tvbcof
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
|
 |
February 20, 2016, 12:56:07 AM |
|
How can I have any time to learn stuff?
I am busy unlearning wrong things.
I know how that goes man! Fortunately for me I make it a point to hardly ever 'know' anything but rather just consider something to be highly probable or highly improbable...or more usually somewhere in between of course. |
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each block is stacked on top of the previous one. Adding another block to the top makes all lower blocks more difficult to remove: there is more "weight" above each block. A transaction in a block 6 blocks deep (6 confirmations) will be very difficult to remove.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mainpmf
|
|
February 20, 2016, 01:08:03 AM |
|
How can I have any time to learn stuff?
I am busy unlearning wrong things.
I know how that goes man! Fortunately for me I make it a point to hardly ever 'know' anything but rather just consider something to be highly probable or highly improbable...or more usually somewhere in between of course. Well only considering things as being probable... It means you won't go very far :/ |
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
|
|
February 20, 2016, 01:16:52 AM |
|
How can I have any time to learn stuff?
I am busy unlearning wrong things.
I know how that goes man! Fortunately for me I make it a point to hardly ever 'know' anything but rather just consider something to be highly probable or highly improbable...or more usually somewhere in between of course. Well only considering things as being probable... It means you won't go very far :/ Better that than ' a long way the wrong way' or so far that I don't have enough gas to get back when I figure out that I've taken a wrong turn. That's the way I see it and it seems to work fine for me. |
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
|
galdur
|
|
February 20, 2016, 01:17:28 AM |
|
I just think it´s staggering. All life is based on plants and they love CO2. Which is supposed to be a major threat to civilization and probably the future of mankind. I just hope that these world savers don´t decide that the exhalation of CO2 by humans and animals is such a threat to life that it necessitates mass extermination.
That's not the point... H2O too is a base of life, but give it too much and it sinks everything... Nature is a question of Balance. The point is that idiots think that CO2 is some sort of pollution. They have that from somewhere. Maybe it´s in elementary school curriculum. It´s certainly seen in garbage media and they probably have it from some scientists. |
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 20, 2016, 03:11:46 PM |
|
I just think it´s staggering. All life is based on plants and they love CO2. Which is supposed to be a major threat to civilization and probably the future of mankind. I just hope that these world savers don´t decide that the exhalation of CO2 by humans and animals is such a threat to life that it necessitates mass extermination.
That's not the point... H2O too is a base of life, but give it too much and it sinks everything... Nature is a question of Balance. The point is that idiots think that CO2 is some sort of pollution. They have that from somewhere. Maybe it´s in elementary school curriculum. It´s certainly seen in garbage media and they probably have it from some scientists. Above a level of around 7000 parts per million, humans begin to have headaches and other negatives from the CO2 level. Optimal levels of CO2 for greenhouse growing of plants are well understood. Yes, the propaganda to the masses indicates CO2 is a pollutant. Pure and simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
galdur
|
|
February 20, 2016, 04:06:44 PM |
|
There´s record crops these years and most commodities prices at a multi-year low. I guess this so called pollution should be blamed for that at least partly. The world is drowning in food. Every cloud has a silver lining.  |
|
|
|
|
valta4065
|
|
February 20, 2016, 09:34:31 PM |
|
How can I have any time to learn stuff?
I am busy unlearning wrong things.
I know how that goes man! Fortunately for me I make it a point to hardly ever 'know' anything but rather just consider something to be highly probable or highly improbable...or more usually somewhere in between of course. Well only considering things as being probable... It means you won't go very far :/ Better that than ' a long way the wrong way' or so far that I don't have enough gas to get back when I figure out that I've taken a wrong turn. That's the way I see it and it seems to work fine for me. Not sure, better go somewhere than staying at the same place. |
|
|
|
|
valta4065
|
|
February 20, 2016, 09:35:42 PM |
|
I just think it´s staggering. All life is based on plants and they love CO2. Which is supposed to be a major threat to civilization and probably the future of mankind. I just hope that these world savers don´t decide that the exhalation of CO2 by humans and animals is such a threat to life that it necessitates mass extermination.
