Sixgun vs HawkHybrid

[silenceissilver]

35 minutes ago, SilverPirate007 said:

i wouldn’t bother you are attempting to debate with a right wing troll farm of people who can not even grasp the difference between socialism and communism. 

Communists want a violent overthrow, socialists want to use parliamentary democracy to reach the same goals as communists

[Notafront4adragon]

11 minutes ago, sixgun said:

Yes i did imply that if your degree were recent, your lecturers and the course content could have been tainted by political dogma. We were talking about climate and you were referring to your university notes - so there was a good chance of it being in that area of academia. A university lecturer who held my views on climate, however well researched, would have a tough time - they would very likely not get funding for research and might well fine their employment terminated. This has happened. So polluted bodies of knowledge have become in the moments of sanity we see headlines like this 'Top Scientists Agree: Medical Research is Rife with Fraud' https://newswire.net/newsroom/news/00088806-world-s-top-scientists-agree-most-researches-findings-are-fraud.html

Speaking of marine biology (your degree) we see the example of Peter Ridd, the Australian professor who was sacked. He says because of his view that climate change was not damaging the Great Barrier Reef. i see the establishment at his university in a Guardian article deny it was about that and it was about his failure 'to create a safe, respectful and professional workplace' - i might imagine it was some sort of 'safe space' - i can always trust the Guardian to have Woke think and i find it interesting that Peter Ridd won the court case he took against the James Cook University.

So you are free to think whatever you like as long as you think what we tell you. If there are restrictions to academic freedom for views outside restricted bounds, then freedom of speech and thought are being curtailed. There is ample evidence of Leftist infiltration into education, first in the social sciences but now in hardcore science. There are a number of videos showing Yuri Bezmenov, the Soviet KGB defector, explaining the process of subversion and takeover of target societies - a key goal is to capture educational establishments. A scan of the carry on in American colleges will turn up plenty examples of this. To point this out is not condescending - it is being a realist. There is a world of difference between nostalgic rememberings and the subversion of education and brainwashing of the young. 

Sixgun I've said it before but it bears repeating. The difference in our outlook on the world is radically different, I believe I am in control of my thoughts actions and destiny, whereas you are paranoid that everyone is trying to control you lie to you, steal from you and you've little control. Perhaps you've smoked too much of your CO2 enhanced marijuana you are so keen on growing. I just can't understand your world view point I am sorry.

[Michal]

1 hour ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Perspective is we don't know what changing even tiny fractions will do so probably best not to mess with them until we can reliably predict some affects. I'm all for raising CO2 levels if it can be shown that it is good for human survival. So far it can not be shown and indeed would appear to have the opposite effect.

Wanting to see it as a percentage rather than an amount is setting up the argument that its only a tiny fraction what harm could it do. That may appeal to our brains and make you feel better but it misses the truth. Even tiny changes can possibly have big consequences, we don't know for sure, but on balance it would appear it is a bad thing for continued human lifestyles.

And before you bring it up, no volcanic eruptions don't rival anthropogenic CO2 generation, nor would they make our efforts in vain. They don't produce as much gases, are so rare compared to continuous human activity, and by their nature produce a global cooling effect often due to ash clouds preventing the passage of, or reflecting sunlight radiation. Also China appears to be leading the way in reaserching renewables and implementing their usage. So even the old chestnut that what's the point in us doing anything if china continues won't be/isn't true anymore.

Great points, but you omit to answer question, just focusing on your point of view. I will ask it this way: What greenhouse gas humanity produces the most?

[silenceissilver]

1 hour ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Perspective is we don't know what changing even tiny fractions will do so probably best not to mess with them until we can reliably predict some affects. I'm all for raising CO2 levels if it can be shown that it is good for human survival. So far it can not be shown and indeed would appear to have the opposite effect.

Not really. There is no correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature, there is no experiment to prove the greenhouse theory (in the atmosphere), the climate models are nonlinear chaotic, which in practice means every single prognosis was wrong. There is also a staged consensus, e.g. in Cook's famous 97% meta study where he admitted that he count neutral as endorsement with the provided reason this would be established anyway. Of course you can't assume what you want to prove. 

