# Air



## Eric Christian (Apr 11, 2014)

The Earth's Atmosphere. Yeah. Interesting stuff right?

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So lets discuss and analyze what its actual composition is. Pay special attention to the amounts.

Nitrogen 78.084 %
Oxygen 20.946%
Argon 0.9340 %
So that equals 99.964 %

Wow that's pretty close to 100% so I'll just leave it at that. I mean when most things are not only 99.9% but 99.964% that's pretty darn close to 100% and good enough for most folks. Right? Well to be fair lets look at the leftover .036% (Wikipedia chart shows 0.037680 but added to 99.964% that would be more than 100%) 

So yeah, looks like we missed something. 
Carbon Dioxide 0.035%

Interesting. So that leaves 0.001%

Neon 0.001818%
Helium 0.000524%
Methane 0.000179%
Hydrogen 0.000055 %
Krypton 0.000114%

Those combined come out to 0.002682% come out to more than 0.001% but hey its Wikipedia right? Close enough though so you get the idea.

The funny thing is something seems to be missing. Lots of things. There are many other gases I've heard of like Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Halon, Xenon, Radon, Ozone and then there's all the CFCs, HFCs, HCFCs. Not sure where all those get stuffed into the pie chart.

So help me understand something here. I'm supposed to be concerned about cows farting because it somehow "creates"  (See "Conservation of Mass) methane gas. Then Al Gore jets around the world telling everyone about the dangers of all the Carbon Dioxide us humans are "creating"  (Again see Conservation of Matter). So lets look at this logically. All the information I can find on this biased subject state that Carbon Dioxide has increased 24% since being measured in the early 1950's. So I'm to understand that the current figure of 0.035% is the net result of a 24% increase? So what would the amount be before the increase? Discuss 

Climate Change: NEWS

NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 11, 2014)

The human brain is just not good at crunching the kind of numbers here. It's easy to see tons of zeros on either side of a decimal and say "oh, that seems miniscule" or "oh, that's a huge amount", but it's not that simple. 

Good example, it takes 50ppm of Hydrogen Cyanide to be immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH). Looking at that in "percent of air" in decimal format would be .00000005. Pretty small right? That's enough to kill people. 

Relating that to climate change, we don't need huge percentages to cause change. 

Now, I'll be the first to say that a lot of what BOTH sides have to say on climate change is bullshit, but lets try to grasp the numbers here.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Apr 11, 2014)

First of all, in your second link you will find the answer to where the N2O, CFCs, HFCs, and HCFCs. They are measured in PPBs, likely too small for wikipedia to bother listing. 

I'm really not even sure of the point of this thread. What are we discussing? There's a difference between so called "bias" and being a scientist in this field of study. As to the amount of CO2 before the increase, if you would read your own links you provided that's pretty easy to figure out


----------



## narad (Apr 11, 2014)

Well I'm all for thorough research, but I leave this issue more to the experts. I just wanted to comment on the conservation of mass, as that's incorrectly used here. 

The earth is not a closed system, and if we wanted to assume it was for the sake of an argument, it would not weaken any of the environmentalist points -- the potential dangers of rearranging the compounds of a closed system to our well-being are just as relevant, perhaps even moreso. Recall that it was the prevalence of prehistoric vegetation that in essence terraformed the earth to support us, and if we are artificially maintaining large populations of organisms that have similar (/opposite) effects, there is no reason to believe that this could not alter the environment similarly. The biggest point to argue there is merely one of scale - hundreds of millions of years to produce an oxygen-rich atmosphere vs. a couple hundred years of human manufacturing to significantly harm it.


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 11, 2014)

Comparing Wikipedia articles to actual scientific research will make your head hurt, since the numbers will not add up. Wikipedia is not accurate.

However, the first issue seems to be that your terminology is misplaced. Humans don't "create" carbon dioxide as "re-arrange the carbon atoms in the coal/gas/oil" into carbon dioxide by oxidizing it.

Matter isn't being created, it's being re-arranged into a gas from a solid.

The second issue is adequately handled by Randy.


----------



## tedtan (Apr 11, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> So I'm to understand that the current figure of 0.035% is the net result of a 24% increase? So what would the amount be before the increase? Discuss
> 
> Climate Change: NEWS
> 
> ...



If your 0.035% correctly states the current percentage of C02 after a 24% increase since it was measured in the 1950s, then the previous percentage would have been 0.0282258064516129 when measured in the 1950s. But your second link indicates that the C02 level has increased more than that. Unfortunately, I'll have to look at the charts when I have more time in order to form an informed opinion prior to commenting.

But there is no doubt that an increase in green house gasses is very real. Some of this is likely due to the Earth's natural cycle, but we're definitely contributing as well through the industrialized lifestyle we take for granted these days.


----------



## Varcolac (Apr 11, 2014)

You don't create music. You're just rearranging the particles in the air.

"Create" is shorthand here - nothing in the universe appears _ex nihilo_. Burning things "creates" CO2 (by fusing carbon from the material and oxygen from the air in a 1:2 ratio - conservation of mass rules supreme as the ashes of the burnt material *plus* the carbon in the resulting CO2 will equal the mass of the material pre-burning [unless there was any water vapour in the original weight, which may have evaporated due to the heat]). It would be unnecessary to go through the stages of that every time we talk about common processes, don't you think?*

Same way I "create" dinner tonight. Really I'm just rearranging dead pig and bread, but damnit if I haven't "created" a delicious, delicious bacon sandwich.

Mmm, bacon.




*Example: 

"I hit six nickel and steel wound strings attached to an assembly of wood and metal in a downwards motion from the thickest to the thinnest with a teardrop-shaped plastic object held in my right hand. My left hand is pressing two of the aforementioned strings (the fourth- and fifth-thickest) down to a wooden surface behind the second set of short metal barriers. The electromagnetic interference of the strings affects magnets attached to the wooden assembly, which then produce a low-voltage electrical signal which is carried by wire to an electronic device which amplifies the signal and produces it through a paper-and-metal speaker assembly."

Or I could just say "I played an E minor chord on my electric guitar through an amp."


----------



## Svava (Apr 11, 2014)

Get out of here with your math -,-

This is a place of happiness and joy... that I am using to procrastinate from working on trigonometry... and you're ruining it.


----------



## Joose (Apr 11, 2014)

I feel this has at least some relevance here.







Not that oil has anything to do with it, but just that if a ridiculously high percentage of SCIENTISTS agree on something SCIENTIFIC, then yeah... I'm going to tend to believe them over politics and rich people.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 11, 2014)

eaeolian said:


> Comparing Wikipedia articles to actual scientific research will make your head hurt, since the numbers will not add up. Wikipedia is not accurate.



If you go back and read my post I already acknowledged that the Wikipedia figures aren't exactly perfect however considering the fact that its virtually impossible to measure the exact contents of the entire volume of the atmosphere of the Earth it's close enough.

That said, according to rock samples there have been much higher levels of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere. Again, over billions of years there have been many climate changes in different regions effected by many different factors. To single out a simple gas that our entire ecosystem thrives on and label it as a toxic is quite simply stupid.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Apr 11, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> If you go back and read my post I already acknowledged that the Wikipedia figures aren't exactly perfect however considering the fact that its virtually impossible to measure the exact contents of the entire volume of the atmosphere of the Earth it's close enough.
> 
> That said, according to rock samples there have been much higher levels of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere. Again, over billions of years there have been many climate changes in different regions effected by many different factors. To single out a simple gas that our entire ecosystem thrives on and label it as a toxic is quite simply stupid.



When did carbon dioxide get labeled as toxic?  The fact that carbon dioxide levels have been higher in Earth's history does not negate any concerns brought about by modern day climate science. I've yet to hear anyone single out CO2 and say "this is the one and only culprit to all climate change that happens!". So I still do not see what your point to this thread was?


----------



## Rock4ever (Apr 11, 2014)

Mik3D23 said:


> When did carbon dioxide get labeled as toxic?  The fact that carbon dioxide levels have been higher in Earth's history does not negate any concerns brought about by modern day climate science. I've yet to hear anyone single out CO2 and say "this is the one and only culprit to all climate change that happens!". So I still do not see what your point to this thread was?



CO2 has always been toxic. That's why your body expels it when you breathe.

As an aside, breathing pure oxygen is also sometimes toxic.

Water is toxic when present in the body at certain levels. Several years back someone died while trying to win a nintendo wii in an on-air radio contest to see who could drink the most water.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Apr 11, 2014)

Rock4ever said:


> CO2 has always been toxic. That's why your body expels it when you breathe.
> 
> As an aside, breathing pure oxygen is also toxic.
> 
> Water is toxic when present in the body at certain levels. Several years back someone died while trying to win a nintendo wii in an on-air radio contest to see who could drink the most water.



I remember hearing about that. 

IIRC, CO2 suffocates you, not poisons you. But that's beside the point. 

As for whether or not CO2 is a factor in our climate; which sounds to me like the point Eric is trying to convey, see here. 
NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature


----------



## flint757 (Apr 11, 2014)

It isn't labeled as 'toxic' at all. I don't know that much about environmental science, but CO2 is very important to our ecosystem. As is we are just throwing it out of balance. The amount we create is increasing faster than what is being used which is bad because run away greenhouse gases could very well cause us to have a similar climate to say Venus. If there was not enough CO2 that'd be just as big of a deal.

It isn't a matter of whether the Earth will survive or not either IMO. It's more about us making the planet uninhabitable for the human race. I personally could care less what happens to the planet outside the context of life. If we and other lifeforms can no longer live on the planet, or most of it gets wiped out, then that's a problem. Who cares if this planet continues floating around with nothing on it, I certainly don't.


----------



## Promit (Apr 11, 2014)

Yes, those foolish scientists with their degrees and research and studies and tests are no match for your Wikipedia research.


----------



## skeels (Apr 11, 2014)

I will agree with Eric in his statement that we as a species do not have complete understanding of what is going on.

however I believe that we underestimate our power to tip the balance of a fragile ecosystem with our abilitiesto create massive amounts of garbage both seen and invisible.


----------



## Ed_Ibanez_Shred (Apr 11, 2014)

On the subject of radon gas I live on an area of granite (pluton is the technical term) in the UK, and we have the country's most radioactive toilet in my town, due to all the radon gas (which is a product of the radioactive decay of Uranium and other radioactive shit in the granite).  The environment agency handed out radon detectors a few years ago to check that we were receiving 'safe' amounts of radiation/gas, and I believe that the toilet in the NHS GP surgery in my town was quite radioactive compared to the average toilet. 

There's your radioactive toilet fact for the day


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 11, 2014)

Promit said:


> Yes, those foolish scientists with their degrees and research and studies and tests are no match for your Wikipedia research.



The constituents of our atmosphere aren't some top secret information last time I checked so the numbers on Wikipedia are pretty standard and can be verified by a wide variety of sources online and in textbooks as well. I simply made the point that Carbon Dioxide is a relatively minuscule portion of our atmosphere and is also an integral part of our natural ecosystem. In addition, it's a proven fact that at many different times Carbon Dioxide levels have been much higher and certainly other factors were responsible as we were walking around at the time wearing animal skins and wiping our asses with leaves.

That said, since you've made the assertion in a sarcastic manner that "scientists" have "research and studies and tests" maybe you'd care to share links to them?

I personally prescribe to the George Carlin school of Environmental Sciences myself though.


----------



## bigswifty (Apr 11, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> The constituents of our atmosphere aren't some top secret information last time I checked so the numbers on Wikipedia are pretty standard and can be verified by a wide variety of sources online and in textbooks as well. I simply made the point that Carbon Dioxide is a relatively minuscule portion of our atmosphere and is also an integral part of our natural ecosystem. In addition, it's a proven fact that at many different times Carbon Dioxide levels have been much higher and certainly other factors were responsible as we were walking around at the time wearing animal skins and wiping our asses with leaves.
> 
> That said, since you've made the assertion in a sarcastic manner that "scientists" have "research and studies and tests" maybe you'd care to share links to them?
> 
> I personally prescribe to the George Carlin school of Environmental Sciences myself though.



Love George Carlin, and respect science 

I am not seeing eye to eye with you here, though. What are you trying to say? Yes, Carbon Dioxide makes up a small portion of the atmosphere. Yes, it has been present in both greater and lesser quantities over the course of Earth's life. So what are you asking..? Is it as harmful to the environment as Scientists are saying? Is it as harmful to people? Does it alter things significantly? Be specific and people can give better feedback.

