The horror of global warming!

[twostrokenut]

• Description of Straw Man
  
  The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
  

  1. Person A has position X.
  2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
  3. Person B attacks position Y.
  4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

  
  This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
  ​

• 
  
  I have ignored your actual position? Your position is based on the consensus you have failed to substantiate. You are just raging against the machine with no inkling of any of the components of the machine.​

 

[twostrokenut]

we used to catch a lot of pike if i remember correctly.

we'd go early and set up about 10-15 holes, each baited with a flag. if the fish took the bait, the flag went up, and we'd go running.

other than that, it was pretty much sitting around in the cold and eating food.

Walleyes, northern pike, sunnies, crappies, perch...even catfish, on certain lakes connected to a river.

Ya'll get to just catch your limit however then? You should have seen ppl looking at me first time I fished Cali.....I had 5 poles in the water with barbed hooks lmfao everyone was like oh noes

 

[twostrokenut]

Sorry but where have i suggested forcing third world countries to by something they not afford and starving them of alternatives?


this is a strawman

You are a strawman with skid marks in his pants because you fear an illusion.
Also in the Wizard of Oz sense and a straw chicken little sense.

the largescale changeover from carbon economy is way beyond what can be acievhed at individual level

This was your response when I said Nuclear will be the solution when the market embraces it. You absolutely know I meant market in the free Austrian sense as a representative of individual choice.

 

[cannabineer]

as you said

• The number of times that a gun or the credible threat of one averted a situation is impossible to count/tabulate
  
  
  
  ​
  care to say why 5:6 is more unfavorable or less valid than 20:1?

I addressed that.

blade wounds are a small proportion of "violent crime" gunshot wounds on the other hand...

Stats, esp. for UK and Aus, where gun confiscations are fresh in memory?

you cant just cap it off at "murders" tho (at least not honestly) "accidents" "wounding" even "suicides" are all costs against guns are they not?

Suicides ... how? These are not violent acts against another. In places where guns were taken away, suicide rates didn't drop iirc. You are actually arguing to make the chosen mode of exit nastier. I am surprised. cn

 

[Red1966]

thank you again for your contribution to this board. reminding everyone that my wife is jewish is a service to all, and we thank you for it.

Actually, I was unaware until YOU tried to put those words in his mouth. I don't think you should feel ashamed of your wife. There's nothing wrong with being Jewish. Get over it.

 

[Red1966]

What does this have to do with yanking walleyes through the ice?

Nobody wants to talk about giving hand jobs to fish. Go peddle your smut somewhere else.

 

[Red1966]

All this talk about fucking animals. Hmmm, here is a fun read. Enjoy.... http://animallawnewsandabuse.wordpress.com/tag/beastiality-in-oregon/

Who was talking about fucking animals, you perv.

 

[Doer]

what about if the halflife of nuclear waste was cut down to a few hundred years? you know a similar amount of time CO2 stays in atmoshpere except nuclear waste is contained rather than pumped out of chimneys?

i like how you stuck fission after "dirty and very dirty deadly" words of a neutralist those...

Your straw dog is now carbon. I get it. Still lies and lies about that. A factual, evidence based mind, says fission
dirty and very deadly. I am not neutral on fact nor biased. Just the facts. It is not dirty and deadly to you?
France manages quite well.... those guys, with 5 Constitutions to our 1?

Fuck Fuckisimsa. We are getting irradiated top feeders like Salmon over here. And in the USA self rule says low bid, because we are cheap and wasteful all at once, since we can. And we don't know what to do with a pipe wrench that will be deadly to be in the room with for 20, 000 years. So, this is trolling surely.

What about, what about? What about you try to show what about what? Instead, your MO is to submit broad claims and then bait all comers to disprove you. Gigs up, hotrod.

Dig up stuff what you say that I won't take your what about hints about, OK?

What about the alien that appears to have eaten your brains?

What if the halflife of nuclear waste was cut down to a few hundred years?

 

[Red1966]

I don't think there is enough data to prove the position of either side. We don't know all of the trends or cycles the planet has gone through in it's 4.5 billion years.

That's no reason not to taken Draconian measures. Over reaction is the wise choice.

