Sponsored

Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

Sivi70980

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Threads
17
Messages
2,501
Reaction score
4,179
Location
Lacey, Washington
First Name
Mark
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ruby Red GT PP1 M6
Not really. I guess one could say the chances of anything happening is possible, but for some things the chances are infinitesimally small such that they rely on exotic "physics".

Was is Sagan that said if you put 100 monkeys in a room with 100 typewriters and an infinite supply of paper and time that they would eventually type out the novel War and Peace. Which frankly is more likely than ghosts being real.
I work with some guys that swear ghost and evil spirits and demons are all real. Funny to me. One lives across the street from a graveyard and has many stories. One is convinced there's a demon following his family and has been for generations so say his eldest family lol. Maybe it's all coping mechanisms? Only time I turned to the R was in a bad time of life. Life got better and I now only view that same thing as a means of control. Belief is really weird and fascinating. LOVE placebo studies!
Sponsored

 

sk47

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Threads
27
Messages
4,968
Reaction score
2,334
Location
North Eastern TN
First Name
Jeff
Vehicle(s)
Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
Hello; If we are back to climate change for a bit let me ask some questions again. The questions are not about the is climate change real debate or is climate change influenced by human activity debate.
The climate is changing for whatever reason. Lets start at that. There are proposal being suggested that we humans must start doing some things to "solve" the problem. These proposals suggest that we stop raising cattle for food because being ruminants they make a lot of methane in their digestive systems and pass a lot of gas. If we stop eating red meat this will help with the global warming some day.

( guess I could mention all the wild grazing animals who also eat grass and fart methane, but they are the part of nature that we are supposed to be helping to save so their methane does not count I guess.)
( Guess I could point out about termites and methane. Best I can recall termites have a huge total biomass and I seem to recall some estimates they make more methane that any other type of organism.)
( methane is a many times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 for that matter, but we are concentrating on CO2)

Another way we humans can reduce emitting CO2 is to use less energy. I do not think the full impact of that is being revealed. There is a sort of bait and switch approach on currently. That being we stop using fossil fuels and switch to electricity and problems will be solved some day. Best I can figure is there are some basic flaws in this approach. We have gone over them already. I will just say in summary there will be a less electricity to go around and more demand for it, so it must mean we will have less access to electricity overall as individuals.
We will have to make do with less. Charge the car or run the heat or cook the food or use the computer sorts of choices.

There can be more questions along this line of reasoning but I will stop. I have outlined two issues and will ask two questions. Both along the same lines in a sense. In general questions about what you are willing to give up to "save the planet".

First is are you willing to give up red meat to save the planet from climate change?
Second is what electricity use are you prepared to do without to save the planet?

I do not eat much red meat already so giving it up will not be a big deal. Now when they expand the no meat proposals to chicken and pork I will be doing some real giving up.

I am not sure what I will be adding to my give up list as far as electricity goes. I do not like to be cold in the winter but already use about one third as much electricity to heat and cool my house as the previous owners did. My biggest monthly bill is around $110 in the winter where the previous owners went over $300 some summer and winter months. My summer bills are around $60 a month because I do not run the central air much.
If I have to drive an electric car some of that electricity will have to come from my home. I guess I will not go so far anymore due to range limits so might can save some electricity by giving up mobility. How many of us will be turning our ICE vehicles into stationary displays?

Well I have asked two questions. I will not get into the "when" our sacrifices will start to make a difference in this post. Best I can tell from reading my sacrifices now will make a difference in 50 to 100 years. Maybe in another post.
Hello; I will go on myself to the next area. That being when will we start to see any results from the sacrifices we are expected to be making? Say we all start doing without and do reduce our CO2 output. The things I read seem to be saying what is currently in the air will keep on having an effect for something like 50 years.
So if we do all the things wanted it will be 50 years before the efforts start to pay off. An interesting deal to say the least. I have an opinion on this but will wait to see what others may think.

