• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who will pay for Climate Change?

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
xBiffx said:
user6133_pic34477_1326494238.jpg
Click to expand...

This is the kind of reply I always expect, you have your belief and you can't defend it. You try to, shown are wrong over and over again with no change in belief. I have shown you why you are wrong many times you then are unable to defend yourself. You continue to use the same illogical argument over and over again while not trying to understand why you are incorrect. I have looked at my views, I have changed many of them as I have learned more about these subjects.

There are plenty of good things to discuss on the reality of man made climate change, what you are trying to argue is not one of them. Considering the questions you pose trying to disprove man made climate change, your dispersion of scientific theories,... I can only conclude you have no knowledge on the subject and are unwilling to learn or change your beliefs, but you are unwilling to see this.

These tactics are the same as people who attack evolution, while showing they have no knowledge on the subject.
 
*THEORY

*1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

*2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

*3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

*4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

*5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

*6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).
xBiffx said:
Perhaps you need to brush up on scientific theory and the word theory. Climate change isn't a scientific theory, its just a theory.

Here, this might help.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
Click to expand...
 
You have yet to be able to defend anything you have said, how about instead of trying to convince people of your beliefs. You look at the science and try to actually learn about climate change, where the different parts come from and why we are seeing what we are seeing now. Until you do this and are ready to have a rational argument, there is no point to even talking to you since you have no evidence to back up your beliefs.
 
Paul98 said:
You have yet to be able to defend anything you have said, how about instead of trying to convince people of your beliefs. You look at the science and try to actually learn about climate change, where the different parts come from and why we are seeing what we are seeing now. Until you do this and are ready to have a rational argument, there is no point to even talking to you since you have no evidence to back up your beliefs.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how he thinks he can make claims against the science without offering supporting evidence to back his claims. But professional contrarians are nothing new and sadly their voices are louder than over 90% of scientists who agree on climate change.
 
Paul98 said:
You have yet to be able to defend anything you have said, how about instead of trying to convince people of your beliefs. You look at the science and try to actually learn about climate change, where the different parts come from and why we are seeing what we are seeing now. Until you do this and are ready to have a rational argument, there is no point to even talking to you since you have no evidence to back up your beliefs.
Click to expand...

user6133_pic34477_1326494238.jpg
 
xBiffx said:
At least you've admitted this is theory now. Its what I've been saying all along. None of this is proven, none of it is fact. I don't think we should be making policy based on theory. That's been my point the whole time. Thanks for finally conceding that.
Click to expand...

This is just pathetic. I sure hope nobody from your work saw this. Especially if you are passing yourself off as a chemical engineer.

This is the same bullshit used by:
Anti-vaxxers
Young Earth Creationists
Anti-GMO granola types


And now
xBiffx

I wasn't aware Bob Jones U had an engineering program.
 
Paratus said:
This is just pathetic. I sure hope nobody from your work saw this. Especially if you are passing yourself off as a chemical engineer.

This is the same bullshit used by:
Anti-vaxxers
Young Earth Creationists
Anti-GMO granola types


And now
xBiffx

I wasn't aware Bob Jones U had an engineering program.
Click to expand...

Actually, my boss is rather entertained by this conversation.

Try again.

At least we have the three stooges back together.
 
xBiffx said:
Actually, my boss is rather entertained by this conversation.

Try again.

At least we have the three stooges back together.
Click to expand...

No dude, you've proved your point.

You aren't interested in the topic.

You don't understand the topic.

You don't understand science in general.


And in this case it doesn't matter. You'll get to pay for it one way or another.

But damn did I get a good laugh out of reading your posts. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Paratus said:
No dude, you've proved your point.

You aren't interested in the topic.

You don't understand the topic.

You don't understand science in general.


And in this case it doesn't matter. You'll get to pay for it one way or another.

But damn did I get a good laugh out of reading your posts. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Forgot to mention, boss especially loves it when you try to compare dicks. It cracks him the hell up.
 
xBiffx said:
Forgot to mention, boss especially loves it when you try to compare dicks. It cracks him the hell up.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure if your boss is asking you to whip it out you may want to talk to HR.