 

[Red1966]

We all know that CO2 increases follow temperature increases, always has and always will (and proven in 2012). We all know that the average global temperature has risen less than 1°F since the 1970's (failed prediction, throwing you a bone UB), which is well within the natural cycle. Coupled with the facts that even a 10°F average increase would facilitate an environment that humans would thrive in and that the proponents of MMGW admit it would take centuries to get there. It brings up an obvious question. Why are we wasting so many valuable resources trying to prove we're causing climate change, rather than spending those resources on developing the technology that would make the argument moot? I'm all for solar powered everything, cars, planes, factories, residences...everything. Until the technology is developed to the point it can replace fossil fuels, we aren't going to stop or even slow down our use of them. Even if we restrict them, worldwide population growth is going to increase our use of them as a species. You can argue, bitch, moan, demonize and tax the use of them all you want, the widespread use of them will continue unabated. You can argue the point, but you're living in a liberal pipe-dream if you actually think otherwise. If we really believe mankind is facilitating its own destruction and we really want to avoid that scenario, not just use it as an opportunity to have something to protest and argue about, then let's direct ALL of those public and private resources to developing the technology that everyone agrees will save us. Think about how much could be diverted to speeding up the advances. The vast amount of money spent on both sides of the argument, rallies, protest placards, banners, website development, t-shirts, conferences, TV time, fuel and transportation costs to said events, legal expenses, MMGW research funding and most importantly, the time that humans are spending. Including every second anyone (myself included) spends on the computer interacting on the subject to every second spent by both sides trying to further their selected position. They could be out doing something with that time that generates money that could be donated, along with all the money not being spent on the above, to entities developing solar technology. Another big one, the vast amount of electricity needed to power the movement and the debate. From the IPad I'm on right now, to the lights in the basement of the science building where Professor Dickcheese posts his inflated predictions (sorry, couldn't resist). All combined, it has to be tens of billions of dollars annually, probably more. But, I guess it's more important to "win" the argument than to solve the puzzle.

I agreed with you until the fifth paragraph. They ARE "out doing something with that time that generates money that could be donated". They're making and selling "placards, banners, website development, t-shirts, conferences, TV time, fuel and transportation costs to said events, legal expenses, MMGW research". (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Red1966]

Takes one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded and tsunami to get any sort of serious accidents from nuclear (and still no one died) And that was with one of oldest nuke plants in world..... We can more than easily now build nuclear reactors that would never melt down like fukishima

There were no earthquakes or tsunamis at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Lots of people died. "We can more than easily now build nuclear reactors that would never melt down". If only that was true. Assuming "the next one" is going to be foolproof is wishful thinking that ignores history. Nuclear power brings its own set of problems that may be just as bad as global warming.

 

[ginjawarrior]

[/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime/stb-focus-on--violent-crime-and-sexual-offences-2011-12.html#tab-Types-of-violence-–-offences-involving-knives-and-sharp-instruments

I addressed that.
Stats, esp. for UK and Aus, where gun confiscations are fresh in memory?

As i showed doer up thread knife related violence is only 7 percent (and the knife doesnt even have to be used)
if you look here
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/
you'l see the different categories that get classed as violent

Suicides ... how? These are not violent acts against another. In places where guns were taken away, suicide rates didn't drop iirc. You are actually arguing to make the chosen mode of exit nastier. I am surprised. cn

doesnt the usa have a larger suicide rate taken up by guns mostly by younger (impulsive) males? thats a cost to society. its there because of guns and should be attributed to guns

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3309.0.55.001Main+Features11993 to 2003?OpenDocument

Age standardisation allows comparison of rates between populations with different age structures. The age-standardised suicide rate (for persons) in 2003 was 6% lower than the corresponding rate for the previous year and 24% lower than the peak for the period 1993-2003, which occurred in 1997

guns arent a nice way to go they're just a good impulsive way to go and can fail with as you'd understand horrific injuries to contend with
im not saying that if your carefull it wont work but people do fail. goto diginitas website their "nice way" isnt a shot gun with 00buck they use barbituates

 

[ginjawarrior]

Your straw dog is now carbon. I get it. Still lies and lies about that. A factual, evidence based mind, says fission
dirty and very deadly. I am not neutral on fact nor biased. Just the facts. It is not dirty and deadly to you?

Dirty? nono deadly? it has the potential for danger but so does crossing the street infact i belive im much more at risk crossing the street (you know proportion)

France manages quite well.... those guys, with 5 Constitutions to our 1?

france can do it but they have different constitution base so youz winz?

Fuck Fuckisimsa. We are getting irradiated top feeders like Salmon over here

Please show

. And in the USA self rule says low bid, because we are cheap and wasteful all at once, since we can. And we don't know what to do with a pipe wrench that will be deadly to be in the room with for 20, 000 years. So, this is trolling surely.

translation?

What about, what about? What about you try to show what about what? Instead, your MO is to submit broad claims and then bait all comers to disprove you. Gigs up, hotrod.

word salad? i dont know but i think its butthurt

Dig up stuff what you say that I won't take your what about hints about, OK?