I want to say a couple things. The Earth is not a closed system, and ecosystems tend to maintain a delicate equilibrium. Our atmosphere at present is in a great little sweet spot which allows life to flourish as it does here on Earth. With respect to climate change, it is real. People say "Yea, but over time climate has changed from cold to hot and back again, so why worry?". The fact is Carbon Dioxide presence has fluctuated over time, before organisms began harvesting these molecules and turning them into Oxygen (bacteria, plants), Earth's atmosphere had a much greater concentration of Carbon Dioxide. 

We aren't worried about the predictable fluctuation in climate or Carbon Dioxide. We are worried about the exponential acceleration in climate and Carbon Dioxide that the species is out-putting. That is a FACT. So think, when population, exhausting resources, burning fossil fuels/natural gasses, methane, garbage etc run rampant (which they currently are, just not severe enough for the general population to take immediate concern.. or it is hidden too well), what should we do then? We take a lot for granted, but our established systems simply cannot be sustained, and when they do finally tip that delicately and naturally balanced equilibrium state past it's threshold, shit will hit the fan HARD. And we will all feel foolish for not acting with responsibility. Your facts produced in the OP and other posts, while seemingly insignificant, say a lot. Sure, the numbers are TINY. But a 24% increase over a small amount of time is not a small increase. And with respect to Carbon Dioxide, a NATURAL yet DEADLY molecule to an abundance of the life forms on the planet, how can anyone shrug that off and say "Ehh, well it's still a tiny number". 

Also, if 97% of scientists agree on a scientific subject, you better damn believe it every time over the media and big money machines. The beautiful thing about science is it does not operate on the premise of being rewarded.


----------



## Promit (Apr 11, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> In addition, it's a proven fact that at many different times Carbon Dioxide levels have been much higher and certainly other factors were responsible as we were walking around at the time wearing animal skins and wiping our asses with leaves.


 Don't know if it's proven but sure, there's a lot of space for a lot to happen in a few million years's time. But I saw the other day that something like 96% of all species that have existed on Earth across all time are now extinct. And frankly, there weren't seven billion of us crammed on to this rock until quite recently. 

I for one don't think that humanity should reduced to a population of a hundred million or less by climate change. Whether that climate change is natural or artificial is relevant insofar that it's probably necessary information to find a solution. 



> That said, since you've made the assertion in a sarcastic manner that "scientists" have "research and studies and tests" maybe you'd care to share links to them?


 Sure - if you'd like to elaborate on what it is you'd like to know and haven't been able to find by yourself. I am not going to waste my time digging up documents just so you can ignore or hand-wave them, though. I don't know a whole lot about the subject in the first place, but I do have access to practically every major scientific journal. So if you have SPECIFIC areas of interest (and ideally can find citations on Google Scholar or similar) then I can help you out.

The point of my sarcasm was to criticize your basic approach. You've already decided to disbelieve in human caused climate change, and made up a random and largely nonsensical argument about it. MaxOfMetal sums up fairly well why your initial assumptions are off base. My experience has been that people who are looking for reasons to disbelieve climate change have a strong tendency to cherry pick evidence, and apply inconsistent standards for rigor and accuracy.

Now if that is not a fair assessment, please by all means restate your position.


----------



## pink freud (Apr 11, 2014)

Claiming that the amount of CO2 isn't rising on average because it has historical fluctuation is like claiming that the tide isn't coming in because the waves make the water go back and forth.


----------



## abandonist (Apr 11, 2014)

Guys, just give him what he wants:

"You're right and everyone else is wrong."

Sweet! Moving right along...


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 11, 2014)

abandonist said:


> Guys, just give him what he wants:
> 
> "You're right and everyone else is wrong."
> 
> Sweet! Moving right along...




/thread


----------



## asher (Apr 11, 2014)

abandonist said:


> Guys, just give him what he wants:
> 
> "You're right and everyone else is wrong."
> 
> Sweet! Moving right along...


 
But he wants the arguments 

Though that means your version actually solves the problems.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Apr 11, 2014)

Ed_Ibanez_Shred said:


> On the subject of radon gas I live on an area of granite (pluton is the technical term) in the UK, and we have the country's most radioactive toilet in my town, due to all the radon gas (which is a product of the radioactive decay of Uranium and other radioactive shit in the granite).  The environment agency handed out radon detectors a few years ago to check that we were receiving 'safe' amounts of radiation/gas, and I believe that the toilet in the NHS GP surgery in my town was quite radioactive compared to the average toilet.
> 
> There's your radioactive toilet fact for the day



Not quite. My toilet after a day of chilli-steak-pepper-sandwiches has been scientifically proven (on Wikipedia) to be the most radioactive toilet.

This thread has run its course. Is now radioactive toilet thread.


----------



## Svava (Apr 11, 2014)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Not quite. My toilet after a day of chilli-steak-pepper-sandwiches has been scientifically proven (on Wikipedia) to be the most radioactive toilet.
> 
> This thread has run its course. Is now radioactive toilet thread.



You think you're hardcore?

You have no idea...

Oatmeal for breakfast + a tuna sandwich heavy with cheese olives and artichoke hearts of foccacia bread.

Toasted like a boss.

Not enough for you?

Fruit. Sugary fruit. Inside of me.

All day son. All day 8-7.

What happened around 5 you ask? 1 lb double cheeseburger. Mushrooms. Onions. Pickles. BBQ sauce. Cheese. Bread. Fries.

Sitting on top of the fermented fruit/oatmeal mixture.


You think you're hardcore and you're still calling it poop.

Boy I'm talking about a straight up anal exodus up in this- pooping is for casuals.

We're talking about a full on evacuation in sector 5 right hyaaaa.

We're dealing with materials so vile Pandora wouldn't even put that stuff in her box.

For me, not giving a crap is saving lives.

My toilet isn't just radioactive. You can open the top and see the future reflected in the tank water. Yeah- I crapped a hole in the space time continuum- get at me son.

My exhaust fan cover disassembled its self fell out of the ceiling and commit suicide. 









THE RADIOACTIVE TOILET THREAD LIVES!!!!!!!


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 11, 2014)

Promit said:


> Sure - if you'd like to elaborate on what it is you'd like to know and haven't been able to find by yourself. I am not going to waste my time digging up documents just so you can ignore or hand-wave them, though. I don't know a whole lot about the subject in the first place, but I do have access to practically every major scientific journal. So if you have SPECIFIC areas of interest (and ideally can find citations on Google Scholar or similar) then I can help you out.



Its not what I can find myself its the speculative hearsay that has been passed off as real science to the general public over the last 40 years. These precious scientists that have all of you suckered into believing this tripe are actually funded by the huge corporations who stand to make the most off of "carbon taxes" and every other surcharge and tax they can associate with "greenhouse emissions" You guys have been thoroughly duped by the very people who stand to gain the most profit by this worldwide scam. 

In the 70's CO2 was going to set off the next Ice Age and then in the 90's the planet was going to burn up from Global Warming. Now because nothing fits its just labeled as "Climate Change" lol...

Seriously, if you want to see what some real scientists think of this scam go here:

Global Warming Petition Project

Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Joose (Apr 12, 2014)

So... the Scientists we trust (the majority) are wrong, and the Scientists you trust (the minority) are correct?


----------



## Promit (Apr 12, 2014)

A simple "No, I'm just here to soapbox my conspiracy theory beliefs and I don't give a flying **** what you people think" would have sufficed.

Incidentally, some of you may note that I mentioned cherry picked evidence and inconsistent standards of rigor earlier. I hope my point has been made.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 12, 2014)

3 petitions and a wiki page scientific fact it makes not.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 12, 2014)

Joose said:


> So... the Scientists we trust (the majority) are wrong, and the Scientists you trust (the minority) are correct?



Name them.


----------



## abandonist (Apr 12, 2014)

Here you go. 

The Statistical Probability That Climate Change Is Not Manmade Is 0.01 Percent | Motherboard

Talk all you want about sourcing - you're right. The guy on SSO is the voice of reason.

Here's a doc on the subject: http://www.chasingice.com


----------



## bigswifty (Apr 12, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Name them.



So you think Global Warming/Climate Change is a scam?
Go spend a few days in the Environmental department of a credible University.. Maybe sit in on a few classes. It is f*cking real, and it will get bad if certain people *cough* keep holding on to their ignorant pseudoscience.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 12, 2014)

It's going to be a world war for control over the air, if we want that control.

Developing nations aren't going to just throw in the towel, right as they're only now just climbing into the ring.
In it's current direction, the U.S. hasn't the muscle nor the leverage to apply any global air-treaty resolutions.


----------



## abandonist (Apr 12, 2014)

I'd say a more immediate concern is water sovereignty.


----------



## Joose (Apr 12, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Name them.



Yeah, let me go get a list of the hundreds of thousands (likely millions, actually) of scientists who believe we have a lot to do with the climate changes. I'll get right on that. Maybe I'll use Wikipedia?


I think the most common misconception among the deniers, is that we are the ONLY cause. Most of the things I've read have, more or less, suggested that we are speeding it up. Yes, the whole planet was once a ball of ice; no, humans obviously didn't melt it. That does _not_ mean we aren't disrupting the natural cycle.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Apr 12, 2014)

eaeolian said:


> Comparing Wikipedia articles to actual scientific research will make your head hurt, since the numbers will not add up. *Wikipedia is not accurate.*



WARNING: Fairly off-topic material

I hate to have to defend Wikipedia (WP), but making a blanket statement like that isn't fair to the excellent work that WP does.

WP has a policy of using citations, and a rigorous definition of what is reliable and verifiable in a source. That means you too (yes, you) can actually "fact-check" the WP articles you read by simply following the citation given for a fact or statement and checking the original source, and even decide for yourself if you like whether or not you think it's a reliable source.

So why not just start at the meat of it and browse the material that WP is just going to redirect you to (via citations)? That's the genius of WP. All you have to know is _the subject you need information about_, and if you go to the relevant WP article and your material is sourced *for you*.

But what about the many WP articles that are in relative disuse or are poorly managed and therefore have very few citations? Or don't have a citation for the specific fact that I found in the article? Or cite a source that I don't like/trust? WP is still useful. Because the article has now effectively pointed you in the right direction. If you had little idea what to expect in terms of an answer to your 'question', WP will tell you what you are looking for and now you're halfway there.


----------



## Joose (Apr 12, 2014)

^Wiki is useful. But, like CarFax, it is only a starting place. 

Fun Fact: I once added John Petrucci to the list of "former members" of Metallica on a wiki page (years ago); told a friend he was a former member, they checked Wiki and immediately believed it.


----------



## bigswifty (Apr 12, 2014)

Joose said:


> ^Wiki is useful. But, like CarFax, it is only a starting place.
> 
> Fun Fact: I once added John Petrucci to the list of "former members" of Metallica on a wiki page (years ago); told a friend he was a former member, they checked Wiki and immediately believed it.



I have tried to do something similar, and by the time I hit 'edit page' and refreshed to see my changes, it had already been removed.

People should give Wikipedia more credit (for reasons above). It was slandered because back when it was new it could be tinkered with. But people moderate the shit out of it and thus you have pretty accurate material (on the more frequently viewed pages, which Global Warming is most likely a part of).


----------



## abandonist (Apr 12, 2014)

Wiki is pretty well regulated - especially on hot topic subjects that aren't Jenna Marone.


----------



## Joose (Apr 12, 2014)

dbrozz said:


> I have tried to do something similar, and by the time I hit 'edit page' and refreshed to see my changes, it had already been removed.
> 
> People should give Wikipedia more credit (for reasons above). It was slandered because back when it was new it could be tinkered with. But people moderate the shit out of it and thus you have pretty accurate material (on the more frequently viewed pages, which Global Warming is most likely a part of).



I agree. It's become much more reliable, that's for sure. But as also stated above, it's all in whether or not you trust the sources.

Hopefully this doesn't turn into a Wiki debate though. Lol


----------



## Ed_Ibanez_Shred (Apr 12, 2014)

Svava said:


> You think you're hardcore?
> 
> You have no idea...
> 
> ...



I had a good laugh at this. When I've been eating dairy and omelettes all day I swear I fart out so many cubic decimetres of gas I could poison a whole zoo.


----------



## flexkill (Apr 12, 2014)

Without getting all technical, because I actually can't, I'm not as smart as some of the brains around here, but I have been on this planet 40 years and I don't need science to tell me our climate/enviroment has changed pretty drastically in my short time on this rock. 