[Pampfan]

It seems to me that we all can agree that we have problems all around us. That is a given whether it be virus, global gases, fiat currency, etc. 

The times we live in are no different than any other time in history - all humans have faced problems - and the only difference is that these are our problems and our time - so the question I pose to all is - What are you going to do to make this world better - we only get one chance each at it! 
I have my plan!

 

[sixgun]

1 hour ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Perspective is we don't know what changing even tiny fractions will do so probably best not to mess with them...

In response to a post on carbon dioxide levels, you say we don't know what changing even tiny fractions will do. That might explain why all the IPCC computer models projecting global temperatures have all been wrong - most extremely wrong. Nevertheless we are expected to turn our lives and civilisation upside down to change tiny fractions. They are tiny fractions of course. Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere and man is responsible for 3 to 4% of that. 
The thing is we DO know what changing even tiny fractions will do - nothing. i have stated Piers Corbyn has laid down challenges on his weatheraction.com website - i have seen video of him repeating these outside Parliament - one of them is a challenge for anyone - even you - to provide 'observational evidence in the thousands and millions of years of data that changes in CO² have any observable effect on weather or climate in the real world.'  - Piers rightly says there is NO observational evidence and no-one has produced any. You are suggesting and some are even demanding we decarbonise - some of them, utter narcissists, have superglued themselves to various objects (the solvents in superglue are greenhouse gases i might add) or caused other inconvenience and mischief. i posted a link where even NOAA had accepted rising carbon dioxide levels had caused greening. 

So no evidence has been provided that changes in CO² levels have made any demonstrable change in climate.
As correctly pointed out the CO² agenda came out of the Club of Rome - a Rockefeller 'think tank'. It's an invention - it has nothing to with climate - it doesn't change climate - despite all the $billions spent on 'climate change' 'research' - no-one has shown CO² changes the climate and the computer models which are based on this fallacy, inevitably ALL come out with inaccurate predictions.

That is the reality of it. There is a group of people here who i believe sincerely but misguidedly believe the controlled media propaganda. 

[sixgun]

26 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Sixgun I've said it before but it bears repeating. The difference in our outlook on the world is radically different, I believe I am in control of my thoughts actions and destiny, whereas you are paranoid that everyone is trying to control you lie to you, steal from you and you've little control. Perhaps you've smoked too much of your CO2 enhanced marijuana you are so keen on growing. I just can't understand your world view point I am sorry.

You don't deal with the issues - you imagine i am paranoid - a clinical diagnosis of paranoia involves persecutory ideation that is unfounded - a persecutory delusion. i am making my points, posting evidence, often including links to material, to base my assertions on. You are not doing that - you are just posting ad hominem. It is really quite funny to me. 
From time-to-time members contact me - quite a few recently. They say how they enjoy posts i make - they agree - they let's say disagree with those i am ranged against. They say they have followed my posts for some time. i am quite humbled by that and as you might imagine i don't admit that very often. These people are generally silent members - they don't engage in these discussions - who can blamed them really. Perhaps they took my advice to put a CO² generator in their greenhouse and grew a bumper crops of cannabis with such THC levels they have also become quite paranoid. 

[Notafront4adragon]

2 minutes ago, silenceissilver said:

Not really. There is no correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature, there is no experiment to prove the greenhouse theory (in the atmosphere), the climate models are nonlinear chaotic, which in practice means every single prognosis was wrong. There is also a staged consensus, e.g. in Cook's famous 97% meta study where he admitted that he count neutral as endorsement with the provided reason this would be established anyway. Of course you can't assume what you want to prove. 

I'll concede that the 97% figure is false. I'll also go as far as to say climate change and its predicted outcomes are theories not fact, and often those theories are as abused. But crucially the side that views climate change as non existent or that anthropogenic CO2 production is not an issue, in my opinion,  doesn't present as compelling evidence for their theories. Further often those skeptics, I'll again concede denier is derogatory, often if not always have direct connections to companies and individuals who continue to benefit financially from the status quo and have a incredibly strong bias to discredit any relevant research that says otherwise. 

