Why is Russia such a cesspool?

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, MaeJoMTB said:

But it's only a theory ........ not proven fact.

"Only a theory?"

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, by using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.^[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.^[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

"No need for me to cite sources, what I  said is fact, not opinion."

 

Wow!  I can't think of anything you could have posted that would better destroy your credibility for a rational debate.  You got it exactly backwards.

 

You don't have to cite sources for opinion, you are the source for your opinion.  If you want your facts to be taken seriously, you need sources.

I think this poster attended the University of Oppositeland.

[heybruce]

17 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

But it's only a theory ........ not proven fact.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an observed phenomena that has been tested rigorously and proven a valid.  It is more of a fact than what most people consider to be "facts".

 

Alternative definitions:

 

" A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, by using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.^[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.^[3]     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

" Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing. "  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/  

 

In everyday language, people use the word "theory" to describe unsubstantiated conjecture (a.k.a., BS).  That is not how the word is used in science.  Only people with no understanding of science use the "only a theory" argument.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 pages in one day. Obviously a popular subject. I'm not going to read all 9 pages because it's all the usual posters saying all the same things they say every time.

While it may have been said more than once in 9 pages ( and I only saw one poster refer to the real reason for man made climate change, if I can play devil's advocate ), but the one and only possible reason mankind could change the climate all by itself, is because of overpopulation. Reduce the population by 50% and the cause should be reduced to insignificance.

Unfortunately, other than inflicting an untreatable virus, or exploding an EMP over the planet, people are not going to voluntarily reduce the population, so IMO just about every human is going to die if the man made climate change believers are right.

 

The idea that western society could change the onset of climate change by driving electric cars and putting up windmills in every backyard is frankly, IMO, . The rest of the world isn't going to join in that anyway.

I'm pretty certain that not a single person on here is going to give up using electricity generated by fossil fuel, stop driving internal combustion engine cars/ m'bikes, stop flying, give up meat, not use AC in LOS, not use plastic or any of the other things necessary to make a difference.

Soooooo, if one isn't willing to sacrifice all the benefits of modern life to ensure the human race can continue breeding unabated, there isn't much to debate, IMO.

[MaeJoMTB]

32 minutes ago, heybruce said:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an observed phenomena that has been tested rigorously and proven a valid.  It is more of a fact than what most people consider to be "facts".

 

Alternative definitions:

 

" A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, by using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.^[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.^[3]     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

" Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing. "  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/  

 

In everyday language, people use the word "theory" to describe unsubstantiated conjecture (a.k.a., BS).  That is not how the word is used in science.  Only people with no understanding of science use the "only a theory" argument.

BS.

[MaeJoMTB]

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

9 pages in one day. Obviously a popular subject. I'm not going to read all 9 pages because it's all the usual posters saying all the same things they say every time.

While it may have been said more than once in 9 pages ( and I only saw one poster refer to the real reason for man made climate change, if I can play devil's advocate ), but the one and only possible reason mankind could change the climate all by itself, is because of overpopulation. Reduce the population by 50% and the cause should be reduced to insignificance.

Unfortunately, other than inflicting an untreatable virus, or exploding an EMP over the planet, people are not going to voluntarily reduce the population, so IMO just about every human is going to die if the man made climate change believers are right.

 

The idea that western society could change the onset of climate change by driving electric cars and putting up windmills in every backyard is frankly, IMO, . The rest of the world isn't going to join in that anyway.

I'm pretty certain that not a single person on here is going to give up using electricity generated by fossil fuel, stop driving internal combustion engine cars/ m'bikes, stop flying, give up meat, not use AC in LOS, not use plastic or any of the other things necessary to make a difference.

Soooooo, if one isn't willing to sacrifice all the benefits of modern life to ensure the human race can continue breeding unabated, there isn't much to debate, IMO.

White people are less than 20% of the world population (Less than 15% if you exclude Jews and Hispanics from the definition of white).

Unless you get the other 80% to show the slightest interest, you are just destroying the western world for nothing.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

White people are less than 20% of the world population (Less than 15% if you exclude Jews and Hispanics from the definition of white).

Unless you get the other 80% to show the slightest interest, you are just destroying the western world for nothing.

Not really, If one American consumes 25 as much natural resources as one Bengali, then one less American is the same as 25 less Bengalis.  And so on. It's really a matter of consumption per capita as far as that goes.

