Combustion of fossil fuels accounts for about 5% or so of the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere per year. Natural processes release and absorb many times that per year.
This is one of the dumbest 'arguments' of the anthropocentric truthers and bible throwers. The natural process is a carbon circulation. Combustion of fossil fuels takes carbon out of the ground and transfers it into the ocean and the atmosphere. It is not a circulation but a pump which over time slowly puts more and more carbon into the ground from out of the air. This is why the long term carbon graphs show carbon as constantly decreasing at a steady rate over millions of years. No, not constantly decreasing. Cyclically decreasing. 150 Million years ago the concentration has been much higher than 300 Million years ago. Anthropogenic experiments in changing the composition of the atmosphere in record time are anyway an idiocy. Man made, shock-like changes in the atmosphere determine shock-like reactions of flora and fauna. |
|
|
|
Combustion of fossil fuels accounts for about 5% or so of the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere per year. Natural processes release and absorb many times that per year.
This is one of the dumbest 'arguments' of the anthropocentric truthers and bible throwers. The natural process is a carbon circulation. Combustion of fossil fuels takes carbon out of the ground and transfers it into the ocean and the atmosphere. |
|
|
|
The reason humans can't impact the CLIMATE with CO2 is because our release of CO2 is miniscule in comparison to the CO2 absorbed and released by for example the oceans due to changes in the sea temperature due to the Sun.
Complete Bullshit. That is the natural carbon circulation. Taking carbon out of the ground and transport it into the atmosphere and the ocean means to enrich the atmosphere and the ocean with additional carbon. Every child understands it. Even a child can understand that Santa came down the chimney, ate the cookies, drank the milk, and dropped off a load of presents. CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere. Currently around 400 ppmv or 0.04%. Combustion of fossil fuels accounts for about 5% or so of the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere per year. Natural processes release and absorb many times that per year. Here's a concept that 'even a child can understand.' - He wasn't driving drunk, he just had a trace of blood alcohol; 800 ppm (0.08%) is the limit in all 50 US states, and limits are lower in most other countries). - Don't worry about your iron deficiency, iron is only 4.4 ppm of your body's atoms (Sterner and Eiser, 2002). - Ireland isn't important; it's only 660 ppm (0.066%) of the world population. - That ibuprofen pill can't do you any good; it's only 3 ppm of your body weight (200 mg in 60 kg person). - The Earth is insignificant, it's only 3 ppm of the mass of the solar system. - Your children can drink that water, it only contains a trace of arsenic (0.01 ppm is the WHO and US EPA limit). - Ozone is only a trace gas: 0.1 ppm |
|
|
|
And you are incorrect to assume that Zaradude was arguing about environment. He is not.
I was arguing about the climate of the environment, just as Nassim Taleb: But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now.I think we can all agree that "green initiatives" can lead to greater environmental harm through subsidies and waste, and that systems like carbon credits probably serve to enrich and empower such regulators, but it is still crucially importantly to be aware of our individual and collective impact upon Mother Earth (for example, realizing everything's means to their ends) regardless of said political pandering. I think we can all agree that Nassim Taleb is saying: We should not enrich the atmosphere with additional carbon, since we do not know the result of such crazy experiments. |
|
|
|
And you are incorrect to assume that Zaradude was arguing about environment. He is not.
I was arguing about the climate of the environment, just as Nassim Taleb: But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. |
|
|
|
The reason humans can't impact the CLIMATE with CO2 is because our release of CO2 is miniscule in comparison to the CO2 absorbed and released by for example the oceans due to changes in the sea temperature due to the Sun.
Complete Bullshit. That is the natural carbon circulation. Taking carbon out of the ground and transport it into the atmosphere and the ocean means to enrich the atmosphere and the ocean with additional carbon. Every child understands it. |
|
|
|
The assumption of either position for or against as absolute, is anti-science.
Science is the process of questioning the 'experts' and testing.
It is when we stop questioning, that science ends.
In this case you are both more right than wrong.
An absolute position against unknown anthropogenic experiments with the ocean and the atmosphere is not anti-science. The position, that changing the composition of the ocean and the atmosphere doesn't change the climate in the ocean and the atmosphere is not only anti-science; it is a super-hyper-idiotic position. |
|
|
|
Wow you just proved you are an idiot (or presumptuous which is the same thing). Do some research on the science. I did. And so did 9,000 PhDs.
Lazy people love to boast and we who are not lazy realize you are idiots. That is why you get the NWO enslavement that you deserve.
Wow! 9000 quacks who find themselves in opposition to physical logic, against 9 Million who don't ... |
|
|
|
If you brake your leg or your neck, you should consult a quack instead of a university trained doctor of the establishment.
When the funding for tenured professors comes from the establishment which does not want truth to be explored on a particular issue (e.g. anthropogenic global warming aka man-made climate change lie that was foisted on the establishment and which 9,000 PhDs were signatories against but even that never made the news), then science within the establishment does not exist on that issue. When some of those established engineers and professors decide instead to fund their collaboration, this is then debunked as non-science because it didn't take place within the monolith of the establishment's controlled funding model. Logical indeed. I know the anthropocentric logic of the quacks and truthers: taking CO2 out of the ground and put it into the athmosphere and the ocean doesn't change the climate of the athmosphere and the ocean. Logical indeed. Wow you just proved you are an idiot (or presumptuous which is the same thing). Do some research on the science. I did. And so did 9,000 PhDs. Lazy people love to boast and we who are not lazy realize you are idiots. That is why you get the NWO enslavement that you deserve. It's you who is the idiot. Not an idiot for example is Nassim Taleb: Climate Change.
