[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
The only system that can be considered closed is one in which every possible external variable can be removed or canceled out. Like bubble boy.[/quote]
holy shit how did you get to smart 
[/quote]
Your perception of my intelligence is inversely proportional to the amount of THC levels in your blood.
[/quote]
then you would be nonexistent
I donât know who is high and who isnât, but many people here seem to confuse a closed system and an isolated system.
Not exactly the same thing in thermodynamics : a closed system can and often will exchange energy in / energy out.
thanks Kamui
[quote]Krinks wrote:
How about this. If 99.9% of people agree with a thing that means nothing. To think it does is a Logical Fallacy called an Appeal to the Majority. The fact is that man made Global Warming is a silly, money making hoax. I would think that Libs/Progressives would be suspicious of anything that gives the uber wealthy free reign but restricts the activities of the old and the poor the the point of starvation and winters with no heat (UK because of carbon taxes). I give them too much credit. [/quote]
In the same vein, the fact that everyone quotes âscientistsâ are all in agreement is the logical fallacy called an Appeal to Authority/arguing from point of authority.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
I would be interested in seeing a psychological study explaining why some people outside this field think they know climate science and can refute scientists. Do you actually believe what you write?
The same phenomenom happens with evolution and creationnism. I want to know WHY people want creationnism to be true and climate change to be wrong so bad.[/quote]
speaking of appeal to authority
I agree with the appeal of authority but I would say it comes from the people trying to debunk climate change . They are the ones spewing an argument minus fact
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Boxer uses Okla. tornado to push carbon tax
âCarbon could cost us the planet.â
Read more: Boxer uses Okla. tornado to push carbon tax | The Daily Caller
What an imbecile.[/quote]
This is her signature issue.
She has done nothing in her 20 years of politics, other than get a post office named after someone.
She could be one of the most useless senators in Congress.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
In the same vein, the fact that everyone quotes âscientistsâ are all in agreement is the logical fallacy called an Appeal to Authority/arguing from point of authority.[/quote]
Calling âAppeal to Authorityâ here isnât all that relevant, as this appeal isnât a deductive one. Citing this recent study may not definitively prove the position, but it lends strong support in its favor.
Logical fallacies cause strict deductive arguments to fail. The problem is that people cite them in less structured examples and expect that they have the same devastating rhetorical effect. They do not.
There is nothing controversial about saying this.
âNearly all the experts in the field of emotional psychology think that red often evokes feelings of lust.
It is probable that red often evokes feelings of lust.â
Calling appeal to authority here would just be silly.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Boxer uses Okla. tornado to push carbon tax
âCarbon could cost us the planet.â
Read more: Boxer uses Okla. tornado to push carbon tax | The Daily Caller
What an imbecile.[/quote]
This is her signature issue.
She has done nothing in her 20 years of politics, other than get a post office named after someone.
She could be one of the most useless senators in Congress. [/quote]
Itâs dipshits like her that give the climate change crowd a bad name. Do I believe that climate change is at least partially anthropogenic? Sure. But if you look at some of the worst weather events to happen in the history of the U.S. a TON of them happened in the 1920âs and 1930âs, including the most powerful tornado ever. The fact is that what was a powerful tornado in 1925 happened in the middle of a fucking cornfield or whatever. Now, a comparable tornado happens in the exact same place except that it happens in the middle of a housing development.
If theyâre going to blame the damage done by these sorts of natural disasters on the GOP they could at least try to blame them by saying itâs the GOPs fault there are so many more housing developments and urban settlements everywhere. They would still be wrong, but at least they wouldnât be undermining what is a very important issue to us now.
And that actually brings up a very relevant point here. Regardless of whether or not climate change is anthropogenic, it IS occurring and it WILL lead to more extreme weather patterns at some point, whether that means more intense events or more frequent events. There are certain places in this country (and around the world) that are going to be more susceptible to these weather events, depending on what event we are talking about. Coastal areas susceptible to flooding and/or soil erosion; areas along the Gulf Coast; the tornado-susceptible areas; areas along hurricanesâ general path, etc etc.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bert, why do you focus on the negative consequences of GW, ala Chicken Little, and ignore the positive ones? You do know there are some positive ones, right? Maybe they even outweigh the negatives.[/quote]
I know about the positive ones, such as being able to ship cargo over the Arctic Circle from Hudson Bay into Northern Europe, which takes much less fuel than shipping shit halfway across Canada and then all the way across the Atlantic. Or growing crops in areas that previously werenât able to support certain things. Etc. etc.
I simply think that the negatives outweigh the positives. Mass migration, further unrest in the Middle East, more arid land, and so forth are pretty big potential problems.
