Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:
I have not heard of the vodka sauce sect. We need to have a council level meeting, clearly. We just need a Caesar (salad) to call the meeting.

Gaze.

Phanatik wrote:
It took a few posts, but I realized that persona was a tar baby.

Br'er Rabbit wouldn't use such force.

Then again, Br'er Rabbit didn't try and drop IQ scores either.

Frazzled wrote:

Karon wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

biccat wrote:The only rational conclusion I can reach is that you're insane.

It took a few posts, but I realized that persona was a tar baby.

"the only winning move is not to play." Ignore, and move on.

Regards,

I think its hilarious you play that card when everyone disproved you wrong and showed you how wrong you were and you completely ignored them by calling them socialists.

And you play THAT card.

You are such a child, it hurts my brain.

Does proper punctuation and sentence structure hurt your brain as well? Wait, shouldn't you be at an OccupyDumpwater Florida protest or something?

While he might not have the best grammar at least his post is honest.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I have not heard of the vodka sauce sect. We need to have a council level meeting, clearly. We just need a Caesar (salad) to call the meeting.

Gaze.

Holy war...averted.

Karon wrote:when everyone disproved you wrong and showed you how wrong you were and you completely ignored them by calling them socialists.

That hurt MY brain trying to figure out what you said.

Man-made global warming isn't true; you can't prove a negative, so no one proved or disproved anything.

I will admit to the possibility of recent global warming, but that would be due to the sun. The sun burns about 600 million tons of hydrogen every second, so a few burgers and some hotdogs in my backyard pale in comparison.

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:

Karon wrote:when everyone disproved you wrong and showed you how wrong you were and you completely ignored them by calling them socialists.

That hurt MY brain trying to figure out what you said.

Man-made global warming isn't true; you can't prove a negative, so no one proved or disproved anything.

I will admit to the possibility of recent global warming, but that would be due to the sun. The sun burns about 600 million tons of hydrogen every second, so a few burgers and some hotdogs in my backyard pale in comparison.

Regards,

You do realize it's green houses gases like CO2 that are the cause of man-made Global Warming and it has nothing to do with the burning of hydrogen.

Frazzled wrote:
Does proper punctuation and sentence structure hurt your brain as well?

Really, Fraz?

Shall I go back through your post history and make a point of this?

mattyrm wrote:Atheism is defensible, ive seen some truly sterling efforts.

It's indefensible to the extent you're trying to disprove a fact. Most religious sects require a scintilla of belief in some basic fact (Mohammad was divinely inspired, Buddha attained enlightenment, the Gospels are an accurate depiction of events), but once you've got that, the rest follows.

Atheism is defensible over religion only to the extent it questions the initial beliefs/assumptions that ground those beliefs. But ultimately, you're claiming a negative, which is inherently unprovable.

That's not to say Atheism may not be correct.

mattyrm wrote:And atheism isn't a religious perspective, I've never even heard a sensible Religious people say such a silly thing. Just those wacky Creationists in a desperate attempt to add some credence to their own staggering ridiculous and universally disproved theory of nothing, because if we are all Religious, then they just look a tiny bit less silly. Its childish.

You're a great illustration that Atheism is a religious perspective. It's not a religion, but it is a way of looking at religious beliefs. I'm not sure how you can't see that.

dogma wrote:Meh, not really, one can suggest occurrences without them being existential. I doubt Judith Jarvis Thomson really pushed a fat man in front of a trolley.

I'm operating under the assumption that Ms. Thomson invents her philosophical thought experiments as a cover for her dispicable crimes. Otherwise, she would have thrown the fat man in front of a train. Nobody uses trolleys except murderers.

dogma wrote:He did refer to a "Kingdom of Heaven", and the place he would "prepare" but that was prior to his "death".

It isn't clear that Jesus had any concept of afterlife at all.

"Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going"
John 14:1

dogma wrote:So science is religious (no, Orlanth, it isn't), now?

No, it's not.

