How to Combat Anti-Climate Change Fools

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Seems relevant

[/quote]

Just imagine, how many times in human history, the prediction of global disaster has been made.

The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, endured thousands, maybe million, of climate phenomena, yet we have the nerve to think we can predict the end of days. [/quote]

the Earth will remain but the demise of the Human race is inevitable . I am sure we will take many other species with us . Just my opinion :)[/quote]

If I remember correctly, eventually the sun will turn into a red giant at which point the earth will be inside the sun.[/quote]

just because the earth were to lose it’s position in the universe would not mean it would cease to exist :slight_smile:
[/quote]

? If the Earth were “inside the sun” I think it would cease to exist…[/quote]
yes :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Is this in a closed system or an open system? hahahahaha

382

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. I am going by my (the dictionary) definition. It does not make animals unsustainable.

But again, this whole line of argument is deflection. You keep going into a “Timmy’s mom lets him do it” defense.[/quote]

That’s what I said - if we go by your definition. Not sure what has you stumped to the point that you will repeat what I said, then disagree with it. But whatever.

If that is what you glean from what I’ve written, either you have a very poor ability to understand the use of absurdity to make a point, or I pretty much suck at using absurdity to make a point. I prefer to believe it is the former.

I could give a shit what Timmy’s mom lets him do. The notion that sustainability is a good thing - or that it even exists outside of local/regional ecosystems is ludicrous. There has never been, and never will be an eternally sustainable civilization, species, activity, animal, insect (perhaps roaches would be the exception), or anything else.

My argument is - much like the argument against AGW - whatever is going to happen will happen and the human influence will be negligible, if measurable at all.

383

[quote]lucasa wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sustainable: Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.

Using up fossil fuel then moving to another resource isn’t sustainability. [/quote]

Sustainability is the capacity to endure.

Sustainable:

  1. to give support or relief to
  2. to supply with sustenance : nourish

So, when we give agricultural support or relief to another nation, do we do it organically? When we supply people with sustenance and nourish them, is organic food somehow advantageous? How sustainable do you happen to be?

You have an arbitrarily contrived definition of sustainable that fits your romantic notions of what you want to be true. If we consumed all the worlds oil reserves and left the ecosystems as they existed before mankind, converted the human race to solar-powered brain-driven robots, moved to Venus and lived on thermal gradients and solar energy until the Sun swallowed us or we beamed ourselves to the next exoplanet, by your definition every aspect of those developments is unsustainable because it a) depletes resources and b) doesn’t achieve a “balance”.

I’m not saying that’s how it will happen, I’m just saying that the definitions of sustainable are far more convoluted and twisted than the one sentence you concoct by yourself and for your own purposes.
[/quote]

Actually, I typed “sustainable definition” into google and this is what it pops up with:

"sus·tain·a·ble
/sÉ?Ë?stÄ?nÉ?bÉ?l/
Adjective

Able to be maintained at a certain rate or level.
(esp. of development, exploitation, or agriculture) Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.

Synonyms
supportable"

And it’s pretty obvious you don’t know me with your wonderfully colorful trip into la la land in this post. But you are doing the same thing pig is doing, deflecting. A rant about organics and imagined solar powered space travel has nothing to do with modern farming. The current system cannot be maintained indefinitely by your own admission. It must change in the future to continue to exist. It isn’t sustainable. You need to look somewhere else to argue hippy politics.

384

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. I am going by my (the dictionary) definition. It does not make animals unsustainable.

But again, this whole line of argument is deflection. You keep going into a “Timmy’s mom lets him do it” defense.[/quote]

That’s what I said - if we go by your definition. Not sure what has you stumped to the point that you will repeat what I said, then disagree with it. But whatever.

If that is what you glean from what I’ve written, either you have a very poor ability to understand the use of absurdity to make a point, or I pretty much suck at using absurdity to make a point. I prefer to believe it is the former.

