Jump to content
Tooback

Interview with a Prostitute

Recommended Posts

On 9/28/2019 at 5:51 PM, Love Zhaoying said:

Seriously?! What country are you in? Climate change is pretty much 100% accepted as real these day due to evidence (more floods, hurricanes, weather changes, hotter extremes, etc.) except for conservative Americans.

"accepted" but not proven, and what "evidence" there is a great deal has been proven to be outright faked, or misleading, uses "recalibrated" numbers....  in fact the examples you cite are proven with historical data to not be true....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Frederika Rayna said:

"accepted" but not proven, and what "evidence" there is a great deal has been proven to be outright faked, or misleading, uses "recalibrated" numbers....  in fact the examples you cite are proven with historical data to not be true....

Then why are many countries trying very hard to reduce carbon emissions in order to stop the temperature change before it hits a critical 2 degree F rise? See: Kyoto climate accords.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2019 at 5:51 PM, Love Zhaoying said:

Climate change is pretty much 100% accepted as real these day due to evidence (more floods, hurricanes, weather changes, hotter extremes, etc.) except for conservative Americans.

and Canadians in the oil sands and pipelines businesses -- this despite the Arctic warming faster than predicted and faster than the rest of the planet. I suspect the same is true in the US: those who persist in denying climate change at this late date must be emotionally invested in fossil fuels or the internal combustion engine -- and some Evangelicals who explain away the simple, basic greenhouse effect of CO2 by God magically fixing physics to pwn the libs.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

and Canadians in the oil sands and pipelines businesses -- this despite the Arctic warming faster than predicted and faster than the rest of the planet. I suspect the same is true in the US: those who persist in denying climate change at this late date must be emotionally invested in fossil fuels or the internal combustion engine -- and some Evangelicals who explain away the simple, basic greenhouse effect of CO2 by God magically fixing physics to pwn the libs.

 

Science-deniers are gonna be the end of us!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Science-deniers are gonna be the end of us!

I don't deny climate change, myself, though I believe the shrill screams about it are ridiculous as the planet is 4.5 Billion years old and weather and climate has been tracked for less that 200 years. Also, most of the dire predictions of climate doom for the past 60 years have not panned out. So to the doom-and-gloom screamers I have just one question: When did climate change start; when was there aver a period in Earth's history where there was no climate change?

I beg anyone to answer that plausibly and convince me that I should jump onto the Chicken Little bandwagon.

Otherwise, sure, we humans influence the change, but I just don't believe Mother Earth is that feeble.

And to stay on topic, does this climate change affect a prostitute's prospects at business?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

And to stay on topic, does this climate change affect a prostitute's prospects at business?

Not sure about that, but maybe a prostitute affects the price of tea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

When did climate change start; when was there aver a period in Earth's history where there was no climate change?

The beginning of time. We’ve had freezes and unfreezes. But all the recent increase in storms, floods, increase of ocean temperatures, melting glaciers etc. seems to be moving in just one direction..science says it’s due to CO2 which humans put in the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

The beginning of time. We’ve had freezes and unfreezes. But all the recent increase in storms, floods, increase of ocean temperatures, melting glaciers etc. seems to be moving in just one direction..science says it’s due to CO2 which humans put in the air.

Well, I've read some scientific reports that say weather is repeating itself, but in 100-year cycles in some instances (more specifically, some of the "record temperatures" being reported are repeats from specific log entries from the 1700 and 1800s).

As I've said, I don't deny climate change and I don't deny human industrial efforts influence it. My main argument is against the shrill doom-and-gloom. If you investigate every official proclaiming such, look at finances and what they gain from it. It's not altruistic in most cases LOL

Humans have been able to pretty much adapt to most changes in the world's atmosphere, I doubt we'll lose that ability any time soon. If you;re stupid enough to spend a bazillion dollars on a cliff-side coast on Martha's Vineyard, et al, then, well... LOL (Read the news of the new Obama purchase there, but yet they are shouting the same shrill shouts about climate change. Go figure.)

And to keep this on-topic, I recommend prostitutes seek out all the Climate Change doom-sayers because they got lotsa-bux and so they can spend more on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alyona Su said:

Well, I've read some scientific reports that say weather is repeating itself, but in 100-year cycles in some instances (more specifically, some of the "record temperatures" being reported are repeats from specific log entries from the 1700 and 1800s).

As I've said, I don't deny climate change and I don't deny human industrial efforts influence it. My main argument is against the shrill doom-and-gloom. If you investigate every official proclaiming such, look at finances and what they gain from it. It's not altruistic in most cases LOL

Humans have been able to pretty much adapt to most changes in the world's atmosphere, I doubt we'll lose that ability any time soon. If you;re stupid enough to spend a bazillion dollars on a cliff-side coast on Martha's Vineyard, et al, then, well... LOL (Read the news of the new Obama purchase there, but yet they are shouting the same shrill shouts about climate change. Go figure.)

And to keep this on-topic, I recommend prostitutes seek out all the Climate Change doom-sayers because they got lotsa-bux and so they can spend more on you.

If the climate continues to change in the current direction, a prostitute will only be able to play fishing games in SL, because in RL the ocean temperature will have raised to the point that the ecosystem collapses (beginning with krill, heard it on the news).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

heard it on the news

'Nuff said. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

Well, I've read some scientific reports that say weather is repeating itself, but in 100-year cycles in some instances (more specifically, some of the "record temperatures" being reported are repeats from specific log entries from the 1700 and 1800s).

There are many cyclic processes affecting global climate, with periods varying from annual to 100,000+ years. Some of those cycles are better understood than others. Many of those cycles affect, and are affected by, aperiodic inputs (meteor strikes, volcanos, CO2 emissions, etc). Comparing short term regional record temperatures alone is no way to ascertain what's actually happening long term globally.

The sheer complexity of Earth's climate means that any attempts to predict it will produce errors. That does not mean we should not try, it means we should collect as much information as possible and work to improve the models. That's what the scientific community is doing. To discount the science for predictions made decades ago is as sensible as discounting an adult chess player because she routinely lost to her father as a child. Climate science is growing up.

The IPCC gathers numerous competing climate models to produce its concensus reports. The most dire of those are also the most newsworthy because "dire sells". Contrary to popular belief, measured sea level rise since 1990 has actually been at the high end of IPCC projections. The spread between, and error bands of, constituent IPCC climate models have been narrowing over time, precisely as you'd expect from efforts to improve them.

Meanwhile, the spread between camps of public perception of global warming, as with so many other ideas, grows wider. The science ultimately doesn't care, as it lives or dies on the evidence.

6 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

As I've said, I don't deny climate change and I don't deny human industrial efforts influence it. My main argument is against the shrill doom-and-gloom. If you investigate every official proclaiming such, look at finances and what they gain from it. It's not altruistic in most cases LOL

If we're going to balance various "not altruistics" against each other, the moment you drop the fossil fuel industry (and all that depends on it) onto the scale, everything else gets hurled into orbit. Since fossil fuel is so thoroughly entrenched in our cultures and economies, powering most of what we do, it's not hard to see how criticism of it might invite blowback.

6 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

Humans have been able to pretty much adapt to most changes in the world's atmosphere, I doubt we'll lose that ability any time soon.

Humans have been on Earth operating pretty independently for less than a million years, have exhibited behavioral modernity for about 50,000 years, have been fairly dependent on agriculture for 12,000 years, and highly dependent on industry for 200. That last 200 is the problem. Your claim that we've adapted to most changes in the world's atmosphere is marvelously wrong. We simply haven't been here long enough for that. It's not really about our adaptability so much as that of our environment. A dramatic drop in pollination and rise in fungal disease (both exquisitely temperature sensitive) over the course of 200 years would put quite a strain on a food chain that must supply more than 10+ times as many people than just 200 years ago.

Also notice that a million years of exceptional adaptability has produced an exceptional increase in interdependence. This problem isn't growing simpler.

6 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

If you;re stupid enough to spend a bazillion dollars on a cliff-side coast on Martha's Vineyard, et al, then, well... LOL Read the news of the new Obama purchase there, but yet they are shouting the same shrill shouts about climate change. Go figure.

My long time (here since the 60s) climate-change denying neighbors recently sold their home after Lake Michigan seized a chunk of their back yard and sent it towards Chicago in a tan plume of littoral drift. They couldn't afford to shore up their bluff, particularly since contract prices doubled in the last few years as lake levels rose and erosion accelerated. They miss the lake, but received enough money to buy a maintenance free retirement condo. Even the gentrified can "suffer" gentrification. Were they stupid to build their home near the lake in the 1960s? They, like me, enjoyed five decades of life in a beautiful place.

The new, anthropocentric-climate-change-believing family who bought the home is spending a tidy penny to reinforce their bluff, almost instantly improving the value of the property by more than their investment. Were they stupid to buy a home even nearer the lake now? The engineering firm shoring up their bluff estimates they'll need some remedial work in 10 years, but nothing approaching the initial job for perhaps another 50. They know the bet they're making.

If the Obamas sell their Martha's Vineyard home in 20 years for a tidy profit (and they will, because a US President will have once lived there), their "stupidity" will be amply rewarded. In 2017, President Trump built a 38,000 ton seawall to protect his Doonbeg golf course from the "Chinese hoax" of global warming. Actual stupidity is pretty rare, so I'll guess that Trump's seawall is an example of something else.

