One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Texas
Page: <<prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 21 next>>
Feb 22, 2021 19:07:10   #
America 1
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
And as usual you offer nothing on the issue.


Air quality and pollution city ranking
22 February 2021
https://www.iqair.com/us/world-air-quality-ranking

Drinking water quality in the United States is generally safe. In 2016, over 90 percent of the nation's community water systems were in compliance with all published U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards.[1] Over 286 million Americans get their tap water from a community water system. Eight percent of the community water systems—large municipal water systems—provide water to 82 percent of the US population.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_water_quality_in_the_United_States

U.S. Emissions Dropped in 2019: Here’s Why in 6 Charts
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07012020/infographic-united-states-emissions-2019-climate-change-greenhouse-gas-coal-transportation/

United States: CO2 Country Profile
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states?country=~USA

| Reply
Feb 22, 2021 19:34:45   #
nwtk2007
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
The warming of the Eocene period would be unlivable by humans. WE have more then enough data to know, which is why bells are ringing, the trajectory is undeniable as it is unfolds before us, or do you really still not believe. Tell me what does it take?


Not true at all. Cold kills many, many more than heat. We would have no problem surviving although we might down scale our populations, not by design but . . .

| Reply
Feb 22, 2021 19:35:17   #
marlene eck
 
Fire governor and his cheap-ass grid experts.

| Reply
 
 
Feb 22, 2021 21:31:51   #
America 1
 
permafrost wrote:
LOL, that was exactly my thought the first time I saw that picture.. but a big bunch of rock in truth.. I think..

great minds think alike and all that.. have a good evening..



In the everglades fishing a while back I was passing a boat with a family of black people and asked if they were having any luck.
They had a wire mesh basket in the water and pulled it up for me to see.
Lots of fish in the basket, one snake about 3-4 foot long attached to the bottom.
When I told them and they noticed, some turned almost white.
Nice people, we had a good laugh.

| Reply
Feb 23, 2021 00:14:12   #
JW
 
permafrost wrote:
Randy, if you follow the money trail, you will end up in the board rooms of the fossil fuel companies..


Yes, to some extent you will wind up in those board rooms... but you will also wind up in colleges and universities science departments looking for grant money.

Science subject to policies isn't to be trusted, no matter which way it turns.

| Reply
Feb 23, 2021 01:01:47   #
RandyBrian
 
JW wrote:
Yes, to some extent you will wind up in those board rooms... but you will also wind up in colleges and universities science departments looking for grant money.

Science subject to policies isn't to be trusted, no matter which way it turns.


I agree completely. Allow me to add one more thing. ALL science is filled with educated assumptions as clues are followed. In the course of MOST sciences, side experiments are used to help validate which assumptions are more likely to be true, and so help to increase the chances of truthful, factual results that can be verified and proven to one extent or another. Very few are ever set in stone by the scientists conducting the research. They know too much about the assumptions made in the process of discovery. It takes laymen and politicians to proclaim that an event is "proven beyond reasonable doubt". Any actual researcher who says something along those lines should not be trusted with money or another man's wife.
One of the major problems with using the distant past (core samples, tree rings, carbon dating, etc) is that there are very VERY few ways to validate the multitude of assumptions made to reach conclusions from more than a few thousand years ago. You can assess a few probabilities, but little else. For example, look at what has happened to T-Rex just since the book (and movie) Jurassic Park came out. T-Rex has gone from eyesight based on movement to full use binocular vision similar to ours. He went from thick dinosaur hide to feathers. He went from an apex predator to a big slow carrion eater. Ask twenty, fifty, or a thousand paleontologists, and you will get almost that many different answers, and they will ALL be pretty certain of their conclusions. But the fact is no one knows and thus far no one can prove his personal favorite theory. Too many assumptions to connect the dots.
Now, apply that same scenario to global climate change.
And you want to destroy entire industries, millions of livelihoods, and much of American culture based on 'science' created with thousands of unverifiable assumptions?
Please prove your case FIRST, then we can talk.

| Reply
Feb 23, 2021 01:07:32   #
JW
 
RandyBrian wrote:
I agree completely. Allow me to add one more thing. ALL science is filled with educated assumptions as clues are followed. In the course of MOST sciences, side experiments are used to help validate which assumptions are more likely to be true, and so help to increase the chances of truthful, factual results that can be verified and proven to one extent or another. Very few are ever set in stone by the scientists conducting the research. They know too much about the assumptions made in the process of discovery. It takes laymen and politicians to proclaim that an event is "proven beyond reasonable doubt". Any actual researcher who says something along those lines should not be trusted with money or another man's wife.
One of the major problems with using the distant past (core samples, tree rings, carbon dating, etc) is that there are very VERY few ways to validate the multitude of assumptions made to reach conclusions from more than a few thousand years ago. You can assess a few probabilities, but little else. For example, look at what has happened to T-Rex just since the book (and movie) Jurassic Park came out. T-Rex has gone from eyesight based on movement to full use binocular vision similar to ours. He went from thick dinosaur hide to feathers. He went from an apex predator to a big slow carrion eater. Ask twenty, fifty, or a thousand paleontologists, and you will get almost that many different answers, and they will ALL be pretty certain of their conclusions. But the fact is no one knows and thus far no one can prove his personal favorite theory. Too many assumptions to connect the dots.
Now, apply that same scenario to global climate change.
And you want to destroy entire industries, millions of livelihoods, and much of American culture based on 'science' created with thousands of unverifiable assumptions?
Please prove your case FIRST, then we can talk.
I agree completely. Allow me to add one more thin... (show quote)



| Reply
 
 
Feb 23, 2021 08:40:41   #
Barracuda2020
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Good grief, 'cuda! That lame attempt at an example has so many holes that it could not POSSIBLY contain even a pint of water. I expect better attempts at reasoning from you.


It's 100% accurate, you just don't get it, and why I won't bother to explain it, which I expected but attempted anyway, my bad.

| Reply
Feb 23, 2021 08:45:16   #
Barracuda2020
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Not true at all. Cold kills many, many more than heat. We would have no problem surviving although we might down scale our populations, not by design but . . .


Not true? You just talk, do you back up that comment, one kills more then the other. Each one depends on other extenuating circumstances, like what is available to you, so your comment is moot.

| Reply
Feb 23, 2021 09:07:16   #
Barracuda2020
 
America 1 wrote:
Air quality and pollution city ranking
22 February 2021
https://www.iqair.com/us/world-air-quality-ranking

Drinking water quality in the United States is generally safe. In 2016, over 90 percent of the nation's community water systems were in compliance with all published U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards.[1] Over 286 million Americans get their tap water from a community water system. Eight percent of the community water systems—large municipal water systems—provide water to 82 percent of the US population.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_water_quality_in_the_United_States

U.S. Emissions Dropped in 2019: Here’s Why in 6 Charts
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07012020/infographic-united-states-emissions-2019-climate-change-greenhouse-gas-coal-transportation/

United States: CO2 Country Profile
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states?country=~USA
Air quality and pollution city ranking br 22 Febru... (show quote)


Thanks for those, so at one point we were emitting 6.25billionT, and you folks still believe we don't have a substantial impact on air, is that right?

I'm not talking about water right now, that's a whole other ball of wax.

Unfortunately they don't show a comparison, statistics to compare us with the rest of the world, but they are useful. But I have found them elsewhere.

To be clear, what is your point? I never said we didn't do anything, at least not until Trump and his deregulations.

| Reply
Feb 23, 2021 09:19:54   #
Barracuda2020
 
RandyBrian wrote:
I agree completely. Allow me to add one more thing. ALL science is filled with educated assumptions as clues are followed. In the course of MOST sciences, side experiments are used to help validate which assumptions are more likely to be true, and so help to increase the chances of truthful, factual results that can be verified and proven to one extent or another. Very few are ever set in stone by the scientists conducting the research. They know too much about the assumptions made in the process of discovery. It takes laymen and politicians to proclaim that an event is "proven beyond reasonable doubt". Any actual researcher who says something along those lines should not be trusted with money or another man's wife.
One of the major problems with using the distant past (core samples, tree rings, carbon dating, etc) is that there are very VERY few ways to validate the multitude of assumptions made to reach conclusions from more than a few thousand years ago. You can assess a few probabilities, but little else. For example, look at what has happened to T-Rex just since the book (and movie) Jurassic Park came out. T-Rex has gone from eyesight based on movement to full use binocular vision similar to ours. He went from thick dinosaur hide to feathers. He went from an apex predator to a big slow carrion eater. Ask twenty, fifty, or a thousand paleontologists, and you will get almost that many different answers, and they will ALL be pretty certain of their conclusions. But the fact is no one knows and thus far no one can prove his personal favorite theory. Too many assumptions to connect the dots.
Now, apply that same scenario to global climate change.
And you want to destroy entire industries, millions of livelihoods, and much of American culture based on 'science' created with thousands of unverifiable assumptions?
Please prove your case FIRST, then we can talk.
I agree completely. Allow me to add one more thin... (show quote)


Yes some of science has guesstimates until more facts are gathered, that's how science works, it builds on facts a step by step process and facts and research take time, that does not mean their factual findings are meritless, to think such a thing is ridiculous. If we didn't believe in the facts of science over the years we'd never have cell phones, drive cars or go to mars. So please your argument is quite disingenuous and is only serving you in your narrative.
We know without a doubt humans are having a negative impact to the environment through our usage of burning fossil fuels, the only guesstimate is how bad and how quickly those damages will effect us critically to the point of overcoming our livelihood and welfare. We can clearly see how it's been impacting the world, ergo us.

| Reply
 
 
Feb 23, 2021 09:30:15   #
America 1
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Thanks for those, so at one point we were emitting 6.25billionT, and you folks still believe we don't have a substantial impact on air, is that right?

I'm not talking about water right now, that's a whole other ball of wax.

Unfortunately, they don't show a comparison, statistics to compare us with the rest of the world, but they are useful. But I have found them elsewhere.

To be clear, what is your point? I never said we didn't do anything, at least not until Trump and his deregulations.
Thanks for those, so at one point we were emitting... (show quote)


My point is the sky is not falling, as you seem to believe.
Not really concerned about what you're talking about "right now".
There has been no major changes during the Trump administration other than U.S. Emissions Dropped in 2019.

| Reply
Feb 23, 2021 09:39:04   #
RandyBrian
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
It's 100% accurate, you just don't get it, and why I won't bother to explain it, which I expected but attempted anyway, my bad.


Oh, I get it. Your contention is that the planet has had all the CO2 build up, global warming, greenhouse gases, etc, that it can tolerate without triggering a catastrophic cascade failure of critical parts of the biosphere. Thus the lame metaphor about a bucket filled with water.
But you have no proof and very little evidence. And what you DO have is based on mountains of assumptions, as I explained in earlier posts.
So your contention that it is 100% accurate is an unsupported opinion on your part, and admittedly on the part of millions of others. That does not make it true. In fact, all it proves is the socialogical theory that if you repeat lies often enough and long enough, in this case more than forty years, uneducated and even many educated people will accept it as fact. However, if it can't be proven mathematically, then it is opinion and not science. And it is not logical for me to have to disprove your beliefs. If you want me, or anyone with common sense, to accept your contentions and theories, then provide credible evidence. And lots of it, if you want to convince us to abandon our lives and culture and remodel them as you claim we must.

| Reply
Feb 23, 2021 09:51:42   #
RandyBrian
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Yes some of science has guesstimates until more facts are gathered, that's how science works, it builds on facts a step by step process and facts and research take time, that does not mean their factual findings are meritless, to think such a thing is ridiculous. If we didn't believe in the facts of science over the years we'd never have cell phones, drive cars or go to mars. So please your argument is quite disingenuous and is only serving you in your narrative.
We know without a doubt humans are having a negative impact to the environment through our usage of burning fossil fuels, the only guesstimate is how bad and how quickly those damages will effect us critically to the point of overcoming our livelihood and welfare. We can clearly see how it's been impacting the world, ergo us.
Yes some of science has guesstimates until more fa... (show quote)


Much of what you say is true. But my arguments are NOT disingenuous. We can go back even a few years and find things that EVERYONE accepted as true, but now science has shown us is not as cut and dried as we thought. It has never been a question of man's negative impact on our environment. And yes, I agree, it is a question of how much. Your side contends that it is at the point of triggering cascade failures in our environment, so drastic action MUST be taken NOW. And yet your evidence is based on unverifiable opinions and assumptions. Guestimates, in your words. So we are requiring you to prove it, and you can NOT.

| Reply
Feb 23, 2021 09:53:26   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
America 1 wrote:
In the everglades fishing a while back I was passing a boat with a family of black people and asked if they were having any luck.
They had a wire mesh basket in the water and pulled it up for me to see.
Lots of fish in the basket, one snake about 3-4 foot long attached to the bottom.
When I told them and they noticed, some turned almost white.
Nice people, we had a good laugh.


OMG...

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 21 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2021 IDF International Technologies, Inc.