I am glad to see I am not the only one eliciting emotional responses from men on this website.
: D
Spurlock, I asked you a reasonable question as to whether you thought CO2 was different coming from life or from industry, because it appeared in your post that you were thinking that.
It’s your problem that you took an attitude about it and that you consider that the question implies that you are a retard. It does not.
You’ve shown plainly in your followups that you do think there is a difference, though you can’t put your finger on it. And of course not, because there is no method that can measure a difference.
The government demands that everyone stop exhaling at once.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You’ve shown plainly in your followups that you do think there is a difference, though you can’t put your finger on it. And of course not, because there is no objective method that can measure a difference.[/quote]
This is the problem though. You think that ‘objective’ measurement is the only way to see the world. Objective to whom? You? I don’t see the world this way.
Besides, what do you have to exclude from studies in order to make them fit your parameters (I’m speaking generally now)?
Morals?
Prejudices?
Intellectual blindspots?
Co-factors?
Synergistic effects?
Different locations? Etc. Etc. Etc.
I feel that if you look at results of something, then you have a better idea of the effects of that something. It’s obviously not as precise as one would like it to be, but neither is ‘objective’ measurement.
The question then becomes, what are the effects of civilization (which is only about 6,000 years old)?
Was the air cleaner? Is it now?
Were the lakes, streams, rivers and oceans clean and fecund? Are they now?
What did the land-base look like prior? What does it look like now?
Was the food supply centralized, toxic, being extirpated by the hour and mostly domesticated? Is it now?
I could go on all day with these questions, but the point that I’m trying to make has little to do with CO2 in specific (especially when we’re talking about its role in the government and media’s global warming). I’m looking at the bigger picture here.
When it was just humans and non-humans living on this planet, did they have the problems directly related to industry/technology that we have now?
[quote]spurlock wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You’ve shown plainly in your followups that you do think there is a difference, though you can’t put your finger on it. And of course not, because there is no objective method that can measure a difference.[/quote]
This is the problem though. You think that ‘objective’ measurement is the only way to see the world. Objective to whom? You? I don’t see the world this way.
Besides, what do you have to exclude from studies in order to make them fit your parameters (I’m speaking generally now)?
Morals?
Co-factors?
Synergistic effects?
Different locations? Etc. Etc. Etc.
I feel that if you look at results of something, then you have a better idea of the effects of that something. It’s obviously not as precise as one would like it to be, but neither is ‘objective’ measurement.
The question then becomes, what are the effects of civilization (which is only about 6,000 years old)?
Was the air cleaner? Is it now?
Were the lakes, streams, rivers and oceans clean and fecund? Are they now?
What did the land-base look like prior? What does it look like now?
Was the food supply centralized, toxic, being extirpated by the hour and mostly domesticated? Is it now?
I could go on all day with these questions, but the point that I’m trying to make has little to do with CO2 in specific (especially when we’re talking about its role in the government and media’s global warming). I’m looking at the bigger picture here.
When it was just humans and non-humans living on this planet, did they have the problems directly related to industry/technology that we have now?[/quote]
If I cared I would highlight the sentences that make you sound like a fool. Hopefully in a few years you can come back and find them yourself.
It really sounds like you just hate capitalism. However, I cannot tell and unlike the rest of these fellows on here that have let us know their bias, you seem to just evade communicating what you mean and act like a child.
The Federal Government’s attempt to make the U.S. green, recycle, et cetera wastes money and hurts the environment.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…
[/quote]
Once again you can not prove that CO2 does anything. All the science that supported the sky is falling is now been proven to be junk.[/quote]
…that isn’t my point, obviously. Let’s assume for a moment that what our industries produce in terms of pollutants is a drop in a vast system that’s built to deal with said pollutants. Tear down the system’s ability to deal with the pollutants, and your royally screwed…
…should we continue to destroy eco systems, kill waterways and entire coastal regions? Should we clearcut, not only the rainforests of South America, Africa and Indonesia, but also the arboreal forests of Russia and Canada?
…should we do nothing at all because all is fine, or should we at least try to do something since we’re undermining our planet’s ability to cleans itself?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If I cared I would highlight the sentences that make you sound like a fool. Hopefully in a few years you can come back and find them yourself.
It really sounds like you just hate capitalism. However, I cannot tell and unlike the rest of these fellows on here that have let us know their bias, you seem to just evade communicating what you mean and act like a child.
The Federal Government’s attempt to make the U.S. green, recycle, et cetera wastes money and hurts the environment.