All this sacrifice stuff is relative to where you happen to be. There is a big push currently where I live for these things to happen. It is my understanding some other countries will not be getting on board for a while. Some states in my country are banning the sale of ICE at around 2030. Some countries, China comes to mind, appear to be planning to build and use new coal fired power plants until 2030 or so. Not sure what will happen in 2030. Will they stop building a new coal power plant ever two weeks or so then? Will the many built now and in the next nine years still be in use after2030? I do have some doubts.
It will be an interesting thing if in nine years I am doing without to save the planet and coal power plants in China are still cranking out CO2.
 

Sivi70980

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Threads
17
Messages
2,501
Reaction score
4,179
Location
Lacey, Washington
First Name
Mark
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ruby Red GT PP1 M6
Yawn...

Project much? Wow..
I did prefer the car. Only one I see with the cover thingy behind the seats. Looks cool.
 

Sponsored

OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
Quite right. I can’t even prove to you (or myself) that I actually even exist. However, we need to assume that to be the case in order to move forward.
Absolute certainty is for religious zealots. The rest of us (including religious moderates), recognise that we could be wrong about nearly anything.
You can’t even prove that you aren’t anything more than a brain in vat (as one example).

No, you believe they are wrong. There’s a distinct difference. See the point above regarding religious zealots and their level of certainty.

No, you’re confused again. I’m more than happy for you to believe whatever you might choose. What I’m asking you to do is to recognise how flimsy the evidence for that belief is and accept the simple fact that it’s your PREFERENCE rather than a position that’s supported by a preponderance of evidence that also excludes any other possibility/possibilities.
The problem I’m having isn’t with the conclusion you’ve reached but rather with how you got there.

An analogy for you:
A person constructs a syllogism. The premises are entirely faulty but they somehow draw a functional conclusion. Do you explain to them how it’s flawed or do you take the time to highlight the flaws in the reasoning that got them there?

Theism is a subset of deism. All theists are deists, but not all deists are theists. Which part of that did you not grasp on the first attempt? Do I need to use a Venn diagram to illustrate this?


Not quite. But I would like them to use reason, rationality and evidence to support the ideas they espouse.
I have no qualms with a religious person who accepts that they reached their position through faith alone.
When people like yourself start trying to deny certain facts (in the scientific context) regarding the world we live in to make a case for their particular version of a god, we have a problem.

Anyways, let’s discuss narcissism...

I‘m not the one who thinks his special friend created an entire universe for him.
I’m not the one who thinks he’s more special than the other animal species that inhabit this planet or worse yet, that we aren’t even related to them in any way shape or form.
I‘m not the one who thinks there’s a god who cares SOOOO much about him that he sacrificed his only son in order to save him... that’s some crazy shit right there. (How many of your kids would you kill for someone? Please say NONE)
I‘m not the one who thinks he’s smarter than the collective brains of the scientists who’ve revolutionised the way we understand our universe.

Technically, none of that fits a strict definition of narcissism, but damn it comes close to having a drastically inflated sense of self-worth. Worse than that, it’s not even a worth that you’ve done anything to earn (according to the theology I assume you follow) instead it comes from the simple act of being born.

I’m not convinced that you’re in much of a position to be flinging too much mud.
Is that narcissistic or the culmination of the observations that are based on the evidence you’ve provided so far?
Maybe I’m wrong....
Maybe you should provide some new evidence that might alter the course of those observations.
 
OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
Apologies for the belated reply, along with the distraction from the original topic...

To answer you in a roundabout way:
These proposals suggest that we stop raising cattle for food because being ruminants they make a lot of methane in their digestive systems and pass a lot of gas. If we stop eating red meat this will help with the global warming some day.
I’ve not seen any suggestion from any of the major bodies suggesting this. Could you provide a citation?


( methane is a many times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 for that matter, but we are concentrating on CO2)
Indeed it is. Fortunately, it’s nowhere near as abundant as CO2. The half-life of methane being roughly 1/3 that of CO2 is also worth keeping in mind. It’s also worth keeping in mind that the emissions from cows only make up something in the order of 40% of the methane emissions caused by humans. Of the total methane in the atmosphere, humans are thought to be causing roughly 60%. So, 40% of 60%...call it 25% of the total methane coming from livestock.
Meaning, if you got rid of every head of livestock tomorrow, you’d remove 1/2 of the 25% of the atmospheric methane caused by livestock at the end of a 9 year period (12.5%) another half in another 9 years, (6.25%) etc. The law of diminishing returns and all that.

