Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote:1. Does the actual amount of human contributions to the atmosphere exceed natural contributions? I don't know.

The point is not so much the CO2 tonnage in absolute terms as the amount of CO2 which the biosphere can handle without getting itself seriously out of whack. For instance the overall percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 70% since the pre-industrial era. This is an astonishingly rapid change in biological terms and could well be unprecedented in the last billion years. (No-one really knows for sure whether such a rapid CO2 escalation has ever happened in the past but it seems improbable in the past few hundred million years at least). If the CO2 level were to increase by 70% more gradually, say over a period of ten thousand years or so, it is quite likely that the biosphere could adjust without a mass extinction because this is a time scale more suitable for evolution to work its magic in.

Walker wrote:respiration of plants. Many areas of the planet are as forested as they ever were. Many areas

Whilst this is true the overall vegetation cover on the planet has plummeted dramatically over the past two centuries. I don't have the figures to hand but this is not in dispute.

Walker wrote: The gas exchanges affected by localized pockets of deforestation could well be absorbed into the huge atmosphere, could they not?

Sure. Whilst there is some small variation in CO2 levels from region to region our weather systems are such that such variations are negligible in the wider scheme of things. It is certainly meaningful to speak of a global percentage level of CO2.

Walker wrote:The ocean could be compared to the atmosphere, could it not?

It's a totally different system but sweet fuck-all is known about the role of the marine biosphere in the carbon cycle. Everybody knows it's hugely important but nobody really knows how the whole system functions together, which is why the future predictions of the climate scientists are so wildly uncertain. However they seem to be pretty unanimous in their agreement that the acidification of the marine biosphere which an increased absorption of CO2 is causing is likely to have some serious long-term consequences. Nobody knows what these consequences might be and anybody who claims to know is full of shit because the future of evolving systems simply cannot be predicted.

Walker wrote:Speaking of radio blurbs, a few months ago I heard the tree population has been recalculated. 6 trillion trees. Much larger than previously thought.

Interestingly the country making the most rapid progress in replacing its lost forests is China.

One other big side effect with the most abundant greenhouse gas (co2), which I haven't seen mentioned or maybe I missed, is that it stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Even if we stop producing it completely - to which we're not even close - what's there already is not going away any time soon and there aren't enough forests to sequester the carbon being emitted. The hottest years on record occurred since 1998 which causes a further compounding of misery since more forests are also burning down adding to the carbon content in the atmosphere. It seems like a chain reaction, one inevitability leading to another!

Lovely times ahead! The only ones who may remain comfortable are the very rich who can afford the technology to ameliorate the consequences...at least for a time.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I did not say global warming was a hoax. You are the idiot that thinks the climate ought to be in equilibrium.

I didn't say that and I don't like having my words misrepresented. .

Boo Hoo.

And I don't like being compared with a science denier.

It has become fashionable in many sectors of our society to regard scientific claims as those which we are free to believe or disbelieve in accordance with our own conceptual taste or in accordance with our own personal comprehension of the scientific issues under scrutiny.

The rest you've already said and not yet addressed my issue.

Dubious wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
So tell me what concentration of CO2 is capable of contributing 1 degree of celsius to the global temperature?

Did I fucking address you? To repeat - what you made obvious so many times - anyone who disagrees with you on any point is either a moron, retard, idiot or worse. Debate with you is not possible UNLESS they throw themselves at your feet and there's enough idiots here who have done precisely that. Every thought or idea which doesn't conform to yours is treated as a personal insult to which you reply with insults which makes you one of the three trolls on the site.

Since you so obviously already know the answer to your question why ask and if it refutes everything I wrote why not simply present it and show everyone what an idiot, retard, moron I really am? That would suffice to give you a lot of pleasure!

Once and for all FUCK OFF

I asked a simple enough question.
If you don't know the answer then say so.
Are you getting me mixed up with someone else?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:

Happy Holidays MB! It's not you that I've rebutted, rather your ill informed argument, as surely my research tells me such. PEACE, my dear!

--May no ones ignorance or fear be their downfall!--

Spheres, I think I may have answered some of your questions in my post to HC. I know that you only try to help others and appreciate that, as always. We agree on the need to research; I only produced one link as a starter for those who haven't invested as much time and effort as you have.
This is a subject which needs separate attention...

Peace and love to you and everyone at this crazy time of year. Have a good time and treasure the memories.

If you're not afraid of PDF's because you keep your reader updated, and/or have a good anti-virus program running, not that this resource should be problematic, read this actual whitepaper, (NOT A MAGAZINE ARTICLE),

Trouble is that you do not understand the implications of the experiment.
This is not a medical trial and the means by which the experiment took place has no practical treatment analogy.
You might as well suggest that olive oil or mineral oils inhibits the respiration of cancer cells.

