Calls To Imprison "Climate Change Deniers" Grow In The Wake Of Hurricane Irma

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

fallacy of large numbers

Like where you guys throw out how many billion tons of x, y or z we put into the atmosphere with absolutely zero context about how miniscule that is compared to the overall size of the atmosphere and how much is contributed by natural sources? That fallacy?

Not even close to an apt comparison. Just because you don't want to look up the correlation doesn't mean one doesn't exist. There are many substances that do a lot with just a little exposure to it.

You only need 0.36 to .50 grams of cyanide to kill a person. What would be the concentration of cyanide to blood, organs, cells, and all the other things that make up a human body?

It's analogous to taking a piss in a 50 million gallon resevoir. Nobody would be worried about that. Or would they?

No it isn't. Pee doesn't have the same effect on water that CO2 has on the atmosphere and heat. This is a false correlation. That reservoir was drained due to government regulations not science.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

fallacy of large numbers

Like where you guys throw out how many billion tons of x, y or z we put into the atmosphere with absolutely zero context about how miniscule that is compared to the overall size of the atmosphere and how much is contributed by natural sources? That fallacy?

Not even close to an apt comparison. Just because you don't want to look up the correlation doesn't mean one doesn't exist. There are many substances that do a lot with just a little exposure to it.

It's analogous to taking a piss in a 50 million gallon resevoir. Nobody would be worried about that. Or would they?

No it isn't. Pee doesn't have the same effect on water that CO2 has on the atmosphere and heat. This is a false correlation. That reservoir was drained due to government regulations not science.

If you wanna pretend no one throws out such numbers just because they sound big, you can do that all day long. I'll be over here in reality. You are correct about pee and CO2 though. Plants don't breathe pee.

a reply to: face23785
Strawman argument. I'm not pretending anything and you have produced no evidence to back up this specious claim.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're definitely pretending. You're the one saying no one does that. Where's your evidence? Anything in your dictionary of debater's terms for when you have no evidence for your claims either?

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're definitely pretending. You're the one saying no one does that. Where's your evidence? Anything in your dictionary of debater's terms for when you have no evidence for your claims either?

Sorry guy. It doesn't work that way. You made the claim, you produce the evidence proving it true. I'm not and can't prove a negative.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You could use some numbers to prove me wrong, if you had any. Do you know how small a billion tons is compared to the size of earth's atmosphere? I'll give you a hint it's within an order of magnitude to taking a piss in a resevoir.

a reply to: face23785

Why should I? You made zero effort to prove your point. Until you prove your point, I don't have to counter anything.
Burden of Proof

In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

Deny some ignorance. This is basic debate protocol.

Do you know how small a billion tons is compared to the size of earth's atmosphere?

Do you? No, considering you are comparing it to that reservoir example still, the answer is no.

I'm going to repost this as you missed it previously:

You only need 0.36 to .50 grams of cyanide to kill a person. What would be the concentration of cyanide to blood, organs, cells, and all the other things that make up a human body?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So your point is that small quantities of some things can be harmful, and large quantites of other things can be not much to worry about. The number itself is meaningless out of context. Thanks for proving my point. We shouldn't just take this numbers as OMG A BILLION TONS OF THAT SOUNDS BAD they have to prove that's actually bad for the environment.

And you're wrong about the atmosphere weight. Look it up.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: infolurker

Climate change deniars are not real, it was fabricated by the Russians when they were having high tea in north Korea discussing who to nuke next. I read that somewhere on facebook, or twitter or something.

We are Al Gore's Global Warming need to charge everyone carbon credits for being evil deniers... Climate is always changing

a reply to: face23785

We don't. There is plenty of science linking small changes in CO2 in the atmosphere to increases in climate temperatures. Even without talking about man made climate change, we already know that CO2 has a warming effect on the atmosphere. Look at Venus. It is several magnitudes hotter than Mercury and it is further away from the sun than that planet, but because the atmosphere is mostly CO2, it is super hot. Clearly the Earth hasn't reached that extreme and likely won't ever reach it, but that alone is evidence of what CO2 can do to a planet if left unchecked.

