The thread's topic is "Recycle or Die," Greg, not sure how referencing the world's supply of water and it's origins are somehow shifting the goalposts. They seem pretty interwoven to me. But then again, I'm neither a scientist nor an amateur intellectual, so what do I know?
General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
You began to talk about the origin of the water and rightfully pointed out we hardly know where it came from, the issue is that you shifted to water supply while raising the same complain about which we know plenty.
Hopefully Zak chimes in with an opinion on the points I've raised. You sure don't seem to have anything constructive to add.
Well, I did disprove your argument...
I get that you have no limit to how long you will belabor a point. But no, you didn't even come close to disproving my argument. Actually, I'm pretty sure that you didn't even grasp my point, it's just that arguing with me has become reflexive at this point.
Your point was that climate science couldn't be trusted because we don't know where water came from, this is simply ludicrous and false for already mentioned reasons but you certainly can't admit being wrong.
A weird debate here !
A 5-year-old child knows that the water on the planet comes from the rain falling from the sky and also from the snow melting at the top of the mountains and on the sidewalks.
A 5-year-old child knows that the water on the planet comes from the rain falling from the sky and also from the snow melting at the top of the mountains and on the sidewalks.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
A weird debate here !
A 5-year-old child knows that the water on the planet comes from the rain falling from the sky and also from the snow melting at the top of the mountains and on the sidewalks.
I think it was more of an "origin of water" question, which is equally really interesting and also irrelevant to the point of saving the environment (imo).
There are no certain answers and various theories (vapour from passing asteroids, water from crashed asteroids, chemical reactions in the atmosphere with hydrogen and oxygen, or chemical reactions of the same but in the earths crust with the water vapour expelled in volcanic eruptions back when the planet was still young.
I have no idea which is true - or a combination of the above., more intelligent people than me can figure that out.. like most things like this it is really interesting.
The bottom line however is we have the water, the question is, like the environment in general do we try to protect it or do we trust that we do not need to do anything and nature will some how balance the scales for us.
Oxygen levels have actually fallen significantly since way back when... and that is nothing to do with us. This is why there used to be really really large insects which could not survive now (more oxygen in the air meant that insects without lungs were not limited size wize like they are now.. IF we cut down all the trees and poison all the water, life will go on on this planet just fine... Sure, we will all die (assuming we do not evolve fast enough to adapt) but something will live on. It wont help us much however.
Last edited:
Hehe. We're back. Thanks for reopening the thread!Sorry for nearly missing that in the 'confusion'. Well i have read about them over the last few years or so, Tesla famously made a big announcement about their own, and they covered some other manufacturers on that EV vehicle website i've linked recently (FullyCharged) and simply doing a search found some news from BMW etc:
They do seem to be possible, so it is an interesting development to keep an eye on.
@Zak
The Tesla semi truck has been on it's way for quite a while now. Not that it is uncommon with regards to Teasla, but in the case of the semi, it has been argued that it will not be feasible, and that is somewhat supported by the lack of specs from Tesla and the slow progress. The BMW semi is a prototype, and so are all the rest I have seen. The problem with electric semi trucks is the energy density. Apart from the enormous amounts af lithium needed, even Li batteries are heavy. A truck is supposed to transport stuff, and batteries are dead weight, causing a smaller haul capacity. In the case of semi trucks hydrogen could be a better solution, but not before we are able to produce hydrogen from non fossil sources.
@Gregg
Sometimes when Jason gets stubborn he tends to think that "NO!" or "YES!" is a strong argument. Sorry Jason, but you do
@jason
There are tons of stuff science doesn't know. Where the water came from is just one of them. That however, does not change that there are also many things science can explain with a high certainty. Certainty? You can't completely rule out that water boils at another temperature tomorrow but it is exceptionally unlikely. Some of the great mysteries in science are: What is life? What is consciousness? Why does the Universe expand at accelerating rate? Is there a smallest building block of everything, or is it "turtles all the way down"? etc. When it comes to climate change, the whole system is complicated, but the major parts of how it works is understood, and where the water came from doesn't matter much. Water is water, it's there, and it has been there for billions of years. But it's a good question.
