Oregon 'What If They Want You Dead?' Leftists Bear Arms In Self-Defense

[Dwesson]

Coal also realeases a lot more chemicals like mercury and sulfur... but ya know, all the wood I burn has lead paint on it so I guess that's about the same.

Both of which are pollutants but not contributors to much in the way of climate change (assuming you believe CO2 is the major contributor to anthropogenic climate change).

 

[Flymph]

Global warming and climate change have been occurring since the end of the last ice age... And will continue until the start of the next ice age.

I just hope records are safely stored so in thousands of years from now, they'll be alone to piece together the climate cycles the globe actually goes through...

We won't make it if we don't save some of those fuels to get us through...
WINTER IS COMING!

 

[Dwesson]

I like the rest of your post, but the above I don't see as a good argument. I'll use this analogy: if 95% of the people are littering, does it then mean littering is OK for us also?

We should be leading the world, not using what the rest of the people are doing as an excuse for inaction.

It's not an analogy. You're misconstruing the argument to be "we shouldn't do anything".

"If it saves just one life" It's a logical fallacy.

 

[Flymph]

Both of which are pollutants but not contributors to much in the way of climate change (assuming you believe CO2 is the major contributor to anthropogenic climate change).

No, I believe people have an influence but are not the sole reason. If we had that much control we wouldn't be having this discussion.
However, I can tell you that the air is cleaner out in the mountains than it is in the city. Just based on how well I can breath in the two places.

 

[Hop Sing]

"If it saves just one life" It's a logical fallacy.

How is that? Seriously.

 

[Flymph]

It's not an analogy. You're misconstruing the argument to be "we shouldn't do anything".

"If it saves just one life" It's a logical fallacy.

It's not a fallacy if it's my life that gets saved! Screw the rest of 'em!

 

[nammac]

Y'all scaring me, do I need to start carrying one of them there personal oxygen generators???

 

[CamoDeafie]

Also for all the talk of deforestations elsewhere.... Oregon I think at last count has more trees covering it than when it was first settled by Europeans.. I think I have heard that the forests in Canada, and in Russia, at least N of the Arctic Circle is growing in numbers of trees...

Who here remembers the 1980s-1990s panic of the holing of the Ozone Layer, and the push to ban CFCs and the like? What news have there been of the Ozone hole? What additional actions have been taken related to that?

 

[Flymph]

Also for all the talk of deforestations elsewhere.... Oregon I think at last count has more trees covering it than when it was first settled by Europeans.. I think I have heard that the forests in Canada, and in Russia, at least N of the Arctic Circle is growing in numbers of trees...

Who here remembers the 1980s-1990s panic of the holing of the Ozone Layer, and the push to ban CFCs and the like? What news have there been of the Ozone hole? What additional actions have been taken related to that?

Yeah, junipers are contributing to the droubts in eastern oregon. Has to do with permeable ground and such.

 

[Dwesson]

How is that? Seriously.

It's a false cause argument specifically.

You're assuming our plastic straws are contributing to the plastic in the ocean at all.

Hint: It's not, what plastic is winding up in the ocean from the US is predominately from fishing nets.

 

[Hop Sing]

Who here remembers the 1980s-1990s panic of the holing of the Ozone Layer, and the push to ban CFCs and the like? What news have there been of the Ozone hole? What additional actions have been taken related to that?

That was fixed thanks to quick action of people using scientific method.

 

[Hop Sing]

It's a false cause argument specifically.

You're assuming our plastic straws are contributing to the plastic in the ocean at all.

Hint: It's not, what plastic is winding up in the ocean from the US is predominately from fishing nets.

I get it - thanks. From all the crap I see on the beach though I am betting that the plastic straw ban is a good thing - if only used as an awareness raising example of how plastic use can be curtailed.

 

[CamoDeafie]

That was fixed thanks to quick action of people using scientific method.

Latest on it is that its not totally "fixed".. and likely won't be until 2080, if people arent gonna be stupid eventually

Some research seems to say that rocket launches do affect the ozone layer... others seem to say that its the free chlorine and bromine in the air that eats away the ozone every winter during the extreme cold... still other reports are saying there is a possibility that a fully restored Ozone layer may contribute slightly to global warming due to ozone being a greenhouse gas

In that same vein, research of the air temps around the U.S. noted that solar air heating was at its highest on 9/11 due to the grounding of all commercial flights that day and the following day, hypothetically the contrails (not chemtrails) that normally crisscross the skies contributed to lower average air temps due to providing shade

 

[Hop Sing]

Latest on it is that its not totally "fixed".. and likely won't be until 2080, if people arent gonna be stupid eventually

Some research seems to say that rocket launches do affect the ozone layer... others seem to say that its the free chlorine and bromine in the air that eats away the ozone every winter during the extreme cold... still other reports are saying there is a possibility that a fully restored Ozone layer may contribute slightly to global warming due to ozone being a greenhouse gas

In that same vein, research of the air temps around the U.S. noted that solar air heating was at its highest on 9/11 due to the grounding of all commercial flights that day and the following day, hypothetically the contrails (not chemtrails) that normally crisscross the skies contributed to lower average air temps due to providing shade

Yeah, I read that about the contrails. I label that "irony".

