I'm a denier denier

The BBQ Pit
101

It will only cost a fortune for the polluters, and if we indeed make them pay, perhaps then the costs of building wind farms, solar arrays and nuclear power plants will be much more competitive. My understanding is that when one pulls into a fueling station in Brazil, the gas cost $6 a gallon and ethanol costs $3. If your car has a gasoline engine, you’re fucked; but if your car has an ethanol engine, you’re basically carbon-neutral AND you save money !!! This works in Brazil because 1) they have abundant cheap hydropower and 2) they took a clue from the 1973 OPEC oil embargo.

The main thing slowing down this type of conversion in the USA is the artificially low price of gasoline at the pumps, and not actually getting a clue from the 1973 OPEC oil embargo.

Yup … let those with foresight enjoy the benefits of investing sooner in alternatives.

Not sure the “permanent change” fear is warranted, and this goes back to when I asked you about how much CO[sub]2[/sub] is being dumped into the atmosphere. From the numbers I’m using about half is scrubbed out the atmosphere somehow. This doesn’t stop global warming, but it will slow things down. I think the Obama’s new EPA rules for shuttering coal fired power plants is right on target, a reasonable and measured withdrawal from this nasty shit.

Oregon gives her 2 senate votes and 4 of 5 house votes, they’re all yeller but they’ll vote the bluist blue …

102

Blogologist … that’s it, GIGO, you’re an expert at the study of blogs … no wonder you don’t use math … or physics … they’re not needed in any way to study blogs. Is that like a sub-discipline of Scientology?

Blaming Congress … why not elect better congressmen?

103

Half the CO[sub]2[/sub] being missing is a very interesting finding. Now, if you were the sort of person looking for an “excuse” to pollute - because it would increase your personal income at the expense of others, or you just love your truck - you might jump on this and declare “all we gotta do is cut back on the CO2, and wait 50 years, and it’ll be all cleared up”.

This fails basic understanding of the carbon cycle. If we could somehow dump all these gigatons of carbon sucked out of the ground - carbon that took millions of years to get trapped - and it would all get sucked up by <something> really fast, why does the earth’s atmosphere have any carbon at all?

Whatever the trap is has to have serious limits on how much scrubbing it can perform. It should saturate.

As for what the trap is, there’s only one thing it could be - it’s something in the ocean. Probably algae. No where else for that quantity of carbon to go.

104

Sure, keep babbling Centennial Man. :slight_smile:

Glad you asked, because you also show a lot of ignorance of what is going on:

So, still denying that saying “hundreds of years” was misleading, no clue about the ground in Florida, and completely wrong about what CO2 is doing in the atmosphere.

Against that you claim that I look at blogs. Well we will have to add fallacies to your repertoire.

105

And also add: ignorant about what fossil fuel interests are doing to our politics.

106

I’d jump at an electric pick-up, more than enough power to haul what I need to haul. I’m pretty much strictly hydro and wind power here, a little fossil fuel electricity trickles in from Wyoming I suppose, dirt cheap too !!!

I’m the kind of person who is very curious at how the carbon is being withdrawn out of the atmosphere, I’m not looking for excuses to burn more than a tank of gasoline in my pick-up every month.

I’m heavily in favor of sticking the carbon-makers with the bill for this, serves them right.

107

I never claimed you look before you quote … honest … I can’t imagine myself ever claiming that.

108

That’s just a small part of the puzzle. How is it even possible for “something” to be using up over half of the huge increase in carbon that has occurred because of fossil fuels? And how in the fuck is it staying almost constant for the last 50 or 60 years? And why is it still a mystery? This image shows the growth rate each year. The obvious change from the seventies, when it was around 1 ppm a year, to now, in which it is around 2 ppm a year increase is quite unexpected.

From this site

We know roughly the amount of fossil fuels being used each year, and it’s also obvious that the amount of carbon from fossil fuels is now around 8 times what it was in 1950. Image, from this site. (the exact numbers aren’t vital to this point, if it was 6 times the amount, or ten times, it’s still remarkable. That currently some missing sink is gobbling up twice the amount of carbon that mankind was putting out in total in the fifties, is quite the discovery. That some would want to “use” this information to tell us there is nothing to worry about isn’t a surprise. Vested interest always do this. They take any and all information and try to get what they want. This is just how the world works.

In any case, it’s been good news if you believe rising CO2 is a catastrophe, because it has kept the rate of increase much lower than early estimates predicted. Even so, Hansen and others predicted that with the current rate of fossil fuel use, we would be in a global warm period by now that was expected to be a disaster. Sea levels 10 feet higher, droughts so bad water would be a luxury, famine and war breaking out globally, and an ice free arctic, along with constant super hurricanes and winters with no snow.

The real horror for some, is that none of that came to pass.

109

Pope Francis stated that global warming is causing human trafficking to increase.

110

Sounds a lot like a huge straw man.

To begin with this is yet another boiler plate denial point, in reality scientists have discussed a lot and taken the carbon sinks into account, just like they take the sun into account but deniers tell others that they do not.

