Amazon
#1
Dear Donald,
FYI... 
trees are kinda important. 

You might wanna get Brazil on the horn
and put your bullying skills to some use.

Oxygen is bipartisan 
and there's an election coming
you stupid, arrogant fuck.

It's a no-brainer. 
Oh, 
sorry.
Reply
#2
Oh, the humanity!  If President Trump got on the horn with the president down there, they could have a good laugh over this three-days'-panic whopper. (Trees burn, about this amount, every year - it's forest clearance time for agriculture.  Trees have their cycle, as we have ours:  their carbon combines with oxygen (burns), then they separate the resulting carbon dioxide back into oxygen (animals:  breathe easy) and carbon (themselves, new generation) using sunlight.  This way is flashier than some, and people help it along so they get edible instead of just burnable plants in their diversion from the cycle.

BTW, "rain forest" doesn't burn - too wet (hydrogen pre-combined with the oxygen, but it's good as a low-temperature working medium).

Honestly, in the silly season if it weren't for fake news there'd be no "news" at all.  (And wouldn't *that* be a blessing!)

(08-28-2019, 11:43 AM)Tiger the Lion Wrote:  Dear Donald,
FYI... 
trees are kinda important. 

You might wanna get Brazil on the horn
and put your bullying skills to some use.

Oxygen is bipartisan 
and there's an election coming
you stupid, arrogant fuck.

It's a no-brainer. 
Oh, 
sorry.
feedback award Non-practicing atheist
Reply
#3
(08-28-2019, 12:58 PM)dukealien Wrote:  (Trees burn, about this amount, every year 

This is the sort of misinformation that we can do without: https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/...-rate.html

Quote:- it's forest clearance time for agriculture.  

the intent of such a statement is clearly to get a rise. Ignored.

Quote:Trees have their cycle, as we have ours:  their carbon combines with oxygen (burns), then they separate the resulting carbon dioxide back into oxygen (animals:  breathe easy) and carbon (themselves, new generation) using sunlight.  This way is flashier than some, and people help it along so they get edible instead of just burnable plants in their diversion from the cycle.

This is obviously not true of the land is getting permanently cleared in the first place. The carbon dioxide for the most part does not get back into the earth and get locked up as carbon, but sinks into the ocean which as a result turns more acidic from the resulting carbonic acid.

Quote:BTW, "rain forest" doesn't burn - too wet (hydrogen pre-combined with the oxygen, but it's good as a low-temperature working medium).

Tell me you're joking

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asi...kalimantan
http://fire.pngsdf.com/

[/quote]

Quote:Honestly, in the silly season if it weren't for fake news there'd be no "news" at all.  (And wouldn't *that* be a blessing!)

Quite an attitude 
Reply
#4
The attitude is called skeptical.  Anathema to true-believers in various oddball faith-systems, it's the way believers in objective truth weigh statements:  based on evidence rather than authority.  It's also fundamental to science (as opposed - which it certainly is - to fake science as well as fake news).  I'll concede that the skeptical attitude is frequently not "nice."

See https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshel...ad2dce5bde and have  nice day.  We're not running out of them  big hug
feedback award Non-practicing atheist
Reply
#5
(08-28-2019, 10:27 PM)dukealien Wrote:  The attitude is called skeptical.  Anathema to true-believers in various oddball faith-systems, it's the way believers in objective truth weigh statements:  based on evidence rather than authority.  It's also fundamental to science (as opposed - which it certainly is - to fake science as well as fake news).  I'll concede that the skeptical attitude is frequently not "nice."

See https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshel...ad2dce5bde and have  nice day.  We're not running out of them  big hug

Interesting that you would pick one journalist’s opinion over another’s as “authority”
To clear things up:
1) this is the start of the dry season. The area burned only until July is already the fifth highest in the last 15 years. More importantly, the rate of deforestation is the highest ever in July of 2019 across months
2) savanna does not store as much carbon as a rainforest. While it is true that a mature forest is in carbon equilibrium, the loss of said forest results in a loss of permanently locked up carbon. So to make the contrary claim is illiterate at best. This is basic science.
3) your claim that rainforests don’t catch fire is rubbish. Unless there are no rainforests in PNG and Borneo (there are a lot of palm oil plantations in the latter but your claim was that it is always wet in a rainforest. Perhaps you should come visit Singapore when the Indonesians have their annual forest clearing smog festival)
4) between skepticism and doing your own research and sloppy denialism there’s a wide and substantial difference 

For your reading pleasure: https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/michae...ommentary/
Reply
#6
As Einstein remarked when told that a hundred scientists disagreed with him, "Why a hundred?  One is enough if he proves I am wrong."