When I was younger we actually had 4 seasons...not like now where it seems more like two. Hot and cold.


----------



## Svava (Apr 12, 2014)

Ed_Ibanez_Shred said:


> I had a good laugh at this. When I've been eating dairy and omelettes all day I swear I fart out so many cubic decimetres of gas I could poison a whole zoo.



That's exactly what I'm talking about.

WTF these people in this thread arguing about? Climate change?

Gimmy a bowl of milk with cereal, I'll change the climate for yeh real good -,-


----------



## rectifryer (Apr 12, 2014)

Info we need:

1) Correspondence of thermal energy retained with respect to molarity of greenhouse gases

2) Rate that Man is creating greenhouse gases 

This is easy stuff. It is litterally first semester engineering but with some bigger numbers. Simply acquiring the data is all that is needed. For whatever reason, noone wants to divulge the data. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

WHOSE WITH ME?!


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 12, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> Info we need:
> 
> 1) Correspondence of thermal energy retained with respect to molarity of greenhouse gases
> 
> ...



Exactly. Lets see the data and the proof.


----------



## Watty (Apr 12, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> Info we need:
> 
> 1) Correspondence of thermal energy retained with respect to molarity of greenhouse gases
> 
> ...



It's not as easy as you might think with all the variables involved. For example, item 2 as stated seems to inherently assume that the amount derived from said rate is completely additive (or that there aren't any rates to be considered that naturally or artificially reduce the rate), which is not the case based on the fact that chemistry (especially that involving the entirety of the earth's "system") is dynamic.

Based on the tone of your post, I would guess that you feel that there is some sort of conspiracy to conceal the truth being that the numbers haven't been put forth? I'd say that leans less towards a liberal conspiracy to indoctrinate everyone in thinking that we're causing climate change and more towards a confirmation that it is occurring and they don't want everyone to go apeshit in the time we have left. Both of these options, as stated, are of course ludicrous, but the latter is significantly more likely than the former if past trends are to be believed.



Eric Christian said:


> Its not what I can find myself its the speculative hearsay that has been passed off as real science to the general public over the last 40 years. These *precious scientists* that have all of you *suckered into believing this tripe* are actually funded by the huge corporations who stand to make the most off of "carbon taxes" and every other surcharge and tax they can associate with "greenhouse emissions" You guys *have been thoroughly duped* by the very people who stand to gain the most profit by this *worldwide scam*.
> 
> In the 70's CO2 was going to set off the next Ice Age and then in the 90's the planet was going to burn up from Global Warming. Now because nothing fits its just labeled as "Climate Change" lol...
> 
> ...



This just isn't the proper forum for these sorts of discussions, Eric. I disagree with you, but I certainly don't have the credentials to back up what I say in any way that might serve to convince you to change your mind, or at least acknowledge that there's merit in our position. Throwing a ton of numbers out there from Wiki and then citing website after website that supports your position does nothing to advance the debate and continues to make you look like a mouthpiece for the conservatives in this country who are willing to risk the state of our planet (however small the odds may be) for the sake of making a few extra bucks.

And on that note, perhaps it is 100% true that global climate change is indeed a conspiracy cooked up to derive tax revenue; it wouldn't matter. The fact that the movement employs data that shows a chance of this happening, however remote, is cause for concern and evaluation, not a blanket denial of the possibility.

By continuing to post things like this, you're garnering a ton of less than desirable attention on the forum and based on the demographic of people here, you're unlikely to change any minds...especially with the sort of evidence you see fit to employ. To that end, maybe stop posting the crazy, anti-science, conspiracy-ridden bullshit and focus on music and guitars. Barring that, find another outlet for your rantings as they aren't doing any good here.

Edit: When you use inflammatory language like that highlighted in green, you defeat your entire point because you're showing the opposing party that you've formed an opinion that is not going to be changed under almost any circumstance. I'm reminded of the following quote whenever you throw something like this out there:

"For those who believe, no [actual] proof is necessary."

Also, there are plenty of creationists walking around with degrees that could sign something like this and we wouldn't give a rat's ass about their opinion because they believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Pointing to credentials does little as there are no scientific authorities.


----------



## Cabinet (Apr 12, 2014)

Air is nothing but the drive for limitless universal ultimatum. Knowledge transcends beauty, as we float through a grand apparatus of infinite energy.


----------



## rectifryer (Apr 12, 2014)

Watty said:


> It's not as easy as you might think with all the variables involved. For example, item 2 as stated *seems to inherently assume that the amount derived from said rate is completely additive* (or that there aren't any rates to be considered that naturally or artificially reduce the rate), which is not the case based on the fact that chemistry (especially that involving the entirety of the earth's "system") is dynamic.


Thats an inference on your part. You can read whatever you want to into my posts, but that makes you the conspiracy theorist lol. I simply see a lack of evidence from both sides. Ofcourse the world is "dynamic". That doesn't mean there aren't apparent trends.


----------



## Watty (Apr 12, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> Thats an inference on your part. You can read whatever you want to into my posts, but that makes you the conspiracy theorist lol. I simply see a lack of evidence from both sides. Ofcourse the world is "dynamic". That doesn't mean there aren't apparent trends.



I was simply bringing up a point that I felt your post didn't explicitly state. The rest was influenced by how you made the point in the first place...


----------



## narad (Apr 12, 2014)

How exactly do you get all but a tiny minority of scientists - most with lackluster credentials and jobs at colleges you wouldn't want your kid to go to - to agree to a collective hoax in the first place? I don't want to toot my own horn here but I feel most scientists have strong ethics - it's what keeps us from taking our maths expertise and heading to the financial sector for massive paychecks in the first place.

Conspiracy theories used to at least pass rudimentary sanity-checks. Was the moon landing a hoax? At least in a world where documentation and information was easy to keep under wraps and NASA had full control over mission specs, in-house, you could fathom that they had the capabilities to pull of a hoax if all of their efforts were focused in that direction. But you want to assume that a vast majority of the world's scientists get together to falsify their life's work to further an indirect political motive? The foundation of the conspiracy argument is already more absurd than the remaining option.


----------



## asher (Apr 12, 2014)

narad said:


> How exactly do you get all but a tiny minority of scientists - most with lackluster credentials and jobs at colleges you wouldn't want your kid to go to - to agree to a collective hoax in the first place? I don't want to toot my own horn here but I feel most scientists have strong ethics - it's what keeps us from taking our maths expertise and heading to the financial sector for massive paychecks in the first place.
> 
> Conspiracy theories used to at least pass rudimentary sanity-checks. Was the moon landing a hoax? At least in a world where documentation and information was easy to keep under wraps and NASA had full control over mission specs, in-house, you could fathom that they had the capabilities to pull of a hoax if all of their efforts were focused in that direction. But you want to assume that a vast majority of the world's scientists get together to falsify their life's work to further an indirect political motive? The foundation of the conspiracy argument is already more absurd than the remaining option.



Further, can you imagine how big somebody's career would be if they could conclusively blow it out of the water? You _know_ people are checking this stuff over and over.

And nobody's done it. I'll keep hunting for the link, but of the thousands of scientific publications last year/two years about it, they're almost unanimous - something like 97/98%. Multiple person teams. The very few that claim otherwise were solo papers that have been refuted.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 13, 2014)

Watty said:


> This just isn't the proper forum for these sorts of discussions, Eric. I disagree with you, but I certainly don't have the credentials to back up what I say in any way that might serve to convince you to change your mind, or at least acknowledge that there's merit in our position.
> Throwing a ton of numbers out there from Wiki and then citing website after website that supports your position does nothing to advance the debate and continues to make you look like a mouthpiece for the conservatives in this country who are willing to risk the state of our planet (however small the odds may be) for the sake of making a few extra bucks.
> And on that note, perhaps it is 100% true that global climate change is indeed a conspiracy cooked up to derive tax revenue; it wouldn't matter. The fact that the movement employs data that shows a chance of this happening, however remote, is cause for concern and evaluation, not a blanket denial of the possibility.
> By continuing to post things like this, you're garnering a ton of less than desirable attention on the forum and based on the demographic of people here, you're unlikely to change any minds...especially with the sort of evidence you see fit to employ. To that end, maybe stop posting the crazy, anti-science, conspiracy-ridden bullshit and focus on music and guitars. Barring that, find another outlet for your rantings as they aren't doing any good here.
> ...



This isn't the proper forum for these sorts of discussions? lol... Oh I'm sorry. I thought I posted it in the Off-Topic section. Excuse me. And thank you for inviting me to leave the forum, I really appreciate that. You're really quite a gentleman, what with you trying to protect the sensitivities of all your fellow forum members from my cancerous ruminations. I mean, heaven forbid someone here actually read something I posted and then had their own personal thought that deviated from the sevenstring demographic you've created in your mind... wow... free thought... that could be dangerous... 

Inflammatory language? I'm sorry. You must be talking about yourself because unlike you I've never to the best of my knowledge ever needed a box of Profanity Helper to bulk up my posts and validate my messages. Maybe you should be the one going back and reading Alex Chu's rules, as profanity is according the FCC obscene and vulgar and is actually prohibited here. Just as a reminder here is a copy for you to scope out:

"By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are *obscene, vulgar,* sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 13, 2014)

Anyway, with the attempted hijack of the thread with nuclear diarrhea and progressive mind control aside I'd like to get back to the original topic. So lets shift gears for a minute and talk simply about temperature and climate of the Earth. As everyone knows the weather and climate on Earth is completely random.

From what I can tell both the temperature and climate of certain areas fluctuate more than others. Certainly particular small regions have what are called microclimates. Just look at the Atacama Desert in South America which has been virtually bone dry for 3 million years. Then looking at the oceans where we see currents that are reasonably predictable but can fluctuate wildly at times. Consider that large chunks of ice break off and form icebergs from the Artic and Antarctica and yet snowfall increases in other regions and not only do the glaciers increase in size on the mountains but new glaciers actually form as well.

What's the point of all this background? Well first of all, there is no way to simultaneously measure the temperature of every single place on Earth and establish the exact overall average temperature. That's because there's absolutely no way to measure the temperature of every single square foot of the Earth's surface area. Never mind that you'd need to measure every single square foot of the atmosphere as well. This is physically impossible and has never occurred and it never will. Secondly, now that we've established that the only data we have regarding overall climate is from the existing weather stations around the world in the last 50 or so years and a scattering of older records from major cities one can easily see we have no baseline to even form a hypothesis on.

Now again we can back to fossil records and see that there have been periods of time when the climate of particular regions have been much colder or much hotter. Then again we have no way of even knowing if several million or billion years ago if the physical place on Earth that a particular supposed region existed was even at the same GPS coordinates that it is now. For all we know one of the enormous meteors that hit the Earth could have completely spun the planet on its axis and the North Pole could have been in Kansas. We just don't know.

That said, compared to the Earth and its natural processes we are nothing. Our grandiose self importance is really quite sickening. For the most part our Earth is a closed system (with the exception of meteorites) with its own system of checks and balances that operates in a cyclical fashion completely unrelated to any of its organisms. To think otherwise is simply foolish and ignorant.


----------



## Hollowway (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric, I think what he's saying is that this is a forum to discuss music. Yet you seem to only be interested in discussing conservative politics. Why would you not go on a political forum to discuss that? You have to know that the majority of people on here are here because they play guitar, not because they are interested in political discussion. If I were you I'd be asking myself if this was a wise use of my time, to write opinion pieces that I've spent time composing, and will only be read by a handful of non influential people in the world. It would be like me going onto a fashion forum and asking everyone why no one is making an 8 string with a Floyd besides Schecter. The odds of any decent discussion coming from it are pretty low, and my time is best spent talking about it on a guitar forum catering to ERG players. I mean, there's nothing saying you can't post those topics here, but unless you're looking for a discussion with uninformed people who aren't actively working in this area you've probably got the wrong audience.

And yes, Watty used a swear word. But come on, are you really shocked that someone who plays metal swears? You're just derailing your own thread when you get stuck on a swear word.

Edit: And, perhaps to further my point, this thread showed up on "new posts," so I clicked on it, expecting us to be talking about Jason Becker's tune.


----------



## asher (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> As everyone knows the weather and climate on Earth is completely random



So let me stop you right there: no.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 13, 2014)

What point are we trying to get to here? That it's a scam? It isn't, but even if it was and you were a part of the 'few who know the truth' you have nothing to gain by trying to convince us otherwise. 