Jason, i'm pretty leniant in relation to the posts we get in this thread. It's the Elite Environmental Thread (recycle or die!).
Please by all means start a new thread for discussing the merits of science as a whole (from your amazing laptop thing that science made for you!), as THAT HAS ABOUT ZERO TO DO WITH THIS THREAD. So plear stop with the derialing here. I won't at this point ask a mod to step in, i'll jut ask you to respect the nature of this thread and try to 'fit in' to it a little more.
If you have an issue with such a thread, like you just find the whole topic a massive trigger for your anger or whatever i'd suggest it might be more helpful if you just did not read it perhaps? I mean it's an Environmental Thread, about Climate Change (that science has proven is a thing) and all that jazz. How does that sound to you?
From my point of view it would certainly help reduce the rise of scenarios like the thread getting closed (again) etc and de-clutter it from the not important or non-related 'point taking' we have seen a bit too often.
Seriously if you have actual questions about the subject, like you are open to finding out more, maybe your a little concerned about the recent heat waves or increase in the harshness of hurricane season (see below links):
The hellish future of Las Vegas in the climate crisis: 'A place where we never go outside'
Las Vegas is the fastest-warming city in the United States. The city’s poorest residents are most at risk in the heat
www.theguardian.com
What 500,000 Americans hit by floods can teach us about fighting climate change | Elizabeth Rush
Individual action can’t fight climate crisis. These Americans know we need a collective response
www.theguardian.com
Then that is fine and we have a number of posters who can step up and point you in the right direction. If however you are simply here to attack what the thread is about, or the posts of people in it, then maybe it is just not the thread for you?
If you want to start your own thread about the follies of science (using your amazing laptop science made possible for you!) or even go like that other poster and say God is responsible for everything then knock yourself out and have fun with all that in your own threads
And thanks if you take the time to consider all this as reasonably as i have felt posting it (because i do mean it all earnestly, if with a little humour).
Last edited:
I think you're kidding ? You did not believe for a second that I was serious in my post ?
The Earth's water supply (both origin and systems) and questioning it is as valid and on topic as any post you've contributed, and given the scope of the climate change science that was allowed to continue for umpteen pages, a healthy questioning of the science (and scientific community) involved would seem to be within order. Isn't it the consensus of the scientific community and their collaborative reports that amount to the club you and a few others are constantly wielding in your appeals to authority as a means to win an argument? As long as that is a permissible argumentative strategy, then so is questioning the accuracy or efficacy of that same consensus.Jason, i'm pretty leniant in relation to the posts we get in this thread. It's the Elite Environmental Thread (recycle or die!).
Please by all means start a new thread for discussing the merits of science as a whole (from your amazing laptop thing that science made for you!), as THAT HAS ABOUT ZERO TO DO WITH THIS THREAD. So plear stop with the derialing here. I won't at this point ask a mod to step in, i'll jut ask you to respect the nature of this thread and try to 'fit in' to it a little more.
If you have an issue with such a thread, like you just find the whole topic a massive trigger for your anger or whatever i'd suggest it might be more helpful if you just did not read it perhaps? I mean it's an Environmental Thread, about Climate Change (that science has proven is a thing) and all that jazz. How does that sound to you?
From my point of view it would certainly help reduce the rise of scenarios like the thread getting closed (again) etc and de-clutter it from the not important or non-related 'point taking' we have seen a bit too often.
Seriously if you have actual questions about the subject, like you are open to finding out more, maybe your a little concerned about the recent heat waves or increase in the harshness of hurricane season (see below links):
The hellish future of Las Vegas in the climate crisis: 'A place where we never go outside'
Las Vegas is the fastest-warming city in the United States. The city’s poorest residents are most at risk in the heat
What 500,000 Americans hit by floods can teach us about fighting climate change | Elizabeth Rush
Individual action can’t fight climate crisis. These Americans know we need a collective response
Then that is fine and we have a number of posters who can step up and point you in the right direction. If however you are simply here to attack what the thread is about, or the posts of people in it, then maybe it is just not the thread for you?
