Holy crap dudes, keep it easy on the big words! They don't make you sound any smarter, they only make me have to dig for my dictionary when I'm reading something that's supposed to be read for fun. We all have the ability with the new technology to find big words, and I doubt any of you talk like this in public. Damn, I've worked in the scientific fields and didn't hear words such as these.
Gore is no expert....
by Bryan 47 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
gaiagirl
Just wanted to clear up a couple of points...first, internal combustion engines emit both CO2, CO and nitrogen compounds at the same time, because the engine is not breathing pure oxygen, but atmosphere, which is roughly 78% nitrogen. IF combustion in the cylinder were perfect, and the ratio of fuel and air were perfect, then only CO2 and nitrogen compounds would form. However, during combustion there is always more carbon than there is oxygen available to just form CO2, so some forms CO instead. Modern engines with computer controlled fuel injection are better than older, carbureted, engines, but there is still some CO formed. Also, not to be pedantic, but Venus is not actually a gas giant. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus are gas giants, much larger than Earth, but with low densities. Venus is a rocky planet almost identical in size and density to Earth. Despite being nearer the Sun, Venus could possibly have been habitable, were it not for the extreme greenhouse effect which creates a thick atmosphere, extremely high barometric pressure, and a surface temperature of approximately 800 degrees F.
-
ANewLeif
I apologize for referring to Venus as a gas giant. I do not think correcting errors in statement is pedantry. I would rather be corrected.
By describing the efforts toward reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as an attempt to save the environment and to save the earth I believe scientists (and governments and documentarians) overstate their objective to lend an air of more nobility to the cause than is scientifically justifiable. Humans are generally in it for humans, plain and simple. I am not moralizing that fact. I'm just stating it.
On Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs altruism is somewhat above where this safety effort genuinely falls. The fact that so many people are pretending otherwise causes an unsettled response in me.
ANL
-
SixofNine
"On Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs altruism is somewhat above where this safety effort genuinely falls."
what does that mean?
"Humans are generally in it for humans, plain and simple"
That goes without saying. Hence dilaceratus' comments about word usage.
-
ANewLeif
As far as we know we are the only species that would "notice" (in the sense of being cognizant of) the extermination of any species, or the rise in water levels, or any of the other projected effects of climate change. From that perspective we are the only species interested in the ecology of earth at all so, by definition, we are the only ones this issue is "of interest to."
dilaceratus asked, "As far as the broader effects, do you suspect that drastic climate change would be something akin to the loss of television, of interest only to one particular, self-selecting group?" He might have meant it rhetorically, but I answered his question. The answer is an unequivocal yes.
"Maslow" was a response to dilaceratus' comment about letting the species continue along with its Maslow list. I used his comment to inject that this supposed act of altruism (a self-actualized effort) is actually nothing more than a response to a special safety need.
Dilaceratus' comments about word usage didn't really merit response, in my opinion, since there is no endpoint to such a discussion other than some variety of "All definitions are ultimately ambiguous." It would also be an off-topic conversation.
ANL
-
DanTheMan
I'm a little late in responding, but I was so annoyed that I've been avoiding this thread for the past couple of days.
CO 2 doesn't "come about" due to human activities. All these elements existed already, their states change, their combinative forms change, but they don't "come about" because of us—I feel silly having to say this to you. Anthropogenic CO 2 is simply a term scientists use to try and segregate the processes humans have invented that result in the combinative form CO 2 . They attempt to evaluate these sources separately from all other sources, and they label all other sources as natural, by contrast to human sources.
By "come about" what I meant was, CO2 that normally would stay buried in the ground getting released into the air as a result of humans digging stuff out of the ground and burning it, something no other species does.
Surely you understood what I meant.
Obviously, they must believe humans are unnatural and that their processes are unnatural. I was pointing out this as a very easily identifiable flaw in their reasoning on the matter. It is a fundamental flaw that flavors the conclusions arising from many scientific endeavors.
I think what concerns scientists is that the mining of billions of tons of stuff from the ground, year after year, and burning it so that its CO2 is released into the air represents an addition of CO2 into the atmosphere that the environmental processes that have evolved to keep CO2 levels in balance are not equipped to handle. Whether or not these mining and burning activities are "natural" or "unnatural" is a goofy semantical argument and completely beside the point.
I think you got the point and you don't really like it very much. We are not the aloof guardians and caretakers of this planet. We are part of this planet. We are part of the experiment however much we try to pretend objective observer status.
Well, no, I don't get your point, not at all.
-
P&C
No offense... but all you GW "alarmists"....
Sound just LIKE JW's.... You're driving the same lame old vehicle...just in a different gear.
Have you stood back and actually looked and listened to yourselves...??
"Meet the new boss...same as the old boss" ~ The Who
P&C
-
dawg
Dan the man... No one didn't understand what you meant, CO2 is produced in a variety of ways and any thinking person understood your point... also to the scientist lady, I know that there are a variety of elements emitted by a combusiton engine but the previous poster didn't know how human activity was making CO2... that was the point to show him at least one way that human activity produced CO2. When humans make engines which burn a hydrocarbon substance, this NOT natural, so whatever emissions the engine produces would add to the natural amounts of CO2 occuring in the atmosphere. Humans would by-proxy be responseable. To the marine, instead of sitting there trying to piss everryone off read a book... then you'll have a chance of not sounding like an ignorant ass when you post. As of now, you simply just sound bitter and ignorant... typical Bush supporter.