Safety glasses on.

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no conversation. You want to talk about superheros and I don't care for it. End of story.

I see that you prefer fantasy of another kind. I think it is ok with us if you expound on your strength in your particular fantasy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And you are the one that cannot follow a conversation. We know who is projecting here.

Try again.

I see you too, know how to get him going. It is fun to watch and easy to start. It does get boring quickly though. One trick ponies are like that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We talking about the environment and you wanna talk about superheros. But hey go for it, no skin off my back.

Then tell us about the environment, being it is so dear to you and you are so much more knowledgeable on the subject than Bill Nye. No one is holding you back. No one is making you provide irrational, emotional responses to the posts of others. Oh, that is right. You are dead calm even as I type this. No emotions for you. Pure Vulcan all the way.

Anyway, what do you have to say about the environment and those that see the evidence indicating human-induced change?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no conversation. You want to talk about superheros and I don't care for it. End of story.

Once again you demonstrated that you cannot follow a conversation. Let's try to keep this about AGW, do you think that you can do that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And you are the one that cannot follow a conversation. We know who is projecting here.

Try again.

I occasionally just get on and read posts without responding. I have noticed certain posters for their responses, styles, what they use for evidence, how and if at all, and how quickly they turn to ad hominem fallacies. There are several that have a particular style that is all emotional and with little substance. It is based on the adherence to an ideology and not on any compelling evidence. The posters appear easily upset and quick to turn on others when confronted with the facts. He was one of those. He very quickly breaks down into editorial sound bytes and comments from his negative feelings about anyone that disagrees with him. He loses the plot quickly. You will be familiar with this, having encountered it in so many creationists.

 

[Enoch07]

Once again you demonstrated that you cannot follow a conversation. Let's try to keep this about AGW, do you think that you can do that?

 

[Enoch07]

Anyway, what do you have to say about the environment and those that see the evidence indicating human-induced change?

Try post #9.

Ty

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's a biased message though.

The data is inconclusive. It's a highly debate topic within the scientific community. Some people run one way with and some the other based on the political views. But the data its self in inconclusive from an objective point of view.

The climate is changing that there is no doubt. What inconclusive is to why exactly. Humans have had an effect there is no doubt. And we should look for sustainable, renewable, energy, and products to cut back on pollution. But all this fear mongering we gonna die in 10 years etc is just that. People letting fear take hold of them and then they spread it.

In the meantime everyone needs to help out with the aforementioned measures, while we determine what more if anythin g can be done.

So you agree with Bill Nye. Strange. I got the impression that you did not. Congratulations. I did not think you capable of providing rational responses, considering all your posts that are just nasty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a biased message though.

The data is inconclusive. It's a highly debate topic within the scientific community. Some people run one way with and some the other based on the political views. But the data its self in inconclusive from an objective point of view.

The climate is changing that there is no doubt. What inconclusive is to why exactly. Humans have had an effect there is no doubt. And we should look for sustainable, renewable, energy, and products to cut back on pollution. But all this fear mongering we gonna die in 10 years etc is just that. People letting fear take hold of them and then they spread it.

In the meantime everyone needs to help out with the aforementioned measures, while we determine what more if anythin g can be done.

Have to edit this. I thought from the start that you were another denier.

So why the hatred of Bill?

 

[Enoch07]

So you agree with Bill Nye. Strange. I got the impression that you did not. Congratulations. I did not think you capable of providing rational responses, considering all your posts that are just nasty.

I agree we need to change stuff yes. I just disagree with the fear mongering part. What Bill Nye did was the equivalent of a preacher thumping someone on the head with a bible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you see carbon dioxide as a pollutant? Is it really wise to try to limit carbon dioxide in light of species extinction, especially in regards to plants? (If your patient is under stress, then the last thing you want to do is cut off the breathing supply. Just sayin') There are other pollutants we should be focusing on, imo.

I think it's a matter of ironing out what's man-made carbon versus what natural produced carbon is.

You're right though, there are other pollutants which is why I support technology that minimizes its impacts.

Sometimes with enough work I think you can have your cake and eat it too in some capacity. Eventually.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree we need to change stuff yes. I just disagree with the fear mongering part. What Bill Nye did was the equivalent of a preacher thumping someone on the head with a bible.

Okay, this was from a comedy show. Did you watch the full video that I posted? It mixes reality with humor. It is trying to get the point across in another fashion. You can't take one bit of a show out of context. The point of the whole show was that it is not too late yet. Do you need a link to the show that this came from so that you can see it in context?

