Members banned from this thread: tinfoil, Hermes Thoth, SmarterthanYou, USFREEDOM911, cancel2 2022, PostmodernProphet, Legion, Truth Detector, Granule, canceled.2021.1, Boris The Animal, canceled.2021.2, MAGA MAN, canceled.2021.3, Irish, CFM, Ralph, Wolverine, Sailor, Life is Golden, Bigdog, TTQ64, Getin the ring, zymurgy, Evmetro, Superfreak, CharacterAssassin, RB 60, PraiseKek, Eagle_Eye, katzgar, Joe Capitalist, countryboy, Tommatthews, volsrock, The Ugly Truth, BodyDouble, coolzone, rhym3pays, LV426, Loving91390, Yurt, Into the Night, Tkaffen, Enlightened One, Anarchon, artichoke, Bobb, Earl, lisasanders1964 and Vasquezrocks


Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 91 to 96 of 96

Thread: $1B Climate Change Denial Industry: Getting Rich Telling Lies, Destroying Humanity...

  1. #91 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello gfm7175,

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    What's happening?
    Climate Change.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Why is it happening?
    The industrial age.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    What theories of science support this reasoning?
    When billion humans burn things daily to utilize powered devices, the CO2 level in the atmosphere is raised. CO2 prevents heat from radiating out into space, thus warming the planet, changing the climate.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  2. #92 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello gfm7175,
    Hello PoliTalker,

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Climate Change.
    Can you please define this terminology for me? What IS "Climate Change"? Remember that circular definitions are meaningless...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    The industrial age.
    That has been happening since before the USA even became a nation, yet AGW has only been a fairly recent issue??

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    When billion humans burn things daily to utilize powered devices, the CO2 level in the atmosphere is raised.
    Okay. And what's the problem with that?

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    CO2 prevents heat from radiating out into space, thus warming the planet,
    CO2 is not capable of trapping heat. No gas or vapor can trap heat.

    With this assertion, you are attempting to decrease Earth's radiance while simultaneously increasing Earth's temperature. This is not possible. See the Stefan Boltzmann Law for reference.

    With this assertion, you are also attempting to decrease entropy in a system. That, also, is not possible. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for reference.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    changing the climate.
    There is no such thing as "the" climate. There is no singular "global climate". Earth actually has numerous climates.

  3. #93 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello gfm7175,

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Hello PoliTalker,


    Can you please define this terminology for me? What IS "Climate Change"? Remember that circular definitions are meaningless...


    That has been happening since before the USA even became a nation, yet AGW has only been a fairly recent issue??


    Okay. And what's the problem with that?


    CO2 is not capable of trapping heat. No gas or vapor can trap heat.

    With this assertion, you are attempting to decrease Earth's radiance while simultaneously increasing Earth's temperature. This is not possible. See the Stefan Boltzmann Law for reference.

    With this assertion, you are also attempting to decrease entropy in a system. That, also, is not possible. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for reference.


    There is no such thing as "the" climate. There is no singular "global climate". Earth actually has numerous climates.
    I appreciate that you are going to every extent possible to deny climate change. That is your right. And you really do a marvelous job. Looking for every possible thing to dispute, leaving no stone unturned. It is commendable, your knack for knocking it. If there was a medal for finding every little point to beef about, you'd be a prime candidate. Very impressive effort.

    I just happen to think arguing about it is extremely foolish. It is absurd to think that 7 billion humans burning things daily would have no effect. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is a law of physics.

    Earth's climate has changed many times over the millennia. Each occurrence has resulted in devastation to life and mass species loss. We are living in the 6th major species loss event, and the first time it has been caused by one species.

    Over a billion dollars a year is spent on denying climate change. The reason that is done is because trillions of dollars are made from keeping wasteful energy industry in place. Too many of the super-rich are obsessed with money, even though they already have way more than a person could even spend in a lifetime of opulence. I actually feel sorry for the greediest rich people like President Trump, because they have completely lost sight of how to enjoy life, falsely believing that money buys happiness and more money must buy more. That is just flatly false. Once a person has enough money to live a comfortable life, more money beyond that amount does not increase happiness, but may even lead to far more stress in life and lack of happiness. Such as in Trump's case.