Like I said, your ignorance of the information isn't evidence it doesn't exist. You actually have to expend effort to look up answers to these questions to verify if they exist or not.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And since you're pretending this doesn't happen, here's an article from CBS that gives a bunch of CO2 emmissions numbers with no context.

They don't relate it to anything, overall atmospheric composition, historical measurements, nothing. Nope, just hey read these big numbers and cringe. Your ignorance of this going on (which I know you knew it was going on, you were just being dishonest suggesting it doesn't) is no excuse.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And since you're pretending this doesn't happen, here's an article from CBS that gives a bunch of CO2 emmissions numbers with no context.

We are talking about science; not the media. Please don't conflate the two. Of course the media misreports or misrepresents things. They aren't the scientists whose job it is to understand the science. How about showing scientists doing this?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

We don't. There is plenty of science linking small changes in CO2 in the atmosphere to increases in climate temperatures. Even without talking about man made climate change, we already know that CO2 has a warming effect on the atmosphere. Look at Venus. It is several magnitudes hotter than Mercury and it is further away from the sun than that planet, but because the atmosphere is mostly CO2, it is super hot. Clearly the Earth hasn't reached that extreme and likely won't ever reach it, but that alone is evidence of what CO2 can do to a planet if left unchecked.

Like I said, your ignorance of the information isn't evidence it doesn't exist. You actually have to expend effort to look up answers to these questions to verify if they exist or not.

I'm well aware of Venus's condition, but perhaps you're not. Venus is between 10 and 20% hotter than Mercury, depending on their orbital positions at any given time. There are actually a myriad of reasons why Venus is so hot. It's atmospheric composition is part of the reason, and it's a serious apples and oranges comparison. The differences in atmospheric density alone make it break down badly. It also lacks plate tectonics, and its rotational period is longer than its year. There's no smoking gun.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you a climate scientist?

a reply to: face23785

Co2 is definitely a significant contributing factor no matter how many other factors are at play. And we can translate its effect on Venus to a smaller scale here on the Earth. When CO2 goes up, if all other things are constant or near constant, then the temperature should also go up. Which is what happens.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you a climate scientist?

Why does that matter? I'm still not going to accept a media source as a valid detractor of scientific research. Do you even know what the scientific method is? Because if you did you'd know that a media article has nothing to do with the scientific method.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Significant contributing factor as in non-zero, yes you're correct. Can you quantify how much, and source it?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you a climate scientist?

Why does that matter? I'm still not going to accept a media source as a valid detractor of scientific research. Do you even know what the scientific method is? Because if you did you'd know that a media article has nothing to do with the scientific method.

It matters because I was responding to you, and used the term "you guys". I wasn't referring to scientists. So are you a climate scientist or not?

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Significant contributing factor as in non-zero, yes you're correct. Can you quantify how much, and source it?

Are you seriously doubting that Venus has a run away greenhouse effect contributing to its surface temperature? I mean literally any publication you look up about the planet mentions it. It was in the first link I clicked on about Venus.
Venus' Atmosphere: Composition, Climate and Weather

The atmosphere of Venus is made up almost completely of carbon dioxide. Nitrogen exists in small doses, as do clouds of sulfuric acid. The air of Venus is so dense that the small traces of nitrogen are four times the amount found on Earth, although nitrogen makes up more than three-fourths of the terrestrial atmosphere. This composition causes a runaway greenhouse effect that heats the planet even hotter than the surface of Mercury, although Venus lies farther from the sun.

I don't have the exact numbers as to the atmosphere's chemical makeup and how that directly contributes to the changing climate on Venus, but it's not like this is some disputed idea in science...

a reply to: face23785

Well I think that interjecting the media's opinion on science is a logical fallacy. If you aren't quoting what science directly says on the matter then you are obfuscating the issue to push an agenda.