[Platinum]

I think many avoid entering the discussions simply because it almost always ends up with two sides believing they are right and the other is wrong. There is little interest in just sharing opinions, rather what is saught is convincing the other side while from the start thinking they are wrong. And that normally does not lead anywhere.

[Notafront4adragon]

10 minutes ago, sixgun said:

You don't deal with the issues - you imagine i am paranoid - a clinical diagnosis of paranoia involves persecutory ideation that is unfounded - a persecutory delusion. i am making my points, posting evidence, often including links to material, to base my assertions on. You are not doing that - you are just posting ad hominem. It is really quite funny to me. 
From time-to-time members contact me - quite a few recently. They say how they enjoy posts i make - they agree - they let's say disagree with those i am ranged against. They say they have followed my posts for some time. i am quite humbled by that and as you might imagine i don't admit that very often. These people are generally silent members - they don't engage in these discussions - who can blamed them really. Perhaps they took my advice to put a CO² generator in their greenhouse and grew a bumper crops of cannabis with such THC levels they have also become quite paranoid. 

Well don't let the popularity go to your head.

[SilverPirate007]

2 minutes ago, Platinum said:

I think many avoid entering the discussions simply because it almost always ends up with two sides believing they are right and the other is wrong. There is little interest in just sharing opinions, rather what is saught is convincing the other side while from the start thinking they are wrong. And that normally does not lead anywhere.

The debate is irrelevant. The world is warming and we are on the brink. It is because of climate change deniers and lobbyists that our entire future is threatened. Fortunately the world recognises the facts.

[Platinum]

22 minutes ago, Pampfan said:

It seems to me that we all can agree that we have problems all around us. That is a given whether it be virus, global gases, fiat currency, etc. 

The times we live in are no different than any other time in history - all humans have faced problems - and the only difference is that these are our problems and our time - so the question I pose to all is - What are you going to do to make this world better - we only get one chance each at it! 
I have my plan!

 

Indeed although what I came to think of reading this though is: 

 

[Notafront4adragon]

3 minutes ago, Platinum said:

I think many avoid entering the discussions simply because it almost always ends up with two sides believing they are right and the other is wrong. There is little interest in just sharing opinions, rather what is saught is convincing the other side while from the start thinking they are wrong. And that normally does not lead anywhere.

That's true. I guess some of us, me certainly, like to rant. I guess it's because despite this being a public forum the anonymity of the internet means you're still making these arguments from a private secure space, therefore you feel far more secure in your beliefs and less like you need to listen or concede. 

[Platinum]

7 minutes ago, SilverPirate007 said:

The debate is irrelevant. The world is warming and we are on the brink. It is because of climate change deniers and lobbyists that our entire future is threatened. Fortunately the world recognises the facts.

Back for another round of trolling or a serious discussion this time (I assume serious)?

Like I stated before: If your solutions and opinions involves changing the outside with or without their concent, all that will come out of any such act is more problems.

Besides, people are allowed to believe or not to believe what is written about the climate, that is their choice.

Edit: Indeed Notafront4adragon.

[sovereignsteve]

2 hours ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Perspective is we don't know what changing even tiny fractions will do so probably best not to mess with them until we can reliably predict some affects.

This concerning levels of CO2. Therefore in one sentence you agree there is no scientific evidence for man made global warming and totally debunk the climate change agenda.

[silenceissilver]

32 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

I'll concede that the 97% figure is false. I'll also go as far as to say climate change and its predicted outcomes are theories not fact, and often those theories are as abused. But crucially the side that views climate change as non existent or that anthropogenic CO2 production is not an issue, in my opinion,  doesn't present as compelling evidence for their theories. Further often those skeptics, I'll again concede denier is derogatory, often if not always have direct connections to companies and individuals who continue to benefit financially from the status quo and have a incredibly strong bias to discredit any relevant research that says otherwise. 

You cannot prove something doesn't exist. The climate hysterical side has to prove the link.

 

29 minutes ago, SilverPirate007 said:

The debate is irrelevant. The world is warming and we are on the brink. It is because of climate change deniers and lobbyists that our entire future is threatened. Fortunately the world recognises the facts.