I could give a shit what Timmy’s mom lets him do. The notion that sustainability is a good thing - or that it even exists outside of local/regional ecosystems is ludicrous. There has never been, and never will be an eternally sustainable civilization, species, activity, animal, insect (perhaps roaches would be the exception), or anything else.

My argument is - much like the argument against AGW - whatever is going to happen will happen and the human influence will be negligible, if measurable at all. [/quote]

It was google’s definition BTW.

And no, the definition specifically refers to a balance of natural resources. Civilization isn’t a natural resource. Nor does it imply the ratio is fixed or unchangeable only that it is currently in balance.

“The notion that sustainability is a good thing”

Uh… who stated such a thing? Did I?

“that it even exists outside of local/regional ecosystems”

I know I never stated this.

385

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. I am going by my (the dictionary) definition. It does not make animals unsustainable.

But again, this whole line of argument is deflection. You keep going into a “Timmy’s mom lets him do it” defense.[/quote]

That’s what I said - if we go by your definition. Not sure what has you stumped to the point that you will repeat what I said, then disagree with it. But whatever.

If that is what you glean from what I’ve written, either you have a very poor ability to understand the use of absurdity to make a point, or I pretty much suck at using absurdity to make a point. I prefer to believe it is the former.

I could give a shit what Timmy’s mom lets him do. The notion that sustainability is a good thing - or that it even exists outside of local/regional ecosystems is ludicrous. There has never been, and never will be an eternally sustainable civilization, species, activity, animal, insect (perhaps roaches would be the exception), or anything else.

My argument is - much like the argument against AGW - whatever is going to happen will happen and the human influence will be negligible, if measurable at all. [/quote]

It was google’s definition BTW.

And no, the definition specifically refers to a balance of natural resources. Civilization isn’t a natural resource. Nor does it imply the ratio is fixed or unchangeable only that it is currently in balance.

“The notion that sustainability is a good thing”

Uh… who stated such a thing? Did I?

“that it even exists outside of local/regional ecosystems”

I know I never stated this.[/quote]

It must be your inability.

Google isn’t the best place to go to find a definition for any word, particularly political hot button words.

You might have never said that sustainability was good - but you certainly inferred the hell out of it. Your little game of inferring something, then claiming that you never said it is getting a little old. Maybe that works with people who need their oatmeal chewed for them, but I like to chew my food myself.

I stated that sustainability/unsustainability is, at best, local. On a macro level, it is called adaptation. Humans have been doing it since we left the primordial ooze. I never suggested you held that view.

Should I start tagging my views so as to avoid further confusion?

386

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. I am going by my (the dictionary) definition. It does not make animals unsustainable.

But again, this whole line of argument is deflection. You keep going into a “Timmy’s mom lets him do it” defense.[/quote]

That’s what I said - if we go by your definition. Not sure what has you stumped to the point that you will repeat what I said, then disagree with it. But whatever.

If that is what you glean from what I’ve written, either you have a very poor ability to understand the use of absurdity to make a point, or I pretty much suck at using absurdity to make a point. I prefer to believe it is the former.

I could give a shit what Timmy’s mom lets him do. The notion that sustainability is a good thing - or that it even exists outside of local/regional ecosystems is ludicrous. There has never been, and never will be an eternally sustainable civilization, species, activity, animal, insect (perhaps roaches would be the exception), or anything else.

My argument is - much like the argument against AGW - whatever is going to happen will happen and the human influence will be negligible, if measurable at all. [/quote]

It was google’s definition BTW.

And no, the definition specifically refers to a balance of natural resources. Civilization isn’t a natural resource. Nor does it imply the ratio is fixed or unchangeable only that it is currently in balance.

“The notion that sustainability is a good thing”

Uh… who stated such a thing? Did I?

“that it even exists outside of local/regional ecosystems”

I know I never stated this.[/quote]

It must be your inability.

Google isn’t the best place to go to find a definition for any word, particularly political hot button words.