Three Myths about Trash | Mises Institute [/quote]
Civilization does not = The U.S./Capitalism (besides that is most definitely NOT what the economy is, it’s like saying that the U.S. is a democracy). Civilization is 6,000 years or so old, of which, the U.S. is simply a part of. I hate civilization and the culture that produced and sustains it (which, sadly, includes myself).
I am not evading communicating my beliefs. I just may not be articulating them well enough. This is my failure…not yours or anyone else’s.
And the ‘Green’ you speak of that’s being advocated is something I most definitely hate. It’s ridiculous to think that if I buy an electric/hybrid/hydrogen-powered vehicle that I will be saving the planet. Or that I will contribute to the reduction of fossil fuel usage or reduce the levels of pollution by doing so.
It’s also equally ridiculous to believe that if I recycle or stop using hot water for showers or switch to solar power…or any of the other non-sustainable, non-solutions to the problem, that I would be saving the planet. For Christsake, the majority of power and water usage is by industry and municipalities…my drop in the ocean won’t change anything.
By the way, you saying that you can make me look like a fool is just a childish way of saying that you don’t agree. Do you really think anything you post here is going to cause some ‘giant epiphany’ in my life? Do you think I come here to learn (other than CT’s subforums)?
[quote]spurlock wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You’ve shown plainly in your followups that you do think there is a difference, though you can’t put your finger on it. And of course not, because there is no objective method that can measure a difference.[/quote]
This is the problem though. You think that ‘objective’ measurement is the only way to see the world. Objective to whom? You? I don’t see the world this way.
[/quote]
Yes, you see the world in a way where your system has it that you cannot be wrong.
E.g., you can claim that CO2 is different when from one source than from another, and are completely unbothered about having no means or even the slightest idea of a means of ever factually detecting a difference.
It’s no problem to you that no difference can be shown: you’re still correct that there is (allegedly) a difference.
Incidentally, I didn’t really say exactly what I meant when I said objective method. What I meant was anything that could be verified as differing in accuracy from pure guessing. I was not making a distinction between subjective methods that might be better than guessing: that doesn’t exist either.
Molecules of the same structure have no difference from each other based on origin. None has ever been shown in the history of mankind. I appreciate that that does not bother you, that you believe in asserting undetectable alleged differences with not even a theory as to how the molecules could “keep track” of their origin or undergo chemical reactions or any physical process differently on account of it. End of subject. I grant that you will not agree with this – you believe in alleged difference you can’t put your finger on – but that doesn’t speak as to the facts of the matter.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]spurlock wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You’ve shown plainly in your followups that you do think there is a difference, though you can’t put your finger on it. And of course not, because there is no objective method that can measure a difference.[/quote]
This is the problem though. You think that ‘objective’ measurement is the only way to see the world. Objective to whom? You? I don’t see the world this way.
[/quote]
Yes, you see the world in a way where your system has it that you cannot be wrong.
E.g., you can claim that CO2 is different when from one source than from another, and are completely unbothered about having no means or even the slightest idea of a means of ever factually detecting a difference.
It’s no problem to you that no difference can be shown: you’re still correct that there is (allegedly) a difference.
Incidentally, I didn’t really say exactly what I meant when I said objective method. What I meant was anything that could be verified as differing in accuracy from pure guessing. I was not making a distinction compared to subjective methods that might be better than guessing: those doesn’t exist either.
Molecules of the same structure have no difference from each other based on origin. None has ever been shown in the history of mankind. I appreciate that that does not bother you, that you you believe in asserting undetectable alleged differences with not even a theory as to how the molecules could “keep track” of their origin or undergo chemical reactions or any physical process differently on account of it. End of subject. I grant that you will not agree with this – you believe in the alleged difference you can’t put your finger on – but that doesn’t speak as to the facts of the matter.[/quote]
Urrr…I wish we could just talk over beers…I do much better at explaining myself in actual conversation (even if the other person thinks I’m nuts).
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…
[/quote]
Once again you can not prove that CO2 does anything.[/quote]
It’s a greenhouse gas.[/quote]
And what does it do? We can see it doesn’t raise temperatures because if it did the “scientists” wouldn’t have had to create a bunch of fake data.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you’re denying. Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That it asorbs and re-emitts radiation? If we can’t deny that, then we know it has an effect. And, if we know we contribute CO2…
Higher life forms have benefited from this effect, really. It wouldn’t be nearly as cozy a planet if you were correct. The real question is if we humans, with our cleverness and industry, are capable of freeing up enough CO2 (amongst other contributions) to make life rather unpleasant on the whole. But, to say CO2 has no effect? I think the argument is lost right there.
