Coffeehouse Thread

75 posts

Conversation Locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.

London's burning

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    cbae

    ,Maddus Mattus wrote

    @cbae: err,... btw,..

    CO2 makes plants grow better,.. it's a fact,.. try it at home,..

    Come to Holland, I'll show you a greenhouse where they burn gas to get CO2, to make the plants grow bigger,..

    I can't believe actually needed to do this in this forum. Here.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @cbae:

    OK. Now how much would it have cost to produce energy by other means? And if you didn't have windmills, who would even visit your country?Smiley Consider it an investment in the tourism trade.

    lol Wink

    Wind / solar is about 24 c/kWh, Water / geothermal I would have to lookup but I think about 10 c/kWh, bio mass about 16 c/kWh, Coal / gas about 14 c/kWh, Nuclear about 5 c/kWh,.. Matter / antimatter reactor 0,1 c/kWh, but I am still working on that.

    Old wooden windmills are an awesome sight,.. I'll post a picture tommorow when I drive to work, that's not such a pretty sight,. Windmills as far as the eye can see,.. 2 minute drive from my house,..

    If you consider the "planet" just the sphere of rock that revolves around the Sun, yes it will be fine long after we're gone. But we're not just talking about the rock now, are we?

    Well,.. what do you mean when you say you want to save the planet?

    My wife is a nurse.

    First rule they tought her at school was;

    Look afther yourself.

    Second rule;

    Look afther others.

    You can't take care of others when you can't take care of yourself. The vibe I am getting from our governments today is that they are obsessed with rule number 2 and forget rule 1. And that's I think one of many reasons why the people are really upset.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    @Maddus Mattus:

    too much CO2 is bad though. Too much of anything is bad, not just CO2.

    @cbae:

    As for green. There is true green and fake green. The problems is we tends to promote and "practice" fake green in order for us to "sound" good. It is mostly marketing instead of true green.

    @Maddus MattusMadcbae:

    As for out sourcing, why not? Why would you want to spend on overpriced labor instead of reasonably priced labor? But, at the same time, it is government's interest to protect its citizens. Meaning it is government's job to make local labor more attractive and foreign labor less attractive. Of course not too much to spoil its citizens (which happened to many "developed" countries).

    All in all, BALANCE is the key.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    spivonious

    ,cbae wrote

    *snip*

    I can't believe actually needed to do this in this forum. Here.

    That page is assuming that increased CO2 leads to increased occurences of drought.

    I can post linkstoo.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    ,Maddus Mattus wrote

    @cbae:

    *snip*

    lol Wink

    Wind / solar is about 24 c/kWh, Water / geothermal I would have to lookup but I think about 10 c/kWh, bio mass about 16 c/kWh, Coal / gas about 14 c/kWh, Nuclear about 5 c/kWh,.. Matter / antimatter reactor 0,1 c/kWh, but I am still working on that.

    So you have all of those sources of energy, and the carbon tax only applies to coal/gas and maybe biomass. So what's the problem then? If you replace all coal/gas sources with wind/solar, the unit price of wind/solar will surely go down, and if it doesn't you still have at least two (real) sources of energy that are cheaper than coal/gas.

    Old wooden windmills are an awesome sight,.. I'll post a picture tommorow when I drive to work, that's not such a pretty sight,. Windmills as far as the eye can see,.. 2 minute drive from my house,..

    *snip*

    Well,.. what do you mean when you say you want to save the planet?

    Uh, save the inhabitants of said planet. Humans for starters.

    My wife is a nurse.

    First rule they tought her at school was;

    Look afther yourself.

    Second rule;

    Look afther others.

    You can't take care of others when you can't take care of yourself. The vibe I am getting from our governments today is that they are obsessed with rule number 2 and forget rule 1. And that's I think one of many reasons why the people are really upset.

    Saving the inhabitants of the planet (especially humans) IS looking after yourself. Why would I care if this sphere of rock will be just fine and continue to revolve around Sun after humans wipe themselves out? 

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    The grand lies of a climate skeptic:

    1) There isn't too much CO2 in the environment

    2) Even if there is, it's entirely natural, or part of a natural cycle

    2) Even if it isn't, CO2 is good for plants

    3) Even if it's not, it's not our fault (it's China/India/Other people's fault)

    4) Even if it's not it can't be solved by people

    5) Even if it can, I don't want to change my lifestyle a small amount to avoid a massive change in lifestyle for future / faraway people.

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    lol, I never thought this thread would turn into a climate change debate.

    Show me proof that the average global temperature is rising, and then show me proof that relates it to human-produced CO2.

    In the meantime, I will adjust my energy usage only as long as it saves me money. I use energy star appliances, I take short showers, I drive a small car. All because it lowers my bills, not because it is "saving the planet".

  • User profile image
    Cream​Filling512

    We don't need to save the planet, that's just druid worship.  We just need to become self-sustaining in space.  There's infinite of everything in space.  We should throw everything we've got at it, we may only have a short window of time.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    ,spivonious wrote

    *snip*

    That page is assuming that increased CO2 leads to increased occurences of drought.

    I can post linkstoo.

    Does that site have coupon codes for purchasing tinfoil online?

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @cbae:

    Let's take this blog apart, shall we?

    The study indicates that Global warming may be the cause.

    Didn't they get their facts straight? What does this have to do with CO2?

    Severe summer droughts in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan ravaged 2010 cereal yields.

    How does this relate to CO2? Does CO2 cause droughts? Where do they show that?

    Climate deniers continue to cling to the rationale that "Co2 is good for plants" – it's sixth grade logic that appeals to the Fox News crowd, but actual experience is not bearing it out.

