OT When NY is underwater

[MarAzul]

And since it's important to you I made sure to like your post.

Good dog!
But that hardly explains the synergy.

 

[MarAzul]

im glad we can agree on something!

Snark or Smarm?

 

[Denny Crane]

So you believe that we are no longer harming our environment?

And on top of that you believe that scientists were correct about CFC but wrong on CO2? And you're basing this on people who believe that cigarette smoking isn't harmful?

You says stupid things and want to attribute them to me.

We can harm the environment.

Fuck the scientists, they have agendas. How about the science?

The science says CFCs deplete ozone, which may not be bad in itself in small quantities - but the reaction is one that is like a chain reaction, where a little CFCs destroy a massive amount of ozone. Chemistry is chemistry, no matter how someone tries to spin it, the rules don't change.

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole_SH.html

This long lifetime allows some of the CFCs to eventually reach the stratosphere. In the stratosphere, ultraviolet light breaks the bond holding chlorine atoms (Cl) to the CFC molecule. A free chlorine atom goes on to participate in a series of chemical reactions that both destroy ozone and return the free chlorine atom to the atmosphere unchanged, where it can destroy more and more ozone molecules​

CFCs are poison. CO2 is not.

If you care about CO2, stop breathing.

Seriously.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You says stupid things and want to attribute them to me.

No, I'm just trying figure out where you really stand and what you really believe.

You're one of the smartest people on here but you will quote things you know is not right or accurate just to argue. It's strange.

 

[MarAzul]

but you will quote things you know is not right or accurate just to argue.

Whoa!

 

[Denny Crane]

No, I'm just trying figure out where you really stand and what you really believe.

You're one of the smartest people on here but you will quote things you know is not right or accurate just to argue. It's strange.

I quote things that support my arguments. I don't argue from ignorance.

 

[Denny Crane]

NY Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html

Last October, the Pew Research Center published a survey on the politics of climate change. Among its findings: Just 36 percent of Americans care “a great deal” about the subject. Despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, politicians and activists to raise the alarm, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity.

Why? The science is settled. The threat is clear. Isn’t this one instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument?

Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://issues.org/32-2/my-climate-change/

He writes the Doe Earth Blog for the New York Times, a climate reporter for decades.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I quote things that support my arguments. I don't argue from ignorance.

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? Just you saying:

Fuck the scientists

If you care about CO2, stop breathing.

CFCs are poison. CO2 is not.

Means you don't understand basic biology and chemistry. And I know you do.

Seriously Denny, read through this thread. When backed into a corner you finally admit that humans can have a harmful impact on the environment. But then you say the only harm we can do is CFC. That is silly and sad.

 

[MarAzul]

But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

I enjoy talking with some of the one's learning their trade these days. It's really fun listening to their answers to question.
Had a chat with three resent grads from the Marine Biology lab in Charleston a few years back.
I asked about the problems of Hatchery raised Salmon.
Genetically inferior.
How so?
Too many generation of inbreeding and the weak surviving.... .
How did this happen so quickly?
I didn't happen quickly, it happen over many generations.
Really! Geez I think I caught the first of the Native fish to be spawned to raise the first crop at the Marion forks Hatcher. Wasn't that the first of the Salmon Hatcheries in Oregon?
When was this?
1952.
Three young Scientist looking at each other...
It seems they learned the jargon, perhaps not the history.

By the way, the State paid minimum wage for the work, 75 cents and hour as I recall.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

NY Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html

Last October, the Pew Research Center published a survey on the politics of climate change. Among its findings: Just 36 percent of Americans care “a great deal” about the subject. Despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, politicians and activists to raise the alarm, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity.

Why? The science is settled. The threat is clear. Isn’t this one instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument?

Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

Instead of quoting only the parts mentioned on Reddit's The_Donald you should read that entire piece. Especially the most important part when it says, " interested in having a reasoned conversation about it."

That's your problem, as smart as you are you've become so insecure that there is no reason and no interest in having a conversation about anything. You use bad science and quotes to try and prove overly simplistic points not to learn or discuss but to win.

 

[MarAzul]

humans can have a harmful impact on the environment.

How many does it take to have a meaningful negative impact? You know, enough to grab your attention?

 

[rasheedfan2005]

im a fan of solar power, not because i think humans are causing global warming, but because ultimately it is needed for space exploration. Making it better and more affordable is just step 1 until star trek.

 

[MARIS61]

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sinking-atlantic-coastline-meets-rapidly-rising-seas-20247

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sinking-atlantic-coastline-meets-rapidly-rising-seas/

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRD/GPS/Projects/CB/SEALEVEL/sealevel.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/13/its_not_just_sea_level_rise_the_east_coast_is_sinking_too/

 

[Denny Crane]

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? Just you saying:







Means you don't understand basic biology and chemistry. And I know you do.

Seriously Denny, read through this thread. When backed into a corner you finally admit that humans can have a harmful impact on the environment. But then you say the only harm we can do is CFC. That is silly and sad.

Scientists aren't science they're people.

Science is H2O = water, you cannot deny that. Scientists are "we invented the atom bomb and now we have all sorts of feelings of guilt."

I've always said humans can pollute and effect the climate. CFCs are an example I've used probably a dozen times here.

You repeatedly put words in my mouth and attribute things I don't say to me. Things like "the only harm we can do is CFC." Where did I say "the only harm" ?

Seriously, I meant if you have a problem with CO2, stop breathing. You are polluting (LOL) and it's not poison because it's in your body, you produce it, as does every living animal.

I think the one that doesn't understand science and biology is you. You are a sucker to believe the people claiming science or some special knowledge they can only possess. I look to the facts, the H20 = water rules.

 

[Denny Crane]

Instead of quoting only the parts mentioned on Reddit's The_Donald you should read that entire piece. Especially the most important part when it says, " interested in having a reasoned conversation about it."

That's your problem, as smart as you are you've become so insecure that there is no reason and no interest in having a conversation about anything. You use bad science and quotes to try and prove overly simplistic points not to learn or discuss but to win.

I don't read reddit except for two subreddits: /r/lupus and /r/keto. And not very often.

When faced with even the left most leaning NYT article, your approach is to ignore what it says and make personal attacks on me.

I respond in kind, fool.

As I've written before, the scientists are people with agendas.

The climate writer for the NYT for decades admits it.

You = head in sand.

As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” ​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Revkin