I also focus on the negatives in part because I believe in God. Part of the climate change issue is the fact that we are potentially damaging the planet given to us, which is basically the biggest gift God has given us. While He gave everything on this planet for us to use, that doesnât mean it was given to us to use up. We should take care of His greatest gift rather than exploit it beyond repair. Part of keeping that end of the bargain is understanding potential ways that we can damage the Earth, which necessitates focusing on the possible negative impacts that our way of life and so forth can have on it.
Itâs really not that different than lifting. We try to bring up weaknesses rather than focusing on what we are good at. I suck at squatting but pull off the ground really well, so I donât do a whole lot of deadlifting but try to squat more often instead to improve that movement pattern.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bert, why do you focus on the negative consequences of GW, ala Chicken Little, and ignore the positive ones? You do know there are some positive ones, right? Maybe they even outweigh the negatives.[/quote]
I know about the positive ones, such as being able to ship cargo over the Arctic Circle from Hudson Bay into Northern Europe, which takes much less fuel than shipping shit halfway across Canada and then all the way across the Atlantic. Or growing crops in areas that previously werenât able to support certain things. Etc. etc.
I simply think that the negatives outweigh the positives. Mass migration, further unrest in the Middle East, more arid land, and so forth are pretty big potential problems.
I also focus on the negatives in part because I believe in God. Part of the climate change issue is the fact that we are potentially damaging the planet given to us, which is basically the biggest gift God has given us. While He gave everything on this planet for us to use, that doesnât mean it was given to us to use up. We should take care of His greatest gift rather than exploit it beyond repair. Part of keeping that end of the bargain is understanding potential ways that we can damage the Earth, which necessitates focusing on the possible negative impacts that our way of life and so forth can have on it.
Itâs really not that different than lifting. We try to bring up weaknesses rather than focusing on what we are good at. I suck at squatting but pull off the ground really well, so I donât do a whole lot of deadlifting but try to squat more often instead to improve that movement pattern. [/quote]
Letâs face it, whether you believe global warming is happening or not, the âman is causing it and man can do something about itâ claptrap is claptrap.
Besides, while your âGod expects us to be good stewards of the earthâ non-claptrap is not realized by the implementations you have suggested. So I am puzzled by you, Bert.[/quote]
The implementations I suggested arenât about preserving the Earth and ARE about preserving our way of life on it because I donât know enough about the preservation part to offer up anything meaningful. I donât know if climate change is a zero sum game in that respect, or if our part in it is creating more negatives than positives or vice versa. I BELIEVE that climate change can ultimately mean more damage than benefits to the planet, but I really donât know. My point is that we will NEVER know the answer to that question if we continually deny that climate change is taking place at all or if we deny that we have any part in it. If we donât recognize a problem then how can we find a solution?
What I DO know is that certain changes will happen around the world as climate change furthers, and we can prepare for those changes. Whether or not our part in climate change ultimately damages the Earth in and of itself is not something that I really know much about. Sure, ecosystems may be destroyed, but others may spring up in their place instead. I donât know where the balance in that ledger will end up, but I DO know that ignoring climate change will never allow us to find out. So, in accordance with my beliefs, I think we should study the problem further and search for more ways that we as humans can slow the process down, if for no other reason than to err on the side of caution. After all, if take all these steps to save the planet and then we find out that all of those steps did nothing, we may not have saved anything, but we wonât have necessarily contributed to the planetâs destruction either.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bert, why do you focus on the negative consequences of GW, ala Chicken Little, and ignore the positive ones? You do know there are some positive ones, right? Maybe they even outweigh the negatives.[/quote]
I know about the positive ones, such as being able to ship cargo over the Arctic Circle from Hudson Bay into Northern Europe, which takes much less fuel than shipping shit halfway across Canada and then all the way across the Atlantic. Or growing crops in areas that previously werenât able to support certain things. Etc. etc.
I simply think that the negatives outweigh the positives. Mass migration, further unrest in the Middle East, more arid land, and so forth are pretty big potential problems.
I also focus on the negatives in part because I believe in God. Part of the climate change issue is the fact that we are potentially damaging the planet given to us, which is basically the biggest gift God has given us. While He gave everything on this planet for us to use, that doesnât mean it was given to us to use up. We should take care of His greatest gift rather than exploit it beyond repair. Part of keeping that end of the bargain is understanding potential ways that we can damage the Earth, which necessitates focusing on the possible negative impacts that our way of life and so forth can have on it.
Itâs really not that different than lifting. We try to bring up weaknesses rather than focusing on what we are good at. I suck at squatting but pull off the ground really well, so I donât do a whole lot of deadlifting but try to squat more often instead to improve that movement pattern. [/quote]
Letâs face it, whether you believe global warming is happening or not, the âman is causing it and man can do something about itâ claptrap is claptrap.