On another note, ignoring all sources that say it's happening and then only believing the select few that deny it, conforming to your personal opinion on climate change, is disingenuous. This is where most conspiracies tend to go off the deep end. You sound ridiculous claiming that almost all scientists are trying to pull the wool over your eyes so they can tax people and get people on clean energy, especially when the majority of tax dollars goes to medicaid/medicare, social security and the military (not to these scientist trying to 'fool' you). That theory is made more ridiculous by oil being one of the largest sector of our economy. This 'scam' is a pretty bad one if our entire economy is built around what these 'scammers' are trying to say is a large contributor to global warming.

Also, temps can in fact be measured all over the world. How do you think your local weatherman does it? You don't think people all over the world are collecting such data.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> As everyone knows the weather and climate on Earth is completely random.


Yeah, the climate only changes when the Earth is on it's period.


----------



## Joose (Apr 13, 2014)

The thing about a lot of scientists is... they're pretty emotionless when it comes to their research. Ideas, theories, evidence, facts, etc... that's their life. 

When I read papers/articles from the scientists who deny man-made climate change, they seem to be far more emotional about it; be it anger towards the rest of the scientific community or just this air of desire to be correct.

Now, I'm not exactly someone trying to "make a change", I don't drive a hybrid, I have a Hemi. I don't recycle (although recycling plants are one of world's largest causes of pollution). But I'm also not someone like my grandfather, who seems to think that damn near everything we're told is a government conspiracy because it advises changes in the American lifestyle he's come to know and love. I'm just not that ignorant. 

If any scientists are being paid to lie, it's the deniers. Think about hybrid cars... drive one of those and you give less to the government. The government needs people to buy their gas. Why is there not synthetic gasoline yet? I'd guess it's mainly because that will seriously reduce the oil billionaires' paychecks. There is no reason that science can grow replacement body parts, be very close to a full on invisibility cloak and even look up an ant's ass from space if they really wanted to; but not have a clean alternative to gasoline that won't require us all to buy new cars. 

Just a thought to express that it's not that I don't have a few conspiracy theories of my own, but I do think denying man-made climate change is just foolish.

Sorry Eric, but damn near everything you say on this forum sounds like trolling... and I really wish that were the case, because from "women need to know their place" to this crap, it's just sad.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 13, 2014)

flint757 said:


> What point are we trying to get to here? That it's a scam? It isn't, but even if it was and you were a part of the 'few who know the truth' you have nothing to gain by trying to convince us otherwise.
> 
> On another note, ignoring all sources that say it's happening and then only believing the select few that deny it, conforming to your personal opinion on climate change, is disingenuous. This is where most conspiracies tend to go off the deep end. You sound ridiculous claiming that almost all scientists are trying to pull the wool over your eyes so they can tax people and get people on clean energy, especially when the majority of tax dollars goes to medicaid/medicare, social security and the military (not to these scientist trying to 'fool' you). That theory is made more ridiculous by oil being one of the largest sector of our economy. This 'scam' is a pretty bad one if our entire economy is built around what these 'scammers' are trying to say is a large contributor to global warming.
> 
> Also, temps can in fact be measured all over the world. How do you think your local weatherman does it? You don't think people all over the world are collecting such data.



"It's happening" 

What exactly is "It"?


----------



## flint757 (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> "It's happening"
> 
> What exactly is "It"?



Seriously? Troll much.

You're either being a smart ass or have terrible reading comprehension (i.e. dumb). I'm going to assume you're being a smart ass because my post wasn't 'that' vague. 

Congrats! Really pushes the conversation forward. Next time I'll remember just to agree with you.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 13, 2014)

Joose said:


> Sorry Eric, but damn near everything you say on this forum sounds like trolling... and I really wish that were the case, because from "women need to know their place" to this crap, it's just sad.



The Ultimate Creator made the female of all species as a reproductive companion for the male. It's not a mistake. It's instinctual for a male to breed with as many females as possible just as it's instinctual for the female to get pregnant and create a nest to nurture the offspring. I'm sorry my wording in that post offended you.


----------



## abandonist (Apr 13, 2014)

From your profile pic it doesn't look like you're doing a lot of breeding.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 13, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Seriously? Troll much.
> 
> You're either being a smart ass or have terrible reading comprehension (i.e. dumb). I'm going to assume you're being a smart ass because my post wasn't 'that' vague.
> 
> Congrats! Really pushes the conversation forward. Next time I'll remember just to agree with you.



No. You never even quantified what "it" was. Global Warming, Global Cooling Climate Change? Am I supposed to guess? Again CO2 is 0.035% of the entire atmosphere and without it plant life would be impossible yet I'm supposed to believe that its a toxic and directly responsible for elevating the Global Average Temperature, an average figure that is virtually impossible to accurately assess?


----------



## MikeyLawless (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> The Ultimate Creator made the female of all species as a reproductive companion for the male. It's not a mistake. It's instinctual for a male to breed with as many females as possible just as it's instinctual for the female to get pregnant and create a nest to nurture the offspring. I'm sorry my wording in that post offended you.



What about a-sexual species?


----------



## narad (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> The Ultimate Creator made the female of all species as a reproductive companion for the male



I was sad to hear of his passing this week. I still remember being a kid and watching Wrestlemania VI on pay-per-view.


----------



## StevenC (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> No. You never even quantified what "it" was. Global Warming, Global Cooling Climate Change? Am I supposed to guess? Again CO2 is 0.035% of the entire atmosphere and without it plant life would be impossible yet I'm supposed to believe that its a toxic and directly responsible for elevating the Global Average Temperature, an average figure that is virtually impossible to accurately assess?



Typically, toxic without a qualifier means toxic to humans, as it does in this case, so it's chemistry with plants is irrelevant. Obviously having the right amount of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to certain conditions, and increasing that slightly would have significant impacts.

Global Average Temperature would be a pretty useless indicator to measure, considering a lot of models these days predict that different parts of the world will have their climates changed in different ways. Also, it'd be pretty easy to measure, actually. If we think about all of the TV stations that take temperature readings, and all of the people around the world with amateur weather stations.

I imagine a more interesting indicator would be the average absolute average temperature change, throwing global, or some other suitable adjective, in there some where to indicate we're taking the average at different parts of the world, then taking the absolute of those, and then taking the average of all the places on earth. And I guess the median absolute mean could be more representative than mean mean.


----------



## Nonservium (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> The Ultimate Creator made the female of all species as a reproductive companion for the male. It's not a mistake. It's instinctual for a male to breed with as many females as possible just as it's instinctual for the female to get pregnant and create a nest to nurture the offspring. I'm sorry my wording in that post offended you.



Incorrect. There are species that can reproduce assexually. As well as species where the role is reversed.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 13, 2014)

MikeyLawless said:


> What about a-sexual species?



I'm apologize for qualifying it as "all species". You are correct and I should have been exactly specific and worded my posting as such.


----------



## Joose (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> The Ultimate Creator made the female of all species as a reproductive companion for the male. It's not a mistake. It's instinctual for a male to breed with as many females as possible just as it's instinctual for the female to get pregnant and create a nest to nurture the offspring. I'm sorry my wording in that post offended you.



If there is an "ultimate creator", then from an engineering standpoint, he's a moron. But that's getting off-topic.


----------



## Nonservium (Apr 13, 2014)

A reminder to those of you that entertain this dollar worship driven drivel:


----------



## Joose (Apr 13, 2014)

^

Problem is, a lot of people feel the same way.. too much mainstream media and believing politics, I'd guess. Still, I'm having fun reading and responding. And I've learned a few things.


----------



## Watty (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> To think otherwise is simply foolish and ignorant.



There's so much left on the table to address, but in the interest of saving time for now...

Exactly.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 13, 2014)

Joose said:


> If there is an "ultimate creator", then from an engineering standpoint, he's a moron. But that's getting off-topic.



I'm sure on Judgment Day you'll have every opportunity to express your feelings to him.


----------



## SpaceDock (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> That said, compared to the Earth and its natural processes we are nothing. Our grandiose self importance is really quite sickening. For the most part our Earth is a closed system (with the exception of meteorites) with its own system of checks and balances that operates in a cyclical fashion completely unrelated to any of its organisms. To think otherwise is simply foolish and ignorant.



You are so very wrong. You need to read about the storms created in Africa by overfishing the west coast, we created a huge imbalance that caused giant bacterial growths make tropical storms. Ever hear of the dust bowl? How our improper farming technique created giant storms that ravaged the US. How about early industrial England where the intense amounts of soot from chimneys caused a perverted natural selection to occur where only black moths would survive. 

If you are really convinced that our smog isn't a problem, take a trip to China.


----------



## Watty (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> This isn't the proper forum for these sorts of discussions? lol... Oh I'm sorry. I thought I posted it in the Off-Topic section. Excuse me. And thank you for inviting me to leave the forum, I really appreciate that. You're really quite a gentleman, what with you trying to protect the sensitivities of all your fellow forum members from my cancerous ruminations. I mean, heaven forbid someone here actually read something I posted and then had their own personal thought that deviated from the sevenstring demographic you've created in your mind... wow... free thought... that could be dangerous...



A) Guitar forum =/= Politcal forum. That should be abundantly clear even to you. You're welcome to post in the off topic section, I was merely informing you that your target audience (i.e. those likely to be swayed or have the necessary evidence and or credentials to sway you) does not exist here in the way you seem to believe it does.

B) Your description of your rumination as cancerous was appropriate given that your position, if wrong, allows for a catastrophic failure of our planet's ability to adequately support life as we currently understand it. 

C) I'm all for free thought sir, and I'd encourage you to appropriately apply it to information outside the bubble in which you've taken up residence. Like I said, I don't mind that you post here or that someone could see it be swayed....I'm more against the fact that you seem to be unwilling to have a real debate in which you'd cite data that has been fact checked and peer reviewed rather than presenting websites and "scientific authorities" that explicitly support your claim with no exposition as to why we should pay attention to them in the first place.



Eric Christian said:


> Inflammatory language? I'm sorry. You must be talking about yourself because unlike you I've never to the best of my knowledge ever needed a box of Profanity Helper to bulk up my posts and validate my messages. Maybe you should be the one going back and reading Alex Chu's rules, as profanity is according the FCC obscene and vulgar and is actually prohibited here. Just as a reminder here is a copy for you to scope out:
> 
> "By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are *obscene, vulgar,* sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."



A) Again, you seem to fall back on an attack of the conveyance of my posts and not the content as is what should be focused on. Feel free to cite the rules, but given that neither or us has been banned (in likely the second most patrolled range of topics on this website as far as the mods are concerned) means that neither of us has violated the intent and or spirit of the documentation you cite above.

B) I should think that your previous misogynistic attack on a woman's "proper" place in life would dwarf any statement I've made, regardless of whether it included colloquial terminology that just happens to employ a word deemed "vulgar" by some.



Eric Christian said:


> Anyway, with the attempted hijack of the thread with nuclear diarrhea and progressive mind control aside I'd like to get back to the original topic. So lets shift gears for a minute and talk simply about temperature and climate of the Earth. As everyone knows the weather and climate on Earth is completely random.



A) If I could control peoples' minds, I'd be working in government trying to effect some positive change in the world and not sitting around arguing with someone who would likely be the target of said mind control.

B) The last sentence in this statement is false, in context. The climates may have initially be inspired by random events, but admitting this fact does not support your point as the type of randomness to which you refer is different in the contemporary context, as far removed from my example as it may be.



Eric Christian said:


> From what I can tell both the temperature and climate of certain areas fluctuate more than others. Certainly particular small regions have what are called microclimates. Just look at the Atacama Desert in South America which has been virtually bone dry for 3 million years. Then looking at the oceans where we see currents that are reasonably predictable but can fluctuate wildly at times. Consider that large chunks of ice break off and form icebergs from the Artic and Antarctica and yet snowfall increases in other regions and not only do the glaciers increase in size on the mountains but new glaciers actually form as well.



A) I'm glad we're interpreting scientific fact on the basis of "what [you] can tell." I'll just tell all the people who disagree with you that they can go home now and take up a different profession as they aren't needed anymore. Your argument stinks of Ham's "well, there's this book....."