There is certainly no warrant to me to have given up conventional treatment in favour of some commercially available dope oil , as you hysterically suggested.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:"Belief is the antithesis of knowledge"....Bertrand Russell.

Hobbes. You and I share a very similar world-view when it comes to questions of belief. The journey of the self through life is an evolutionary process, which means that at every stage of this journey we are simply a work in progress. The notion of a final answer to all our questions is the myth which Camus refers to as a capitulation to belief and philosophical suicide. When we choose to believe it means we've given up.

Excellent.

But that is why I remain skeptical about the claims of anthropogenic global warming.

It's a foolish thing indeed to ignore the facts

Then I suggest you stop doing it. And read more carefully.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Walker wrote:1. Does the actual amount of human contributions to the atmosphere exceed natural contributions? I don't know.

The point is not so much the CO2 tonnage in absolute terms as the amount of CO2 which the biosphere can handle without getting itself seriously out of whack. For instance the overall percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 70% since the pre-industrial era..

You are just making shit up as you go along.
The last time you quoted this statistic you said 20%.
The fact is that we do not know as accurately as we would like what global temperatures or Co2 concentrations have been in the past.
Nor can the trace amounts of CO2 then AND now, give us an explanation for the claimed rise in temperature.
CO2 remains at trace amounts, and whilst it is agreed that it is a greenhouse gas, and can be shown in high concentrations to keep air at a warmer level, there is no physics which gives such tiny concentration (0.04%) the significance which the climate lobby claims for it.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The last time you quoted this statistic you said 20%.

I did not. Atmospheric CO2 has increased from an estimated 250ppm in 1850 to a measured 400 ppm today so my guess was inaccurate. The correct increase is actually 60%.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:CO2 remains at trace amounts, and whilst it is agreed that it is a greenhouse gas, and can be shown in high concentrations to keep air at a warmer level, there is no physics which gives such tiny concentration (0.04%) the significance which the climate lobby claims for it.

You've repeatedly made this claim but are yet to offer a source for it. The physics of this is very basic stuff and has been in the public domain for over a century. Bear in mind that your credibility took a hammering after you claimed that global warming was the cause of CO2 escalation rather than the effect of it. There are many imaginative theories about the causes of global warming but so far you're the only one I've come across who's managed to get cause and effect arse-about.

Obvious Leo wrote:An interesting piece of trivia I just heard on the radio today. The US uses more electricity just to power up its Xmas lighting than the entire nation of Ethiopia uses in a full year.

I wonder who was in charge of measuring that, and how it was accomplished.

I'm a huge proponent of solar power, then of course it really doesn't matter how much power anyone uses. Right now the greatest percentage of our power plants are coal fired, one of the dirtiest methods, if not the dirtiest.

Isn't that the funny thing? I mean, actually the sun is and has only ever been our only power source. The plants and animals that created the oil deposits were powered by our star, such that it surely seems the smartest source to harness, especially because it's the closest thing to an infinite source that we have. Photovoltaic panels, together with Solar Water Heating, Trombe walls, Geothermal and Wind Turbines should be enough to shut down the coal plants, if the current energy moguls would release their grip on their familiar easier way to maintain their money flow. Surely to my way of thinking there are far more important things to consider, like our children's future.

Obvious Leo wrote:"Belief is the antithesis of knowledge"....Bertrand Russell.

Hobbes. You and I share a very similar world-view when it comes to questions of belief. The journey of the self through life is an evolutionary process, which means that at every stage of this journey we are simply a work in progress. The notion of a final answer to all our questions is the myth which Camus refers to as a capitulation to belief and philosophical suicide. When we choose to believe it means we've given up.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Excellent.

But that is why I remain skeptical about the claims of anthropogenic global warming.

It's a foolish thing indeed to ignore the facts

Then I suggest you stop doing it. And read more carefully.

Don't need to, as I understood perfectly well what you've written. The facts that global warming is caused by man is undeniable, which in no way means there aren't other contributing factors, which doesn't release mankind from the responsibility of addressing his portion. After all ultimately it's our demise were talking about.

But then fools would tend to use any excuse they could to maintain their dirty wasteful lifestyle, in the name of their fun. weeeeeeee look at me I'm driving my BMW in the country side for no real reason other than to look good next to leather, weeeeeeeee! I'd rather own a Tesla! That's truly bad-ass, and it's guiltless!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

Walker wrote:1. Does the actual amount of human contributions to the atmosphere exceed natural contributions? I don't know.

The point is not so much the CO2 tonnage in absolute terms as the amount of CO2 which the biosphere can handle without getting itself seriously out of whack. For instance the overall percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 70% since the pre-industrial era..

