Fringe conspiracy containment thread - Page 4 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics and Society

Fringe conspiracy containment thread

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 4 of 27

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 24

Last

Page 4 of 27

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 24

Last

08-29-2023 , 07:05 PM

#76

Copperheat

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 583

On this graph the black line is observed climate change.

The Red line in the 2nd picture shows human driven climate change.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:07 PM

#77

Willd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 16,239

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copperheat

Humans are almost entirely responsible for climate change.

Human impact for this change inevitably hits a cap at some point.

As our population stabilizes, climate change stabilizes as there will be some sort of cap on how many humans can sustainably live on the planet.

The other factors have such a low impact that yes it's likely billions or even trillions of years before we see meaningful impact.

You realise the Earth is only ~4 billion years old right? It's changed between being entirely covered in ice to no permanent ice even at the poles many, many times in that time frame. The idea what it would take billions of years for any specific thing, let alone humanity's actions, to have a meaningful impact on the climate is one of the wilder things I've ever seen suggested.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:08 PM

#78

Copperheat

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 583

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willd

You realise the Earth is only ~4 billion years old right? It's changed between being entirely covered in ice to no permanent ice even at the poles many, many times in that time frame. The idea what it would take billions of years for any specific thing, let alone humanity's impact, to have an impact on the climate is one of the wilder things I've ever seen suggested.

I guess saying "any impact" on climate is wrong but it isn't the point at all.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:10 PM

#79

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,236

I'm going to say this quite slowly, because I can see you have trouble comprehending.

If you're going to have a conversation with me, address the points I am making. If you're going to post graphs, explain how they are relevant to, or rebut, the points I am making. If you're going to post random graphs, I will ignore you in the same way you ignore all the scientists who are qualified on the topic where you consider yourself an expert.

I'll give you one more chance to respond in a manner which meets the above conditions, otherwise you can consider our interaction complete.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:12 PM

#80

Copperheat

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 583

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

Are you talking to me or Donald Trump?

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:14 PM

#81

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copperheat

Are you talking to me or Donald Trump?

Is there any difference?

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:18 PM

#82

Willd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 16,239

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copperheat

I guess saying "any impact" on climate is wrong but it isn't the point at all.

You actually said "meaningful impact", not "any" and that is still a completely wild claim.

I am very much in agreement with scientific consensus that anthropogenic interference is already having a significant impact on the climate but on the scale of billions of years anything humans do now is entirely immaterial.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:18 PM

#83

Copperheat

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 583

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

Is there any difference?

Ok well if you observe the graph you will see that the yellow line (natural involvement) in the top image bounces up and down from 0 with arguably an extremely slight uptick overall.

The red line (human involvement) moves almost directly alongside the black line (total increase) in the bottom picture.

As population increases the red line increases. After population stabilizes the red line shouldn't increase.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:19 PM

#84

Copperheat

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 583

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willd

This is provably wrong by the above graph.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:23 PM

#85

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copperheat

After population stabilizes the red line shouldn't increase.

This is the claim that is completely false, and you have no source for it. You literally made this up.

It doesn't even hold up to the slightest scrutiny. A constant number of cars on the road per year spits out a constant amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in that year, causing global warming. The number of cars doesn't need to be increasing for this to happen.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:27 PM

#86

Copperheat

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 583

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

They spew out a constant INCREASE of greenhouse gases due to the constant INCREASE in humans and cars that they drive.

What happens when the amount of cars hits a cap do they just spit out extra greenhouses gases to fit your agenda?

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:28 PM

#87

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,176

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

Isn't some of that CO2 absorbed by plants?

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:29 PM

#88

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

Isn't some of that CO2 absorbed by plants?

Yes, some. Nowhere near enough.

Well, until we chop them all down. But that's a different discussion.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:31 PM

#89

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copperheat

If the ecosystem was balanced before there were any cars, any nonzero number of cars is already an increase. If you have 10 cars on the road per year adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere of a toy Earth with a radius of one mile, that is the problematic increase.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:34 PM

#90

Copperheat

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 583

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

I think you make a good point when you say "Can the population get to a point where we're destroying the planet?"

I just don't think it's feasible for Earth to get there. The world's population seems like it will hit some sort of plateau fairly shortly as shown in the graph below:

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:38 PM

#91

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copperheat

To quote George Carlin: "The planet will be just fine. It's the people who are ****ed".

Your precepts are wrong, therefore so is your conclusion. You seem to think climate change is capped by the population, and when the population stops growing, the constant population is (by some magic, I can only presume) no longer emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to continue to cause anthropogenic climate change. This view is, as they say, not even wrong. It defies basic logic and rationality.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:39 PM

#92

Copperheat

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 583

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

Correct it's an increase from 0 and a stable one, not an INCREASING one which is claimed by most.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:40 PM

#93

Brian James

adept

Join Date: Feb 2023 Posts: 1,117

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

So, how come this happened when there were less cars on the road?

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:42 PM

#94

Copperheat

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 583

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

You seem to think that even if the amount of people on Earth stays constant they will be using increasingly more fossil fuels.

Why?

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:42 PM

#95

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian James

So, how come this happened when there were less cars on the road?

I have no idea, I'm not an expert. If you're genuinely curious, email a climate scientist and ask. I'm sure they'll respond, they like it when people take interest in their work.

But I strongly suspect you're not genuinely curious.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:43 PM

#96

Willd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 16,239

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copperheat

This is provably wrong by the above graph.

Which part do you think is proved wrong? That it's already having a significant impact (just 1 degree Celsius is more than enough to cause major impacts in specific areas) or that on the scale of billions of years it's meaningless? The graph says literally nothing at all about the latter and if this is what you think was provably wrong then you obviously don't have even the faintest understanding of just how long a billion years is.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:43 PM

#97

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copperheat

You seem to think that even if the amount of people on Earth stays constant they will be using increasingly more fossil fuels.

Why?

I didn't say that at all. I'm saying that the current rate of fossil fuel consumption is already problematic, and not just by a little bit.

You understand what "rate" is, right? I'll try and simplify this for you. Let's say we release 1 tonne per year of CO2 into the atmosphere and this causes global warming. I am saying that if we continue to release 1 tonne per year of CO2 into the atmosphere, this will continue to cause global warming. How is this that difficult to understand?

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:45 PM

#98

Copperheat

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 583

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

I didn't say that at all. I'm saying that the current rate of fossil fuel consumption is already problematic, and not just by a little bit.

Then it would follow that you think the current climate is problematic.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:46 PM

#99

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copperheat

Then it would follow that you think the current climate is problematic.

Jesus, for someone whose tone is dripping with condescension when addressing others, you sure are a bit ****ing slow yourself.

I don't understand the statement above so I can't respond to it. I suspect you think you're being smart by being ambiguous, but it's obvious to everyone else that you're just a bit slow, stubborn, and don't like to be shown to be not just wrong, but spewing complete nonsense.

Quote

08-29-2023 , 07:46 PM

#100

Willd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 16,239

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian James

So, how come this happened when there were less cars on the road?

To be clear, "this" is a noticeably lower level of CO2 emissions in 2020 than in previous years. That tweet aims to point the blame at China and is trying to claim that the US/other western countries can't do anything to meaningfully alter worldwide CO2 emissions. As it relates to human impact on CO2 emissions it actually provides a fairly strong supporting argument.

Quote

Page 4 of 27

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 24

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 4 of 27

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 24

Last