Eric Christian said:


> What's the point of all this background? Well first of all, there is no way to simultaneously measure the temperature of every single place on Earth and establish the exact overall average temperature. That's because there's absolutely no way to measure the temperature of every single square foot of the Earth's surface area. Never mind that you'd need to measure every single square foot of the atmosphere as well. This is physically impossible and has never occurred and it never will. Secondly, now that we've established that the only data we have regarding overall climate is from the existing weather stations around the world in the last 50 or so years and a scattering of older records from major cities one can easily see we have no baseline to even form a hypothesis on.



A) Blanket statement regarding the impossibility of mankind's mapping the entirety of the global climate with regards to temperature, let alone anything else? Check. Just because we can't imagine it now doesn't mean that can't change in the next decade. Hell, it was just several years ago that smart phones didn't even exist....now everyone has one. And if that's not enough, we recently sent a guy outside the atmosphere to 'base jump' for shits and giggles. Again, just because you don't accept the possibility doesn't mean that scientific inquiry has to halt and support your view.



Eric Christian said:


> Now again we can back to fossil records and see that there have been periods of time when the climate of particular regions have been much colder or much hotter. Then again we have no way of even knowing if several million or billion years ago if the physical place on Earth that a particular supposed region existed was even at the same GPS coordinates that it is now. For all we know one of the enormous meteors that hit the Earth could have completely spun the planet on its axis and the North Pole could have been in Kansas. We just don't know.



A) Pretty sure we know the north pole was likely not located in Kansas, but hyperbole aside...you're trying to move the goal line for the purposes of validating your argument, let alone the fact that this could be accounted for (i.e. corrected) as soon as we discovered the shift that we'd need to apply. You seem to suggest that this is an impossibility.



Eric Christian said:


> That said, compared to the Earth and its natural processes we are nothing. Our grandiose self importance is really quite sickening. For the most part our Earth is a closed system (with the exception of meteorites) with its own system of checks and balances that operates in a cyclical fashion completely unrelated to any of its organisms. To think otherwise is simply foolish and ignorant.



A) You're correct, we are nothing compared to the overall ecological system of which we find ourselves a part and our self importance is staggering in its scope. How does this have anything to do with supporting your argument? To go with a natural example, there are organisms who's poisons can kill us in doses that are so small as to seem inconsequential. Yet, when correctly applied to our bodies, we die. Take this analogy and apply it to our current situation for an understanding that even seemingly insignificant things can have enormous impacts on natural (and otherwise) systems.



Eric Christian said:


> The Ultimate Creator made the female of all species as a reproductive companion for the male. It's not a mistake. It's instinctual for a male to breed with as many females as possible just as it's instinctual for the female to get pregnant and create a nest to nurture the offspring. I'm sorry my wording in that post offended you.



A) Yes, and the keyword there is COMPANION....as in, we're equal. The tone of the post he cites made it abundantly clear that you feel superior to the female of our species when it comes to interactions associated with breeding. You can cite biology all you want, but it doesn't get you away from looking like a misogynistic simpleton who doesn't believe that gender norms are not gender absolutes. Hell, who's to say that our society couldn't have been controlled by women who killed all but a very small number of men and kept them in cages for breeding purposes and made them care for the offspring? 



Eric Christian said:


> I'm sure on Judgment Day you'll have every opportunity to express your feelings to him.



Oh lord. 

_________________

Eric, at the end of the day, no one cares if you post here, it's your privilege until such a time as you get banned (if that occurs), but you have to know that your flimsy arguments and normative religious attacks on certain aspects of our society are generally falling on deaf ears. Perhaps you fancy yourself not unlike a conservative radio talk show host who makes a living taking advantage of gullible individuals and that even convincing one person here to believe as you do will be worth your time, but I'm relating to you my opinion that this is not a good place to play that scenario out.


----------



## skeels (Apr 13, 2014)

Crom already knows if I have learned the answer to the Riddle of Steel.


----------



## skeels (Apr 13, 2014)

Also, Watty, you got a bunch of sections there with A's but no B's.


----------



## skeels (Apr 13, 2014)

Farewell, Jason Becker song thread!


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 13, 2014)

skeels said:


> Also, Watty, you got a bunch of sections there with A's but no B's.



No Ps & Qs either...


----------



## Watty (Apr 13, 2014)

skeels said:


> Also, Watty, you got a bunch of sections there with A's but no B's.



Yeah, I know....there were other points I began to make in several sections, but they ended up feeling a bit more antagonistic than I figure had a place in the conversation.


----------



## Joose (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> I'm sure on Judgment Day you'll have every opportunity to express your feelings to him.


----------



## Svava (Apr 13, 2014)

I tried to make a meme on memegenerator of an Aliens vs. Predators poster with "Christan vs. Watty" on it, but memegenerator is not working right now.

Sad panda is unhappy


----------



## Watty (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> No Ps & Qs either...



For those that aren't aware, this colloquialism is basically meant to say:

"Mind your manners."

So Eric has (yet AGAIN) elected to attack the means by which I related the information contained in my post by saying it's mean spirited instead of addressing the information itself.



Svava said:


> I tried to make a meme on memegenerator of an Aliens vs. Predators poster with "Christan vs. Watty" on it, but memegenerator is not working right now.
> 
> Sad panda is unhappy



Well, I suppose I appreciate the sentiment, but as I'm against all religion and Eric has demonstrated that he's not technically a Christian, you should amend the first half to something else.


----------



## SpaceDock (Apr 13, 2014)

Alright back to nuclear diarrhea thread,

I am lactose intolerant. On Friday I went to the Pizza Ranch, all you can eat buffet pizza. It was ten bucks a head, so I figured I needed to make it worth my ten bucks. I am not a big guy, but I can cram a ton of food like an Asian hot dog champion. About twelve slices later, I tap out. Everything was really great going in. It was Friday night, so I go home and drink a six pack of Heineken while watching movies with my girlfriend. 

So Saturday morning rolls around, oh my god. I shat eight times in four hours. Absolute machine gun fire rectal explosion burning like I'm giving birth to the sun. The toilet paper would literally sizzle as it fell into the foamy kaleidoscope of chunky froth. 

Taking pepto would only blacken the gut rotted mess spewing from me, no salvation only endurance would remain. By the afternoon I was normal again, all that was left was to tell my girlfriend she had a mess to clean up.


----------



## asher (Apr 13, 2014)




----------



## flint757 (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> No. You never even quantified what "it" was. Global Warming, Global Cooling Climate Change? Am I supposed to guess? Again CO2 is 0.035% of the entire atmosphere and without it plant life would be impossible yet I'm supposed to believe that its a toxic and directly responsible for elevating the Global Average Temperature, an average figure that is virtually impossible to accurately assess?



I didn't really need to state it for my post to be understood when taking it in to context of the last page and the overall thread. I even reference your post by mentioning the word scam. Do you not remember what you believe to be a scam? Context clues. You still ignored the rest of my post to focus on something quite trivial, but since you deny being a smart ass I guess were going with bad reading comprehension.

It's not my fault you don't have a solid understanding on the topic either. Maybe take a chemistry or physics course and it'll make a little more sense to you. Just because you don't understand how certain things work doesn't make them 'impossible'. Also, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas and tiny amounts in the context of the atmospheres volume is actually quite a lot. Irrelevant to quantities, it's about balance not amounts. We are throwing things out of balance by means of pollution. This is the problem. In adding more greenhouse gases, that otherwise wouldn't be there, there is more in the atmosphere at any given time. Green house gases trap heat which otherwise would have left the planet. This changes the makeup of the atmosphere which over time changes other variables. CO2 just happens to have a long atmospheric life time. 

There's no denying that global warming is happening. You can believe it's cyclical and that we have nothing to do with it, but even that requires ignoring some facts. How can you assume that we aren't making a huge impact anyhow? We can easily do more harm to this planet than any animal ever could. Self important? Maybe, but we could literally blow this planet to smithereens if we felt a need to. And again it's all about keeping the Earth in a livable condition for us. Even if the effect in the atmosphere overall was negligible no one can deny that the air quality closer to industry is significantly worse than air in the country (live next to a paper mill and get back to me). Global warming does not mean it will never get cold again, that it will only get hotter, that there will be no blizzards, etc. either.

Here's a point not being considered, lets say it is in fact cyclical and humans play a small role:

1) Even someone supporting that idea has to entertain the possibility that they're wrong. That being noted, there is little reason not to take measures just in case.
2) Most people who deny it have something to gain by denying it.
3) Whether or not it is detrimental to the planet, smog sucks. Countries that allow companies to do whatever they want also tend to have very unhealthy breathing conditions. (see China).
4) For the everyday person most 'green' solutions save you money. The idea is to use less electricity and gas so you are polluting less. This means you're being more efficient not only with your pollutants, but also your money.
5) What is the point in being a passionate denier (as in more than just passively believing everyone's wrong)? For some the answer to that can sometimes be #2.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 13, 2014)

Watty said:


> A) Guitar forum =/= Politcal forum. That should be abundantly clear even to you. You're welcome to post in the off topic section, I was merely informing you that your target audience (i.e. those likely to be swayed or have the necessary evidence and or credentials to sway you) does not exist here in the way you seem to believe it does.
> 
> B) Your description of your rumination as cancerous was appropriate given that your position, if wrong, allows for a catastrophic failure of our planet's ability to adequately support life as we currently understand it.
> 
> ...



Anyway, I've got stuff to do today and I'm really quite weary of your condescending lectures and also quite frankly bored matching wits with your sardonic allegory tangents. You win. I admit that burning hydrocarbons once trapped inside the Earth is single handedly responsible for our climate fluctuations, an overwhelming majority of human females don't instinctually like to have sex with human males and there is no Ultimate Creator to face for your deeds on Judgment Day.

So there, I freed you. Now you don't have to hover over the computer all day to write your next War & Peace replica. You can relax now. Go out and fill up your Prius with Premium, get a Starbucks Latte, fiddle around with your AxeFx and all the while filled with that tingly smug feeling that you finally showed that dumb hick Eric who's the boss. Good job bro!


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Apr 13, 2014)

This delivered.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 13, 2014)

flint757 said:


> I didn't really need to state it for my post to be understood when taking it in to context of the last page and the overall thread. I even reference your post by mentioning the word scam. Do you not remember what you believe to be a scam? Context clues. You still ignored the rest of my post to focus on something quite trivial, but since you deny being a smart ass I guess were going with bad reading comprehension.
> 
> It's not my fault you don't have a solid understanding on the topic either. Maybe take a chemistry or physics course and it'll make a little more sense to you. Just because you don't understand how certain things work doesn't make them 'impossible'. Also, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas and tiny amounts in the context of the atmospheres volume is actually quite a lot. Irrelevant to quantities, it's about balance not amounts. We are throwing things out of balance by means of pollution. This is the problem. In adding more greenhouse gases, that otherwise wouldn't be there, there is more in the atmosphere at any given time. Green house gases trap heat which otherwise would have left the planet. This changes the makeup of the atmosphere which over time changes other variables. CO2 just happens to have a long atmospheric life time.
> 
> ...



Ok. I'll ask you a simple question. What is the perfect level of CO2 for Earth's atmosphere? Is there a study by these nebulous scientists you keep vaguely referring to that shows the perfect level?


----------



## Mik3D23 (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> So there, I freed you. Now you don't have to hover over the computer all day to write your next War & Peace replica. You can relax now. Go out and fill up your Prius with Premium, get a Starbucks Latte, fiddle around with your AxeFx and all the while filled with that tingly smug feeling that you finally showed that dumb hick Eric who's the boss. Good job bro!



I enjoy how you get mad when someone implies you're a Republican, but yet you say things like this 

When was the last time you posted something guitar related, if I may ask?


----------



## asher (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Ok. I'll ask you a simple question. What is the perfect level of CO2 for Earth's atmosphere? Is there a study by these nebulous scientists you keep vaguely referring to that shows the perfect level?



I thought you had stuff to do today?



Mik3D23 said:


> I enjoy how you get mad when someone implies you're a Republican, but yet you say things like this
> 
> When was the last time you posted something guitar related, if I may ask?



http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/search.php?searchid=7061293


----------



## flint757 (Apr 13, 2014)

In reference to your premium gas comment, the octane rating of gas is actually about compression not pollution. The higher the octane rating the longer it takes to combust from compression. I know you were being snotty, but it doesn't hurt to be accurate and snotty.


----------



## narad (Apr 13, 2014)

Accurate and snotty is my preferred manner of comment delivery.