    It is like they are in a race to be the richest, though none of them can tell you why. Bragging rights? They think the old joke about he who dies with the most toys wins? Wins WHAT??? There is no medal for being the richest, and bragging about wealth is considered in extremely poor taste. Just as poor taste as creating gaudy displays of wealth, simply for the sake of showing it off, as if to prove to others they are rich. If they don't already know they are happy, no amount of glitz will result in any more happiness. Happiness is not the result of displaying or bragging about wealth.

    Happiness comes from enjoying life with love and friendship of good people, loved ones, friends and acquaintances. Enjoying the passage of time. Doing things that make you feel good. We only have so much time to be alive as humans, and any time wasted in the pursuit of needless wealth is not spent simply enjoying life. Trump is an angry man, full of stress and controversy. I have never heard of an individual with so many court cases. Suing and going to court over disputes is definitely not enjoying life. I truly feel sorry for him. He just wasted the last few years of opportunity to be a dad and spend quality time with his son who is just now becoming a teenager. He could have gone fishing, to the beach, play ball, go camping, play music, listen to it, whatever. He did none of that. He let the opportunity pass him by. Everybody knows what happens when kids become teens. They are no longer kids you can have fun with like is possible during those pre-teen years. What a waste.

    Trump could seriously enhance his happiness with mental counseling, and could easily afford very high quality counseling, but his ego won't let him do it because he thinks he is the best at everything. What a loser. One thing is for sure. He is very good at alienating people, which is why he is routinely left out of social gatherings, parties, and events. People who know better than him how to enjoy life don't want his downer energy spoiling their fun. Old money shuns him, and there is a reason why. He is a drag. He is wrong about how to enjoy life and he is wrong about climate change.
    Last edited by PoliTalker; 06-24-2019 at 04:34 PM.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  4. #94 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I appreciate that you are going to every extent possible to deny climate change. That is your right. And you really do a marvelous job. Looking for every possible thing to dispute, leaving no stone unturned. It is commendable, your knack for knocking it. If there was a medal for finding every little point to beef about, you'd be a prime candidate. Very impressive effort.
    I'm merely asking you to define the terminology that you are using. You consistently refuse to provide me with a workable definition of the term.

    I'm also asking you to examine the currently standing theories of science which tell us that it is not possible to trap heat, that it is not possible for CO2 to heat the Earth, and that it is not possible for Earth's radiance to decrease while its temperature simultaneously increases. The Stefan Boltzmann Law tells us that radiance and temperature are directly proportional. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that heat only flows from hot to cold and that entropy cannot decrease in any system.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I just happen to think arguing about it is extremely foolish.
    Helping people to understand why AGW fails as a model is not foolish. Choosing to remain ignorant of the laws of science being presented to you as counterarguments IS foolish, however...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    It is absurd to think that 7 billion humans burning things daily would have no effect. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is a law of physics.
    I never claimed that actions don't have effects...

    Are you claiming that every single man, woman, child, toddler, and infant "burns things" daily? Although, I'm not sure what you precisely mean by "burns things"...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Earth's climate has changed many times over the millennia.
    There is no such thing as a "global climate". What IS Earth's climate? Is the Earth hot and arid? Is it cold? Is it humid? Is it wet? Is it dry? Remember that it is currently Summer in the northern hemisphere and Winter in the southern hemisphere...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Each occurrence has resulted in devastation to life and mass species loss. We are living in the 6th major species loss event, and the first time it has been caused by one species.
    And how do you know what happened hundreds of millions of years ago? Was there anybody around to experience those events?