You are a climate denier. You deny that climate change happens naturally.

[Seth]

12 hours ago, Notafront4adragon said:

If you don't understand soil sciences then you won't understand it at all, but honestly go and look at what I'm saying. Also I didn't say oceans aren't sinks either, I said the soil biome is far more important than most understand and arguably as big as the oceans in terms of a sink. 

Finally your point about cannibas growers is wrong, anyone who has grown it knows simply increasing the CO2 levels doesn't increase yields, you need to make sure other limiting factors are also fulfilled. I suspect you know it's far more complicated, but admitting so would mean your arguments don't look so solid anymore. Further not all plants, in particular many key crops, do grow better in warmer climates, far from it as many have adapted over time to climates. We are already seeing problems with wheat and rice and only through remarkable genetic engineering are we able to ensure food supply. It is reductive to say plants need CO2 therefore more CO2 good. 

Finally and most crucially WE ARE NOT PLANTS!! Even if raising temperatures and CO2 does help plant growth not much good if we've died from heat stroke or cant eat the only plant left adapted. Giant ferns are not tasty, that's all that was about when CO2 levels and temperatures were last at high levels. We also had 2ft dragonflies. **** that.

---

Added 0 minutes later...

A story about your childhood is not a study to show homogenous societies are better.

I lived and grew up for some time on a tropical island with a strong mix of ethnicities and identities, no one locked their doors, people were polite and friendly (to the point strangers would invite you to dinner if you talked too long) and we were very happy self reliant, in fact many of the things you said. Based on my childhood experience heterogeneous societies are better therefore?

Also yeah some great ideas came from Britain, as have ideas come from every single corner of the world, what's your point that Britain's idea are rubbish now cause muslims live here? 

It's not a diversification of ethnicities that changed your idealic rural community its modernity.

My bolding but as somebody who does grow, I will tell you straight up that you increase the levels of CO2 during the daylight cycle - whether flowering or just vegging, and during you night cycle you turn off your CO2 source, but bleed pure O2 into your grow environment to increase the amount of O2 in the air available to the plants to maximise their energy efficiency/growth, photosynthesis works different during the day compared to how it works at night.  During daylight plants take in CO2 and release O2, at night that's reversed plants take in O2 but release CO2.  This just speeds up how fast your plants will grow - light cycle effects when the plant will flower, so instead of taking 2 - 3 weeks to get 2 foot tall plants, increasing the amount of CO2 available during the day cycle and decreasing the CO2 and increasing the amount of O2 during the night cycle will in practice reduce the time it takes to grow 2 foot tall plants by anything from 30% to 50%,  To increase yeild your talking about playing around with nutrients - basically putting your plants on a ''body builder diet'' in short giving them the plant equivalent to steroids and human growth hormones.  And before somebody says cannabis farming is good for the envorinmoent, yeh it can be if you don't mind only harvesting one crop a year with minmal yields - growing it outdoors seasonally, but to make it profitable so that you can actually live off of it you will need multiple harvests a year.  Which means you need to be in control of the environment, which even done as simply as possible means you have to be in control of the day/night cycle, which means running artificial lighting, and these are not low powered lights, they are hundreds of watts to even a kilowatt and you are not running one or two of these lights, you're running a minimum of 4 - yes LED lighting is available but the technology is not there yet to be used for anything more than maintaining a ''mother plant'', and these hundred watts to even kilowatt lights run so hot that you not only can't touch them wih your hands without getting badly burnt, but you can acually fry eggs and even cook steaks on them they run that hot, which now means you need a cooling and ventilation system, which in turn means you need a way to not only move the air around your grow environment but also a means of extracting the hot air while at the same time replacing it with cold air at the same rate.  Which makes the comercial practice of growing cannabis so that you can earn an income that you can live off very very energy/electricity expensive and very very unfriendly to the environment, we're talking about for a 50 plant grow elecricity bills being closer to £1k a month than £500.00, and that's before you even start to think about managed crop rotation and harvesting - as in always having plants that are vegging, have just started to flower, are halfway through flowering, and are almost finished flowering all going at the same time, which is what you have to do to make it profitable, and to be honest you almost have to do that if you just want to cover your own use.  And the nutrients that you use to increae the yeilds are extremely unfriendly to the environment, not to mention pricey, they are that bad that they are even harmful to humans and have very serious warning labels on them, so you need to ''flush out'' your plants before harvesting them to get rid off all these nasy chemicals that will build up in them due to their ''body builder diet'', because there is a real risk of poisoning yourself if you don't - just look at all the laws around the growing of cannabis in all the places where it is legal, they have very very strict laws in regards to the nutients that you can use, the levels, the disposal, the storage..... why do you think stonners are now all of a sudden caring about organic cannabis, do you honestly think that they've all suddenly started to care more about the environment than their next cone?

