which are worth caring about.

    Is your reason for caring based on anything other than selfish arguments?
    (E.g. You like to eat them. Other people like you like to eat them. They are useful to humans, i.e. you.)

    Is it really a stretch for you to perceive that other people attach different weight to their selfish thoughts than you do to your selfish thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Altered coastlines? So what? Move!

    Erratic weather patterns? Wear a jacket you pansy!
    It's clear how much dignity and respect you see in your perceived political adversaries.

    I suspect that's about as much dignity and respect that you will be shown when you engage in these conversations.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 05-04-2017 at 02:14 PM.
  2. #527
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    My suggestion is troll better. You went from a complete skeptic to "so what" in like 3 posts. Try to be more consistent.
    I'm quite sure my position remains unchanged.

    I am not at all skeptical that the earth is warming, and do not deny the impacts to species, coastlines, and whatever.

    My answer to that is "so what?"

    I'm skeptical when it comes to claims that the actions of a single government could reverse those phenomena. My skepticism stems from the fact that temperature changes, melting glaciers, extincting species, and changing coastlines have been occurring since the earth was formed. It seems somewhat dubious that we can reverse all of that if we just made cars that get better gas mileage.
  3. #528
    BankItDrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    8,300
    Location
    Losing Prop Bets
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm quite sure my position remains unchanged.

    I am not at all skeptical that the earth is warming, and do not deny the impacts to species, coastlines, and whatever.

    My answer to that is "so what?"

    I'm skeptical when it comes to claims that the actions of a single government could reverse those phenomena. My skepticism stems from the fact that temperature changes, melting glaciers, extincting species, and changing coastlines have been occurring since the earth was formed. It seems somewhat dubious that we can reverse all of that if we just made cars that get better gas mileage.

    How does one prove to you, or myself, that the climate warming changes are man-made? Or do you subscribe to the idea that the earth is going through another change, just like last time, before humans. This is really at the heart of your argument. Where is the breakeven point for you?

    Side note: if someone thinks that the actions of a single government will solve our environmental problems - they are stupid and need to learn geography.
    Last edited by BankItDrew; 05-07-2017 at 02:20 AM.
  4. #529
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,034
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by BankItDrew View Post
    How does one prove to you, or myself, that the climate warming changes are man-made?
    It's hard but it can be done. It requires that you engage with the science itself and not all of the nonsense that flurries around it.

    You each could start here: http://berkeleyearth.org/

    Way back when emails where the smoking gun for the climate hoax, this guy, a noted climate skeptic, was putting all available data through the ringer. When he had finished a couple years later, he declared that not only is the globe warming but man's industrial activity is far and away the prime mover behind it. Though the warming effect itself has so far been moderate.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  5. #530
    Quote Originally Posted by BankItDrew View Post
    How does one prove to you, or myself, that the climate warming changes are man-made? Or do you subscribe to the idea that the earth is going through another change, just like last time, before humans. This is really at the heart of your argument. Where is the breakeven point for you?
    I don't really think it matters where the break even point is.

    I went hiking recently and saw a 25 foot deep basin carved into rock. 25 feet deep, and just as wide. Think about how much ice had to melt and run off to create a hole that big, in solid rock. All that ice melted 14,000 years ago before man ever even thought of fossil fuels.

    So it seems plausible to me that changes in the earth's temperature could simply be a naturally occurring phenomenon.

    Proving whether the changes are man-made or natural, or determining my own personal 'break even point' seems moot. My only point here is that if it can't be definitively proven one way or another, then it's not really something a government should be embracing as policy.

    Assume that the climate changes ARE man-made. What are you going to do about it? As I said earlier, even if all the best case scenarios come true from the Obama era environmental regulations, then US carbon emissions will only drop by about 1%. The planet will not notice!! You can double a car's fuel efficiency, but if the number of drivers triples....that's a net loss for the planet

    Pandora's box is open when it comes to fossil fuels. Trying to close it would be a pointless and wasteful exercise of government. You'll never slow down industry, commuting, and consumption enough to reverse climate change. And you'll certainly never do so acting unilaterally as a single government.

    Assuming for a minute that it's provable and true that the Earth would be perfectly fine in perpetuity but for the interference man, then the only measures that mankind could realistically take, at this point, that would have an impact are profoundly drastic measures. I mean, we need to kick about 4 billion people off of this planet to make the system work again.

    My argument isn't really about whether or not climate change is real or not. It's not really about whether or not it's caused by man. It's about whether or not addressing it is a practical application of government.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 05-08-2017 at 11:47 AM.
  6. #531
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,034
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Proving whether the changes are man-made or natural, or determining my own personal 'break even point' seems moot. My only point here is that if it can't be definitively proven one way or another, then it's not really something a government should be embracing as policy.
    Why not? Gov't is uniquely able to address it, why throw that away?

    Also, climate change can be definitely proven. The greenhouse effect isn't even less intuitive than electricity.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  7. #532
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,034
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Assume that the climate changes ARE man-made. What are you going to do about it? As I said earlier, even if all the best case scenarios come true from the Obama era environmental regulations, then US carbon emissions will only drop by about 1%. The planet will not notice!! You can double a car's fuel efficiency, but if the number of drivers triples....that's a net loss for the planet
    This is one of the problems with the EPA. Everyone has to buy better cars and everyone has to pass inspection, but that enormous industrial plant that dumps waste into a nearby stream seems to continue on in its practice entirely unmolested.

    My argument isn't really about whether or not climate change is real or not. It's not really about whether or not it's caused by man. It's about whether or not addressing it is a practical application of government.
    So you agree that climate change is real and man-made? Because if you don't, it just seems like you'll fall back to those arguments if someone points out that governments are uniquely positioned to address a world-wide problem, as they have the ability to dictate many actions to those they govern.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  8. #533
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,034
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Assuming for a minute that it's provable and true that the Earth would be perfectly fine in perpetuity but for the interference man
    How come there's oxygen in the air?

    Lil' bacteria made it. They made so much of it that iron was seeded from the ocean and fell to the floor as rust, then so much more that the atmosphere became saturated with it.

    Lil' bacteria.

    Man could never do something like that.

    , then the only measures that mankind could realistically take, at this point, that would have an impact are profoundly drastic measures. I mean, we need to kick about 4 billion people off of this planet to make the system work again.
    Don't think too far. You're tripping over yourself.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 05-13-2017 at 10:31 AM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  9. #534
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,767
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  10. #535
    That video really is the eiptome of preaching to the choir. If you care enough to do that I don't get how you can't appreciate how presenting information to the masses is important.
  11. #536
    I remember when Tucker asked Bill Nye to quantify his claims and Nye shorted out.
  12. #537
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,767
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I remember when Tucker asked Bill Nye to quantify his claims and Nye shorted out.
    For those that don't know, this is what Wuf is referring to

    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  13. #538
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,356
    Location
    Finding my game
    ^Seemed sloppy. He just cherry-picked lines out-of-context, didn't even bother stitching words together into completely new sentences.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •