State of beaches and water quality? (exemption, dangerous, bill)

[Nyfinestbxtf]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Umm. Actually, you did write Hawaiian "politicians are idiots". You did this by manner of making an affirmation statement. Same as with your claim to using "logic" in another thread, you are taking considerable liberties with semantics.

Context.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Nyfinestbxtf

A short video for fun:

https://youtu.be/BB0aFPXr4n4

There is no empirical evidence that man is the cause of global warming and if you want to go by the logic that most scientists agree that man is the cause of global warming, most scientists once upon a time thought the world was flat. Science is a discovery process that requires a lot of assumptions and often those assumptions are wrong.

Is CO2 a pollutant? Is CO2 the most prominent gas in the atmosphere that is the cause of global warming? In simple terms, let’s take a 10,000 seat stadium, 4 of those seats would represent CO2 in the atmosphere. Does that seem like CO2 is a problem? What do plants need to survive? Don’t they need CO2? What do humans need to survive? Humans need O2. What do plants produce? Plants produce O2. Seems to me CO2 is very important. Lets circle back, what is the most prominent gas in the atmosphere that would be the cause of global warming? That would be water vapor. I think I learned most of this in 3rd grade. Does it not seem this global warming hysteria is nothing more than an attack on industry camouflaged as environmentalism?

I see. But not really.

You have once again misappropriated the definition of "logic". You also clearly lack an understanding of the dynamics of "false equivalencies". I would guess you are as capable as most to learn about and understand what logic and equivalencies are and how they can be applied to rational analysis. So I offer that adding that course of self education will assist you in grasping how science has evolved since Galileo and Copernicus.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Nyfinestbxtf

Context.

Context what? Context to position your affirmation as anything other than an affirmation of the statement - is precisely what was lacking, if such was your intention.

[Jungjohann]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I see. But not really.

So I offer that adding that course of self education will assist you in grasping how science has evolved since Galileo and Copernicus.

Perhaps the problem isn't the process, or the end result, but the interval between the two. Things didn't go well for either of the above after voicing their theories, it was 'fake news'..


Meanwhile,,, it's BELOW 70 degrees in Kihei, I need a wetsuit this morning.




A very thin one

[Nyfinestbxtf]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I see. But not really.

You have once again misappropriated the definition of "logic". You also clearly lack an understanding of the dynamics of "false equivalencies". I would guess you are as capable as most to learn about and understand what logic and equivalencies are and how they can be applied to rational analysis. So I offer that adding that course of self education will assist you in grasping how science has evolved since Galileo and Copernicus.

The point is like I said, science is a discovery process that requires a lot of assumptions where more often than not those assumptions are wrong. This applies to yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If the vast majority of scientists are in agreement doesn’t make something true. The fact is there is no empirical evidence that man is the cause of global warming no matter how many people agree that man is the cause of global warming.

With that said, does increased CO2 in the atmosphere create a positive feedback loop? This is where only a small increase of CO2 will cause the temperature to rise and when the temperature rises, this in essence causes more water vapor in the atmosphere do to evaporation, hence more greenhouse gas (water vapor). Makes sense “logically,” but is this scientifically proven. Nope! What we do know is CO2 consists of .04% or 400 parts per million and water vapor consists of 95% of the atmosphere.

[Nyfinestbxtf]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Context what? Context to position your affirmation as anything other than an affirmation of the statement - is precisely what was lacking, if such was your intention.

Yes, context. LGuy said “the state are idiots.” I have to assume he is speaking of politicians. All I said is “I don’t need to live there to know your politicians are idiots.” That is not calling them idiots. I know nothing about your politicians nor their agenda or philosophy. The context is, all I have to do is research Hawaiian politicians whether to agree or disagree with LGuy.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Nyfinestbxtf

The point is like I said, science is a discovery process that requires a lot of assumptions where more often than not those assumptions are wrong. This applies to yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If the vast majority of scientists are in agreement doesn’t make something true. The fact is there is no empirical evidence that man is the cause of global warming no matter how many people agree that man is the cause of global warming.

With that said, does increased CO2 in the atmosphere create a positive feedback loop? This is where only a small increase of CO2 will cause the temperature to rise and when the temperature rises, this in essence causes more water vapor in the atmosphere do to evaporation, hence more greenhouse gas (water vapor). Makes sense “logically,” but is this scientifically proven. Nope! What we do know is CO2 consists of .04% or 400 parts per million and water vapor consists of 95% of the atmosphere.

I provided a post with links to more scholarly articles on the science of anthropogenic climate effects than you could read (regardless if you understood them) in the next year or so. You responded with a link to a Youtube of the late George Carlin ridiculing the contemporary human avocation of concern for protecting the environment. (Nevermind that Carlin's sarcasm was also based in a du jour of red herring and false equivalencies. ... though funny ones, yes.)

Now, you have written that you are a career police officer (18 years, since age 25, I believe you stated?). And here you are apparently inferring that while the authors of copious scholarly articles are frat brothers in the Flat Earth Society, you, on the other hand are the second coming of Pythagorous, Galileo, and Copernicus rolled into one with direct lineage to Christopher Columbus to boot.

Okay. I'd be humbled if it weren't for the irony of you arguing that scientific knowledge is based on assumptions that are apparently both temporal and amorphous - then providing the readers here with your own scientific facts about CO2, water vapor, atmospheric climatology right down to the effects on aforementioned measured in ppm, umm, with nary a nod to them being anything other than unassailable, a-priori, axiomatic truths.

Kudos Officer!

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Nyfinestbxtf

Yes, context. LGuy said “the state are idiots.” I have to assume he is speaking of politicians. All I said is “I don’t need to live there to know your politicians are idiots.” That is not calling them idiots. I know nothing about your politicians nor their agenda or philosophy. The context is, all I have to do is research Hawaiian politicians whether to agree or disagree with LGuy.

Semantics says: yes, what you wrote is an exact affirmation of the statement you referred to.

It's fine, well and good that you wish to backstroke to rephrase your intention. But what you wrote was a complete affirmation semantically.

[Nyfinestbxtf]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I provided a post with links to more scholarly articles on the science of anthropogenic climate effects than you could read (regardless if you understood them) in the next year or so. You responded with a link to a Youtube of the late George Carlin ridiculing the contemporary human avocation of concern for protecting the environment. (Nevermind that Carlin's sarcasm was also based in a du jour of red herring and false equivalencies. ... though funny ones, yes.)

Now, you have written that you are a career police officer (18 years, since age 25, I believe you stated?). And here you are apparently inferring that while the authors of copious scholarly articles are frat brothers in the Flat Earth Society, you, on the other hand are the second coming of Pythagorous, Galileo, and Copernicus rolled into one with direct lineage to Christopher Columbus to boot.

Okay. I'd be humbled if it weren't for the irony of you arguing that scientific knowledge is based on assumptions that are apparently both temporal and amorphous - then providing the readers here with your own scientific facts about CO2, water vapor, atmospheric climatology right down to the effects on aforementioned measured in ppm, umm, with nary a nod to them being anything other than unassailable, a-priori, axiomatic truths.

Kudos Officer!

So what you are saying in all that there is empirical evidence that man is the cause of global warming? What about those scientists who disagree?

You have to love George Carlin.

[Nyfinestbxtf]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Semantics says: yes, what you wrote is an exact affirmation of the statement you referred to.

It's fine, well and good that you wish to backstroke to rephrase your intention. But what you wrote was a complete affirmation semantically.

I wouldn’t quit your day job. Mind reading is not for you.