----------



## pink freud (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> No Ps & Qs either...



If somebody posts a thread about the scientific veracity of global warming and then goes on to talk about a deity judging people, then that person is a person who should be a ignored.
Somebody posted a thread about the scientific veracity of global warming and then went on to talk about a deity judging people.
That person is a person who should be ignored.

If P then Q.
P.
Q.


----------



## Joose (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Anyway, I've got stuff to do today and I'm really quite weary of your condescending lectures and also quite frankly bored matching wits with your sardonic allegory tangents. You win. I admit that burning hydrocarbons once trapped inside the Earth is single handedly responsible for our climate fluctuations, an overwhelming majority of human females don't instinctually like to have sex with human males and there is no Ultimate Creator to face for your deeds on Judgment Day.
> 
> So there, I freed you. Now you don't have to hover over the computer all day to write your next War & Peace replica. You can relax now. Go out and fill up your Prius with Premium, get a Starbucks Latte, fiddle around with your AxeFx and all the while filled with that tingly smug feeling that you finally showed that dumb hick Eric who's the boss. Good job bro!



And this sums up exactly why extreme Right Wing and extreme Left Wing people ruin society.

You make the assumption that someone who cares about the environment drives a Prius; when in reality, anyone who truly cares about the environment will have done their research and found that the Prius' building process caused ridiculous amounts of harm to the environment; or at least it did for a long time, I'm not 100% certain what it goes through currently. Most people that drive a Hybrid vehicle are trying to save money, even if the hybrid version of a car often costs so much more that it doesn't work out that way for a long time; but it still spares the anger induced by gas pumps. 

Not entirely certain how your filling up with Premium statement had any relevance. In a full tank, it really doesn't add much to the cost, and either way, Prius owners are warned NOT to use Premium. Even my 5.7 V8 isn't designed to run on Premium in stock form.

Oh and Starbucks makes delicious coffee in a country that, for the most part, has no issue drinking coffee as bland and tasteless as Folgers.



So basically, everything you just said was just another way of saying, "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm just going to be a dick about it because I live in a fantasy world where everything I do and say is correct and my unconditionally loving deity will reward me for it while punishing those who disagree; even though my deity is one of the youngest man has created."


----------



## Nyx Erebos (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> an overwhelming majority of human females don't instinctually like to have sex with human males





Sorry I don't have anything smart to say. I praise your will to understand how things work but IMO you can't base your opinion only on numbers or a few articles when it comes to a topic as complicated as how we affect the atmosphere.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Ok. I'll ask you a simple question. What is the perfect level of CO2 for Earth's atmosphere? Is there a study by these nebulous scientists you keep vaguely referring to that shows the perfect level?



Sorry, I don't have any links from Wikipedia or petition websites to show you. I fear any other source would just be presumed to be 'a part of the conspiracy'.



It's actually a simple physics and chemistry problem. Define what the ideal temperature range is for our existence and then figure out the equilibrium concentration of CO2 (simplified as there are other variables obviously). The reason things like smog exist is because pollution doesn't immediately scatter in the wind, making it's way to the entire world over night. It tends to stay heavily concentrated right where it was created for awhile. Even if you don't believe in global warming or care about the planet as a whole smog is still a bad thing for our health. This is why I don't get the push back. I'd probably be deathly ill if I lived during the industrial revolution thanks to my rather poor lungs. Is that really a world you'd want to live in just so some big wigs don't have to pay an additional tax? 

Since no one here will be able to convince you that global warming is real maybe someone can still show you why being environmentally friendly is still an overall good idea.

Smog in Paris is so bad, the city is offering free public transportation | The Verge

In China&#8217;s Polluted Cities, the Smog May Be Here to Stay | TIME.com

Beijing shuts factories, removes cars, but pollution stays high | Reuters

This is how things all over the world would be if we did not combat out of control pollution.

Really the issue is the large number of people with little-to-no knowledge in science thinking that they no more than the people who have dedicated their lives to the craft (and most for only pennies, research jobs don't pay well). Sorry, but reading an article an expert it makes not.

The argument is a lot more one sided in the academic community. The majority of scientific journals (not Wiki, Forbes, Times, etc.) are actually in favor of the notion that humans are accelerating global warming.

[EDIT]

Also, if anything the government has more to gain by telling the public global warming is fake rather than real. As previously stated, oil is a HUGE part of our economy. What you suggest is that scientists all over the world, with no affiliation to each other or a single nation, are collectively lying to the public so the US government can charge a carbon tax on the wealthiest industry in the US. This is why I find most conspiracies to be retarded. The scope necessary to make most of them a reality is ridiculous.

[EDIT] [EDIT]

If scientists were just in it for the money they wouldn't have become scientists in the first place. Science, in particular research, is typically a low paying profession (compared to other professional jobs), especially when compared to say working at an oil company.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Ok. I'll ask you a simple question. What is the perfect level of CO2 for Earth's atmosphere? Is there a study by these nebulous scientists you keep vaguely referring to that shows the perfect level?


 

They haven't a clue man .

If the carbon ppm was ALWAYS in the lower 200's during interglacial periods, we never would have arrived at our modern paradise levels.
Stability has never been the earth's "thang".

They can only get n idea where it "should" be by pulling ice cores from a few select spots on the globe, and even then they can only "see" back about one million years, which isn't really anything compared to earth's age, even if we only consider it's age after it's general form and climate system was established.


It's great to improve our energy processes, but yes, Eric is right, you kids have been duped, and continue to be duped.
Like every other post in this thread. That's just an opinion. 

The thing the U.S. needs to do if it wants to effect positive change to our global energy system; Start kicking ass again and quit being Obama-like sissies on the world stage.
China and Russia both are just laughing at these liberal slime bags.

young liberals rally song; (must be learned by your first day at indoctrination university)

Let's pretend we saved the world
let's pretend we don't like meat
let's collect and melt our guns
let's all kiss Obama's feet


----------



## Joose (Apr 13, 2014)

^I think Obama is a moron, I own 5 guns, I eat bacon every morning and I drive a Hemi powered car. 

Clearly, not a Liberal. Also not a Conservative, Republican or Democrat. 

That does not mean I am being "duped". I think maybe YOU should stop believing what your mainstream media tells you. Yes, I'm making the assumption that you watch the "news", because it's the only way someone could realistically and strongly support the Left or Right. I haven't watched the "news" in years. I form my opinions based on science and what real people experience in the world. There's more truth in a video recorded by a citizen of a real-life situation than anything the media will tell you. 

IE: When Fox News in Denver did a "study" of how marijuana effects drivers. The man with a camera hidden in his glasses clearly stated that he does not believe you should drive stoned; Fox's edit portrayed it as quite the opposite. The driving simulator being a semi-truck simulator was also pretty ridiculous.

Just because Liberals are wrong doesn't mean Conservatives are correct. I find it hilarious (in a seriously sad way) that someone can say "hahaha you're stupid, you believe the Liberals" just to turn around and preach Conservative Republicanism.


----------



## Necris (Apr 13, 2014)

What experience has taught me is the only useful response to any Eric Christian vs Science thread. Let us no longer assume that we are ever going to have a proper discussion with the great enlightened one.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 13, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> China and Russia both are just laughing at these liberal slime bags.



Meanwhile they are also pretty terrible places to live despite that (health wise, no idea what it's like to live their from a social standpoint). Air quality in China is pure shit in the major cities. The only reason we as a nation are still not like that is because the industry was forced to change due to taxes, tax breaks and regulations. Believe what you want on a global scale, but it's hard to dispute that pollution and smog are bad things for people in the local area of industry. They are doing harm to others indirectly and without regulation it'd still be like that in many places.

Conservatives like to believe this kind of change just happens, but why would it if they are more productive and make more money by just polluting away. Companies are profit driven; If it isn't fiscally better to do something and they aren't forced to do so then they won't. For people who put little-to-know faith in their government I find it amusing they put so much faith in corporations (who give even less of a shit about your concerns).


----------



## Watty (Apr 13, 2014)

flint757 said:


> faith in corporations (who give even less of a shit about your concerns).



On that note, anyone ever see that documentary that walks you step by step through a psychological evaluation of common corporate practices that culminates in the diagnosis of psychopathy on the part of corporations provided they actually were people? Interesting stuff for sure.



TRENCHLORD said:


> these liberal slime bags.
> 
> young liberals rally song; (must be learned by your first day at indoctrination university)
> 
> let's all kiss Obama's feet




Holy shit man....I may identify as liberal, but I'm open to good ideas wherever they happen to originate. Posting dreck like this shows you've been seemingly indoctrinated to an even larger degree for the opposing side. And please tell me how trying to look out for the survival of our species among everything else on even the chance that this isn't 100% correct makes people pushing to enact responsible legislation "slime bags."


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 13, 2014)

Air floats around fellas.

Get China and others to give up fossil fuels and then we'll talk.
All these slime bags are doing is crippling ourselves and letting others get a leg up on us financially, and that's where the power is.

The green movement is being driven by exactly who Eric says it's being driven by.

Sorry for the "inconvenient truth".


----------



## Watty (Apr 13, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Air floats around fellas.
> 
> Get China and others to give up fossil fuels and then we'll talk.
> All these slime bags are doing is *crippling ourselves* and letting others get a *leg up on us financially*, and that's *where the power is*.
> ...



Short term thinking reigns supreme. Provided there's even a chance that the results could be as catastrophic as predicted, money and power will be worthless. I get what you're saying from a practical standpoint on the short term, but applying that thinking ourselves only serves to reinforce the fact that others need to continue to function in the same capacity, and the circle begins anew. If we show that we're willing to take a stand on this issue and innovate as a result, we'll be ahead financially as the technologies developed will make the money back.

There's a building in Seattle that stands as a stark reminder of the fact that, if applied on a global scale, we could make things happen that would be both financially and environmentally beneficial, but until the short term pragmatists get out of the way and stop touting these talking points like they're gospel, progress is going to be difficult on any real scale.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 13, 2014)

Watty said:


> Short term thinking reigns supreme. Provided there's even a chance that the results could be as catastrophic as predicted, money and power will be worthless.


 
And also in the "worthless" camp;
Great intentions with no money or power to apply them .

Get the point now?


----------



## Watty (Apr 13, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> And also in the "worthless" camp;
> Great intentions with no money or power to apply them .
> 
> Get the point now?



Let's take the amount we spend on the military and cut it down to 50% above what China does (as a start) and the problem is solved.

People (and by extension, greed) are the issue here, not money.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 13, 2014)

Watty said:


> Let's take the amount we spend on the military and cut it down to 50% above what China does (as a start) and the problem is solved.
> 
> People (and by extension, greed) are the issue here, not money.


 
No, because if we had more revenue to play with you would just want to increase social program spending, farther crippling the economy.

Investing in the military is ALWAYS a good idea.
Investing in "green energy", well that hasn't worked out so well.
If it has, then where are the great results?


----------



## abandonist (Apr 13, 2014)

Investing in bombs is ludicrous. 

Just insanely stupid.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 13, 2014)

abandonist said:


> Investing in bombs is ludicrous.
> 
> Just insanely stupid.


 
So the military is just bombs? 
That's got to be real nice for our soldiers to hear you say .


----------



## Watty (Apr 13, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> No, because if we had more revenue to play with you would just want to increase social program spending, farther crippling the economy.
> 
> Investing in the military is ALWAYS a good idea.
> Investing in "green energy", well that hasn't worked out so well.
> If it has, then where are the great results?



Please tell me where in that sentiment I mentioned the money could not be hallmarked for more than one thing? A reduction in spending on that magnitude could fund social programs, green innovation, and still have enough left over to "stimulate" the economy several times over without blinking.

Investing in the military IS always a good idea, I never insinuated otherwise. I did, however, imply that OVERSPENDING on the military is a crutch that we continue to rely on due to the greed I mentioned earlier. I believe you could research a number of military programs into which millions if not billions of dollars have been invested that have absolutely nothing to do with protecting us or actually seeing combat of any kind....let alone the stories floating around about excess tanks being built despite the military stating explicitly that they weren't needed or warranted. (as a basic example)

Green energy has a high cost of entry (if you will) into the general market, which has made it hard so far. But then again, why can't it get a subsidy when general energy gets government assistance right now? If not for government regulations and the amount of operational debt carried by utilities both public and private alike, your energy bills would triple (minimum) due to the costs involved with breaking into the market in the first place. Green energy hasn't become big yet because people are greedy and more worried about the bottom line at present instead of in the future...yet again showing the disparity in the two ways of thinking that I'd already touched on above.



