[ScarecrowBoat]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

And you've stopped driving?

are you honestly a global warming doubter?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by ScarecrowBoat

are you honestly a global warming doubter?

No. The Earth warms and cools as a natural planetary cycle due to many reasons, but mainly related to the temperature fluctuation of the sun, the permutation of the Earth's axis of rotation, and permutation of its revolution around the sun. I am a doubter of anthropogenic global warming because it is a complete joke. If you are a believer of anthropogenic global warming (or is the new phase "climate change") then you should stop breathing, farting, eating, heating and cooling your home, and God forbid, have any children!.

[ScarecrowBoat]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

No. The Earth warms and cools as a natural planetary cycle due to many reasons, but mainly related to the temperature fluctuation of the sun, the permutation of the Earth's axis of rotation, and permutation of its revolution around the sun. I am a doubter of anthropogenic global warming because it is a complete joke. If you are a believer of anthropogenic global warming (or is the new phase "climate change") then you should stop breathing, farting, eating, heating and cooling your home, and God forbidhave any children!.

[Meeni]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

) then you should stop breathing, farting, eating, heating and cooling your home, and God forbidhave any children!.

false dichotomy is a very well known and poorly effective argumentative trick. It is not because one cannot stop producing CO2 that one cannot reduce his production in a reasonable manner and still have a positive impact.

Human impact on global warming is not a science controversy. It is a fox news controversy only.

What to do about it (if anything) is a political debate were different options may be heard, but when a side feels the need to lie to make an argument, that's pretty sad.

[positiveions]

Originally Posted by bjayfan

When topics like this come up that ignore realities and even begin to mention 'conspiracy theories' or brush at what some see as political spins it doesn't lend itself well to productive discussion.

I highly doubt politics has anything to do with it. If you leave it up to some politicians, they want to ban car all together-some of the craziest things I've read.

[bjayfan]

Originally Posted by positiveions

I highly doubt politics has anything to do with it.

Cap and trade. Money. Redistribution of wealth.

Sounds like politics to me.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Meeni

false dichotomy is a very well known and poorly effective argumentative trick. It is not because one cannot stop producing CO2 that one cannot reduce his production in a reasonable manner and still have a positive impact.

Human impact on global warming is not a science controversy. It is a fox news controversy only.

What to do about it (if anything) is a political debate were different options may be heard, but when a side feels the need to lie to make an argument, that's pretty sad.

Okay, but take the CO2 production argument to the logical end. Let's control how many children people can have. Children consume natural resources and produce C02, so how many is enough for one person to have? C02 is CO2, if it's bad from a Chevy Suburban then it's bad from a human if it has such an adverse impact on the survival of the planet. Do you want to live on the planet (and strive to keep it clean and livable) or save it from itself? If humans impact the life of the Earth then where are we supposed to live?

Scientists can model the Earth's temperature cycle all they want and make any prediction they want and it's not debatable because there is no short term process to validate the model. Looking at 100 years of environmental data (maybe 60 years of which is accurate and reliable) out of a 4 Billion year time period is impossible to make any reliable correlation.

A simple review of the geological record shows this. For example, the majority of the road salt that is used east of the Mississippi for winter road clearing comes from a vast salt deposit that stretches from Buffalo to Chicago. The salt vein is 60 feet thick, miles wide, and is 2,000 feet below the bottom of lake Erie (there's a huge mine in Cleveland that goes 2 miles North underneath lake Erie). The salt deposit was formed from an ancient sea that evaporated and left the salt behind, then the salt was buried under thousands of feet of earth, then an ice age happened, then the Earth warmed the ice went away, formed the Great Lakes, and a modern day salt mine keeps people employed in Cleveland. All of that geological activity happened well before the appearance of humans and the Hummer.