What about the alien that appears to have eaten your brains?

What if the halflife of nuclear waste was cut down to a few hundred years?

you need to read up a bit more

About 20 Fast Neutron Reactors (FNR) have already been operating, some since the 1950s, and some supplying electricity commercially. About 400 reactor-years of operating experience have been accumulated to the end of 2010. Fast reactors more deliberately use the uranium-238 as well as the fissile U-235 isotope used in most reactors. If they are designed to produce more plutonium than they consume, they are called Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR). But many designs are net consumers of fissile material including plutonium.* Fast neutron reactors also can burn long-lived actinides which are recovered from used fuel out of ordinary reactors.

if you dont know what actinides are thats down to you
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Fast-Neutron-Reactors/#.Ub5F7cNwYeN

 

[ginjawarrior]

There were no earthquakes or tsunamis at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Lots of people died.

how many was it from each? and chernobyl really we went thru this down thread

"We can more than easily now build nuclear reactors that would never melt down". If only that was true. Assuming "the next one" is going to be foolproof is wishful thinking that ignores history. Nuclear power brings its own set of problems that may be just as bad as global warming.

yawn "nuclear is scary" lets not do anything or waste our money building windmills

 

[Impman]

The Earth has seen CO2 gasses of 2500 PPM millions of years ago. Mother Nature is too powerful for any pitiful amount of pollution man can make. Man is but dust in the wind of time. When the world ends it will be on Mother Earths terms. Not ours

 

[cannabineer]

As i showed doer up thread knife related violence is only 7 percent (and the knife doesnt even have to be used)
if you look here
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/
you'l see the different categories that get classed as violent

I am not seeing the before/after the gun ban breakdown.

doesnt the usa have a larger suicide rate taken up by guns mostly by younger (impulsive) males? thats a cost to society. its there because of guns and should be attributed to guns

Does that answer my claim that overall suicide rates are not affected?

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3309.0.55.001Main+Features11993%20to%202003?OpenDocument

guns arent a nice way to go they're just a good impulsive way to go and can fail with as you'd understand horrific injuries to contend with
im not saying that if your carefull it wont work but people do fail. goto diginitas website their "nice way" isnt a shot gun with 00buck they use barbituates

Where would an aspiring suicider source barbiturates? How active is Dignitas in North America? "You use what you can get." cn

 

[ginjawarrior]

I am not seeing the before/after the gun ban breakdown. Does that answer my claim that overall suicide rates are not affected?

im not spending my life chasing down every tiniest bit of data so that you can feel better about that 20:1 ratio you find acceptable
year of gun ban in aus was peak year now corelation doesnt eqaull causation but looking at the trend it certainly doesnt rule it out

Where would an aspiring suicider source barbiturates? How active is Dignitas in North America? "You use what you can get." cn

i dont care where they would get it from (mexico) just pointing out the only advantage of gun is impulse

rope is cheap and a safer bet than guns but you have to go thru tying the rope which takes more time (less impulse) than pulling a trigger

im all for making it easier for people to make their own decision in life but i dont think thats handing everyone a gun sand hoping for the best



anyway all of that isnt relevent

 

[cannabineer]

im not spending my life chasing down every tiniest bit of data so that you can feel better about that 20:1 ratio you find acceptable
year of gun ban in aus was peak year now corelation doesnt eqaull causation but looking at the trend it certainly doesnt rule it out

Improper interpretation. I never said that.

i dont care where they would get it from (mexico) just pointing out the only advantage of gun is impulse

rope is cheap and a safer bet than guns but you have to go thru tying the rope which takes more time (less impulse) than pulling a trigger

im all for making it easier for people to make their own decision in life but i dont think thats handing everyone a gun sand hoping for the best



anyway all of that isnt relevent

Rope is way, way nastier than gun. Gun has the singular advantage of being immediate and positive ... if done right. cn

 

[ginjawarrior]

Improper interpretation. I never said that.

what ratio is acceptable to you then? because thats what is boils down to

Rope is way, way nastier than gun. Gun has the singular advantage of being immediate and positive ... if done right. cn

"if done right" is the point tho. done badly and your fucked with half a face

 

[cannabineer]

what ratio is acceptable to you then? because thats what is boils down to

I disagree. That is an effort to reframe the argument.

"if done right" is the point tho. done badly and your fucked with half a face

Then it is the individual's responsibility to do it right. Other not-quite-successful suicide modes are no kinder. Look up long-term sequelae of near-lethal strangulation. cn