 

Edit

This is not meant to be a how to guide, or an instructional manual, it's meant to dispel the myth that growing cannabis is good for the environment.

[SilverPirate007]

1 hour ago, Platinum said:

Back for another round of trolling or a serious discussion this time (I assume serious)?

Like I stated before: If your solutions and opinions involves changing the outside with or without their concent, all that will come out of any such act is more problems.

Besides, people are allowed to believe or not to believe what is written about the climate, that is their choice.

Edit: Indeed Notafront4adragon.

You are the only one trolling I am afraid to say. Your insulting troll posts don’t intimidate me as is their intention. Fortunately this debate if you can call it such is irrelevant, most international leaders recognise the writing on the wall.

[SilverPirate007]

1 hour ago, silenceissilver said:

You cannot prove something doesn't exist. The climate hysterical side has to prove the link.

 

You are a climate denier. You deny that climate change happens naturally.

Interesting that every single reputable scientist worldwide disagrees with you. But of course, let’s not argue with the experts on the silver forum

[Platinum]

Just now, SilverPirate007 said:

You are the only one trolling I am afraid to say. Fortunately this debate if you can call it such is irrelevant.

I did indeed troll you before because you only attempted to pass on guilt on us others rather than debating.

Now this debate is not irrelevant, for if it was neither me, you or the others would be here.

So with that said, let us debate and share opinions and leave guilt-passing and insults out of the debate.

[silenceissilver]

1 minute ago, SilverPirate007 said:

Interesting that every single reputable scientist worldwide disagrees with you. But of course, let’s not argue with the experts on the silver forum

Not a single scientist disagrees you can't prove something doesn't exist and neither that the climate changes naturally, not even the very few ones that create a panic.

[SilverPirate007]

10 minutes ago, Platinum said:

I did indeed troll you before because you only attempted to pass on guilt on us others rather than debating.

Now this debate is not irrelevant, for if it was neither me, you or the others would be here.

So with that said, let us debate and share opinions and leave guilt-passing and insults out of the debate.

I don’t debate with trolls like you, have a nice day

---

Added 0 minutes later...

8 minutes ago, silenceissilver said:

Not a single scientist disagrees you can't prove something doesn't exist and neither that the climate changes naturally, not even the very few ones that create a panic.

Is that meant to be a joke? I wonder what agenda climate change deniers have. It’s a curious stance to take. Especially as the evidence is overwhelming and as accepted as the earth being round.

[Platinum]

6 minutes ago, SilverPirate007 said:

I don’t debate with trolls like you, have a nice day

*Holds up a mirror*

[silenceissilver]

42 minutes ago, SilverPirate007 said:

Is that meant to be a joke? I wonder what agenda climate change deniers have. It’s a curious stance to take. Especially as the evidence is overwhelming and as accepted as the earth being round.

Give me a quote of a scientist who claims you can prove something doesn't exist ( you know because you can't, accused people don't need to prove their innocence). And one of a scientist who says natural climate change doesn't exist. Now you can look all day because you won't find one.

[sovereignsteve]

38 minutes ago, silenceissilver said:

Give me a quote of a scientist who claims you can prove something doesn't exist ( you know because you can't, accused people don't need to prove their innocence). And one of a scientist who says natural climate change doesn't exist. Now you can look all day because you won't find one.

You're wasting your breath (typing finger?). He doesn't debate, he just states his opinion as fact. That and simply rubbishing anyone who doesn't agree with him.