 

[Flymph]

Latest on it is that its not totally "fixed".. and likely won't be until 2080, if people arent gonna be stupid eventually

Some research seems to say that rocket launches do affect the ozone layer... others seem to say that its the free chlorine and bromine in the air that eats away the ozone every winter during the extreme cold... still other reports are saying there is a possibility that a fully restored Ozone layer may contribute slightly to global warming due to ozone being a greenhouse gas

In that same vein, research of the air temps around the U.S. noted that solar air heating was at its highest on 9/11 due to the grounding of all commercial flights that day and the following day, hypothetically the contrails (not chemtrails) that normally crisscross the skies contributed to lower average air temps due to providing shade

I'm pretty sure the biggest end to that husteria was when they figured out how much the ozone actually changes seasonally and how rapidly it can "fix" itself.

 

[CrackPipe]

There are plenty of scientists that disagree as to what impact mankind has had on climate. There's also plenty of evidence to suggest that the climate increasing will have more positive than deleterious effects. Certainly more so than a decrease of a few degrees (which has typically resulted in famine).

There's also clear examples of data being falsified in the name of supporting a global warming narrative as well as serious blackballing in the scientific community for simply disagreeing with the theory.

"The debate is settled" <-- A phrase never uttered by a true scientist, sorry.

Climate change is a religion or dogma to many.

One thing is certain, man's hubris knows no bounds.

Those are all interesting but misleading or false talking points that have been disproven over and over. If you want to claim that the science is wrong, you need to disprove the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas due to its dipole moment or overturn ratiative physics and isotopic chemical signatures. Until then you are straight up factuality incorrect.
Good luck

 

[CamoDeafie]

Ozone is a greenhouse gas. Should we have kept opening the hole and continued to use CFCs and allowed increased solar radiation to bombard the Earth?



I'm not disputing that CO2 isnt... nor am I disputing that climate change isn't real... however I am saying it is arrogance, human hubris to assume that humans are the sole cause of climate change. Short term, yes maybe humanity has affected it... long term, looking at the scale of geologic periods and the long history of the Earth.. it is a very small blip, and there have been no less than 11 distinct mass extinction events...

 

[Dwesson]

Those are all interesting but misleading or false talking points that have been disproven over and over. If you want to claim that the science is wrong, you need to disprove the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas due to its dipole moment or overturn ratiative physics and isotopic chemical signatures. Until then you are straight up factuality incorrect.
Good luck

You can pretend there aren't scientists that disagree, but that's simply not true.

Neither misleading or false List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming - Wikipedia

Climate Change Remains Unsettled, Say 31,072 Scientists

You can also deny that climate change data hasn't been falsified (one of several instances):

Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming 'pause'

There are also accounts of scientists being blackballed in the community for opposing the dogma.

H2O, CO2, and CH4 absorb IR radiation only at specific wavelengths. The gas which has the highest concentration in air absorbs and re-emits the most IR radiation.

Water vapor the highest concentration among the greenhouse gases, and water vapor including clouds is the dominant greenhouse gas.
The concentration of water vapor in air is about 1%, while the concentration of CO2 in air is only about 0.04% (or 400 ppm).

This is NOT to say that humans do not affect temperature and climate in other ways, such as building cities, roads, planting or cutting forests and fields, etc.

The hypothesis of human-caused global warming by the contribution of a mere 0.004% of the total CO2 emissions, is hubris.

The oceans hold 50x as much CO2 as the atmosphere...uh oh..



And at this point i'll refrain from continuing to derail the thread.

 

[CamoDeafie]

As far as I can tell, we are leaving the most recent Ice Age and entering another Warm Period, in terms of geologic weather periods over a span of hundreds of thousands years... perhaps into million years spacing... humanity has been around for a relatively short time; Earth will find its own balance eventually one way or other... if mass extinction happens to specific species, that leaves the future open for new species to develop and take over... there have been several species of humans, we are the last surviving species (homo sapiens); does anyone think there would be another species coming from us eventually, or would we be doomed to be the swan song, so to speak of humanity and its impact on the Earth?

 

[Herb g]

That's poetic, right there. (seriously)

As the climate changes there are certainly areas that may benefit - being able to grow certain crops further north, for instance. On the other hand vineyards in Yamhill County are ripping very established grape vines because the climate has changed enough that their quality of fruit is not acceptable - a huge cost to the grower.

As I see it, why not err on the conservative and believe that man's hand has a role in climate change? I am sure this would impede some extra coal mining, but it would also create newer technologies.


Edit: what we have here is known as thread drift. HA

Defending civil rights is, of course, not despotic.

Let's be clear, however, politics isn't a unidimensional concept. It dynamic multi-variant thought process. Left and right refer only to general political alignment.

For example, the Nazi party in Germany of the 1930's was considered right wing, not because of its Socialist ideology, but because it was an opponent of the European Comunists. From its inception, the Nazis were totalitarian, and came to power as a reaction to the left's overreach.

There are multiple other examples of right wing despotism; Spain under Franco, Argentina under Peron, etc. So, yes, the far right is a threat to liberty and needs to be opposed.

Thoughts?

So, present day, right now, if you have to choose between left and right, who do you choose? The left, whose platform is to collect the guns, and who's 2012 Democratic National Convention delegates booed God out of their platform on live tv, or the right, who isn't perfect, but the better of the two. Do you remember why Trump was elected?