Phanatik wrote:
Man-made global warming isn't true; you can't prove a negative, so no one proved or disproved anything.

And yet MTT is a thing.

You can prove a negative insofar as you can set the parameters by which it is defined; ie. "My cup is empty."

Phanatik wrote:
The sun burns about 600 million tons of hydrogen every second, so a few burgers and some hotdogs in my backyard pale in comparison.

Heat compared to carbon emissions....

Trolling.

Frazzled, of all people, calling me out on my grammar which is perfect 95% of the time.

biccat wrote:
I'm operating under the assumption that Ms. Thomson invents her philosophical thought experiments as a cover for her dispicable crimes. Otherwise, she would have thrown the fat man in front of a train. Nobody uses trolleys except murderers.

Stanley Kowalski killed no one.

biccat wrote:
"Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going"
John 14:1

John 14:1 ends after "...also believe in me."

Anyway: "Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

Jesus said they knew where he was going, the disciples disagreed. It is a strange thing to know X is going to death, but not know death. Though the Biblical version of "know" is very...odd.

biccat wrote:
No, it's not.

Science doesn't entail a belief in God, so it must be religious.

dogma wrote:Stanley Kowalski killed no one.

*and rapists.

dogma wrote:Science doesn't entail a belief in God, so it must be religious.

Science may give you a perspective on religion.

Phanatik wrote:I will admit to the possibility of recent global warming, but that would be due to the sun. The sun burns about 600 million tons of hydrogen every second, so a few burgers and some hotdogs in my backyard pale in comparison.

This sort of ignorance disappoints me. No point in arguing with it. It's like people who say "well we didn't have much sun this summer so that's the end of global warming".

Give me strength.

biccat wrote:
*and rapists.

Ned Flanders would never...

biccat wrote:
Science may give you a perspective on religion.

So might breathing.

dogma wrote:Ned Flanders would never...

dogma wrote:So might breathing.

More importantly, so might not breathing. In fact, it would probably give you a very good perspective.

Cheesecat wrote:You do realize it's green houses gases like CO2 that are the cause of man-made Global Warming and it has nothing to do with the burning of hydrogen.

You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?

Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!

Have a nice day.

Phanatik wrote:
You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?

Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!

Have a nice day.

Wow.

You have to be a liberal plant.

dogma wrote:

Phanatik wrote:
You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?

Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!

Have a nice day.

Wow.

You have to be a liberal plant.

Howard A Treesong - This sort of ignorance disappoints me. No point in arguing with it. It's like people who say "well it's been 1 degree warmer over the last one hundred years so of course there is global warming and of course it's man's fault".

Give me strength.

mattyrm wrote:

dogma wrote:

Phanatik wrote:
You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?

Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!

Have a nice day.

Wow.

You have to be a liberal plant.

One of my crepe murtles leans left. Its clearly a lefty fifth columnist too. And to think, the wiener dogs constantly protect that tree from predatory attacks by hated squirrels.

Phanatik wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:You do realize it's green houses gases like CO2 that are the cause of man-made Global Warming and it has nothing to do with the burning of hydrogen.

You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?

Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!

Have a nice day.

A certain volume of greenhouse gasses are good, othewise the planet would irradiate heat too fast and end up freezing cold. But the atmosphere lies in a fairly precise balance to sustain the the current environment. Vast quantities of carbon continually moves between the atmophere to the sea and land but it sits in a sort of equilibrium that typically takes very long periods of just to adjust.

By injecting even a small proportion of CO2 into the atmosphere in the very short term (post industrial revolution) we tip that equilibrium and cause an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Frankly it doesn't matter if 99% of CO2 comes from water vapour, that simply isn't the point and it doesn't mean that our 1% doesn't have an effect. I don't understand what is hard to comprehend about this.

Phanatik wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:You do realize it's green houses gases like CO2 that are the cause of man-made Global Warming and it has nothing to do with the burning of hydrogen.

You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?

Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!

Have a nice day.

