Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
eveln

NSW / QLD fires

Recommended Posts

On 11/14/2019 at 8:37 PM, eveln said:

lol.

 

 

So, then it's a majority rules wins thing I guess. That's usually the way things get decided, until proven otherwise ... just look what happened with thalidomide and pregnancy for instance

... just sayin'

Just means climate scientists have reviewed the mountains of data and understand the data, other people do not...including many other scientists. Edit: and of the others the ones that agree are the ones that poses effective reasoning abilities.

 

@eveln

Science is evidence based, the mountains of data on climate change is the evidence, It's very complex and it would take even a very good scientist that is not a climate scientist months and months to understand that evidence well enough to argue this subject with someone that is a climate change denier.

Those few that don't believe man made influenced climates change are subject to their beliefs/biases.

Edited by datafast69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Leonid said:

 

I don't go to scientists for economic advice. That's what economists are for.

 

 

i don't go to economists for advice

 

because the economy is no more under their control than you think the degradation of the planet is under ours

 

 

35 minutes ago, Leonid said:

 

Banning bad cells like banning emissions goes nowhere.

 

 

tell that to my oncologist; complete remission for > 2 years after a stage 4 lymphoma seems like somewhere

 

guess you need to do some research on science - if you want it to have answers for the world's issues then you need to acknowledge when the prognosis is poor that you need an intervention

 

 

capitalists seem to be like alcoholics who can't see that more drinking isn't always the best answer, only money is their drug of choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Leonid said:

I don't go to scientists for technical solutions. That's what engineers are for. I don't go to scientists for economic advice. That's what economists are for.

 

I go to scientists to identify the problem and prove it. Thereafter, fixing it (in the case of global warming) is largely an economic/engineering argument.

What the fuck are you on about?

 

Engineers don't understand the data, and haven't reviewed it. Well, not to the level of the climate scientists.

 

I'm talking about understanding it.

 

So what are the tech' solutions these engineers have to combat climate change?

 

I won't hold my breath for a viable response as there is none, the solutions you like to keep mentioning do not exist, not even on the drawing boards.

Edited by datafast69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

So what’s plan b if technology doesn’t save us?

 

the hero always comes through when the times are hardest

 

or perhaps we just choke to death in the shit we create, or maybe just some swift pandemic facilitated by changing pattens of heat allowing exotic diseases to spread beyond historical boundaries

 

nothing like a bit of ebola to lessen the burden of humanity on the resources, but the lack of people to churn the economy will be a little problematic for keeping up the good fight

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

What’s he saying different to the scientists except he doesn’t think people will change their ways? He does conflate a couple of things and presents a few straw men but many people do. There are probably better solutions than he suggests but to be fair, as long as everyone is so divided as they are these days we’ll never see an amount of action that does as much as is needed to make a difference.

He is saying we should not have to do more than now.

Also that tech' will come to the rescue, which is silly as fruck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, scruffy1 said:

i didn't even realise they shared my personal observation - 

Hang on a minny ... my comment, " There are a hell of a lot of scientists saying similar thing apparently. But every time I read that, it also says that the findings are not conclusive . " was not about your thinking scruffy1, it was a response to @datafast69 re his comment on lots of scientists having similar conclusions

um, ... it's not all about you scruff1 😛

6 minutes ago, scruffy1 said:

 

or perhaps we just choke to death in the shit we create, or maybe just some swift pandemic facilitated by changing pattens of heat allowing exotic diseases to spread beyond historical boundaries

I did make mention of two cases of the plague in China

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, scruffy1 said:

one individual cell erroneously believes that its personal success is the singular most important thing in the world (organism), and just won't take no for an answer, despite its entire existence relying on symbiosis and interaction, which is blithely ignores until it eventually suicides by removing its own life support systems

 

Your solution to cancer is to starve the cancer cell by killing the life support systems it feeds on.

 

Humans are not a cancer. If you believe that, you probably do deserve to die in climate change bushfires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leonid said:

Your solution to cancer is to starve the cancer cell by killing the life support systems it feeds on.

Doesn't work with some forms of Cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, datafast69 said:

He is saying we should not have to do more than now.

 

Correct. We should do no more on emissions reduction than we do now.

 

6 minutes ago, datafast69 said:

Also that tech' will come to the rescue, which is silly as fruck.

 

If we invest the kind of money in adaptation and sequestration/geo-engineering tech as we did in coal-replacement technologies - it will come.

 

This silly as fuck argument you're pushing out... it's ahistorical... you do know that right?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leonid said:

 

Correct. We should do no more on emissions reduction than we do now.

 

 

If we invest the kind of money in adaptation and sequestration/geo-engineering tech as we did in coal-replacement technologies - it will come.