You might have never said that sustainability was good - but you certainly inferred the hell out of it. Your little game of inferring something, then claiming that you never said it is getting a little old. Maybe that works with people who need their oatmeal chewed for them, but I like to chew my food myself.

I stated that sustainability/unsustainability is, at best, local. On a macro level, it is called adaptation. Humans have been doing it since we left the primordial ooze. I never suggested you held that view.

Should I start tagging my views so as to avoid further confusion?

[/quote]

Okay, so just to be clear, your stance is that the google definition is wrong, since you didn’t address any points about your incorrect interpretation of “my” definition.

387

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
total straw man argument , it is called climate change , most scientists agree that it is man made , no one says we should go back to no cars or no civilization . What we need is a sustainable way of life . And contrary to certain economists , it may not be the cheapest [/quote]
Isn’t it weird how life sustained itself perfectly fine millions of years ago when it was hotter and the CO2 concentration was several times greater…

Damn I wish we know how mother nature managed that without us all that time. Luckily though we’re here now to figure out how to sustain life on Earth.[/quote]

You do understand that vast portions of this continent were covered by water then right?[/quote]

I also think to say the Earth has done fine is a GROSS misstatement
[/quote]

I don’t know, man, aside from a few broken rocks and some gaseous emissions, I think she’s cruising right along…

388

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Okay, so just to be clear, your stance is that the google definition is wrong, since you didn’t address any points about your incorrect interpretation of “my” definition.[/quote]

I correctly interpreted whatever definition you used first. So how could I address points about a non-existent incorrect interpretation?

389

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

"sus�·tain�·a�·ble
/sÃ??Ã??stÃ??nÃ??bÃ??l/
Adjective

Able to be maintained at a certain rate or level.
(esp. of development, exploitation, or agriculture) Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.

Synonyms
supportable"
[/quote]

Sorry, your definition is vague (thanks Google!), biased in favor of organic farming (only the natural resources can’t be depleted), and the internet severely inhibits my ability to read minds. All the definitions, at best, imply indefinitely. Additionally, none even hint at the condition of changing or adapting as voiding sustainability. Lastly, changing/progressing to an electric tractor and Vemork-reactor type ammonia production doesn’t make industrial farming less industrial/more organic nor does it make organic farming (more) sustainable.

Adding the conditions you have, the only system that doesn’t smell like farts is the one that feeds everyone indefinitely without consuming any “natural” resource and without doing anything different than we’re doing right now. Sorry for interpreting your mention of the fact that farts stink as critical commentary when it was clearly sage pansophy.

390

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Isn’t it weird how life sustained itself perfectly fine millions of years ago when it was hotter and the CO2 concentration was several times greater…

Damn I wish we know how mother nature managed that without us all that time. Luckily though we’re here now to figure out how to sustain life on Earth.[/quote]

You do understand that vast portions of this continent were covered by water then right?[/quote]
What are you basing that statement on? Are you just guessing?

391

What I mean is, the Earth is like 70% water TODAY.

What makes you think it was any more so in the past?

Do you know that evidence suggests that polar ice landmass was greatest around 500 million years ago? Wouldn’t that mean it was LESS water?

392

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Isn’t it weird how life sustained itself perfectly fine millions of years ago when it was hotter and the CO2 concentration was several times greater…

Damn I wish we know how mother nature managed that without us all that time. Luckily though we’re here now to figure out how to sustain life on Earth.[/quote]

You do understand that vast portions of this continent were covered by water then right?[/quote]
What are you basing that statement on? Are you just guessing?[/quote]

I think he’s basing that statement on the overwhelming amount of geological evidence that supports that statement.

393

And another thing, the 70% water thing is obviously just surface area. Water actually comprises like half a percent of the Earth’s total area inside and out. The surface area of water that the Earth exhibits in any given era has actually less to do with polar landmass and more to do with the general geography at the time based on tectonic movements; like how much land is being “pushed up” and how deep the oceans are on average.

394

[quote]csulli wrote:
What I mean is, the Earth is like 70% water TODAY.