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Over a billion dollars a year is spent on denying climate change.
    Ready to meaningfully define what "climate change" even IS yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    The reason that is done is because trillions of dollars are made from keeping wasteful energy industry in place.
    What is "wasteful energy industry"? Can you expand upon what precisely is "wasteful" about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Too many of the super-rich are obsessed with money,
    You seem quite obsessed with money yourself... specifically other people's money...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    even though they already have way more than a person could even spend in a lifetime of opulence.
    You don't get to determine how much money is "enough" for someone else to have. You are not a dictator.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I actually feel sorry for the greediest rich people like President Trump, because they have completely lost sight of how to enjoy life, falsely believing that money buys happiness and more money must buy more. That is just flatly false.
    He seems to be enjoying his life, meanwhile you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with other people's money.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Once a person has enough money to live a comfortable life,
    You don't get to determine how much is "enough" for someone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    more money beyond that amount does not increase happiness but may even lead to far more stress in life and lack of happiness. Such as in Trump's case.
    Trump seems happy to me. Meanwhile, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with his wealth, as his wealth seems to greatly bother you.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    It is like they are in a race to be the richest,
    Fine by me.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    though none of them can tell you why.
    Fine by me. Their wealth is not my concern.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    ... deleted continued off-topic rant whining about other people's wealth, as it is irrelevant to defining "climate change" and irrelevant to the laws of science which stand in the way of current AGW models...
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    ...deleted continued off-topic rant about various topics, including but not limited to: determining for other people what makes them happy, continued unhealthy obsession with Trump's legal proceedings, Trump's wealth, Trump's family life and social life, psychoquackery relating to Trump, insults directed at Trump, and fallaciously concluding that Trump is wrong about climate change because he is wrong about how to enjoy life...
    Please define "climate change" in a meaningful way (ie, not circular) and please address my counterarguments regarding the laws of science which stand in the way of your Magick Blanket Argument.
    Last edited by gfm7175; 06-25-2019 at 09:15 AM.

  5. #95 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello gfm7175,

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    I'm merely asking you to define the terminology that you are using.
    Anyone who doesn't understand the term Climate Change by now has simply not been paying attention or is determined to avoid recognizing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    You consistently refuse to provide me with a workable definition of the term.
    This argument is nothing more than an attempt to divert the conversation away from the crux, and instead become mired in unimportant details.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    I'm also asking you to examine the currently standing theories of science which tell us that it is not possible to trap heat, that it is not possible for CO2 to heat the Earth, and that it is not possible for Earth's radiance to decrease while its temperature simultaneously increases. The Stefan Boltzmann Law tells us that radiance and temperature are directly proportional. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that heat only flows from hot to cold and that entropy cannot decrease in any system.
    That may be true, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Heat does not flow instantly. Rather, the duration required for heat transfer is controlled by the coefficient of thermal conductivity. And never was it claimed that ALL of the heat is trapped by CO2. That is actually a layman's explanation. Instead, what is occurring is that the increased CO2 density increases the coefficient of thermal conductivity of the atmosphere, thus resulting in less radiation, and a resultant increase of heat level on the planet. If it were not for this effect (which has been raised by industrial activity,) the Earth would instantly radiate all of it's heat out into space, and be so cold that it would be quite uninhabitable. It has been said that we live in a bubble, and that bubble is our heat-'trapping' atmosphere, which does not precisely trap all of the heat, but enough to make life on Earth possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Are you claiming that every single man, woman, child, toddler, and infant "burns things" daily? Although, I'm not sure what you precisely mean by "burns things"...
    My, such a penchant for arguing the minutia. By saying '7 billion humans burning things daily,' I was referring to the fact that most of the over 7 billion humans on Earth eat cooked food and/or use energy derived from burning things.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    ... deleted continued off-topic rant whining about other people's wealth, as it is irrelevant to defining "climate change" and irrelevant to the laws of science which stand in the way of current AGW models...
    The above is a direct quote from you, which you placed in a quote box claiming I wrote it. Such a disingenuous tactic indicates an inability to directly refute an argument. It is rather evident also by the continual reliance upon dissecting the argument into semantics, parading as technical observations. The real message is there is nothing there to refute that basic concept that the industrial age which has brought is a higher standard of living has come at the terrible price of sacrificing the future habitat for the dirty short-sided luxuries of the present.

    We can have abundant luxuries when we learn to tap into clean renewable energy and to control human population levels at an amount which is sustainable by this finite planet.