That's not the point... H2O too is a base of life, but give it too much and it sinks everything... Nature is a question of Balance. The point is that idiots think that CO2 is some sort of pollution. They have that from somewhere. Maybe it´s in elementary school curriculum. It´s certainly seen in garbage media and they probably have it from some scientists. It's pollution because it changes the way ecosystem works. That's the definition. |
|
|
|
|
yugo23
|
|
February 20, 2016, 11:27:21 PM |
|
There´s record crops these years and most commodities prices at a multi-year low. I guess this so called pollution should be blamed for that at least partly. The world is drowning in food. Every cloud has a silver lining. Hmm... Nothing to do with pesticides or anything like progress in agricultural industry? |
|
|
|
|
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
|
|
February 21, 2016, 01:13:21 AM |
|
I just think it´s staggering. All life is based on plants and they love CO2. Which is supposed to be a major threat to civilization and probably the future of mankind. I just hope that these world savers don´t decide that the exhalation of CO2 by humans and animals is such a threat to life that it necessitates mass extermination.
That's not the point... H2O too is a base of life, but give it too much and it sinks everything... Nature is a question of Balance. The point is that idiots think that CO2 is some sort of pollution. They have that from somewhere. Maybe it´s in elementary school curriculum. It´s certainly seen in garbage media and they probably have it from some scientists. It's pollution because it changes the way ecosystem works. That's the definition. Trees love CO2 |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 21, 2016, 01:20:15 AM |
|
It's pollution because it changes the way ecosystem works. That's the definition.
That makes zero sense. Unscientific, politically biased propaganda. The carbon cycle is well understood. |
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
February 21, 2016, 10:45:02 AM |
|
I just think it´s staggering. All life is based on plants and they love CO2. Which is supposed to be a major threat to civilization and probably the future of mankind. I just hope that these world savers don´t decide that the exhalation of CO2 by humans and animals is such a threat to life that it necessitates mass extermination.
That's not the point... H2O too is a base of life, but give it too much and it sinks everything... Nature is a question of Balance. The point is that idiots think that CO2 is some sort of pollution. They have that from somewhere. Maybe it´s in elementary school curriculum. It´s certainly seen in garbage media and they probably have it from some scientists. It's pollution because it changes the way ecosystem works. That's the definition. Trees love CO2 yea but we cut trees.  |
|
|
|
|
|
craked5
|
|
February 21, 2016, 11:38:36 AM |
|
I just think it´s staggering. All life is based on plants and they love CO2. Which is supposed to be a major threat to civilization and probably the future of mankind. I just hope that these world savers don´t decide that the exhalation of CO2 by humans and animals is such a threat to life that it necessitates mass extermination.
That's not the point... H2O too is a base of life, but give it too much and it sinks everything... Nature is a question of Balance. The point is that idiots think that CO2 is some sort of pollution. They have that from somewhere. Maybe it´s in elementary school curriculum. It´s certainly seen in garbage media and they probably have it from some scientists. It's pollution because it changes the way ecosystem works. That's the definition. Trees love CO2 And so on... Animals love oxygene, so? What does it prove? CO2 takes the place of oxygene so we can say it's bad for animals! |
|
|
|
|
|
craked5
|
|
February 21, 2016, 11:41:54 AM |
|
It's pollution because it changes the way ecosystem works. That's the definition.
That makes zero sense. Unscientific, politically biased propaganda. The carbon cycle is well understood. No you're stupid. If humans change the concentration of CO2, the carbon cycle changes. That's all. |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 21, 2016, 02:56:37 PM |
|
It's pollution because it changes the way ecosystem works. That's the definition.
That makes zero sense. Unscientific, politically biased propaganda. The carbon cycle is well understood. No you're stupid. If humans change the concentration of CO2, the carbon cycle changes. That's all. No, the carbon cycle does not change one bit. I don't think you even understand what you are saying. Even IF in worst case nutcase zealot Warmer the polar ice cap melted, the carbon cycle would not change. However, if you actually believe that, support it with actual facts, instead of proclaiming people stupid. |
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
February 21, 2016, 02:59:25 PM |
|
It's pollution because it changes the way ecosystem works. That's the definition.