What makes you think it was any more so in the past?

Do you know that evidence suggests that polar ice landmass was greatest around 500 million years ago? Wouldn’t that mean it was LESS water?[/quote]

You do realize that the Earth has undergone all sorts of changes in the billions of years it’s been around, right? What do you think it looked like 250 million years ago? At one point the Earth was more like 97% water. The geological evidence bears this out pretty conclusively. You can see it in all sorts of different rock formations in areas that aren’t anywhere near the ocean anymore.

395

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Okay, so just to be clear, your stance is that the google definition is wrong, since you didn’t address any points about your incorrect interpretation of “my” definition.[/quote]

I correctly interpreted whatever definition you used first. So how could I address points about a non-existent incorrect interpretation? [/quote]

No, I kinda specifically pointed out how you incorrectly interpreted it. You just ignored those parts.

396

[quote]lucasa wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

"sus�?�·tain�?�·a�?�·ble
/sÃ???Ã???stÃ???nÃ???bÃ???l/
Adjective

Able to be maintained at a certain rate or level.
(esp. of development, exploitation, or agriculture) Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.

Synonyms
supportable"
[/quote]

Sorry, your definition is vague (thanks Google!), biased in favor of organic farming (only the natural resources can’t be depleted), and the internet severely inhibits my ability to read minds. All the definitions, at best, imply indefinitely. Additionally, none even hint at the condition of changing or adapting as voiding sustainability.

[/quote]
As there is no time limit to sustainability indefinitely is the only rational way to understand it.

And this is kind of like saying, “walking west is sustainable, provided you walk north when you come to an obstacle.” Current methods aren’t sustainable. Changing the method makes them a different method.

ok.Point?

Nope. Where did you get that natural resources can’t be consumed?

Where did you get that things can’t be different right now?

Been breathing too much tractor exhaust?

397

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
total straw man argument , it is called climate change , most scientists agree that it is man made , no one says we should go back to no cars or no civilization . What we need is a sustainable way of life . And contrary to certain economists , it may not be the cheapest [/quote]
Isn’t it weird how life sustained itself perfectly fine millions of years ago when it was hotter and the CO2 concentration was several times greater…

Damn I wish we know how mother nature managed that without us all that time. Luckily though we’re here now to figure out how to sustain life on Earth.[/quote]

You do understand that vast portions of this continent were covered by water then right?[/quote]

I also think to say the Earth has done fine is a GROSS misstatement
[/quote]

I don’t know, man, aside from a few broken rocks and some gaseous emissions, I think she’s cruising right along…[/quote]

  1. Species Extinction
  2. Radical Islam/Terrorism
  3. War
  4. Nuclear Proliferation
  5. Malnutrition and Hunger
  6. Global Water Crisis
  7. Global Population Growth
  8. Peak Oil/Energy Consumption
  9. Global Economic Collapse
  10. Climate change

moving right along there

398

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Okay, so just to be clear, your stance is that the google definition is wrong, since you didn’t address any points about your incorrect interpretation of “my” definition.[/quote]

I correctly interpreted whatever definition you used first. So how could I address points about a non-existent incorrect interpretation? [/quote]

No, I kinda specifically pointed out how you incorrectly interpreted it. You just ignored those parts.[/quote]

I have ignored nothing. Your definition is shit. I said as much. Twice. Your inability to grasp the concept that sustainability (whoever the hell it belongs to) is an untenable myth is not my responsibility.

Perhaps you should spend a little more time developing a defensible argument instead of trying to mask your failure by blaming others.

399

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

Perhaps you should spend a little more time developing a defensible argument instead of trying to mask your failure by blaming others. [/quote]

LOL. Too funny.

Okay, so, the definition is wrong. I give. You win.

Anyway, I’m done ruffling feathers. I got my fill of arguing, time to take a break from PWI.

400

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

  1. Species Extinction
    [/quote]

You do know that like 99% of all species ever existed are extinct? Most of these species were extinct a long time before humans even walked the earth.