Page 13 of 19

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 21:24
by Strategus
DavidMaletsky wrote:Plastics have been on the planet less than two centuries. Yet there is a swirling mass of them in the Pacific larger than Mexico; they have increasingly been discovered in the guts of sea life; microplastics have been discovered in both our food supply, and raining from the sky.

Also, if a loved one were to pass away, by your reasoning that would also be insignificant. In other words, time indices are not a necessary component of significance.

Everything you say is true except the last bit. Of course time indices are an indication of significance,

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 21:54
by DavidMaletsky
If time indices are a necessary semantic component of significance, then why can both an occurrence in a single moment, and one over millions of years, both be sensibly described as significant? Further, why can significance be sensibly used in atemporal statements? “the unit concept is significant to the negation concept”

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 21:55
by Strategus
Blah blah blah. Speak English.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 22:02
by DavidMaletsky
All I used were English terms; and by the miracle of technology, English dictionaries are readily available online!

I am speaking English; maybe you should learn it

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 22:05
by Strategus
Maybe you should stop talking bollocks.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 22:26
by DavidMaletsky
Yes, clearly agreeing with the global scientific community over a span north of forty years = “talking bollocks”. My bad.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 22:54
by Strategus
DavidMaletsky wrote:Yes, clearly agreeing with the global scientific community over a span north of forty years = “talking bollocks”. My bad.

Too right

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 23:08
by The O
Let's rewind a bit here.
There are 3 potential truths about climate change (oh heck.. I'm going to go ahead and call it global warming):

1) Global warming is not happening
2) Global warming is happening but it is a natural geological process
3) Global warming is happening and it is primarily driven by human activity.

If humans significantly changing their activities, there is really no harm to any of those 3 scenarios. Why not move away from carbon based energy? We have the technological knowledge to support our energy needs with wind, solar, and tidal power. We can stop fracking, drilling and spilling, and blowing off the tops of mountains. Even if there is no global warming changes, what would be the argument to not do this? I haven't gotten a good response to the downside of changing these activities. We can deforest, drill through the bottom of the oceans, and pave the world, but why would we not want to try to mitigate these activities? Look... I sort of understand if you are a CEO of a large petroleum company not wanting to make these changes. But most of us that don't have skin in that game should be on board with going to cleaner low carbon producing energy sources.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 27 Aug 2019, 12:11
by beowulf7
Giggling!

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 27 Aug 2019, 23:18
by Strategus
I think Trump needs to nuke the Amazon. That will stop them deforesting it.