I'm no Einstein, but I do know how (real) science works.  Also how calling skepticism "denialism" is supposed to work, that is, to shut down discussion.  I've found that trying to conduct a reasoned discussion with a climate "scientist" or global warming true-believer is like trying to pass a garbage truck whilst riding a bicycle:  the harder you pedal, the worse the stench becomes.

Have a pleasant day.
feedback award Non-practicing atheist
Reply
#7
(08-29-2019, 06:18 AM)dukealien Wrote:  As Einstein remarked when told that a hundred scientists disagreed with him, "Why a hundred?  One is enough if he proves I am wrong."

I'm no Einstein, but I do know how (real) science works.  Also how calling skepticism "denialism" is supposed to work, that is, to shut down discussion.  I've found that trying to conduct a reasoned discussion with a climate "scientist" or global warming true-believer is like trying to pass a garbage truck whilst riding a bicycle:  the harder you pedal, the worse the stench becomes.

Have a pleasant day.
Well observed that you are no Einstein.

And you are wrong again in this instance, as it appears you have based your conclusions on a single Forbes article, essentially outsourcing critical thinking to a single journalist. I’m not sure that’s how real science works.

Can you please backup your claim that rainforests don’t burn? I’m rather interested in the real science behind that, especially as I travel to Indonesia quite often and I’m sure the natives would like to know.

Have an amazing rest of the week.

I’m also interested in learning how your qualifications stack up against those of any one of these “scientists” at random: http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/ccrc-team
Reply
#8
Ah, yes. "Climate Scientists."

Science is a faith-based endeavor (its credo is that the universe tomorrow will be like the universe today, an assertion which cannot be proved). This leads to use of observation and experiment to predict the future. Successful predictions, accurately and honestly reported, inform us about the validity of theories which generated those predictions. Failed predictions are extremely valuable because they tell us to seek elsewhere for the truth.

Climate "Science" is also a faith-based endeavor, the credo of which is that humankind is evil and responsible for ruining the planet. It counterfeits the outward procedures of real science, such as refereed publication, observation, prediction, and experiment in order to benefit from real science's record of increasing knowledge and discovering truth.

Its publications are "refereed" by cronies who reject disconfirming observations and divergent theories; its observations are "adjusted" to confirm its assumptions; its predictions are invariably wrong about the future when compared with what actually happens; its "experiments" are models tuned to hindcast the past while producing those wrong but confirmatory predictions, using "adjusted" data. (As Rocky advised Bullwinkle, "That trick never works.")

I believe in real science, hence am skeptical. I don't believe the Climate "Science" credo or the counterfeit of real science its true-believers have manufactured in attempts to confirm it.

I trust this is clear, if verbose.
feedback award Non-practicing atheist
Reply
#9
I must be a bit grateful for the diversity in opinion that I've been exposed to in recent years. It really has shaken my concepts of "truth" and "lies."
That may not seem like something to be grateful about, but it has largely detached me from forming my own opinions on the astonishingly polarized field of "things that matter."
I can enjoy these arguments from the sideline, without the burden or luxury of choosing a side -- because neither side can ever convince.
I might even be so inclined to say that the only truth is that nothing matters, but that sounds like having too much of an opinion.
At the very least, having such a weak sense of "truth" leads to a weak sense of "lies," and that makes it much easier to refrain from forming any new biases.

Is there some truth to both sides? I haven't the slightest idea. I could do research, but must then pick a side to trust. I could experiment, but that data might only represent a small subset of a larger reality. I could use other people's data, but that again requires trusting that their biases have not modified it. There is no more science. In fact, I suspect there never was any.

"Truth" is just a set of paths in a neurological system, formed to interpret a reality they cannot ever comprehend in full.
If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room.

"Or, if a poet writes a poem, then immediately commits suicide (as any decent poet should)..." -- Erthona
Reply
#10
(08-29-2019, 11:13 AM)dukealien Wrote:  Ah, yes.  "Climate Scientists."

Science is a faith-based endeavor (its credo is that the universe tomorrow will be like the universe today, an assertion which cannot be proved).  This leads to use of observation and experiment to predict the future.  Successful predictions, accurately and honestly reported, inform us about the validity of theories which generated those predictions.  Failed predictions are extremely valuable because they tell us to seek elsewhere for the truth.

Climate "Science" is also a faith-based endeavor, the credo of which is that humankind is evil and responsible for ruining the planet.  

I haven’t seen such a credo. Could you point me to a source? It just sounds like ranting
Geology doesn’t predict the future
Climate science is an interdisciplinary field that includes people as diverse as physicists and marine biologists. Climate scientists don’t all come out with a BSc in Climate Science, you know.

Quote:It counterfeits the outward procedures of real science, such as refereed publication, observation, prediction, and experiment in order to benefit from real science's record of increasing knowledge and discovering truth. 