I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion
.............
We have polluted for years, causing much damage to the environment, while the scientists currently making these complicated forecasting models were not sticking their necks out and trying to stop us from building these risks (they resemble those "risk experts" in the economic domain who fight the previous war) --these are the ones now trying to impose the solutions on us. But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. That's the sound policy under ignorance and epistemic opacity. To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/ |
|
|
|
If you brake your leg or your neck, you should consult a quack instead of a university trained doctor of the establishment.
When the funding for tenured professors comes from the establishment which does not want truth to be explored on a particular issue (e.g. anthropogenic global warming aka man-made climate change lie that was foisted on the establishment and which 9,000 PhDs were signatories against but even that never made the news), then science within the establishment does not exist on that issue. When some of those established engineers and professors decide instead to fund their collaboration, this is then debunked as non-science because it didn't take place within the monolith of the establishment's controlled funding model. Logical indeed. I know the anthropocentric logic of the quacks and truthers: taking CO2 out of the ground and put it into the athmosphere and the ocean doesn't change the climate of the athmosphere and the ocean. Logical indeed. |
|
|
|
I watched it. His arguments are: 1) If you don't do science through the establishment, then you are not doing science. 2) Only people trained in universities can be trusted to do peer review. 3) Bush was running the government (and not the DEEP STATE) and Bush's only objective was not "you are either for us or you are against us". He entirely sidesteps the point of 9/11 was to foist "you are either for us or you are against us" on the entire world. And he substitutes a strawman, Hegelian dialectic for logic. He sidesteps the concept that the DEEP STATE plays many different elements against each other in order to retain control. In short he is either knowingly acting as a gatekeeper, senile, or just not that smart. I would bet on the first conclusion. I'll agree with your bet. Classic controlled opposition. No, I think both of you conspiracy theorists are smarter than Chomsky. Chomsky is a slave of the establishment and both of you conspiracy theorists are free hero members of the society. If you brake your leg or your neck, you should consult a quack instead of a university trained doctor of the establishment. |
|
|
|
check out of the gold collapse
I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming. I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement. What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed! He is still pissed off because I don't buy into his "we are going back to cavemen" theory of economics. No. This species is going forward; leaving your collectivist behavior behind. Crypto based Anonymity is not a tool to maintain collectivism; it will destroy collectivism and society and that will lead to the rebirth of the selfsufficient community. Not nice for you the collectivsts, but inevitable.  Well then take solace in that I am working for you then because I (as AnonyMint) have been pushing for greater anonymity since 2013. And I am pushing for it not just in cryptocoins but also on the entire internet and my plans are much broader in scope than just cryptocoins. Wow, on the entire internet?! That's really impressive! |
|
|
|
But just step back for a moment and ask yourself who in the hell had the power to do 9/11?
Anyone who took some flying lessons? Because pilots were trained to follow a terrorist's orders, similarly to how bank tellers today are told "no heroics, just give a robber the cash; we'll round him up eventually". And FYI the idea literally was written into a Tom Clancy novel years before (although IIRC it was Japan that attacked) so the terrorists did not even need to be creative. That same novel put forth the idea of combined physical/economic warfare as well -- crash the stock market just before you attack. Chomsky's confrontation with a truther idiot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i9ra-i6Knc |
|
|
|
check out of the gold collapse
I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming. I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement. What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed! He is still pissed off because I don't buy into his "we are going back to cavemen" theory of economics. No. This species is going forward; leaving your collectivist behavior behind. Crypto based Anonymity is not a tool to maintain collectivism; it will destroy collectivism and society and that will lead to the rebirth of the selfsufficient community. Not nice for you the collectivsts, but inevitable. |
|
|
|
check out of the gold collapse
I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming. I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement. What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed! Has it ever been any different? What you have to remember about this thread is that if all the egos were laid end to end.... ...no-one would be in the least bit surprised. TRUE. One huge egotrip in this thread. It should be locked and forgotten about. But BTC is dropping and gold will climb, so at the very least it should have it's title changed. No. A clever writer with charisma (cypherdoc) and hence some more clever thinkers in this thread. A few stalkers are realising it but can't lure them into their own threads. That is the reason why they are here and not elsewhere. |
|
|
|
check out of the gold collapse
I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming. I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement. What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed! |
|
|
|
next big bitcoin rally will when reward halving occurs. before that we can see some price bumps but can't expect a big rally
i expect a big raise before that to be honest, because everyone know there will be a raise by then, thus everyone will begin to buy before that, and therefore many others will start buying even before those who know that will raise, starting a reverse chain, that it will bring a price increase much early I am agree with you guys, next big rise may happen when reward halving occurs, which needs 2 more years It's a long long time, guys we need make more fiat now and buy enough bitcoin before that rise, so we will catch that huge rise in the future, let's be rich. Maybe next big rise will happen before that because of good apps, or some countries have financial crisis. Like 2013 huge rise. Next halving date will be in summer 2016. "2013 huge rise" happened around and because of the last halving. |
|
|
|
"Good short oportunity in this range with SL in the 233-237 area and target in the low 100s" Failed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