It's ok to be a grower and not a show-er. :thumbsup:
 
1. I'm still not convinced that man has much of anything to do with global climate change, and I feel that most of the "science" behind all of the predictions and modeling is based on fudged numbers.

I wouldn't even call their results "theories." I think "guesses" would be a much more accurate description...

2. I'm also not convinced that man can do anything to stop it, or even slow it down -- regardless of the cause, and especially since the US appears to be the only nation playing that game.
 
Last edited:
palehorse said:
2. I'm also not convinced that man can do anything to stop it, or even slow it down -- regardless of the cause, and especially since the US appears to be the only nation playing that game.
Click to expand...

Yeah... who is going to pay for it?

Fun little thing to consider. Our population doubles in the next 50 years, but you cut our per-person emissions in half. Massive assault on our way of life. Net result? Climate still changes.

It must be absolute murder of the Industrial Era, or their doom and gloom will still happen.

Who is willing to pay that price? The REAL price needed to end CO2 emissions?
 
Jaskalas said:
Yeah... who is going to pay for it?

Fun little thing to consider. Our population doubles in the next 50 years, but you cut our per-person emissions in half. Massive assault on our way of life. Net result? Climate still changes.

It must be absolute murder of the Industrial Era, or their doom and gloom will still happen.

Who is willing to pay that price? The REAL price needed to end CO2 emissions?
Click to expand...

Don't even think its going to take 50 years. The obvious answer is to stop having children (or at least multiple children). The earth is already beyond its capacity and we think nothing of it. Having children is some sort of right and bears no responsibility other than what's on the surface. Honestly, anyone who brings a child into the world today is borderline insane.

Its convenient to blame big business when in reality, its individuals that are going to be the real problem. That's the price that has to be paid. Choosing to be responsible with your reproduction.
 
palehorse said:
1. I'm still not convinced that man has much of anything to do with global climate change, and I feel that most of the "science" behind all of the predictions and modeling is based on fudged numbers.

I wouldn't even call their results "theories." I think "guesses" would be a much more accurate description...

2. I'm also not convinced that man can do anything to stop it, or even slow it down -- regardless of the cause, and especially since the US appears to be the only nation playing that game.
Click to expand...

eqprp.jpg
 
xBiffx said:
Don't even think its going to take 50 years. The obvious answer is to stop having children (or at least multiple children). The earth is already beyond its capacity and we think nothing of it. Having children is some sort of right and bears no responsibility other than what's on the surface. Honestly, anyone who brings a child into the world today is borderline insane.

Its convenient to blame big business when in reality, its individuals that are going to be the real problem. That's the price that has to be paid. Choosing to be responsible with your reproduction.
Click to expand...

This will never happen. Our southern border being locked down in Reality will happen long before this ever is even a serious suggestion, much less an enacted Reality.

You would be endangering the base of both political parties, and, like the illegal invasion, they will do everything (even/especially if that includes doing nothing) to keep the status quo going.
 
Climate change is real. The earth has been both colder (Ice Age) and hotter (Permian Era) than has ever been seen in human existence. This is a natural and cyclical phenomenon.

So my suggestion is why don't all of you who think a tax will stop this just send me a check for what you believe is the required dollar amount. I can guarantee I will use it as effectively as .gov.

BTW Scientists say evidence exists that ocean temperatures could have been as high as 104 degrees Fahrenheit during the Permian Era. And yet (some forum members here not with standing) the earth still supports life.
 
Yes its real, the argument is that its either man made or not
If its man made then we also change our impact. We built our cities and infrastructure around a certain climate, weather and water patterns. If it changes too much too fast it will outstrip our ability to adapt much less nature.
Collapse of our eco systems are what we are hoping to avoid if models do indicate what is potentially happening.
If its wrong and its not our problem we are just along for the ride but that doesn't seem to be the case based on observational evidence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top