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

BS.

You think Scientific American is a BS source?

[ExpatOilWorker]

On 10/25/2017 at 6:58 AM, Samui Bodoh said:

And all the while there are people who do not believe that Climate Change is real.

 

Idiots.

 

Stinking idiots.

Climate change is real, it is just not man-made.

[ilostmypassword]

35 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

9 pages in one day. Obviously a popular subject. I'm not going to read all 9 pages because it's all the usual posters saying all the same things they say every time.

While it may have been said more than once in 9 pages ( and I only saw one poster refer to the real reason for man made climate change, if I can play devil's advocate ), but the one and only possible reason mankind could change the climate all by itself, is because of overpopulation. Reduce the population by 50% and the cause should be reduced to insignificance.

Unfortunately, other than inflicting an untreatable virus, or exploding an EMP over the planet, people are not going to voluntarily reduce the population, so IMO just about every human is going to die if the man made climate change believers are right.

 

The idea that western society could change the onset of climate change by driving electric cars and putting up windmills in every backyard is frankly, IMO, . The rest of the world isn't going to join in that anyway.

I'm pretty certain that not a single person on here is going to give up using electricity generated by fossil fuel, stop driving internal combustion engine cars/ m'bikes, stop flying, give up meat, not use AC in LOS, not use plastic or any of the other things necessary to make a difference.

Soooooo, if one isn't willing to sacrifice all the benefits of modern life to ensure the human race can continue breeding unabated, there isn't much to debate, IMO.

Boy, you do manage to be spectacularly wrong! Chinese is moving massively to switch to electric vehicles.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-oil-breakingviews/breakingviews-chinas-oil-giants-brace-for-electric-car-crash-idUSKBN1CE06W

 

In fact, it's why GM, a US company is doing it in a big way, despite the Trump administration's lack of support.

http://fortune.com/2017/10/10/gm-electric-cars-china/

 

China and India are also moving massively into renewables

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/india-solar-wind-renewable-power-electric-cars-leds/

 

They are both already way ahead of the goals set in the Paris agreement (as was the USA)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opinion/paris-agreement-climate-china-india.html

 

And soon, solid state batteries which recharge very quickly and have at least twice the capacity of the best current lithium ion batteries will be a commercial reality.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2017/07/25/ultrafast-charging-solid-state-ev-batteries-around-the-corner-toyota-confirms/#1047292044bb

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You think Scientific American is a BS source?

You're trying to reason with someone whose reply to an explanation from Scientific Americas was "BS". Do you really believe that you can reason with such a person? When people want to live in denial, they can always just disengage. "BS" is a case in point.

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Climate change is real, it is just not man-made.

Yawn.

[heybruce]

14 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Climate change is real, it is just not man-made.

Do you reject multiple sources showing dramatic increases in CO2 levels, or that these increases are man-made, or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

[MaeJoMTB]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Do you reject multiple sources showing dramatic increases in CO2 levels, or that these increases are man-made, or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

I reject that it has a significant effect (if any) on the world's climate.

I also reject the idea that the world being a bit warmer would cause me (or mine) any harm.

I also reject the idea that the world sea level being higher would cause me (or mine) any harm.

 

So even if you convinced me that global warming was real, and the sea level was going to rise, I wouldn't care.

If the world is overpopulated, let those not of my race die  first.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by MaeJoMTB

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

I reject that it has a significant effect (if any) on the world's climate.

I also reject the idea that the world being a bit warmer would cause me (or mine) any harm.

I also reject the idea that the world sea level being higher would cause me (or mine) any harm.

 

 

Not surprising from someone who rejects the standard definition of a scientific theory.

[MaeJoMTB]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Not surprising from someone who rejects the standard definition of a scientific theory.

And yet, I was a scientist, and you weren't.

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

And yet, I was a scientist, and you weren't.

Let's keep to independently verifiable facts.

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

I reject that it has a significant effect (if any) on the world's climate.

I also reject the idea that the world being a bit warmer would cause me (or mine) any harm.

I also reject the idea that the world sea level being higher would cause me (or mine) any harm.

 

So even if you convinced me that global warming was real, and the sea level was going to rise, I wouldn't care.

If the world is overpopulated, let those not of my race die  first.