Can it trend colder while CO2 levels rise? Sure, makes sense to me. I don’t think greenhouse gases are the only factor. But, I don’t think anyone claims such a thing. However, might it’ve been colder? When it trends warmer, will it be even warmer? Not to mention the debate over the existence of a cooling trend from 1998, as we always hear about.
I wouldn’t call myself an enviromentalist, for sure. Far too much leap before you look going on in that camp. Maybe a conservationist suits better. So, while I’m skeptical, I’m not a denier. I am very skeptical of how much we contribute (not that we don’t), and what we’d actually be able to do about a long term warming trend in the present, without bringing economic harm to ourselves.
Well, you know, your position is not unusual.
There are very many people, for example in alternative health things, that all the time claim and believe in differences or effects that cannot be detected and therefore never have been, and this doesn’t bother them in the slightest.
For example, a massage therapist will tell you how the reason massage is helpful after exercise is that it works the lactic acid out of the muscles.
Now, this would be something that if true could be detected. It isn’t true, and the statement is not based on it ever having been shown to be true. But it FEELS true. (Mentally speaking.) And the person doesn’t work on the basis of actually needing facts that show a thing to be true. It’s sufficient that others have said it and that it feels right.
Even moreso it is psychologically natural to consider substances to differ from each other according to their origin. It is in fact true for complex substances, as they in fact will differ.
It is not true for atoms or molecules, however.
However I wouldn’t doubt that you’ve read many sources, as most people have, claiming for example nutrient molecules to be “dead” or to have “bioenergy” according to their source. So to use your example, the methylcobalamin in Competing Brand X is “dead” and useless to the body, whereas Homeopathy Supreme Brand methylcobalamin is infused with “bioenergy,” having been produced by living organisms.
With both companies buying material been produced in the same way, perhaps even by the same company, but the first brand is owned by corporate types and therefore the product is evil whereas the second brand has a picture on the label of a kindly old man with a long beard and twinkling eyes, who would never put dead molecules in your product.
The point of that being, the claim that molecules differ according to the source is very widespread and undoubtedly you’ve seen it said countless times. And perhaps never before have you see it said that it is fact-free: no difference of any kind has ever been detected in molecules of the same structure depending on their origin.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, you know, your position is not unusual.
There are very many people, for example in alternative health things, that all the time claim and believe in differences or effects that cannot be detected and therefore never have been, and this doesn’t bother them in the slightest.
For example, a massage therapist will tell you how the reason massage is helpful after exercise is that it works the lactic acid out of the muscles.
Now, this would be something that if true could be detected. It isn’t true, and the statement is not based on it ever having been shown to be true. But it FEELS true. (Mentally speaking.) And the person doesn’t work on the basis of actually needing facts that show a thing to be true. It’s sufficient that others have said it and that it feels right.
Even moreso it is psychologically natural to consider substances to differ from each other according to their origin. It is in fact true for complex substances, as they in fact will differ.
It is not true for atoms or molecules, however.[/quote]
It’s not that I think that my beliefs cannot be challanged and overcome…it happens all of the time.
Hmmm…now I’m thinking of a better way to get this across the web. I’ll ask a question, maybe your answer will help you see where I’m coming from and what I’m getting at.
Do you think that C02 emmisions, in specific; or any industrial emmissions, in general are good for the ecological health of the surrounding land-base? Not, is it not going to immediately kill the surrounding land-base. This can be debated forever. But, is it beneficial to the land, air and water in its vicinity?
There would be a point where the sum is excessive and deleterious. But as to whether a given number of tons breathed out by life forms or emitted from industrial processes differ in effect according to source, no.
I need to qualify the “deleterious” statement.
Deleterious relative to maintaining status quo in all regards.
Not however deleterious, for example, to plants; and the Earth has in the past had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now with life overall flourishing quite well.
But with not everything remaining the same.
And on the “good” question: Is it good for the land and the sea for people to be on the Internet? I doubt that any good in that regard can be shown. So should we shut down the Internet?
Whether we ought to do so or not should more reasonably be based on what harm it might be doing and if ending that harm would be worth the cost.
So far, the estimate even from the AGW crowd is that man has increased the temperature of the Earth by some fraction of a degree. And that is on the assumption that man has generated the entirety of the increase.