 

This silly as fuck argument you're pushing out... it's ahistorical... you do know that right?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

You assume it will come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, datafast69 said:

Doesn't work with some forms of Cancer.

 

I will admit to not being an expert on different types of cancers.

 

Nevertheless - the cure for cancer isn't to return to a time before cancer or killing the host.

Just now, datafast69 said:

You assume it will come.

 

As I assume that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

There's significant historical evidence of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leonid said:

Nevertheless - the cure for cancer isn't to return to a time before cancer or killing the host.

That would be before the advent of multi cell life, Cancer is a result of it.

3 minutes ago, Leonid said:

As I assume that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

There's significant historical of it.

No there is not! we are facing this for the first time, so is not part of history so no evidence.

 

You like the manipulative combat style I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, datafast69 said:

That would be before the advent of multi cell life, Cancer is a result of it.

 

Doesn't really matter. The point stands: you don't cure cancer by killing the host or returning to a time when human life expectancy was so low that cancer was rare due to every single other thing out there killing you first.

 

Going backwards is not a solution. For cancer or global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things we could do to reduce ALL global warming caused by humans is reduce sunlight by 2-4%.

 

The idea is called "Space Sunshade".

 

There's interest from the Royal Society, NASA, the EU and the IPCC.

 

We've got to stop pretending that the only solution is energy and economic poverty through shutting down of industry, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

Certainly macro engineering but doable or at the very least within reach.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. At the very least it buys us some time.

 

More importantly it teaches us space-based defences work. We need some kind of military capacity in space to deal with asteroids.

 

Our luck WILL run out one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, datafast69 said:

No there is not! we are facing this for the first time, so is not part of history so no evidence.


This is not the first time we are facing global calamity even in the past century. I’ve linked you to one - the Green Revolution - the ozone hole and CFCs is another.

 

If you refuse to accept history shows that humans always innovate out of problems, that’s your problem. But it’s still historic fact.

 

It’s 7.08am here in Sydney and the sun rose some time ago.

 

I’ll make you another bet. I have no evidence except past history but I feel confident in saying the sun will rise again tomorrow. Up for it?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Leonid said:

 

Your solution to cancer is to starve the cancer cell by killing the life support systems it feeds on.

 

Humans are not a cancer. If you believe that, you probably do deserve to die in climate change bushfires.

 

um, no

 

my solution is to address cancer by reducing the nutrients it can access, and by judiciously applying targeted anti-cancer therapies that kill cancer while being less toxic to useful cells

 

your scientific understanding is not accurate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to do everything we can to curb what is happening, relying on just one thing will not do.

Too many people want to have their cake and eat it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely, a multi-faceted approach is certainly the most sensible way to go and the best is to lock the carbon up naturally, or as much of it as we can.

 

Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ eveln :  my reply about sharing personal observation was addressed to leo

 

 

16 hours ago, Leonid said:

 

How about you just quote Bourgeois and Proletarians instead of making it up yourself?

One thing I'll give Marx over you - his prose is better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Leonid said:

 

Doesn't really matter. The point stands: you don't cure cancer by killing the host or returning to a time when human life expectancy was so low that cancer was rare due to every single other thing out there killing you first.

 

Going backwards is not a solution. For cancer or global warming.

 

actually no

 

it is very likely that apart from living longer and thus having more time to become cancerous, the proliferation of toxic chemicals, including but not limited to -  microplastics, synthetic hormones, petrochemicals, insecticides, genetic modification of food stuffs, proliferation of trans fats, sugar in abundance - all play their part

 

going backwards to where cells still demonstrate contact inhibition, finite lifespan due to telomere normal function, and a host of other "normals" is exactly a solution

 

because anything else leaves the answer as making sure the cancer cells die and stay dead

 

no, you don't kill the host - but if you don't kill the cancer, it kills the host

 

 

 

given that unbridled expansion IS essentially cancer, and other things won't kill us quite as effectively these days, you might show some insight into the analogy, even if it offends your sensibilities

 

 

from my reading of your posts, you know very little about what cancer actually involves

 

 

 

so pretend a monopoly has a single minded plan for world domination and ignores the unavoidable limitations of a closed system

 

the current paradigm is a malignant wet dream for capitalists

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Perhaps I should not mention but scruffy is both a doctor (of medicine) and an acknowledged cancer survivor. If you did not know that Leo you do now, it may influence any response.

 

Cheers

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

tell that to my oncologist; complete remission for > 2 years after a stage 4 lymphoma seems like somewhere

And mine. Out to about 20 years after Chemo and Radiotherapy for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

I was stage III and the doc reckoned I had only a few months left without treatment. I was down to under 60Kg (1.83 metres tall) and losing several kilos a week at the time.

 

So obviously they didn't kill me to get me in to remission.

 

  • Yes Sir! Very atomic! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×