 

 

Correlation between rising CO2 levels with rising global temperatures and receding sea ice, scientific evidence that CO2 levels are the highest they've been in hundreds of thousands of years and the earth was a much hotter place the last time they were this high; you don't think that these things indicate than man-made global warming caused by rising CO2 is a serious possibility?

 

Disruption of established farming that is required to feed the world, flooding of coastal areas where most of the human population lives, acidification of the oceans and disruption of the food chain that could lead to mass extinctions, etc.; you don't think these things will affect you?

 

Mass starvation the human migration driven by desperation, collapse of nations and wars triggered by their collapse, the end of civilization, etc.; you don't care if these things happen?

 

 

[heybruce]

29 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

And yet, I was a scientist, and you weren't.

A scientist that rejects the definition of "scientific theory".  That kind of strains credibility. 

 

Care to say what kind of scientist and what your qualifications are/were?

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, MaeJoMTB said:

I reject that it has a significant effect (if any) on the world's climate.

I also reject the idea that the world being a bit warmer would cause me (or mine) any harm.  I also reject the idea that the world sea level being higher would cause me (or mine) any harm.   So even if you convinced me that global warming was real, and the sea level was going to rise, I wouldn't care.  If the world is overpopulated, let those not of my race die  first.

You just revealed yourself.  Saying "I wouldn't care"  says a lot. 

 

That's a big reason for deniers to deny.  They're comfortable.  They have enough money, comfortable abodes, can fly a jet anywhere anytime, can go to the ATM anytime, can travel to a non-flooded region when a flood hits, and so on.

 

An analogy:  I get adverse reactions to MSG. People who don't have problems with MSG will say, "hey, what's your problem?  There's nothing wrong with MSG.  It doesn't bother me.  Don't be a pussy."

 

On the other side of the coin:  I used to reside in N.California. My 20 acres had a lot a poison oak.  I'd be outside nearly every day, sometimes taking out the stuff with bare hands - with zero bad effects.  Nearly everyone of my friends at that time would get awful welts from poison oak.  If I thought like a climate denier, I would say to them, "Hey, don't be such a pussy.  I can rub poison oak on my face and have no reaction.  Maybe you got a psychological problem.  But it's no problem for me."

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Not really, If one American consumes 25 as much natural resources as one Bengali, then one less American is the same as 25 less Bengalis.  And so on. It's really a matter of consumption per capita as far as that goes.

You think Americans are going to change their lifestyle to the same as a Bengali?

 

Meanwhile in the real world, billions of real people want to live like Americans.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Correlation between rising CO2 levels with rising global temperatures and receding sea ice, scientific evidence that CO2 levels are the highest they've been in hundreds of thousands of years and the earth was a much hotter place the last time they were this high; you don't think that these things indicate than man-made global warming caused by rising CO2 is a serious possibility?

 

Disruption of established farming that is required to feed the world, flooding of coastal areas where most of the human population lives, acidification of the oceans and disruption of the food chain that could lead to mass extinctions, etc.; you don't think these things will affect you?

 

Mass starvation the human migration driven by desperation, collapse of nations and wars triggered by their collapse, the end of civilization, etc.; you don't care if these things happen?

 

 

They are all going to happen anyway, whether the world gets hotter or not. The only thing mankind is really good at is overbreeding and destroying the environment.

If man is causing the climate change that will kill everyone, it's self inflicted and the vast majority of the worlds population will not modify their behaviour by an iota till the methane storms destroy them.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Boy, you do manage to be spectacularly wrong! Chinese is moving massively to switch to electric vehicles.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-oil-breakingviews/breakingviews-chinas-oil-giants-brace-for-electric-car-crash-idUSKBN1CE06W

 

In fact, it's why GM, a US company is doing it in a big way, despite the Trump administration's lack of support.

http://fortune.com/2017/10/10/gm-electric-cars-china/

 

China and India are also moving massively into renewables

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/india-solar-wind-renewable-power-electric-cars-leds/

 

They are both already way ahead of the goals set in the Paris agreement (as was the USA)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opinion/paris-agreement-climate-china-india.html

 

And soon, solid state batteries which recharge very quickly and have at least twice the capacity of the best current lithium ion batteries will be a commercial reality.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2017/07/25/ultrafast-charging-solid-state-ev-batteries-around-the-corner-toyota-confirms/#1047292044bb

 

 

I wasn't aware that vehicles could be made without causing pollution, and in particular carbon pollution to make steel to make the things.