The point is that Earth's environment is far more affected by natural planetary action than by the animals that live on the planet. So trying to put some type of time scale to when the alleged increase in CO2 production from human activity will drastically change the environment and kill life on the planet is just simply immature thinking. The Earth is not a static equation. The fossil record shows that 99% of all species on the Earth go extinct; it's just what happens.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by ScarecrowBoat

Man there are a shitload of satellite dishes on that building; must be the Chinese NSA.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by bjayfan

Cap and trade. Money. Redistribution of wealth.

Sounds like politics to me.

Yeah, from a Politician who wrote 20 years ago he wanted to kill off the internal combustion engine (though doubling of US gas prices), and ownes in a house that consumes electricity in a month what the average American does in a year. Not to mention makes a scare movie, makes even more money and builds a house in a near-ocean location, that based on his predictions of global warming and the resultant rise ocean levels, is in a future flood plain...

[bjayfan]

This all belongs in OT, shame because there is some decent auto info in ceramics.

For the record. CO2 levels now are low with respect to the history of the earth.

Global warming is now climate change as since 98 the earth is cooling.

This remains a science controversy until there is an openly peer reviewed process that garners a majority. Right now science is about 2 or 3 to 1 against global warming (climate change).

When politics enters science, everyone loses.

[ScarecrowBoat]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Okay, but take the CO2 production argument to the logical end. Let's control how many children people can have. Children consume natural resources and produce C02, so how many is enough for one person to have? C02 is CO2, if it's bad from a Chevy Suburban then it's bad from a human if it has such an adverse impact on the survival of the planet. Do you want to live on the planet (and strive to keep it clean and livable) or save it from itself? If humans impact the life of the Earth then where are we supposed to live?

Scientists can model the Earth's temperature cycle all they want and make any prediction they want and it's not debatable because there is no short term process to validate the model. Looking at 100 years of environmental data (maybe 60 years of which is accurate and reliable) out of a 4 Billion year time period is impossible to make any reliable correlation.

A simple review of the geological record shows this. For example, the majority of the road salt that is used east of the Mississippi for winter road clearing comes from a vast salt deposit that stretches from Buffalo to Chicago. The salt vein is 60 feet thick, miles wide, and is 2,000 feet below the bottom of lake Erie (there's a huge mine in Cleveland that goes 2 miles North underneath lake Erie). The salt deposit was formed from an ancient sea that evaporated and left the salt behind, then the salt was buried under thousands of feet of earth, then an ice age happened, then the Earth warmed the ice went away, formed the Great Lakes, and a modern day salt mine keeps people employed in Cleveland. All of that geological activity happened well before the appearance of humans and the Hummer.

The point is that Earth's environment is far more affected by natural planetary action than by the animals that live on the planet. So trying to put some type of time scale to when the alleged increase in CO2 production from human activity will drastically change the environment and kill life on the planet is just simply immature thinking. The Earth is not a static equation. The fossil record shows that 99% of all species on the Earth go extinct; it's just what happens.

So you go from, if humans cause global warming via industrial effects, then we should all have less children so less people exhale C02....to there's not enough environmental data...to there's a huge salt deposit from a lake that dried up and then came back

...therefore humans don't have an effect on the environment. I suppose evolution doesn't have enough evidence for you either?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by ScarecrowBoat

So you go from, if humans cause global warming via industrial effects, then we should all have less children so less people exhale C02....to there's not enough environmental data...to there's a huge salt deposit from a lake that dried up and then came back

...therefore humans don't have an effect on the environment. I suppose evolution doesn't have enough evidence for you either?

Holy crap, no; wow, did you miss the point. All activity on the Earth affects the environment, whether it be you going No. 2 in a toilet, a chimpanzee making a stick into a tool to get ants from an ant mound, a volcano erupting in Krakatau, reforestation of the Amazon river basin, Henry Ford conceiving of mass production (thanks to Eli Whitney too!), or a meteorite slamming into the Yucatan. Pointing to Man's industrial activity as the sole variable that will drastically change the environment, where the Earth becomes inhabitable for life, is megalomaniacal thought of the highest level.