You seem really intent on this whole grilling thing.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:You do realize it's green houses gases like CO2 that are the cause of man-made Global Warming and it has nothing to do with the burning of hydrogen.

You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?

Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!

Have a nice day.

You seem really intent on this whole grilling thing.

Grilling is serious business.

Howard A Treesong wrote:By injecting even a small proportion of CO2 into the atmosphere in the very short term (post industrial revolution) we tip that equilibrium and cause an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Frankly it doesn't matter if 99% of CO2 comes from water vapour, that simply isn't the point and it doesn't mean that our 1% doesn't have an effect. I don't understand what is hard to comprehend about this.

Actually, co2 doesn't come from water vapor.
Copied from page 1:
"Greenhouse gases as part of the total atmosphere: 1-2 percent (the rest being @ 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen)

Of that 2 percent:
95 percent is water vapor
3.62 percent is carbon dioxide (harmful)

Of that 3.62 percent, humans account for 3.4 percent from co2 emissions."

Phanatik wrote:Of that 2 percent:
95 percent is water vapor
3.62 percent is carbon dioxide (harmful)

Of that 3.62 percent, humans account for 3.4 percent from co2 emissions."

Is your argument that because the numbers sound small it can't be a problem?

I like grilling, we need a grilling thread where Phanatik won't stop interjecting about global warming.

Phanatik wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:By injecting even a small proportion of CO2 into the atmosphere in the very short term (post industrial revolution) we tip that equilibrium and cause an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Frankly it doesn't matter if 99% of CO2 comes from water vapour, that simply isn't the point and it doesn't mean that our 1% doesn't have an effect. I don't understand what is hard to comprehend about this.

Actually, co2 doesn't come from water vapor.
Copied from page 1:
"Greenhouse gases as part of the total atmosphere: 1-2 percent (the rest being @ 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen)

Of that 2 percent:
95 percent is water vapor
3.62 percent is carbon dioxide (harmful)

Of that 3.62 percent, humans account for 3.4 percent from co2 emissions."

Could you find some sources for that information, please?

rubiksnoob wrote:could you find some sources for that information, please?

"Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to?"

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/27/man%E2%80%99s-contribution-to-global-warming/

Phanatik wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:could you find some sources for that information, please?

"Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to?"

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/27/man%E2%80%99s-contribution-to-global-warming/

So I guess I should stop worrying about my cholesterol, since cholesterol only makes up a tiny fraction of my body and only a tiny fraction of THAT is caused by my eating habits.

I love your article from 2009 stating 2008 facts, in a conversation about 2011.

Phanatik wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:could you find some sources for that information, please?

"Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to?"

You still ignore the importance of maintaining equilibria between atmospheric and ground sources of carbon. Yes there's a lot in each but they exchange at the same rate. By burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests we shift that equilibrium so that carbon now enters the atmosphere faster than it can leave. That's why we witness a build up in carbon dioxide concentrations.

If you have a set of scales with a tonne on each side, adding a few grammes can upset that equilibrium much like a small change. Yes, the few grammes seems negligible to the volume of material on the scales but that misses the point. You only have to upset this kind of equilibria to a small degree to effect a change of a few degrees that can cause a level of climate change that threatens us. If you grossly change the atmosphere we'd burn like venus or freeze like Mars but that isn't what is expected. A marginal change of just a few degrees will affect our environment that is adverse to us.

Again, saying that the amount of carbon we add to the system is tiny compared to the volume already in it misses the point. Your article, does not address this point. It stresses the tiny amount, and then talks about the financial cost and jobs. It does not relate the importance that this tiny amount is responsible for an imbalance meaning that carbon is entering the atmosphere slightly quicker than it is being removed.

Also the article stresses that 3.62% of greenhouse gasses are CO2 and then focuses on this. What about the volume of methane produced by meat/dairy industry? Methane molecules have something like a 20x greater warming effect than CO2. But again, you article wants to look solely at CO2. I wonder why that's forgotten when trying to describe "mans contribution to global warming".