TRENCHLORD said:


> So the military is just bombs?
> That's got to be real nice for our soldiers to hear you say .



Well that's not disingenuous at all... /sarcasm

Military =/= Soliders

Soliders are the fuel that allows the military to be applied to situations (note that this analogy is not meant to say that they are expendable as a result), and therefore equating them with the overall military industrial complex that drives much of the spending mentioned above is ludicrous from the get go.

Was it silly of him to say that the military is "bombs?" Yes, but it's certainly equally as silly of you to say that he was insulting our armed forces as a result.


----------



## MikeyLawless (Apr 13, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> So the military is just bombs?
> That's got to be real nice for our soldiers to hear you say .



No, but our military spending is out of control. Thats a whole nother topic though...


----------



## flint757 (Apr 13, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Air floats around fellas.
> 
> Get China and others to give up fossil fuels and then we'll talk.
> All these slime bags are doing is crippling ourselves and letting others get a leg up on us financially, and that's where the power is.
> ...



Even with these regulations we have a very strong economy compared to nations like Russia and China. The difference is we have clean air and they don't. I think I'll take the slight step down and live in a healthier place rather than play in an unnecessary competition between nations. If 'leg up' implies that everyone needs to be breathing in toxic chemicals constantly then me thinks the trade off just isn't worth it. You act like the US dollar doesn't have global value or that we don't have the worlds largest military and navy. If our nation as a whole slipped into severe poverty I could see the 'benefit' of short term thinking. Nothing like that is happening though and the regulations are not crippling anyone. The oil giants are still giants.


----------



## Promit (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> The Ultimate Creator made the female of all species as a reproductive companion for the male. It's not a mistake. It's instinctual for a male to breed with as many females as possible just as it's instinctual for the female to get pregnant and create a nest to nurture the offspring. I'm sorry my wording in that post offended you.


I'm somewhat alarmed to find that this thread, which I thought died a rightful death, is back. So I thought I'd bring a few things back.


abandonist said:


> From your profile pic it doesn't look like you're doing a lot of breeding.


Yuuup. Urban Dictionary: neckbeard
I also thought this should come back:





And lastly I just wanted to share these:
[size="5"[url=http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-report-finds-climate-change-caused-by-7-billio,34658/]New Report Finds Climate Change Caused By 7 Billion Key Individuals[/url][/size]
[SIZE="5"]Biologists Confirm God Evolved From Chimpanzee Deity[/SIZE]


----------



## Promit (Apr 13, 2014)

As a side note: if someone's political alignment or tendencies - or what car they drive - affects your ability to communicate with them on a debate about a specific issue, then you're one of the "extreme left/right wing" people and you're a cancer in our society.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 13, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Even with these regulations we have a very strong economy compared to nations like Russia and China. The difference is we have clean air and they don't. I think I'll take the slight step down and live in a healthier place rather than play in an unnecessary competition between nations. If 'leg up' implies that everyone needs to be breathing in toxic chemicals constantly then me thinks the trade off just isn't worth it. You act like the US dollar doesn't have global value or that we don't have the worlds largest military and navy. If our nation as a whole slipped into severe poverty I could see the 'benefit' of short term thinking. Nothing like that is happening though and the regulations are not crippling anyone. The oil giants are still giants.



That's exactly TRENCHLORD's and my point. This whole junk science behind "Global Cooling", "Global Warming" and now "Climate Change" when the weather doesn't fit the paradigm has been fabricated over the last 30 years by the very same people that own all the large oil, gas & coal companies. Its a win win situation for them as they sell the product that is supposedly doing all the damage to the environment and then through a series of shell companies they get to collect all the "carbon taxes". Not only that the same group of shadowy figures are more than likely behind all the government subsidized Solar & Wind companies that cashed out on our tax money and then folded with all the profits recently.

Listen. Man made pollution is a real thing. The exotic chemicals companies like Dupont and Monsanto for example have designed are the real threat to our health and well being, not CO2 which is an integral part of our planets ecosystem. I mean every weekend 10 million Joe Sixpack's broadcasting "Weed & Feed" on their lawns and then spraying "Roundup" on the weeds in the cracks because they're simply to lazy to pull them out by hand are doing far more damage than most things. Of course there are many other sources of industrial pollution that we can't even cover here but this bogus carbon offset science is a crock.


----------



## asher (Apr 13, 2014)

You do realize that the Petroleum industry is funding the DENIERS, right? Because it's, you know, the single biggest threat to their entire industry?


----------



## Jzbass25 (Apr 13, 2014)




----------



## abandonist (Apr 13, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> So the military is just bombs?
> That's got to be real nice for our soldiers to hear you say .



Oh, you know exactly what I meant. 

Also, to be perfectly clear on this issue: I do not support our troops. 

Let the torrent of negs come.


----------



## Watty (Apr 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> That's exactly TRENCHLORD's and my point. This whole junk science behind "Global Cooling", "Global Warming" and now "Climate Change" when the weather doesn't fit the paradigm *has been fabricated* over the last 30 years *by the very same people that own all the large oil, gas & coal companies.* Its a win win situation for them as they sell the product that is supposedly doing all the damage to the environment and *then through a series of shell companies* they get to collect all the "carbon taxes". Not only that the *same group of shadowy figures* are more than likely *behind all the government subsidized *Solar & Wind companies that *cashed out on our tax money* and then folded with all the profits recently.



Highlighted for clarity's sake.

Since you don't seem to understand, presenting your argument this way inspires people to NOT TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY regardless of the truth of what you're saying in any context, let alone one so important.

And being that the oil and gas companies are heavily regulated by the federal government, you should be pointing the finger there first, regardless of the fact that the former employs lobbyists to influence or "buy" the latter. This also implies that the larger system is the problem, and when you vote Conservative, you're infinitely more likely to keep those in power who would be complicit or actively engage in the "shadowy" dealings in the first place, which means that you're argument is not only coming from a cyclical background, but you seem to be willfully ignorant of that fact.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 14, 2014)

Watty said:


> Highlighted for clarity's sake.
> 
> Since you don't seem to understand, presenting your argument this way inspires people to NOT TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY regardless of the truth of what you're saying in any context, let alone one so important.


 
I'll just pour ya another big ole glass of that cherry Kool-Aid man , and you can keep on drink'n .


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 14, 2014)

abandonist said:


> Also, to be perfectly clear on this issue: I do not support our troops.
> 
> Let the torrent of negs come.


 

And that basically says it all in regards to your patriotism.


----------



## Watty (Apr 14, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'll just pour ya another big ole glass of that cherry Kool-Aid man , and you can keep on drink'n .



Apparently you haven't read the several posts in this thread that explicitly detail why saying things like this is juvenile at best and display an even greater bias at worst.



TRENCHLORD said:


> And that basically says it all in regards to your patriotism.



I support the fact that our troops want to keep their jobs and more power to them if they feel that the war is justified and worth engaging in. However, I do not support the fact that we're still involved in a conflict (on the whole) we shouldn't have entered (to the extent we did) in the first place, and Abandonist could easily argue that the troops are complicit in the engagement by not choosing to refuse to go, regardless of legal implications. It'd be hard to court marshall (?) the entirety of the military or really do anything if all the armed forces simply refused to [insert action here associated with engaging in war].

I wouldn't say that I'm necessarily in his camp, but to question his patriotism as a result seems a bit brash, especially with the typical definition of said quality having changed as much as it has over the last several decades. The cold war certainly instilled that mindset in our culture, but the general conception of contemporary society is so far removed from that period as to make it almost a non-sequitor when applied here.


----------



## Svava (Apr 14, 2014)

abandonist said:


> Oh, you know exactly what I meant.
> 
> Also, to be perfectly clear on this issue: I do not support our troops.
> 
> Let the torrent of negs come.



I think anybody is free not to support the military as an institution whether it's because you think it's corrupt or because you're against violence- whatever.


Not supporting a collective of people who live in rather unpleasant standards (mostly) either because they want to do good for their country, bring honor to their family traditions or who could not provide for themselves/their families/ their educations and so sacrificed years of their lives, a lot of freedom, and put themselves in potentially dangerous situations to improve their quality of life- that just makes you an unpleasant, rather poor human being. Seriously.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.


----------



## asher (Apr 14, 2014)

Given that we do not have a draft, I suspect the argument looks something like what Watty outlined.

I may not really agree with it, but it's a completely legitimate position.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 14, 2014)

Watty said:


> Apparently you haven't read the several posts in this thread that explicitly detail why saying things like this is juvenile at best and display an even greater bias at worst.


 

As if you're not the king of snootiness .



BTW, were still waiting on those perfect-air formulations.
Could you do it in ppm, just keep things standardized?


----------



## asher (Apr 14, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> As if you're not the king of snootiness .



Well, he's not, Eric's in this thread


----------



## Watty (Apr 14, 2014)

Svava said:


> Don't hate the player, hate the game.



I feel like this is really reductionist when applied to this discussion, but I get the point you're trying to make. I would caution you to think just how far that sentiment gets you, however, as there are certainly cases where you have to hate the player if they're complicit in [crossing the line].

Edit: Note that the second half is more for your introspection and not for a contribution to this exact discussion. Food for thought and all that.



TRENCHLORD said:


> As if you're not the king of snootiness .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tell me how my presentation of facts associated with the counterpoint to your arguments is even remotely similar to saying that you're "drinking the Kool-aid" and then we can talk about who's being "snooty."

And we've come full circle!!!

As I stated earlier (page 2?), I don't believe there's anyone on this forum who's explicitly credentialed enough to give you an answer that you'd accept as being valid, regardless of whether or not you'd actually change your mind as a result. Therefore, asking that question specifically and then saying to the rest of us that we're wrong when we can't present it (as per sentence 1) is back-....ing-asswards argumentation especially given that there has not likely been a "perfect" formulation for air quality ever discussed, only better on a sliding scale as we head towards "bad."


----------



## Svava (Apr 14, 2014)

SpaceDock said:


> Alright back to nuclear diarrhea thread,
> 
> I am lactose intolerant. On Friday I went to the Pizza Ranch, all you can eat buffet pizza. It was ten bucks a head, so I figured I needed to make it worth my ten bucks. I am not a big guy, but I can cram a ton of food like an Asian hot dog champion. About twelve slices later, I tap out. Everything was really great going in. It was Friday night, so I go home and drink a six pack of Heineken while watching movies with my girlfriend.
> 
> ...



This poo meta-thread is infinitely more hilarious than the original.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 14, 2014)

asher said:


> Well, he's not, Eric's in this thread


 
At least give me honorable mention .


----------



## Svava (Apr 14, 2014)

Watty said:


> I feel like this is really reductionist when applied to this discussion, but I get the point you're trying to make. I would caution you to think just how far that sentiment gets you, however, as there are certainly cases where you have to hate the player if they're complicit in [crossing the line].
> 
> Edit: Note that the second half is more for your introspection and not for a contribution to this exact discussion. Food for thought and all that.



Okay - hating the playeR is sometimes good, hating all of the playerS is not constructive though (in my opinion).

I am definitely tunnel-visioning on Abandonist's post and addressing it directly right now- not the overall thread.

I do not support the direction and implementation of the military.

But in my experience the majority of the troops are not bad people or indeed people who revel in what they have to do.

Nor do most of them have the intellectual or characteristic fortitude to speak out against what they're being made to do.

I personally feel better about myself having a positive and friendly disposition towards the soldiers. I would buy one of 'em a burger any day, but maybe I would not support an increase in the military's budget- as I do not agree with much of what it is used for.


----------



## abandonist (Apr 14, 2014)

No one's making them do anything.

And patriotism is an absurd notion.


----------



## Svava (Apr 14, 2014)

abandonist said:


> No one's making them do anything.
> 
> And patriotism is an absurd notion.



Points are like appointments.

They're often missed.


----------



## abandonist (Apr 14, 2014)

I'd agree.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 14, 2014)

All this trivial bickering aside I'm no stranger to the effects of human greed and the resulting pollution you see. I actually lived it.

As some of you may know from other threads I've posted I grew up on a loosely organized hippie community that was spread down a small valley in rural Lincoln County Oregon. My grandfather was a logger in the area and my father resumed his logging career fresh back from his second tour in Vietnam. My occupation in life was predestined was to be a 3rd generation logger but fate stepped in. As I grew up I saw first hand the devastation that clearcut logging caused. 