The salt deposit mined in Cleveland was created without any intervention of human effect on the environment. The environment changed all by itself in such a drastic way that the ancient sea dried up and left a salt deposit, which now supports a whole bunch of humans who work at the mine. So if you really think about it, environmental change actually helps humans live, not kill them off.

My silly point about limiting how many children people may produce is tied to your concept that industrialization is changing the planet. The birth and support of children, well children lucky enough to be born into the Western civilizations anyway, consume over their lifetimes massive amount of industry (I see no issue with it mind you); all of it eventually killing the planet. So logically, not having children will save the planet, limiting the amount of children will slow down the rate at which the planet will die. If we were all to just stop now having children, we’ll save the planet; if we all stop driving now, we’ll save the planet.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by bjayfan

This all belongs in OT, shame because there is some decent auto info in ceramics.

For the record. CO2 levels now are low with respect to the history of the earth.

Global warming is now climate change as since 98 the earth is cooling.

This remains a science controversy until there is an openly peer reviewed process that garners a majority. Right now science is about 2 or 3 to 1 against global warming (climate change).

When politics enters science, everyone loses.

I didn't mean to turn the discussion to a debate on Global Warming climate change. I was trying to point out that any R&D into improving the efficiency of internal combustion engine is fruitless since the majority of political thought is CO2 production is killing the planet and the elimination of carbon-fueled devices is of top political priority. If the ICE can use a fuel that is not carbon based (such as hydrogen), or the if chemical process that makes an ICE not produce CO2 using carbon fuels is developed, then maybe the effort will be worthwhile.

The only real problem with the internal combustion engine is it hasn't been developed far enough to increase the efficiency of the combustion event to get near 100% conversion of the energy in the fuel to motive force.

[Meeni]

Nobody cares about "killing the planet" or hugging trees.

What we care is the fact that climate transitioning is going to be a painful, costly process. If it can be avoided or mitigated in cost effective ways, it would be stupid not to. Not because "the planet", but because it is the best way to avoid catastrophic (for us, humans) outcomes resulting from doing nothing. And don't get me wrong, humanity will survive, we will just be miserable for 2 centuries or something when crops fail, NY gets flooded and stuff like that.

And the goal is not to eliminate all co2 production. It is impossible. It is just to reduce it to a level that provoke minor and long transitioning climate change. According to science, we cannot avoid temperature increase anymore. Now what we can do is to diminish the amount of increase, which we should, for our own sake.

[ScarecrowBoat]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Holy crap, no; wow, did you miss the point. All activity on the Earth affects the environment, whether it be you going No. 2 in a toilet, a chimpanzee making a stick into a tool to get ants from an ant mound, a volcano erupting in Krakatau, reforestation of the Amazon river basin, Henry Ford conceiving of mass production (thanks to Eli Whitney too!), or a meteorite slamming into the Yucatan. Pointing to Man's industrial activity as the sole variable that will drastically change the environment, where the Earth becomes inhabitable for life, is megalomaniacal thought of the highest level.

The salt deposit mined in Cleveland was created without any intervention of human effect on the environment. The environment changed all by itself in such a drastic way that the ancient sea dried up and left a salt deposit, which now supports a whole bunch of humans who work at the mine. So if you really think about it, environmental change actually helps humans live, not kill them off.

My silly point about limiting how many children people may produce is tied to your concept that industrialization is changing the planet. The birth and support of children, well children lucky enough to be born into the Western civilizations anyway, consume over their lifetimes massive amount of industry (I see no issue with it mind you); all of it eventually killing the planet. So logically, not having children will save the planet, limiting the amount of children will slow down the rate at which the planet will die. If we were all to just stop now having children, we’ll save the planet; if we all stop driving now, we’ll save the planet.

No, I pretty much understand your position. Nobody points to man's activity as the sole variable, but it is one entirely within our control. Your position, if you could even call it that, is ignorant at best.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by ScarecrowBoat

No, I pretty much understand your position. Nobody points to man's activity as the sole variable, but it is one entirely within our control. Your position, if you could even call it that, is ignorant at best.