    It does not stand to reason that an infinite number of humans can exist on a set of finite resources. Such thinking is as illogical as religion.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  6. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (06-25-2019)

  7. #96 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Anyone who doesn't understand the term Climate Change by now has simply not been paying attention or is determined to avoid recognizing it.
    Not at all. You simply keep refusing to define the terminology that you are making use of. I can't "pay attention" or "recognize" that which has yet to even be defined...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    This argument is nothing more than an attempt to divert the conversation away from the crux, and instead become mired in unimportant details.
    No, I'm keeping it focused right ON the crux, which is defining WTF "climate change" even is...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    That may be true, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Heat does not flow instantly.
    ??? Yeah, it does...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Rather, the duration required for heat transfer is controlled by the coefficient of thermal conductivity. And never was it claimed that ALL of the heat is trapped by CO2. That is actually a layman's explanation.
    It is not possible to trap heat.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Instead, what is occurring is that the increased CO2 density increases the coefficient of thermal conductivity of the atmosphere, thus resulting in less radiation, and a resultant increase of heat level on the planet.
    Please see the Stefan Boltzmann Law... [radiance=Boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4]

    Radiance is on one side of the equation... Temperature (along with constants) is on the other side of the equation. Therefore, the two things are directly proportional. It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to increase temperature while simultaneously decreasing radiance.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    If it were not for this effect (which has been raised by industrial activity,) the Earth would instantly radiate all of it's heat out into space,
    Heat is not a thing; it is the flow of a thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    and be so cold that it would be quite uninhabitable.
    What about the existence of the sun??

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    It has been said that we live in a bubble, and that bubble is our heat-'trapping' atmosphere, which does not precisely trap all of the heat, but enough to make life on Earth possible.
    It is not possible to trap heat. I will repeat Into The Night's argument (from his "open discussion" sister thread) in this thread, since I feel that it would be wise of you to think about it for a second...

    Our space station sees a sunlit side of the outer skin regularly reach temperatures of 250 deg F. It has no atmosphere, no CO2, nothing. On Earth, it never gets anywhere near that hot anywhere, yet we have a temperature magick CO2 gas, the works. If CO2 or an atmosphere warms the Earth, why is Earth so much colder?

    CO2 is obviously not warming the Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    My, such a penchant for arguing the minutia. By saying '7 billion humans burning things daily,' I was referring to the fact that most of the over 7 billion humans on Earth eat cooked food and/or use energy derived from burning things.
    Alrighty. I understand your assertion now. People doing those things is fine by me.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    The above is a direct quote from you, which you placed in a quote box claiming I wrote it.
    You DID write it though... I simply deleted what you wrote, of which I made obvious that I deleted it, and summarized for all readers precisely why I deleted it. It was irrelevant; it was distracting away from your unwillingness to define your terminology. Your thread is about "climate change" (which you have yet to define what you mean by that), it is NOT about Trump nor the other things you chose to go on a rant about to divert away from the issue at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Such a disingenuous tactic indicates an inability to directly refute an argument.
    I directly refuted your arguments, and am doing so even now...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    It is rather evident also by the continual reliance upon dissecting the argument into semantics, parading as technical observations. The real message is there is nothing there to refute that basic concept that the industrial age which has brought is a higher standard of living has come at the terrible price of sacrificing the future habitat for the dirty short-sided luxuries of the present.
    What price?

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    We can have abundant luxuries when we learn to tap into clean renewable energy
    We have already been doing so. Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, etc. are all clean renewable energy sources.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    and to control human population levels at an amount which is sustainable by this finite planet.
    If you are advocating for human "population level controls", then I suggest, as I always do to anyone who proposes this, that you lead by example... You first...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    It does not stand to reason that an infinite number of humans can exist on a set of finite resources.
    ??? Humans ARE resources, dude...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Such thinking is as illogical as religion.
    ??? Religion IS logical. Your rejection of currently standing laws of science is what ISN'T logical.

Similar Threads

  1. Paul Krugman: The Depravity of Climate-Change Denial
    By Nomad in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-27-2018, 09:24 PM
  2. CNN: Trump's climate policy is crime against humanity
    By tff in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2018, 10:25 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-22-2017, 12:25 PM
  4. Telling ‘Noble Cause Lies’ About Climate Change Will Backfire
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-19-2014, 03:06 PM
  5. Climate change denial is futile
    By Cancel4 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 09-07-2009, 12:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

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