Yes, they have their beloved “tipping point” theory where just a leeeeeetle bit more increase will result in a runaway disaster, but to say that this is unproven is being really, really generous.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
There would be a point where the sum is excessive and deleterious. But as to whether a given number of tons breathed out by life forms or emitted from industrial processes differ in effect according to source, no.[/quote]
I feel like we are getting somewhere! That’s what I’m getting at. Only I don’t see the distinction between excessive/deleterious and some subjective amount that is deemed ‘o.k.’ This is why I say they are ‘different’ than normal breathing from life forms. It’s not so much the structural difference or molecular difference as it is the difference of naturally occurring byproducts of life (which the local land-base can easily accommodate…and welcomes) and unnaturally occurring byproducts of civilization (which the local land-base cannot use/eliminate/detoxify/etc in a sustainable way).
There really isn’t a local aspect with regard to CO2. Unlike for example smog, it doesn’t build up in an area.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Not however deleterious, for example, to plants; and the Earth has in the past had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now with life overall flourishing quite well.[/quote]
My typical concern isn’t as abstract as the planet/the earth/mother nature. I’m usually more concerned whether local land-bases can sustain themselves under their current conditions. Just in the Billings area we have three refineries, one coal plant and two waste-water treatment centers all along the Yellowstone River. Is this not insane? I’ve actually seen (and smelled) the groundwater that is going into the river…let me just put it this way: don’t light a match.
[quote]
And on the “good” question: Is it good for the land and the sea for people to be on the Internet? I doubt that any good in that regard can be shown. So should we shut down the Internet?
Whether we ought to do so or not should more reasonably be based on what harm it might be doing and if ending that harm would be worth the cost.[/quote]
If it isn’t beneficial to the local land-base, the cost-to-benefit ratio is irrelevant. Sure, the net is neato, but if it were gone tomorrow (along with industrial/agricultural/technological civ.), I would go back to what I did as a kid on the Yellowstone and the surrounding area (provided I survived).
If a technology is detrimental to the local area, it will eventually lead to ecological collapse (whether now or later).
[quote]
So far, the estimate even from the AGW crowd is that man has increased the temperature of the Earth by some fraction of a degree. And that is on the assumption that man has generated the entirety of the increase.
Yes, they have their beloved “tipping point” theory where just a leeeeeetle bit more increase will result in a runaway disaster, but to say that this is unproven is being really, really generous.[/quote]
As far as global warming (and CO2 in specific)…as I have stated before, I’m not really as concerned about it. There is too much debate amongst those with assumed power to really prove one way or the other in the mass of the population. And even if it is in its runaway mode, there isn’t an awful lot we can do about it now.
I’m more concerned with things we can easily show that are so overwhelmingly shocking, that if we were to focus more on those aspects of the effects of civ., I think we’d start having better conversations about how to bring it down with as little damage as possible (not that I’m naive enough to ever believe that will happen).
I think global warming is a scam too as a lot of this environmental act bullcrap.
While we keep finding ways to shut down our own industry to protect the environment, we will have to rely on buying goods from other countries that don’t have any environmental laws.
I don’t want to drill for oil in our country because I don’t want to kill the polar bears. Instead I’m going to buy my oil from other countries that have no environment protection regulations for 5x the cost. Who cares more more about the environment again?
[quote]spurlock wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And on the “good” question: Is it good for the land and the sea for people to be on the Internet? I doubt that any good in that regard can be shown. So should we shut down the Internet?
Whether we ought to do so or not should more reasonably be based on what harm it might be doing and if ending that harm would be worth the cost.[/quote]
If it isn’t beneficial to the local land-base, the cost-to-benefit ratio is irrelevant.[/quote]
Since you’re saying it again even after I made a point of it, your standard then is that a thing man is doing must be beneficial to the environment or it should not be done: the cost-benefit ratio is irrelevant.
Is the Internet beneficial to the environment? I can think of no positive benefit. Shut it down then.
Is your daughter skipping rope out in the yard beneficial to the environment? I can’t think of how. Stop her immediately.
Your standard is the most unreasonably strict I’ve ever seen.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The point of that being, the claim that molecules differ according to the source is very widespread and undoubtedly you’ve seen it said countless times. And perhaps never before have you see it said that it is fact-free: no difference of any kind has ever been detected in molecules of the same structure depending on their origin.[/quote]
What about molecules that have been created from different isotopes of the same constituent atoms? These would be different sources, with different molecular properties.