You are just making shit up as you go along.
The last time you quoted this statistic you said 20%.
The fact is that we do not know as accurately as we would like what global temperatures or Co2 concentrations have been in the past.
Nor can the trace amounts of CO2 then AND now, give us an explanation for the claimed rise in temperature.
CO2 remains at trace amounts, and whilst it is agreed that it is a greenhouse gas, and can be shown in high concentrations to keep air at a warmer level, there is no physics which gives such tiny concentration (0.04%) the significance which the climate lobby claims for it.

How dense are you? It doesn't fucking matter, all that matters is that in fact the globe is warming and we can do something about it, by changing our lazy assed lifestyles, if we can first lock all you mindless selfish fucks in a cage where you belong!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:

The ones that come onto this Forum are so cock sure that they know the one true god. Jaded Sage and attofishpi are currently thrashing it out over tow distinct, and idiosyncratic views of god, based on nothing more than their feeling about it.
People do change. People can throw all that tradition out. They can rebel. Often they just thrash around until they find another fallacy to fit neatly into the hole that the last god left behind when they abandoned him. Christianity mutates to Paganism or Buddhism or even Islam. Its out of the frying pan into the fire.

So, even if they currently hold a particular view, as long as they are open to consider other possibilities, their minds are still alive. There is an active thinking/arguing process ( critical thinking/philosophy) to arrive at some other hot spot. This can't be the same as 'philosophical suicide', can it ? Please direct me, if you would be so kind, to this place in Camus' belief. Thanks.
{ I know I could google but I'd love to be taken to your favourite spot }

If a man decides not to shoot himself in the head, but choses to shut himself in the garage with the car engine running, he is still committing suicide. He might congratulate himself for a less messy choice, but he still has given in to the allure of the easy answer.
I just think that most people are doomed to believe.
When you say Camus' belief, I think it more appropriate to say is ideas. I tend to take the word "belief" as a thing taken to be true regardless of truth value, and often flying against common sense. I try to believe nothing.

OK, this is a fast moving thread and I want to spend more time getting my head around this concept of Camus. Also, this criticism of the use and meaning of the word 'belief' - that needs a good looking at. I don't have time right now but look forward to further exploration later. I will probably start another thread, unless someone else gets there before me. In the meantime, if anyone can point me to a specifically valuable description, explanation and critique of Camus' position/perspective I'd be grateful. Right now, I'm not appreciating the idea of 'philosophical suicide', nor the human comparison.

Have a lovely time during this season which is not always full of goodwill or fond memories. Life is bittersweet. But it beats the alternative.
See y'all on the other side...

SpheresOfBalance wrote:... I'd rather own a Tesla! That's truly bad-ass, and it's guiltless!

Only if you don't care about miners pay and working conditions. Plus the electricity is still fossil fuel produced and I wonder if there are enough rare minerals to support the amount of cars wanted.

Obvious Leo wrote: Atmospheric CO2 has increased from an estimated 250ppm in 1850 to a measured 400 ppm today so my guess was inaccurate. The correct increase is actually 60%.

The physics of this is very basic stuff and has been in the public domain for over a century. .

You've repeatedly made this claim but are yet to offer a source for it. Show me the money!
Carbon is not a magical substance and if you throw in a fe more molecules in a pint of air, there is nothing to show the air can carry more energy.
Like I already said. CO2 in high concentrations can be shown to be a greenhouse gas. But noting supports CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas at trace amounts.

Historic amounts are supposedly 280 ppm. Some claim that is has reached 400ppm, but standard measurements have it at 380ppm. Now show me how an increase of around 100ppm is supposed to account for several degrees of warming.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:
The point is not so much the CO2 tonnage in absolute terms as the amount of CO2 which the biosphere can handle without getting itself seriously out of whack. For instance the overall percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 70% since the pre-industrial era..

You are just making shit up as you go along.
The last time you quoted this statistic you said 20%.
The fact is that we do not know as accurately as we would like what global temperatures or Co2 concentrations have been in the past.
Nor can the trace amounts of CO2 then AND now, give us an explanation for the claimed rise in temperature.
CO2 remains at trace amounts, and whilst it is agreed that it is a greenhouse gas, and can be shown in high concentrations to keep air at a warmer level, there is no physics which gives such tiny concentration (0.04%) the significance which the climate lobby claims for it.

How dense are you? It doesn't fucking matter, all that matters is that in fact the globe is warming and we can do something about it, by changing our lazy assed lifestyles, if we can first lock all you mindless selfish fucks in a cage where you belong!

It's obvious that you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.
If we do not know what is causing GW, then it is pointless pursuing a carbon reduction programme. We need to look elsewhere if the physics does not support the claims.
What has happened is that in the name of fossil fuel use reduction. thousands of acres of rain forest are now being destroyed to produce fuel oil plants, which could be much more devastating to the climate and certianly is more devastating to the environment. So fuck you with knobs on moron.