    Notice there are two ad homiens in one sentence. Really, how can one deny the climate? It's there,.. no need to argue,..

    Sixth grade logic; good, even a sixth grader understands that CO2 makes plants grow. Why can't the author?

     Climate Change, in the real world, means increasing numbers of extreme weather events, droughts, floods, storms – which make it more and more difficult for the world's farmers to conduct business as usual.

    What does CO2 have to do with Climate Change, extreme weather events, droughts, floods, storms? These type of events have been going on for ages, long before we started emitting CO2,.. Deal with it!

    Many crops show positive responses to elevated carbon dioxide and low levels of warming, but higher levels of warmingoften negatively affect growth and yields.

    So they do agree that CO2 makes plants grow,.. Take a look at the word often,.. If the impact was so disasterous. why need that word?

    Extreme events such as heavy downpours and droughts are likely to reduce crop yields because excesses or deficits of water have negative impacts on plant growth.

    Again, don't they know for sure? These are the experts! It rains, global warming, it's dry, global warming,. That's an unfasifiable theory!

    Weeds, diseases, and insect pests benefit from warming, and weeds also benefit from a higher carbon dioxide concentration, increasing stress on crop plants and requiring more attention to pest and weed control.

    So weeds grow faster also with more CO2,.. Good,.. Oh wait,.. weeds are a type of plant?

    Forage quality in pastures and rangelands generally declines with increasing carbon dioxide concentration because of the effects on plant nitrogen and protein content, reducing the land's ability to supplyadequate livestock feed.

    They don't know much for sure, do they? What's an adequate feed? Rich of vitamine A?

    Increased heat, disease, and weather extremes are likely to reduce livestock productivity.

    no **** sherlock, livestock get's sick? Again, what does this have to do with CO2,..?!

    and it goes on and on,..

    I suggest you don't read this site, it doesnt make it's own point very well,..

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @spivonious: sorry Sad

    But my beliefs are that we plunged ourselves into this crisis by spending enormous amounts of money battling a ghost,..

    @evildictaitor: Show me one piece of real world evidence that co2 is driving climate or temperature and I concede,.

    We've spend billions of dollars trying to find it, it's not there.

  • User profile image
    Cream​Filling512

    Anyway getting back on topic.  I think the UK is doing a poor job taking care of these rioters.  For example, their politicians are actually debating using water cannons on them, seriously?  That needs to be debated?  Should have sent in the army already.  Don't they have a National Guard sort of thing over there?

  • User profile image
    cbae

    ,spivonious wrote

    lol, I never thought this thread would turn into a climate change debate.

    Show me proof that the average global temperature is rising, and then show me proof that relates it to human-produced CO2.

    Saying "show me the proof" and claiming "that's not good enough" when shown the proof is exactly what creationist/evolution deniers do.

    Why don't you tell us what kind of proof that you need to be convinced? Or are you already convinced that you won't believe any sort of proof?

    In the meantime, I will adjust my energy usage only as long as it saves me money. I use energy star appliances, I take short showers, I drive a small car. All because it lowers my bills, not because it is "saving the planet".

    Good for you. And that's the point of carbon tax. If companies aren't going to do it for the planet, they'll do it save money.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @CreamFilling512: *nod*

    @cbae: nice try, but sorry, burden of proof is still on you,. you make the claim, now you state it,.

    And remember; correlation does not mean causation!

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    If you skim through all 4 pages of this thread quickly, the London riots are caused by CO2-induced psychosis and trees that grow too fast.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Harlequin: ok, ok, hint taken,.. I'll shuttup,.. Wink

  • User profile image
    cbae

    ,Maddus Mattus wrote

    @cbae:

    Let's take this blog apart, shall we?

    You didn't take anything apart.

    Didn't they get their facts straight? What does this have to do with CO2?

    higher CO2 -> higher global temperatures -> decline in plant productivity

    Conclusion: higher CO2 isn't necessarily good for plants. Wasn't that your original argument? Are you forgetting what you're even arguing?

    How does this relate to CO2? Does CO2 cause droughts? Where do they show that?

    higher CO2 -> higher global temperatures -> more drought -> more dead plants

    Conclusion: higher CO2 isn't good for plants

    Notice there are two ad homiens in one sentence. Really, how can one deny the climate? It's there,.. no need to argue,..

    Sixth grade logic; good, even a sixth grader understands that CO2 makes plants grow. Why can't the author?

    Sixth grade logic: Thinking all plants live in the controlled environment of a greenhouse.

    Superior logic: understanding that higher CO2 has global effects that can ultimately lead to a reduction in the well-being of plants.

    Conclusion: Higher CO2 in an enclosed environment good for plants.  Higher GLOBAL CO2 isn't good for plants.

    What does CO2 have to do with Climate Change, extreme weather events, droughts, floods, storms? These type of events have been going on for ages, long before we started emitting CO2,.. Deal with it!

    Frequency and intensity. Sorry, but this argument is just idiotic.

    I think I've made my point. I don't think I need to go over the rest of your post based on sixth grade logic. Smiley

     

  • User profile image
    cbae

    ,Maddus Mattus wrote

    @CreamFilling512: *nod*

    @cbae: nice try, but sorry, burden of proof is still on you,. you make the claim, now you state it,.

    And remember; correlation does not mean causation!

    No. There's no burden on me. The burden is on the scientists. I know how the scientific method works. I trust that the scientific method works. The scientific method is rigorous enough for me to accept the validity of claims that are widely-accepted by the scientific community.

    Now explain what your criterion is for accepting scientific findings. You need to have a standard. In criminal trials, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but the standard for burden of proof is pre-determined. The jury doesn't get to make up its own standard. So, what's your standard?

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.