I've never heard anyone on the side of Global Warming/Climate Change not point to human activity as the sole variable because it is the only variable that is in the control of Government. That is why they do point to Man's alleged misbehavior with respect to the environment, simply because they can control it (and the humans that in their minds create it); that's the point.

The Earth is going to become uninhabitable and humans will eventually go extinct as a natural process, which I have pointed to through the geological and fossil records (i.e. I do believe in evolution...). To place a timeframe on when excessive (or inappropriate - you posted a picture of it) human activity will make the planet uninhabitable to humans is ignorant. The scale of which natural planetary activity changes the environment is far more powerful than the current level of human activity that it is not calculable with any reason of certainty. Generally, to people who don't overthink their own importance, megalomaniacal people are ignorant.

And since you brought up my apparent disbelief in evolution, I actually look at humankind (and its activity) as a part of the planet's natural state and that, as every other inhabitant, should effect the environment (just like a tree does). If the Earth evolves to a point where it becomes uninhabitable for humans (or life in general) then that is what is supposed to happen. Your issue is that you believe that Earth should stay inhabitable for humans forever, which all science points to the opposite.

[ScarecrowBoat]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I've never heard anyone on the side of Global Warming/Climate Change not point to human activity as the sole variable because it is the only variable that is in the control of Government. That is why they do point to Man's alleged misbehavior with respect to the environment, simply because they can control it (and the humans that in their minds create it); that's the point.

The Earth is going to become inhabitable and humans will eventually go extinct as a natural process, which I have pointed to through the geological and fossil records (i.e. I do believe in evolution...). To place a timeframe on when excessive (or inappropriate - you posted a picture of it) human activity will make the planet inhabitable to humans is ignorant. The scale of which natural planetary activity changes the environment is far more powerful than the current level of human activity that it is not calculable with any reason of certainty. Generally, to people who don't overthink their own importance, megalomaniacal people are ignorant.

And since you brought up my apparent disbelief in evolution, I actually look at humankind (and its activity) as a part of the planet's natural state and that, as every other inhabitant, should effect the environment (just like a tree does). If the Earth evolves to a point where it becomes inhabitable for humans (or life in general) then that is what is supposed to happen. Your issue is that you believe that Earth should stay habitable for humans forever, which all science points to the opposite.

I think you mean uninhabitable. Very deterministic, and very wrong. Wrong scientifically, wrong morally, and wrong ethically.

Do you believe in evolution?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by ScarecrowBoat

I think you mean uninhabitable. Very deterministic, and very wrong. Wrong scientifically, wrong morally, and wrong ethically.

Do you believe in evolution?

I'm sorry, the conversation is apparently a bit to complex to grasp. Extinction is a component of evolution; there is nothing moral or immoral about it.

[ScarecrowBoat]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'm sorry, the conversation is apparently a bit to complex to grasp. Extinction is a component of evolution; there is nothing moral or immoral about it.

What? I was just asking a side question.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by ScarecrowBoat

What? I was just asking a side question.

We should end this as we are totally on opposite pages to where we are not understanding each other. I'm not sure what I've written would make you think I don't believe in evolution. I think what I've written shows that I do believe in evolution.

If you think I'm some sort of religious zealot that only believes in creationism, then you are sadly mistaken; and I'm offended. My position on this whole topic comes from many courses of study in, biology, anthropology, physics, geology, and astronomy. I also was a junior member of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in college - ties to my original discussion of ceramic engines.

Part of evolution is extinction. The hype of the CO2/Global Warming/Climate Change debate is the pro-global warming people are trying to prevent the extinction of Humans at some point in the future by controlling the inputs to the "climate" now, which all of my scientific understanding tells me is ridiculous. So in reality, people who support anthropogenic climate change actually don't believe in evolution, i.e. the classic Darwin model; life evolves based on climatic conditions (changes) not the other way around.