 

[Enoch07]

But you are wrong. The data is clear. What is debated is how much global warming there is going to be, not whether man is the cause of it or not. And no one seems to think that it will be a good thing. Do you think that there is a serious debate against AGW today?

Incorrect, the earth has always warmed and cooled naturally. Granted we have sped that up, but even if we could somehow negate all our pollution and reverse the effects instantly. There is no guarantee the earth wouldn't continue to warm as it has naturally throughout history.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree we need to change stuff yes. I just disagree with the fear mongering part. What Bill Nye did was the equivalent of a preacher thumping someone on the head with a bible.

That is your opinion of what he did. I do not have that same opinion. He used humor to illustrate a point that all the evidence indicates is taking place. He followed it up with the fact that doing something about it has a cost. He did not specifically mention the cost of not doing something about it. That was illustrated by the burning globe.

Increasing our population will only exacerbate the problem. I do not think that U.S. Americans and the Chinese are going to go extinct if they reduce reproduction.

I do find it humorous that you hold an opinion that others are claiming the sky is falling over climate change and then have an opinion that we are going to go extinct if we do not start shooting out babies. Oh, the irony.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Incorrect, the earth has always warmed and cooled naturally. Granted we have sped that up, but even if we could somehow negate all our pollution and reverse the effects instantly. There is no guarantee the earth wouldn't continue to warm as it has naturally throughout history.

So, it is better to do nothing. That sort of contradicts your call to action with alternative energy.

 

[Enoch07]

So why the hatred of Bill?

I don't hate him. Matter of fact I grew up loving the man. I used to watch his show on PBS everday after school, all the way up to my teens.

I just think he biased and doesn't look at data as objectively as he should is all. I think he's betrayed his objectivity to gain the favor of "hollywood" so that he can have shows and earn a living etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it's a matter of ironing out what's man-made carbon versus what natural produced carbon is.

You're right though, there are other pollutants which is why I support technology that minimizes its impacts.

Sometimes with enough work I think you can have your cake and eat it too in some capacity. Eventually.

We can measure what is man-made CO2 versus natural. Fossil fuels have a different ratio of C12/C13 than fossil fuels do. As a result we can see that the increase in CO2 is due to human and not natural events. We are the cause of the rise in CO2, there is no doubt of that. We are the cause of AGW. Do you need any links on how and why the different ratios exist? If not I can explain it to you. Plants and other life take in C12 slightly better than C13. Both are non-radioactive in case you were wondering. As a result fossil fuels are C12 rich. And as we burn more and more fossil fuels the percentage of C12 has been rising:

The Smoking Gun of Global Warming - Planet Experts

 

[Twilight Hue]

I agree we need to change stuff yes. I just disagree with the fear mongering part. What Bill Nye did was the equivalent of a preacher thumping someone on the head with a bible.

I really like Bill Nye even though he a proponent of ecological 'Nazism'.

I just wish he would use more down-to-earth examples to back up his addressing issues as to opposed to hyperbole and alarmist style pronouncements.

Something which environmentalists rarely address but interesting all the same as it applies to climate changes.......

Namely from Washington University here who are addressing things that climate change proponents omits from their predictive modeling. ...

High CO2 levels cause plants to thicken their leaves, which could worsen climate change effects, researchers say


You have to have all the pieces before you put the jigsaw puzzle together to get the whole picture.

No please excuse me, I'm going to go out in my backyard and measure the thickness of the leaves to see for myself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't hate him. Matter of fact I grew up loving the man. I used to watch his show on PBS everdya after school, all the way up to my teens.

I just think he biased and doesn't look at data as objectively as he should is all. I think he's betrayed his objectivity to gain the favor of "hollywood" so that he can have shows and earn a living etc.

He discusses the mater both seriously and dramatically. In the show he was used as a bit of spice. You can't go by just this excerpt. He does not just preach doom and gloom, he does point out that there are solutions.

 

[Enoch07]

Increasing our population will only exacerbate the problem. I do not think that U.S. Americans and the Chinese are going to go extinct if they reduce reproduction.

The data says otherwise.

U.S. Births Fell To A 32-Year Low In 2018; CDC Says Birthrate Is In Record Slump

Without more people to replace the current ones there will be no one to solve the pollution problems. Economies will crash, civil unrest, and possibly war(s).

How Low Population Growth Is Posing Challenges to Advanced Countries