The tricky part is this:
Both methane and CO2 are released as the planet warms.
So, if you allow CO2 to continue raising the temp of the planet, you’ll get more CO2 and more methane in the atmosphere, regardless of how much red-meat you consume.
Does that provide any clarity?
It’s not intended to be a comprehensive summary by any means.

Another way we humans can reduce emitting CO2 is to use less energy. I do not think the full impact of that is being revealed.
Absolutely. Even outside of that we’re just plain wasteful.
I can’t speak to the average home in the US but here in Australia we are building larger and larger homes for fewer and fewer occupants. The waste of heating/cooling that area is insane. That’s just one example.


I will just say in summary there will be a less electricity to go around and more demand for it, so it must mean we will have less access to electricity overall as individuals
That’s an assumption. I currently producing enough power for my home and 2 others just like it. Ergo, if 1/3rd of the people had a comparable system, there would be no shortage. However, you would need to store it. That’s a separate issue. My point being, there are options, some of them haven‘t been invested yet.
Every time we’ve thought that we reached the pinnacle, we were wrong. I see no reason to believe that this will be any different.
Necessity is the mother of invention.

First is are you willing to give up red meat to save the planet from climate change?
If the scientific consensus suggested that it was a viable solution, yes.

Second is what electricity use are you prepared to do without to save the planet?
I’ll be just fine.
 
OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
Now, I'm very far from a science guy and know little about a lot of it. Aren't laws of physics still, admittedly slower, still evolving? I guess what I'm trying to say is, before it happened, nobody thought a machine would leave the ground and fly humans around. Yes it's insanely far fetched and way too much Sci-fy channel but what if walking through walls is something we just don't understand yet? Maybe "ghosts" are people that have figured it out? Hahaha sorry, my brain is a little extra right now. I was in the ER Friday and still recovering. Covid Negative. Only symptom is a fever coming and going. Mostly better now but Friday I went in with a 103 temp and resting heart rate of 140. And I was scared. They still don't know what the deal is/was, just said I'm fighting off some sort of infection.
I think the point CJ was trying to make was that the time to believe this is when there’s evidence for it.
Example:
You live in the 5th century. You decide that people become ill from “bugs”. You have no supporting evidence whatsoever. Your conclusion is correct, but you had no rational reason to believe it.
The people around you are absolutely correct to reject your baseless assertion.

Apologies to @CJJon if I’ve misrepresented his position.
 
OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
Sometimes a chart expresses a concept more aptly.
Tell me again just how confident you are.

AA00E3F1-1714-45C7-904B-921B5BCA0F76.jpeg
 
OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
Very clever! 👏👏
 

Sponsored

HoosierDaddy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Threads
232
Messages
3,373
Reaction score
7,131
Location
Winchestertonfieldville (ok, Scottsdale), AZ
First Name
Randy
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT Premium PP
Waiting to see which science deniers this exposes. 🍿
 

CJJon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Threads
34
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
3,809
Location
Port Orchard
Vehicle(s)
2020 Mustang GT/CS Convertible - Race Red
Humans often reject that which proves them wrong.
 

CJJon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Threads
34
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
3,809
Location
Port Orchard
Vehicle(s)
2020 Mustang GT/CS Convertible - Race Red
I like that: Science is the Trump Card for Everything

So true!
 

sk47

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Threads
27
Messages
4,968
Reaction score
2,334
Location
North Eastern TN
First Name
Jeff
Vehicle(s)
Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
I’ve not seen any suggestion from any of the major bodies suggesting this. Could you provide a citation?
Hello; About the reducing methane by not eating cows someone posted two links to two nature programs several pages back. Turned out they were links to PBS shows which I had recorded and watched. One was about climate change and in it was a very low key comment about not eating beef because of the methane they emit from their digestive process.
 

HoosierDaddy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Threads
232
Messages
3,373
Reaction score
7,131
Location
Winchestertonfieldville (ok, Scottsdale), AZ
First Name
Randy
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT Premium PP
I like that: Science is the Trump Card for Everything
Now you're talking. Make Science Great Again!
Sponsored

 
 




Top