Personal long term conviction and personal short term action/reaction are as different as climate and weather. Confusing those things while calling people "stupid" is not a good look on anyone.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2019 at 5:31 AM, Frederika Rayna said:

"accepted" but not proven, and what "evidence" there is a great deal has been proven to be outright faked, or misleading, uses "recalibrated" numbers....  in fact the examples you cite are proven with historical data to not be true....

Have you links to proof of faked numbers, Fredericka?

Your use of scare quotes around "recalibrated" makes me wonder if you're referring to all the hubbub caused by Christopher Booker's reporting of work done by Paul Homewood a few years back. Homewood is a retired accountant who's fondness for addition and subtraction apparently got him wondering about Earth surface temperature data, particularly the homogenization of it, which involved a lot of... addition and subtraction.

A skeptical friend of mine came wagging that story at me, forcing me to do a few hours of digging. Those hours revealed what I'd suspected, that non-scientists (or scientists working outside their areas of expertise) were ignorant of the science of homogenization (your "recalibration") of data sets. Homogenization is required in nearly all manners of experimental measurement, from climate to cosmology to manufacturing quality control.

The Berkeley Earth (homepage) group formed in 2010 to address their own skepticism over Earth surface temperature mapping (homogenization was but one issue for them). Rather than confirm their skepticism, their thorough analysis of multiple data sets showed that issues like data set homogenization did NOT bias the record. While they did conclude that global climate models might be overly complex, they confirmed that CO2 is a major driver of global warming. Berkeley Earth continues to watch with a skeptical eye. As a result, they're firmly in the anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) camp.

I took this analysis back to my skeptical friend. As I expected, I was unable to dislodge even a molecule of his belief that unseen forces were conspiring to take away his ability to buy fuel guzzling pickup trucks.

We all have our reasons for living.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


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

'Nuff said. :)

What sources WOULD you believe? “Heard it on the news” in this case means reputable news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I just can't figure out about the climate change "debate" is how the deniers explain away what happens to all that CO2. We know it's building up in the atmosphere -- we measure that constantly and there's no dispute that it's far beyond historic levels. And eighth grade science teaches us how CO2 creates a greenhouse effect, which we can also measure. So what magic is supposed to explain how this somehow doesn't apply to the planet when petroleum profits are at stake? Even if we pretend the actual climate numbers aren't terrifying, what's the pseudo-science "explanation" for inconvenient CO2 conveniently not increasing the greenhouse effect?

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

What sources WOULD you believe? “Heard it on the news” in this case means reputable news.

The scientific literature the news articles used as a basis for their stories. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

The thing I just can't figure out about the climate change "debate" is how the deniers explain away what happens to all that CO2. We know it's building up in the atmosphere -- we measure that constantly and there's no dispute that it's far beyond historic levels. And eighth grade science teaches us how CO2 creates a greenhouse effect, which we can also measure. So what magic is supposed to explain how this somehow doesn't apply to the planet when petroleum profits are at stake? Even if we pretend the actual climate numbers aren't terrifying, what's the pseudo-science "explanation" for inconvenient CO2 conveniently not increasing the greenhouse effect?

Some of the explanations & rationalizations I've been given:

Carbon dioxide is plant food. Apparently I am stupid for not realizing the golden age for life in Earth was the late Cretaceous. The Earth is actually carbon starved. If you live in some location that was underwater then, like Kansas, you can just sell your house to Aquaman and move.

"It's the Sun stupid." The Sun, to the exclusion of all other factors, is responsible for the Earth's climate.

Which leads to, it's really getting cooler (because up is down) and we're on the edge of a mini-ice age thanks to the impending grand solar minimum. The real problem is global cooling. You'll be sorry when you're run over by a glacier during the next Maunder Minimum.

Speaking of mini-ice ages, global warming is fake news because in the 1970s all the scientists said we're headed for a mini-ice age. You know it's true because Mr. Spock said so.

The temperature data is all a pack of lies. Except for 1934, when it was really hot in the American midwest.

Al Gore said something wrong in "An Inconvenient Truth" and he has a big house.

Lie about human contribution to atmospheric CO2 by saying something demonstrably false like a single volcano produces more CO2 than all human activity ever and then misrepresenting carbon flux to claim human activity isn't making a significant contribution to overall CO2 levels. 

The climate has always changed, and even though the person making the claim has never seen the inside of a science textbook, they are certain humans can't possibly do anything to alter Earth's climate because there were no SUVs around to change the climate in the distant past.

I apologize for posting that nonsense in a forum with the word "Adult" in the description.

Edited by Lyssa Greymoon
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

What sources WOULD you believe? “Heard it on the news” in this case means reputable news.

Quote

@Lyssa Greymoon said: he scientific literature the news articles used as a basis for their stories. 

The only "reputable news" you can get is the summary of the same news from three to five different and opposing sources. Then weigh the balance for yourself, or better yet: go to the sources they cite. A lot of news give only one side (or small portions) of a story, but almost never both sides of a story, they only give the "talking points" information. Deceit by omission, basically.