Scientists can create models of the climate to look forward with them and make predictions of disastrous climates in the future. But the validity of the models is not ascertainable with just a 100 years worth of recent climate observation and data. There is a climatologist at UVA, Patrick Michaels, who has taken the models and run them backwards to get the model's predictions of CO2 levels 10,000 years ago. He has then sampled sediments of lake beds known to be 10,000 years old, and through biological analysis of the plant matter existing in the sediments can measure the level of CO2 present in the atmosphere. His studies show the climate models used to predict the disastrous future are not valid to what actually happened in the past; the CO2 levels in the atmosphere 10,000 years ago was much higher than today and higher than predicted to be 100 years in the future. I suggest you read some of his books on the subject.

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

We should end this as we are totally on opposite pages to where we are not understanding each other. I'm not sure what I've written would make you think I don't believe in evolution. I think what I've written shows that I do believe in evolution.

If you think I'm some sort of religious zealot that only believes in creationism, then you are sadly mistaken; and I'm offended. My position on this whole topic comes from many courses of study in, biology, anthropology, physics, geology, and astronomy. I also was a junior member of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in college - ties to my original discussion of ceramic engines.

Part of evolution is extinction. The hype of the CO2/Global Warming/Climate Change debate is the pro-global warming people are trying to prevent the extinction of Humans at some point in the future by controlling the inputs to the "climate" now, which all of my scientific understanding tells me is ridiculous. So in reality, people who support anthropogenic climate change actually don't believe in evolution, i.e. the classic Darwin model; life evolves based on climatic conditions (changes) not the other way around.

Scientists can create models of the climate to look forward with them and make predictions of disastrous climates in the future. But the validity of the models is not ascertainable with just a 100 years worth of recent climate observation and data. There is a climatologist at UVA, Patrick Michaels, who has taken the models and run them backwards to get the model's predictions of CO2 levels 10,000 years ago. He has then sampled sediments of lake beds known to be 10,000 years old, and through biological analysis of the plant matter existing in the sediments can measure the level of CO2 present in the atmosphere. His studies show the climate models used to predict the disastrous future are not valid to what actually happened in the past; the CO2 levels in the atmosphere 10,000 years ago was much higher than today and higher than predicted to be 100 years in the future. I suggest you read some of his books on the subject.

Thanks for your scientific view and info.

[DieGrüneHölle]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

We should end this as we are totally on opposite pages to where we are not understanding each other. I'm not sure what I've written would make you think I don't believe in evolution. I think what I've written shows that I do believe in evolution.

If you think I'm some sort of religious zealot that only believes in creationism, then you are sadly mistaken; and I'm offended. My position on this whole topic comes from many courses of study in, biology, anthropology, physics, geology, and astronomy. I also was a junior member of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in college - ties to my original discussion of ceramic engines.

Part of evolution is extinction. The hype of the CO2/Global Warming/Climate Change debate is the pro-global warming people are trying to prevent the extinction of Humans at some point in the future by controlling the inputs to the "climate" now, which all of my scientific understanding tells me is ridiculous. So in reality, people who support anthropogenic climate change actually don't believe in evolution, i.e. the classic Darwin model; life evolves based on climatic conditions (changes) not the other way around.

Scientists can create models of the climate to look forward with them and make predictions of disastrous climates in the future. But the validity of the models is not ascertainable with just a 100 years worth of recent climate observation and data. There is a climatologist at UVA, Patrick Michaels, who has taken the models and run them backwards to get the model's predictions of CO2 levels 10,000 years ago. He has then sampled sediments of lake beds known to be 10,000 years old, and through biological analysis of the plant matter existing in the sediments can measure the level of CO2 present in the atmosphere. His studies show the climate models used to predict the disastrous future are not valid to what actually happened in the past; the CO2 levels in the atmosphere 10,000 years ago was much higher than today and higher than predicted to be 100 years in the future. I suggest you read some of his books on the subject.

end thread/