That makes zero sense. Unscientific, politically biased propaganda. The carbon cycle is well understood. No you're stupid. If humans change the concentration of CO2, the carbon cycle changes. That's all. No, the carbon cycle does not change one bit. I don't think you even understand what you are saying. Even IF in worst case nutcase zealot Warmer the polar ice cap melted, the carbon cycle would not change. However, if you actually believe that, support it with actual facts, instead of proclaiming people stupid. isnt that what they teach in school.  must be true. |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 21, 2016, 03:10:52 PM |
|
It's pollution because it changes the way ecosystem works. That's the definition.
That makes zero sense. Unscientific, politically biased propaganda. The carbon cycle is well understood. No you're stupid. If humans change the concentration of CO2, the carbon cycle changes. That's all. No, the carbon cycle does not change one bit. I don't think you even understand what you are saying. Even IF in worst case nutcase zealot Warmer the polar ice cap melted, the carbon cycle would not change. However, if you actually believe that, support it with actual facts, instead of proclaiming people stupid. isnt that what they teach in school. must be true. I do not think that's what is taught in high school, no. The carbon cycle simple describes the conversion of carbon from atmospheric co2 to plant tissue, ocean floor deposits, minerals, partial pressure in water masses, and then eventually back into an atmospheric gas. Similarly there is a hydrologic cycle which describes the movement of water. It may well be that the high schools are so clogged up teaching the propaganda that they simply do not have time to teach aspects of science such as these cycles. |
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
February 21, 2016, 03:12:37 PM |
|
It's pollution because it changes the way ecosystem works. That's the definition.
That makes zero sense. Unscientific, politically biased propaganda. The carbon cycle is well understood. No you're stupid. If humans change the concentration of CO2, the carbon cycle changes. That's all. No, the carbon cycle does not change one bit. I don't think you even understand what you are saying. Even IF in worst case nutcase zealot Warmer the polar ice cap melted, the carbon cycle would not change. However, if you actually believe that, support it with actual facts, instead of proclaiming people stupid. isnt that what they teach in school. must be true. I do not think that's what is taught in high school, no. The carbon cycle simple describes the conversion of carbon from atmospheric co2 to plant tissue, ocean floor deposits, minerals, partial pressure in water masses, and then eventually back into an atmospheric gas. Similarly there is a hydrologic cycle which describes the movement of water. It may well be that the high schools are so clogged up teaching the propaganda that they simply do not have time to teach aspects of science such as these cycles. what you be the percentage of human CO2 production vs nature? |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 21, 2016, 03:24:11 PM |
|
....
what you be the percentage of human CO2 production vs nature?
What about it? It's a valid ARGUMENT to ask if human CO2 production is raising the global temperature by some significant amount. Whether you agree or do not are answers to the argument. It's not a valid argument to claim the carbon cycle is changed by man. That's ridiculous, it's like denying the Earth is round or such. One aspect of the large scale introduction of propaganda is the necessary elimination or narrowing of critical and skeptical thinking. Everything must support "the narrative." |
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
February 21, 2016, 03:35:53 PM
Last edit: February 21, 2016, 05:16:26 PM by hdbuck |
|
....
what you be the percentage of human CO2 production vs nature?
What about it? It's a valid ARGUMENT to ask if human CO2 production is raising the global temperature by some significant amount. Whether you agree or do not are answers to the argument. It's not a valid argument to claim the carbon cycle is changed by man. That's ridiculous, it's like denying the Earth is round or such. One aspect of the large scale introduction of propaganda is the necessary elimination or narrowing of critical and skeptical thinking. Everything must support "the narrative." You misunderstood, i am just asking you what would be the percentage of human CO2 emission worldwide, as it surely would be ridiculously small (in comparaison with the oceans as it often comes up). I often hear the 1% to 0,00001% but lazy about digging up some good source. Anyway I would personally side with antropogenic CO2 cycle having any effect on the earth as mystical bullshit. But surely the rest of human pollution do have a horrifying effect. AGW is like, the "tip of the melting iceberg", the "tree hiding the deforestation"...  |
|
|
|
|
|