If you want the full story (and, hopefully the truth) then go to the original source and peruse it thoroughly. Then you can decide how turthful or not the actual story is.

Edited by Alyona Su

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

opposing sources

Too many “alternate facts” for a poor prostitute to peruse news these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Too many “alternate facts” for a poor prostitute to peruse news these days.

Well, are not flat-back and doggy opposing options? Bahahaha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

I apologize for posting that nonsense in a forum with the word "Adult" in the description.

What better place for a discussion like this than "Interview with a Prostitute", Lyssa? The the OP is textbook bad science!

Regarding CO2 as plant food, I've recently been telling the following story at RL encounters when the opportunity presents.

Walk up to the largest tree in your neighborhood and ask yourself, where'd it come from? We all learned this in biology when young, but most of us seem to have forgot, possibly because it wasn't explained the way I learned it. We're standing in front of the tree, surely we can figure out where it came from?

Start by looking at the ground around you. Are you standing in a depression? On a slight mound?  See any roots pushing up out of that mound? What about the leaves? Ever see big piles of leaves at the curb around Halloween? Ever see where they take 'em? There's a huge pile of plant debris at my municipal yard, collected from all around the area and freely available to anyone who needs mulch. That pile is the size of an office building by the end of the year. I always see leaves being hauled away, but rarely see anyone bringing compost back into their yards.

If the trees are coming from the ground, producing all those leaves to be hauled away every year, then eventually dying and being hauled away themselves, surely we would need truckloads of soil to replace all the mass we're removing from our yards and huge trees would be growing out of depressions in ground, right? Ever see that happen?

Okay, trees are not coming from the ground.

What are trees anyway? Like the plants we can eat, they're carbohydrates, but exceptionally chewy and hard to digest. Carbo-hydrate? That's carbon and water. And living plants are wet carbohydrates, so they're carbon and water and... water. By element, they're about 15-18% carbon, 9-10% hydrogen, and 65-75% oxygen. There's a teeny tiny bit of sulfur, phosphorus and other stuff, too, some of which actually comes from... the ground!

Where do you find carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen? Pick from air, earth, and water, like the ancients did. We already ruled out earth. Air is mostly nitrogen (78%) oxygen (21%) and argon (1%) with a tiny bit of carbon in CO2 (0.04%). Water is wet air, so I think we've got what we need. We can't see air, but we know there's miles of it stacked overhead. Visible or not, we'd never notice if a bit of it went missing to make this tree. Look around you, all the lush greenery, the massive trees, the huge branches that crush houses and cars, the building size piles of mulch at the city yard? It's all made from air!

Let's keep going. Imagine, over 400 million years, dragging leaves out of your yard every fall and piling them in your neighbor's. Where did they go? Remember those landslides and floods and plate tectonic subsections and...? You get the idea. That pile of leaves is now buried, along with that yippy dinosaur you hated 66 million years ago, under 3200 feet of rock. Some of it turned to coal, some to oil.

And that gives you an idea. Let's dig it up and burn it! (air, earth, water... we forgot... FIRE!) And let's burn that entire pile of decomposed leaves as fast as we can. Maybe we can do it in 400 years? Who doesn't love a bonfire?! But now we're back to wondering. Where will that coal and oil go? We're smarter now, we don't have to think about it. It goes back into the air. Well okay then, it all balances out. It came from the air, it goes back into the air, what's the problem? You were here when you first started piling the leaves in the neighbor's yard, and survived all the calamities that buried the evidence.

Yeah, but it took you a 400 million years to make the pile and you're gonna burn it all in 400? A million times faster? You really think that's not gonna shock your other neighbors and make you cough and wheeze?

So yeah, this is fantasy and doesn't encapsulating the full complexity of global warming, but I've found the basic ideas in the story help me understand the outsized power humanity wields over this planet, and that rate of change can be more important than degree of change.

If we were smart enough to figure out how to burn 400 million years of leaves in 400, surely we're smart enough to find something even cooler to do?

 

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

The only "reputable news" you can get is the summary of the same news from three to five different and opposing sources. Then weigh the balance for yourself, or better yet: go to the sources they cite. A lot of news give only one side (or small portions) of a story, but almost never both sides of a story, they only give the "talking points" information. Deceit by omission, basically.

Not always deceit by omission, but often omission by ignorance. Ignorance is easy, it requires no thinking. It's not surprising so many people enjoy it. That doesn't mean it's good for you.

Since my childhood, I've witnessed a growing distrust of people who are intellectually industrious, people who think deeply about things and come up with ideas that challenge the prevailing ignorance. Not all of those ideas are good, but it will require more deep thinking to figure that out, not less.

Journalism is even more messy than science, particularly now that everyone's doing it.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...