Its publications are "refereed" by cronies who reject disconfirming observations and divergent theories; its observations are "adjusted" to confirm its assumptions; its predictions are invariably wrong about the future when compared with what actually happens; its "experiments" are models tuned to hindcast the past while producing those wrong but confirmatory predictions, using "adjusted" data.  (As Rocky advised Bullwinkle, "That trick never works.")

If there is such a vast conspiracy as you say, it should be easy for any qualified person in atmospheric physics or marine biology to discredit the field. Yet, the number of such people who try to do so, like the number of people who try to argue that Noah’s ark has dinosaurs in it, is vanishingly small.

Examples, please?

Quote:I believe in real science, hence am skeptical.  I don't believe the Climate "Science" credo or the counterfeit of real science its true-believers have  manufactured in attempts to confirm it.

I trust this is clear, if verbose.

You’ve been proved wrong repeatedly, including once in the past when you tried to argue that the blackout in SA was because of too much wind in the grid.
You also made the patently false assertion that rain forests don’t catch fire earlier in this thread 
I don’t think you're as clever as you think you are....

What we cannot actually argue about is that more CO2 in the atmosphere equals more trapped heat. That phenomenon is well known.
What we do not know for certain is the kinetics of the actual buildup of CO2 on account of human activity.

That said, rubbish claims like 'burning large tracts of the Amazon is carbon neutral' can be easily seen as such. A forest has a much larger inventory of carbon than a pasture.
Reply
#11
I wasn't asking for Trump to stand up before a crowd of his constituents and proclaim that the world is indeed round. I merely think that he's missing an opportunity for a grand photo op that offends neither the left or the right. "Trump Saves the Rain forest" would explode on the internet. Seems to me a prudent US president could deal with this at very little cost and put some minds at ease. Even if those minds were uninformed, misinformed, ill-informed, or just plain paranoid.
Reply
#12
(08-30-2019, 08:03 AM)Tiger the Lion Wrote:  I wasn't asking for Trump to stand up before a crowd of his constituents and proclaim that the world is indeed round. I merely think that he's missing an opportunity for a grand photo op that offends neither the left or the right. "Trump Saves the Rain forest" would explode on the internet. Seems to me a prudent US president could deal with this at very little cost and put some minds at ease. Even if those minds were uninformed, misinformed, ill-informed, or just plain paranoid.

That's a well-balanced way to look at it. No matter which way a politician jumps, heads will explode. Standing pat with the base at least has the virtue of integrity (of a sort), but in some cases one base or the other expects its representatives to play frog to its momentary enthusiasms. Yada "worst form," yada "...except for all the others."
feedback award Non-practicing atheist
Reply
#13
(08-30-2019, 10:37 PM)dukealien Wrote:  
(08-30-2019, 08:03 AM)Tiger the Lion Wrote:  I wasn't asking for Trump to stand up before a crowd of his constituents and proclaim that the world is indeed round. I merely think that he's missing an opportunity for a grand photo op that offends neither the left or the right. "Trump Saves the Rain forest" would explode on the internet. Seems to me a prudent US president could deal with this at very little cost and put some minds at ease. Even if those minds were uninformed, misinformed, ill-informed, or just plain paranoid.

That's a well-balanced way to look at it.  No matter which way a politician jumps, heads will explode.  Standing pat with the base at least has the virtue of integrity (of a sort), but in some cases one base or the other expects it representatives to play frog to its momentary enthusiasms.  Yada "worst form," yada "...except for all the others."

Or, at least, having the appearance of at least having the virtue of integrity.  Thumbsup
Reply
#14
I have recently done a detailed study of climate change.  Here are a few things I have learnt. 
Firstly there are very few real experts, to say you are qualified to speak on climate you have to have a degree in either meterology or climatology.  These people are rare.  The UN's committee on climate change does not contain a single scientist with either of these qualifications.  But there is a Emeritus Professor of Meterology from Harvard University, Professor Lindzen, he has various YouTubes on climate change, he seems to be one of the few people who knows what he is talking about. 
I am a climate change skeptic but not a denier. The earth is warming and it is having dire results in various regions (especailly in my country Australia).  But there is a lot of fake news being promulgated by climate change alarmists who have a political agenda.   it is very difficult to form opinions when the subject is so complex and the data often inconclusive and contradictory.  
I would say over population is a far bigger problem although the two are inter-linked. 
Many areas will benefit from a warmer climate and many countries have the far more pressing problem of providing enough food.  
It takes detailed research to find the raw data.  Almost all news on the subject is skewed. To take one example, the sea level has risen by one centimenter in the last 100 years.  But sea level rise around the world varies enormously because of geographic configurations, ocean currents, sinking shorelines and the undersea landcape.  All these factors effect sea level rise in a particular region.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!