legacycentral bbs

+1, well said

A bunch of ad hominem attacks does not a logical argument make.

They have far more insidious means of controlling people than global warming.

People living in fear pad the pockets of those that know how to scare.

vrg3 wrote:A bunch of ad hominem attacks does not a logical argument make.

Okie Yoda!! lol jk

What do ya mean? Elaborate Please *in an interested tone*

vrg3 wrote:

smh0101 wrote: I suggest you read this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/crispin/crispin11.html

In summary, oil may not be fossil fuels.

Even if the hypothesis presented on that page were correct, petroleum is still a source of carbon dioxide outside the carbon cycle.

smh0101 wrote: Oh and did you know that, there are 186 Billion Tons of C02 dumped into the atmosphere each year... Anybody know how much of that is man-induced (breathing, cars, "fossil fuels", etc.)?

A whopping 6 Billion Tons... oh yea, were causing it all right... Rolling Eyes

The assertion implied by your comparison seems flawed -- aren't the non-human sources part of the carbon cycle?

My first point was that they may not be fossil fuels... you keep referring to oil like that so i was just giving you some food for thought.

And second, yes, of course non-human sources are part of the carbon cycle... Thats the point of the analysis.

If you have a pool of water. Just you average in-ground swimming pool and you add a cup of water... is that going to screw up the entire pool? I think not.

So 6/186= a 3% increase in the carbon cycle due to human activity.

Now how much is absorbed by the earth... I'm not sure... I am looking into it.

I will report back on that when I have more time, however its 10:19PM on Sunday and ... well... I still have a ENGL 102 paper to finish by 9:00 tomorrow morning... i gotta go.

Procrastination is not a habit... It's a lifestyle... Yea baby yea!!

I really agree with subtle on this.

The ocean is what primarily absorbs the CO2 and when it does it becomes more acidic. And there's my damn shell fish' problems, which is my problem as well since when this country degenerates into chaos I am planning on eating mussels and clams off the shore and from my kayak to augment my diet of fat human neighbors. If the oceans turn too acidic and kill off the shellfish then I'll have little more than human and I'm sure I'll get sick of that everyday as well as all the cleaning and draining involved - it's a pain in the ass!

I will, however, amass one hell of a collection of shrunken heads (without cars to work on, what else would I do with my time?), just nobody to share them with. I suppose I could eat their pets. I wonder what dog and cat tastes like.

Ad hominem comes from Latin words meaning "to person."

An ad hominem argument is one which is based on attacks to a person or group of persons making the counterargument, rather than being based on facts and logic. It has no value in logical discourse.

Do you understand the importance of whether or not a source of carbon is part of the carbon cycle?

Consider the difference between burning wood and burning coal. Burning coal contributes to the overall amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but burning wood does not. The reason is that wood is part of the carbon cycle; every atom of carbon released in burning the wood was actually sucked out of the environment by the tree as it grew fairly recently.

Does that make sense? In that context, the analogy to the swimming pool is not really appropriate. In our environment, there is a pump continuously drawing from the pool and another one continuously filling the pool, and their rates are fairly closely matched. Adding a cup of water here and there actually is significant because without it there would be no change at all.

Burning oil introduces carbon to the environment that was not recently sucked out of the environment. It is actually increasing the amount in circulation. That proverbial cup of water is, in fact, the only agent of change in the entire system.

Subtle simply presented opinions and some smoke and mirrors; he called people names and rebutted arguments which were not made by his opponents. Whether you or I agree with him or not is immaterial if our goal is to understand facts.

So, I guess, what is our goal here? Is it to have an argument or is it to exchange information? I'm trying to understand facts and share whatever understanding I have, but I get the feeling not everyone wants to do that.

Ahh, the vanity of mankind. We overestimate our importance and underestimate time. Throughout the huge gulf of eternity, our echoes will scarcely be heard. I guess we'd better make sure we live good lives, full of peace and meaning or purpose, because the only ones it matters to is us.

That's a good point, Scott -- the claim that we're destroying the Earth is absurd. The planet will do fine without us. The actual concern is that we may be making it uninhabitable for us.

An interesting book which explores this topic a bit is The World Without Us by Alan Weisman.

Vikash, I read the same book. It was amazing and reassuring in spite of (or maybe because of) humanity's demise. It was good to think of just how quickly the world would forget we were here and continue. Very well researched over a wide variety of areas.

Yeah, I found it heartening.

That's two recommendations for that book. Borders would have to order it, but I'm pretty sure I'll order it now.

Vikash, can I Gmail you one of my "theories" on global warming?

Sure.

al gore is a genious ha ha ha

v- You state that atoms of carbon released from burning wood come from the environment rather recently, thus, its a part of the carbon cycle.
If you think about where oil comes from originally, then it too, is a part of the carbon cycle, only on a much larger time-line.
Is this a sound theory?

I'd also like to read that book.

Yes, it is in fact not black-and-white, but rather a question of degree. Just one thing to add -- the difference between wood and coal is not only how long it's been since the carbon was stored, but also the comparative rates of accumulation and consumption. The carbon in coal and petroleum was collected over millions of years; releasing it in mere decades or centuries represents a large imbalance in rates. Does that make sense?

But, yes, practically no carbon is -- or ever has been -- actually created or destroyed on our planet.

Another point is that, over most of that millions of years in question, the earth was a far hotter place. It also had a higher oxygen saturation. One positive thing is that, according to recent evidence, there were areas with glaciers even during these far hotter times.

So, which polititian is gonna lead the carbon liberation movement?
All those poor carbon atoms. Wrongfully held, against their will, for millions of years.
Well, I feel better for doing my part to set them free again. If only it wasn't so damned expensive.

With the proper marketing, I bet the masses would follow.

beatersubi wrote:So, which polititian is gonna lead the carbon liberation movement?

He'd get my vote!

*cough....ron paul....cough*

Ron Paul would get assassinated before he'd be sworn in. Not that he'll win anyway.

Maybe Ted Neugent can be con(vinc)ed into politics...

Mmm. He could run on a platform of BEEF JERKY FOR EVERYONE! I know, I know, cows pollute more than cars.

evolutionmovement wrote:Ron Paul would get assassinated before he'd be sworn in. Not that he'll win anyway.

Maybe Hillary would bitch...

evolutionmovement wrote:Ron Paul would get assassinated before he'd be sworn in. Not that he'll win anyway.

wow, don't be honest or anything
the media isn't showing him or telling anything supportive.

WONDER WHY

why is it that all good presidents or potential presidents always get assasinated?

and i'll steer clear of the C