This article from 2004 was common:

Basically, as usual deniers are the ones that claim that “Vested interest always do this” as in hiding those good news. But what happens is that the usual is that deniers only tell part of the history to push doubts.

What is it clear is that the carbon sinks are taken into account, and the reports were that if the sinks were not there we could be indeed in a lot of trouble, but it is thanks to this insight that groups like the IPCC settled on the idea of not going cold turkey on stopping emissions, indeed the sinks were taken into account so we can move to wean the global economy from carbon-emitting energy sources.

111

I deny only deniers who deny an unquestionable, unchallengeable fact. “The patriarchy” posits that men have all the power and women have none, when this is self evidently not true now and has never been true as long as humans have existed as a species.
[/QUOTE]

The history of our species, dating as far back as we have recorded history, is patriarchal. I do not regard anyone who denies that to be … what’s the phrase you used? a “sentient being who is capable of speech and wiping their own arse”.

112

Yes, but a lot of the feminists who push stuff like this tend to express it in such a way that says to me (1) there are zero advantages to being women (2) it’s all great to be a man (3) women have no power whatsoever, back to the kitchen they go

This isn’t and never was true. What the “patriarchy” really means is that certain high status men have most of the authority, most of the mating power, and women and all the rest of the men have none. The actual ranking is high status men (always a finite number of them, it’s a zero sum game) > women > low status men.

Think about it. The high status men get most of the matings, most of the material wealth, and low risk lives. The women usually live longer and are protected from harm whenever practical. The low status men are the cannon fodder when it comes to warfare.

As a member of the majority class of men, I find statements like “the patriarchy” offensive and harmful to me personally because it really means “elevate women at the expense of all men, especially low status men…”

113

For example, in my struggling for status with other men, bereft of being born with millions of dollars and/or the connections to get into Harvard/Yale, I try to improve my technical skills. I build robots, write code, etc.

And I hear about all these “women only” programs where women, who don’t have my level of talent, get full rides, free hardware, free education, etc because they are “underrepresented”. I find this offensive, but if I say anything, it makes me a member of the patriarchy I don’t benefit from…

114

No, it just makes you an ass. Girls have been discouraged from going into these fields in the past, and they are still apparently being harassed out of male-dominated jobs by jerks like you.

I doubt that if your skills and talent were so great you would have had to struggle so much as you claim. The placement of your comma above makes it look like you believe no woman could possibly have your “level of talent”. That’s idiocy right there.

115

I agree with you. Most radical feminists agree with you. Robin Morgan would. Marilyn French would. Sheila Jeffries would. Gloria Steinem would. Sonia Johnson would. Sheila Rowbotham would. Azizah Al-Hibri would. Which feminists did you have in mind? Can you cite any? (I’m prepared to provide citations of my own on request).

Yeah, pretty much. You’ve left out age (patriarchy is “FATHER rule” not just male rule). And status involves many things used to array people in hierarchies of power. Radical feminism (if not necessarily all feminisms) says these status differences originate in the original institutionalized power imbalance, the one between the sexes. That’s why they call it patriarchy and not some other term used to identify oppression of the weak by the strong.

Get over it. There’s a theory on the table, something to think about, something to discuss: that the sexual power difference is the core cause of the others like economic differences and racial stratification and all the rest. Not to mention hierarchies of power among men in general as an organizing principle. if you’ve given it serious attention and then decided they’re wrong, that’s one thing; but clutching your balls (metaphorically or otherwise) and howling as if feminists had personally attacked you by saying sexual inequality is THE thing that’s wrong with society doesn’t constitute an intelligent response.

116

Let me get this straight. You are going to judge my entire education level based on a single misplaced comma? Well, then. This is the Pit, but think about it for a minute. What is the probability that this data element you have discovered has actual meaning, versus just noise?

I’m not even offended. I think your judgement tells more about your intelligence and education level than mine.

117

I think the first error in your logic has been mentioned, “patriarchy” is father-rule. In a traditional family unit, indeed the papa is the head-of-household, then mama, then sons, then daughters. I believe there’s some Biblical references about this, but honestly I’m not sure.

The second error is your principle of “zero-sum game”. This is the heart of sexism, the failed principle that for every advantage a woman gets comes at the expense of a man. Women can and are very productive, there’s certainly no expense to the man when she is given equal opportunity. It’s even possible the benefits would be compounded across both sexes.

The third error is that with your attitude, only worthless pieces-of-crap women will endure your presence. You make the mistake of thinking this is a true representation of all women. That’s not the case, so when you come across these higher quality women in the workplace, your own sexist beliefs prevent you from realizing they have something other than oatmeal between the ears, and they know it … it is you who initiate the hostilities.

Of course we judge your educational level by your ability to compose standard written English, commas included. If you’d have scored 790 on the English composition portion of your SAT, Harvard and Yale would have been begging you to attend there.

118

Denial, it’s not just a river in Egypt

119

There’s no such river in Egypt.

120

Well, complaining about the grammar as being a reason to refute the points a poster makes is very underwhelming, but yeah the context is showing that **Habeed **has his own denial issue.

As it turns out my background includes also social studies and history and well **Habeed **, “the times are a changin” - Bob Dylan