If you want to start your own thread about the follies of science (using your amazing laptop science made possible for you!) or even go like that other poster and say God is responsible for everything then knock yourself out and have fun with all that in your own threads
I get that you and a few others would like to have an uninterrupted echo chamber in here, but as long as I'm allowed to contribute you will unfortunately have to indulge a counter point of view. I know you guys don't like that, but that's the way it is as long as the rules are being evenly applied. As far as the previous thread closure goes, that was on you and one other poster, nothing to do with me or anyone else, so try not to shift the blame onto others when you are the one responsible.
Specifically on topic as lined out in your opening post of this thread, here is a fascinating article on drilling in the Antarctic:
https://www.livescience.com/64575-scientists-drill-deepest-hole-antarctica.html
Last edited:
If you really had valid points to raise you'd publish a paper showing how decades of research are in vane because we don't know for sure where the water from the Earth came from but alas you'd never survive the peer review process...
And no, it's not an appeal to authority because papers are written with observations, models, tests, data analysis and calculations to back them up,
When the first response is "We must tax you more" I pretty much head for the door.
Life has endured vastly more severe climate circumstances far worse than the most extreme projections by climate scientists. There simply is not going to be a carbon output decrease with the industrialization of China, India, Africa and South America. Compound that with birthrates and the fact that they are highest in areas in the earliest and dirtiest stages of industrial expansion, carbon taxing my peanut butter sandwich is just flat out stupid.
The climate scientists really need to change the narrative to one of adaptation. No more insurance policies near coastlines and rivers. No more building permits near these areas. If the government is to be proactive, let it purchase these regions and reserve them for wildlife reserves. Fund research on crop optimization for projected climate change. I just leased out the land for my farm in North Dakota. Definite changes over the last decade toward Nebraska like humidity in the summer. This impacts planting strategies and timing. Living on the ground means working with the reality of the climate as it exists, not a bunch of handwringing and freedom purging.
Barack Obama just bought a beach house. Is this really the zombie apocalypse?
Life has endured vastly more severe climate circumstances far worse than the most extreme projections by climate scientists. There simply is not going to be a carbon output decrease with the industrialization of China, India, Africa and South America. Compound that with birthrates and the fact that they are highest in areas in the earliest and dirtiest stages of industrial expansion, carbon taxing my peanut butter sandwich is just flat out stupid.
The climate scientists really need to change the narrative to one of adaptation. No more insurance policies near coastlines and rivers. No more building permits near these areas. If the government is to be proactive, let it purchase these regions and reserve them for wildlife reserves. Fund research on crop optimization for projected climate change. I just leased out the land for my farm in North Dakota. Definite changes over the last decade toward Nebraska like humidity in the summer. This impacts planting strategies and timing. Living on the ground means working with the reality of the climate as it exists, not a bunch of handwringing and freedom purging.
Barack Obama just bought a beach house. Is this really the zombie apocalypse?
You know, I was going to cite that myself but I got sidetracked; if there's a single man or woman on the face of this planet who has had the time and opportunity to weigh the evidence on this issue it's the Obama's, and if buying a 14+ million dollar property on the coast of Martha's Vineyard isn't a vote of confidence in the Earth's future, I don't know what is.
1º He isn't a scientist.
2º He didn't study any hard science.
3º I'm sure he is a busy guy unless he has retiered.
You don't think a former President of the United States for 8 years who's privy to every bit of scientific research and findings out there, receiving briefings from the best in the business and who was more than eager to align himself with the UN might have as much or more insight into these matters than you?
I certainly didn't say I knew more about him and I sure as hell wouldn't expect him to ask about the issues of having a house on an island to his privy.
This is not a reference.
Money does not matter for these people.
And at the end of this century Barack and his family will already be dead and this house old enough to be demolished.
Last edited:
- Status