Besides, while your âGod expects us to be good stewards of the earthâ non-claptrap is not realized by the implementations you have suggested. So I am puzzled by you, Bert.[/quote]
Also, I disagree that anthropogenic climate change is clap-trap. I acknowledge that it isnât a 100% certainty that man is causing a lot of this, or any of it, for that matter. But I think it is only fair if you were to acknowledge that we donât know the opposite is true 100% either. After all, there is some sort of debate on the issue, which means something. Last time I checked, there wasnât any debate within the mathematics community whether or not 2+2 equals 4 or 7. Given that most of the science community agrees that climate change is at least partially caused by human activity, I donât think itâs unreasonable for my beliefs on the matter to follow suit. Majority opinion isnât proof of anything, but it isnât insignificant either. And like I pointed out earlier, both sides of the issue from a political standpoint have something to gain/lose from the promotion of their view over the oppositionâs, so where politicians end up on the issue means nothing. Just like you can say with some legitimacy that the liberals stand to gain by the promotion of climate change science, I can legitimately say that conservatives stand to gain by the deconstruction of it. Either way, it has no bearing on the actual science itself. Either it is or is not happening and caused by humans.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I also focus on the negatives in part because I believe in God. Part of the climate change issue is the fact that we are potentially damaging the planet given to us, which is basically the biggest gift God has given us. While He gave everything on this planet for us to use, that doesnât mean it was given to us to use up. We should take care of His greatest gift rather than exploit it beyond repair. Part of keeping that end of the bargain is understanding potential ways that we can damage the Earth, which necessitates focusing on the possible negative impacts that our way of life and so forth can have on it.
[/quote]
God, who charges us to be good stewards with the land, also destroyed the earth with a flood. Talk about your sudden global climate changeâŠ
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Easy solution to all those that Do Not believe that we are a large part of the increased climate change:
Take them out into their Escalades, Navigators, Hummers and Land Rovers. Lock them in so they cannot get out, turn on the engine and
then âStick a Banana in their TailPipeâ and see how long they last before a slow death takes them to whatever heaven they believe in.
People seem to forget that this little sphere we live on is a CLOSED ECO SYSTEM ! There will be no place to hide when it all comes
crashing downâŠ[/quote]
Earth isnât a closed system.
Not that I think climate change is bunk, but seriously - Earth is not a closed system.[/quote]
how do you figure ? You can not get anything that is not here already ? Life would be the only thing that could effect the system
[/quote]
I figure with that big ass ball of fire in the sky.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Easy solution to all those that Do Not believe that we are a large part of the increased climate change:
Take them out into their Escalades, Navigators, Hummers and Land Rovers. Lock them in so they cannot get out, turn on the engine and
then âStick a Banana in their TailPipeâ and see how long they last before a slow death takes them to whatever heaven they believe in.
People seem to forget that this little sphere we live on is a CLOSED ECO SYSTEM ! There will be no place to hide when it all comes
crashing downâŠ[/quote]
Earth isnât a closed system.
Not that I think climate change is bunk, but seriously - Earth is not a closed system.[/quote]
how do you figure ? You can not get anything that is not here already ? Life would be the only thing that could effect the system
[/quote]
I figure with that big ass ball of fire in the sky.[/quote]
you missed the whole thread :)but the sun is part of the earthâs system it is closed but not isolated , I think that covers it
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I also focus on the negatives in part because I believe in God. Part of the climate change issue is the fact that we are potentially damaging the planet given to us, which is basically the biggest gift God has given us. While He gave everything on this planet for us to use, that doesnât mean it was given to us to use up. We should take care of His greatest gift rather than exploit it beyond repair. Part of keeping that end of the bargain is understanding potential ways that we can damage the Earth, which necessitates focusing on the possible negative impacts that our way of life and so forth can have on it.
[/quote]
God, who charges us to be good stewards with the land, also destroyed the earth with a flood. Talk about your sudden global climate changeâŠ
[/quote]
hey pig how much you drink and are you drunk now ? I want proof god destroyed the Earth with a flood
[quote]kamui wrote:
I donât know who is high and who isnât, but many people here seem to confuse a closed system and an isolated system.
Not exactly the same thing in thermodynamics : a closed system can and often will exchange energy in / energy out. [/quote]
In general relativity, energy exchange is mass exchange. Energy and mass are the same thing.
For example, the sun looses mass by radiating heat.
Hence, I have been using the term interchangeably within the context of a discussion where an energy equation was being discussed and the claim was made that it was closed.
Not to mention there is direct mass exchange with outer space.
But even more, the sun does radiate actual particles too. They are called solar winds.