Batteries, pollute being made, pollute when discarded.

Couple of billion people in China and India, all of which want a car. Make them electric and how many more electric power plants are needed? Thousands of coal burning power stations will be built. Renewables will not be enough. Indian company is going to dig the biggest coal mine in Australia to supply them.

 

Why is there ZERO from governments to reduce populations? Population reduction is the only way to save the human race, and must be started now, not later.

 

Why, if CO2 is going to destroy our world, are governments not building CO2 removing plants using existing, proven technology? Costs too much? Cost a lot more if everyone dies.

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Thousands of coal burning power stations will be built.

Just a quick pick at your exposé. 

China and India are planning to almost double their nuclear power plant capacity (10-20 each) within the next 10-20 years to meet additional power requirements. Easy to google details.

 

It is true that developing and under-developed nations are still increasing construction of coal burning power stations, ie., Thailand. Part of this is due to lack of access to capital, public awareness of environmental detriments and government leadership. Thailand as an example, government has used absolute power to quash environmental investigations and given capital priorities to high speed electric trains while a grid-wide electrical shortage exists.

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wasn't aware that vehicles could be made without causing pollution, and in particular carbon pollution to make steel to make the things.

Batteries, pollute being made, pollute when discarded.

Couple of billion people in China and India, all of which want a car. Make them electric and how many more electric power plants are needed? Thousands of coal burning power stations will be built. Renewables will not be enough. Indian company is going to dig the biggest coal mine in Australia to supply them.

 

Why is there ZERO from governments to reduce populations? Population reduction is the only way to save the human race, and must be started now, not later.

 

Why, if CO2 is going to destroy our world, are governments not building CO2 removing plants using existing, proven technology? Costs too much? Cost a lot more if everyone dies.

Actually, coal burning plants in China and India are on the decline:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-to-halt-construction-on-coal-fired-power-plants-in-15-regions/

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/india-solar-power-electricity-cancels-coal-fired-power-stations-record-low-a7751916.html

 

"Why is there ZERO from governments to reduce populations?" Really?

[MaeJoMTB]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

Mass starvation the human migration driven by desperation, collapse of nations and wars triggered by their collapse, the end of civilization, etc.; you don't care if these things happen?

It isn't western people that will starve.

[MaeJoMTB]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They are all going to happen anyway, whether the world gets hotter or not. The only thing mankind is really good at is overbreeding and destroying the environment.

 

Most western countries are breeding so little, their governments are importing foreigners.

Thailand and Japan have the same problem, but refuse to 'dilute' their races with foreigners.

Edited October 27, 2017 by MaeJoMTB

[ExpatOilWorker]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

Do you reject multiple sources showing dramatic increases in CO2 levels, or that these increases are man-made, or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Correct. However we can agree that all the propaganda we get spoon fed about climate change is man-made.

Edited October 27, 2017 by ExpatOilWorker

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Correct. However we can agree that all the propaganda we get spoon fed about climate change is man-made.

In the sense that science is man-made you have a point. As for 30,000 climate scientists being a party to a propaganda campaign, not so much.

[boomerangutang]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They are all going to happen anyway, whether the world gets hotter or not. The only thing mankind is really good at is overbreeding and destroying the environment.

If man is causing the climate change that will kill everyone, it's self inflicted and the vast majority of the worlds population will not modify their behaviour by an iota till the methane storms destroy them.

'methane storms' ?!?   ....have you been speaking with Trumpian alarmists?

 

I agree with you about ".....overbreeding and destroying the environment."  It's an issue that politicians ww are too spooked to address.  There are tangible ways to lessen human overpopulation, as there are ways to lessen pollution, but many suggestions/solutions are not effective or realistic.    

 

For example: there are laws about not using plastic bags, which are a good trend, but it misses other plastic.  Speed bumps and pallets are now being made from plastic.   How many plastic bags = the weight of one pre-fab speed bump?  300,000?   I don't know, but environmental and overpopulation issues have to be addressed head-on.  US and Thai politicians aren't doing anything about those issues, .....same as nearly every other group of so-called 'leaders' ww.