1000's of acres of old growth Spruce, Cedar and Douglas Fir on the steep hillsides near our farm were raped by the corporations of Georgia Pacific and Publisher Paper who acquired hundreds of square miles of timber in sweetheart deals. 

Once the clearcutting was completed in the winter and spring the slash was left to dry all summer. Then in the Fall the units were cleared out with controlled burns that lasted for days. Once this was completed the units were then replanted with literally millions of the same exact cloned Douglas Fir called "Super Tree". The thing is once the heavy Oregon rains started and the waterlogged hillsides would create enormous landslides exposing the deep orange clay soil. 

A couple years passed and the native Alders seeded in quickly and competed with the plantation trees and started to shade them out. So the next step in the industrial forestry process was herbicide application by helicopter. The idea was that the herbicide would killed the deciduous vegetation and leave the coniferous trees intact. Of course it killed the broadleaf plants but from my observations it heavily mutated the Firs as well. 

The crux of my story is as we found out later what they were spraying was 2,4-D & 2,4,5-T. For those of you who aren't aware this is Dioxin or Agent Orange. Bottom line they sprayed a unit above our pasture and killed my two horses Jody and Diamond.

Needless to say as a kid I was hurt. Along about that time we lost interest in working in the woods anymore and eventually after I finished high school both my father and I left the area and went to college. 

That said, I've always been a conservationist of sorts. We are all consumers and create pollution of one source or another but I'd say I do my best to minimize my levels. It's my personal belief that my life experiences and my personal investigations (which I'll go into at a later point if I feel like it) have allowed me to arrive at a certain clarity on this subject.

I used to live in L.A. There were some really smoggy unhealthy days there. I went back last year and then 3 weeks ago. What a big difference all the regulations have made in the air quality. Could we improve these regulations on internal combustion engines worldwide? Sure. Would it help air quality in Mexico City or Beijing? Of course. But does human created CO2 have any effect on the overall climate? I don't think so. The trenches in the ocean and the active volcanos vent more CO2 than humans as I understand it but no one talks about that. 

If you young idealistic folks want to really do something instead of listening to junk science passed off as fact you should leave the corporate clutches of Obama and the Democrats and join the Green Party. Your vote may never make a difference and your words may never be heard but at least at night you can go to bed with a clear conscience.


----------



## abandonist (Apr 14, 2014)

Personally, I think a good way to sleep well would be to terrorize companies that destroy your local environment. Maybe set things on fire or learn about explosives. 

Personally. Allegedly. Not for real.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 14, 2014)

abandonist said:


> Personally, I think a good way to sleep well would be to terrorize companies that destroy your local environment. Maybe set things on fire or learn about explosives.
> 
> Personally. Allegedly. Not for real.



No thanks. I live by the Ten Commandments. I'd rather die than do anything like that. Every one of these greedy pigs will be judged according to their deeds on Judgment Day. I think Ozzy said it best:

War Pigs

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds... Oh Lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'till their Judgment day comes, yeah!

Now in darkness, world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs of the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of Judgment, God is calling
On their knees the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings
Oh Lord yeah!


----------



## abandonist (Apr 14, 2014)

I live by debauchery and decadence.

There are...6? substances in me right now.


----------



## Grindspine (Apr 14, 2014)

Don't turn it into a political thread, Eric. You stated plainly in your last post that those regulations do help make a difference.

You have seen for yourself that humans do affect the environment.

The numbers really mean little when you have seen first-hand effects of environmental abandon.


----------



## Watty (Apr 14, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> No thanks. I live by the Ten Commandments. I'd rather die than do anything like that.



Except for the "gods before me" bit, what with those whose opinions you value so highly (i.e. As gospel).

Edit: There's some snootiness for you, trench.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 14, 2014)

Interesting. Not a single person here is willing to offer up what the perfect CO2 level for our atmosphere is? Considering that it was 7000 ppm during the Cambrian Period 500 million years ago and then down to 180 ppm during the Quaternary Glaciation period of the last two million years maybe there's some perfect number we should be at as it averages 397 ppm currently. Also I was curious if anyone knows exactly how Carbon Dioxide becomes a "Greenhouse Gas"? 

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Watty (Apr 14, 2014)

Did you not read what I wrote two posts above!? No one here (to my knowledge) is a credentialed chemist with a specialization in atmospheric composition and a minor in meteorology to boot. We can't answer that question.

Asserting that our silence proves your point is in poor taste at best....let alone your citation of wiki articles again.

Edit: I won't assume that I know more than you do on this topic, but being that I'm a Mechanical Engineer who has been exposed to the practical and theoretical aspects of the issue through my thermodynamics courses (discussing chemical compositions associated with energy production through thermal processes), I should think that my passing thoughts might have some weight when considered against someone who cites a fluid (and unreviewed) medium as fact and uses language designed to eliminate the possibility of honest discussion...


----------



## Thep (Apr 14, 2014)

I only now just stumbled across the thread. Had it been someone else besides Eric Christian posting this, I would have been delighted to offer some insight. But after several educated responses that seem to go over OP's head, I'm not even going to bother wasting time. 

Eric, when you post threads like this (this certainly wasn't the first) you make yourself look like a complete fool. If you don't understand something, you shouldn't pose these types of questions with such mockery and sarcasm. 

While I'm not a Wikipedia expert like you, I do have this. 






I know a thing or two about this topic.

So please Eric, just stop your ignorant bull shit. If you want to have an educated discussion about the atmosphere, then grow the hell up.


----------



## Joose (Apr 14, 2014)

^So you mean to tell me the government isn't paying you to say man-made climate change is a real thing?



But yes, it makes him look like a fool. And he furthers looking the fool by asking questions he doesn't think anyone can answer; when in reality, if he were given the answer, there would be nothing he could grasp from it, and therefore he would just say it's a lie or a conspiracy.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 14, 2014)

Thep said:


> I only now just stumbled across the thread. Had it been someone else besides Eric Christian posting this, I would have been delighted to offer some insight. But after several educated responses that seem to go over OP's head, I'm not even going to bother wasting time.
> 
> Eric, when you post threads like this (this certainly wasn't the first) you make yourself look like a complete fool. If you don't understand something, you shouldn't pose these types of questions with such mockery and sarcasm.
> 
> ...



Ok. Great credentials. Apparently you didn't minor in civility but whatever, you'll do. So please if you would simply describe to me how CO2 is a "Greenhouse Gas". Thank you.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 14, 2014)

Watty said:


> Did you not read what I wrote two posts above!? No one here (to my knowledge) is a credentialed chemist with a specialization in atmospheric composition and a minor in meteorology to boot. We can't answer that question.
> 
> Asserting that our silence proves your point is in poor taste at best....let alone your citation of wiki articles again.
> 
> Edit: I won't assume that I know more than you do on this topic, but being that I'm a Mechanical Engineer who has been exposed to the practical and theoretical aspects of the issue through my thermodynamics courses (discussing chemical compositions associated with energy production through thermal processes), I should think that my passing thoughts might have some weight when considered against someone who cites a fluid (and unreviewed) medium as fact and uses language designed to eliminate the possibility of honest discussion...



So your Mom is a teacher and you're a Mechanical Engineer. That's awesome. I'm sure you're much more educated than me then. That said, maybe you'd be willing to describe to me as well the process whereupon CO2 becomes a "Greenhouse Gas" and how it all works. I'm pretty stupid so keep it in simple terms please. Just explain how that works, maybe talk to me like you're Mr. Rogers and I'm a little kid. (edit: sorry that's how you normally talk me so yeah just be yourself)


----------



## Svava (Apr 14, 2014)

I feel as though this image is appropriate at this point in the progression of both the initial thread and in that of the meta "poop" thread.


----------



## TheKindred (Apr 14, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> The Ultimate Creator made the female of all species as a reproductive companion for the male. It's not a mistake. It's instinctual for a male to breed with as many females as possible just as it's instinctual for the female to get pregnant and create a nest to nurture the offspring. I'm sorry my wording in that post offended you.





Eric Christian said:


> ....an overwhelming majority of human females don't instinctual like to have sex with human males,,,



I wasn't going to post but this is bugging me and this thread has touched on almost everything else anyways.

You do understand that we all start as a female right? If anything, men are here as reproductive companions for the females. In the great big scheme of things, the female is the indispensable one; that's why dudes are built to approach reproduction like a 12 gauge. 



Eric Christian said:


> there is no Ultimate Creator to face for your deeds on Judgment Day.



at least you got part of it right. you're the creator of the whole world you experience, so you'll only ever have to answer to yourself.


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 14, 2014)

TheKindred said:


> I wasn't going to post but this is bugging me and this thread has touched on almost everything else anyways.
> 
> You do understand that we all start as a female right? If anything, men are here as reproductive companions for the females. In the great big scheme of things, the female is the indispensable one; that's why dudes are built to approach reproduction like a 12 gauge.
> 
> ...



No. The Ultimate Creator constructed Adam from dirt and breathed life into him and then took a portion of him and created Eve.

And as far as your statement about me getting part of something right I have no idea what you're talking about because it's physically impossible for me to "create" any matter and furthermore I won't be the judge of my deeds, the Almighty One will do all the judging. You'll see.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Apr 14, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> it's physically impossible for me to "create" any matter


Did you mommy tell you a stork brought you in through the window?


http://www.amazon.com/Where-Babies-Come-Learning-about/dp/0570035635


----------



## Necris (Apr 14, 2014)

Well, to say that a baby is composed of brand new matter that never existed before isn't exactly accurate, or at all accurate for that matter.


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 14, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Interesting. Not a single person here is willing to offer up what the perfect CO2 level for our atmosphere is? Considering that it was 7000 ppm during the Cambrian Period 500 million years ago and then down to 180 ppm during the Quaternary Glaciation period of the last two million years maybe there's some perfect number we should be at as it averages 397 ppm currently. Also I was curious if anyone knows exactly how Carbon Dioxide becomes a "Greenhouse Gas"?
> 
> Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



...or you could, you know, just Google it, check the source as being reputable, and read about it. Like I just did:

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That said, this thread better get more civilized in a big hurry, or several of you will be enjoying month-long vacations.


----------



## narad (Apr 14, 2014)

Necris said:


> Well, to say that a baby is composed of brand new matter that never existed before isn't exactly accurate, or at all accurate for that matter.



Everytime a woman gives birth she temporarily violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That's just commonsense, and of course the reason we call it the _miracle_ of life.


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 14, 2014)

Necris said:


> Well, to say that a baby is composed of brand new matter that never existed before isn't exactly accurate, or at all accurate for that matter.



It is, in fact, ridiculous. A baby is just a re-arrangement of existing matter.


----------



## Necris (Apr 14, 2014)

A _miraculous _rearrangement.


----------



## pink freud (Apr 14, 2014)

eaeolian said:


> That said, this thread better get more civilized in a big hurry, or several of you will be enjoying month-long vacations.



The best form of civility this thread could hope for is a cessation of responses. There isn't an actual discussion to be had, in my opinion, but rather throwing viewpoints towards a teflon-coated debate opponent. If one or neither side has no possibility of adjusting one's position all debate is pointless.


----------



## pink freud (Apr 14, 2014)

eaeolian said:


> It is, in fact, ridiculous. A baby is just a re-arrangement of existing matter.



It's also one of the best examples of Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Eric Christian (Apr 14, 2014)

eaeolian said:


> ...or you could, you know, just Google it, check the source as being reputable, and read about it. Like I just did:
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> That said, this thread better get more civilized in a big hurry, or several of you will be enjoying month-long vacations.



No. Since we have two people who were gracious enough to volunteered that they are Engineers with advanced degrees I would just please ask that each individual give me a simple one or two sentence explanation specifically describing exactly how CO2 is a "Greenhouse Gas". Nothing complicated. Just describe to us how it actually works is all. I don't think that's asking for too much.


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 14, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> No. Since we have two people who were gracious enough to volunteered that they are Engineers with advanced degrees I would just please ask that each individual give me a simple one or two sentence explanation specifically describing exactly how CO2 is a "Greenhouse Gas". Nothing complicated. Just describe to us how it actually works is all. I don't think that's asking for too much.



Apparently they do. Since you're not looking for actual knowledge (although this has been apparent since the beginning of this thread, I let it roll for a while to see if you'd actually listen), we've reached the endpoint for this thread.


----------

