Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 3 4 Next »
From	Message
laserbuffalo 20-Sep-20, 07:20	The global warming hoax Global warming is huge hoax brought on by communists here is scientific proof. www.breitbart.com
inhis_service 20-Sep-20, 18:49	Kenosha, WI and what happened/ is happening to Kyle Rittenhouse is a replay of what happened at Lexington and Concord in 1776. Kyle Rittenhouse is a true American hero in every sense of the word! And unless Americans living today can recognize that we're in more trouble than we have any idea of. BARDS FM EP 120 - Kenosha Burning youtu.be (Scott Kesterson touches on the global warming hoax in this video, also)
lord_shiva 04-Dec-21, 17:58	Breitbart? LOL. Humans dig up seven billion tons of coal every year, plus another three billion tons of oil. Public fossil fuel corporate production records. Almost all of this carbon gets burned--the coal for electricity and the oil both for electricity and for fuel. Molecular weight of carbon is twelve. Oxygen is 16. CO2 is 12+16+16=44. 44/12 = 3.7, so for every ton of fossil carbon burned, nearly four tons of heat trapping CO2 gas is emitted. With ten billion tons of carbon mined every single year that is forty billion (40,000,000,000) annual TONS of CO2. Is it inconceivable this can have any environmental impact?
pawntificator 04-Dec-21, 23:13	Oh, it definitely has an impact. Shall we subjugate the United States of America and let the rest of the world keep burning fuel?
lord_shiva 04-Dec-21, 23:51	No Is some idiot suggesting that? The US is responsible for the lion's share of existing emissions.
pawntificator 05-Dec-21, 00:50	Fascinating. Have you ever heard of China?
lord_shiva 05-Dec-21, 01:16	China only recently eclipsed us. Per capita they are still behind us.
pawntificator 05-Dec-21, 15:30	Do you have any idea what sort of numbers you are talking about?
lord_shiva 05-Dec-21, 18:51	Yes Forty billion (40,000,000,000) tons per year. Over a trillion tons of "new" CO2 added in the past forty years--just since 1980. We can replace coal tech and boost oue economy in the process. A vanity wall is sort term, small scale thinking. Clean energy would have a perpetual payoff.
softaire 05-Dec-21, 19:39	Shutting down coal, natural gas, and oil to reduce carbon emissions is a nice idea... well intentioned. But you do not get the efficiency, power, endurance, performance or reliability from Clean Energy that you do from fossil fuels. More importantly is the fact that almost everything we use in todays' society is made from some derivative of crude oil. Without oil we go back to the1700's or earlier.
thumper 05-Dec-21, 20:16	Softie That's exactly right. What do you think electrical wires are coated with for shielding? What do you think electrical turbines and generators require to operate? What do all planes, trains, ships, trucks and automobiles need to operate? If you guessed petroleum based products you would be correct. And the list goes on and on and on. All of modern society is based on it. Without petroleum products you would be hard pressed to even find a working pedal bike. Society literally grinds to a halt. I think 1700s is an optimistic assessment. The human die-off would actually put us back to the 1500 levels at best... which is the population total they're shooting for.
thumper 05-Dec-21, 20:29	I guess we could go back to pig tallow and whale fat for lubricants and lighting.
stalhandske 05-Dec-21, 20:31	Thumper and Softaire Of course, we are very dependent on fossil fuels - that's how mankind has evolved up to now. But done so without thinking sufficiently ahead. It does not help to just close your eyes and call global warming a hoax (see title of this thread). Again. like about so many other important issues, why make this one political and polarise it 'right versus left'? Why not, instead, look at the scientific data - INCLUDING the effects on society? Then, assessing and discussing the issue, make decisions that benefit everyone, and compensates those who must experience losses when energy production is (slowly) turned away from fossil fuels. In fact, this change of focus for energy production also has positive sides in creating new jobs and industrial and manufacturing opportunities.
thumper 05-Dec-21, 20:51	Stål I'm all ears... What do you propose? And please, no generic platitudes.
stalhandske 05-Dec-21, 20:58	Thumper I don't think I am known for generic platitudes. I am much rather for well-researched solutions and pragmatic decisions. OK, that was a platitude, wasn't it?   The biggest problem here is the division in thinking. As long as some people don't even recognise global warming etc as a serious problem for society, for mankind, everything will be very difficult to manage. I just refer, once more, to the very title of this thread. If 'we' could agree on the problem, it would give 'us' a head start towards solving it!
thumper 05-Dec-21, 21:07	Stål Not to be rude but your entire post was just a string of generic platitudes. That's not what I asked. I asked what do you propose.
stalhandske 05-Dec-21, 21:13	Thumper Well, that is one problem right there. The absolute resistance against even trying to understand the opionion of the other. What I tried to do was to 'strip down' the problem - point by point. Starting (obviously) from the concept of whether global warming is problematic at all. If that is not accepted, we can stop the discussion right at that point. If it is accepted, we can continue. <I asked what do you propose. > I propose to start a discussion from its logical beginning, point by point. If my first question is answered in the negative ('there is no problem with global warming'), then we can stop the discussion right here. If not, wecan proceed. Which is it?
thumper 05-Dec-21, 21:35	Stål So you refuse to present your proposals until I state agreement with you? I'm assuming you have some worthy proposals so shouldn't you at least state them? Shouldn't your proposals stand on their merit and elicit agreement based on their worth without demanding agreement ahead of time?
stalhandske 05-Dec-21, 21:51	Thumper I am sorry that you need to be that careful. Don't you see that it woud be a complete loss of time and effort to even start discussion of a subject (here global warming), if one of the discussants denies its existence. This is the ONLY reason for my request.
lord_shiva 05-Dec-21, 22:31	Oil is 1700s Tech We move forward, weaning off that outdated, earth destroying technology.
lord_shiva 05-Dec-21, 22:36	Ignorance Who is saying give up products? Does drastically reducing burning oil mean we must give up plastic? It is always all or none with people who erect roadblocks to rational thought. We quit burning 3 billion tons of oil a year, it means we can continue making plastics which release very little atmospheric carbon far into the future. Jesus.
lord_shiva 05-Dec-21, 22:39	JESUS How f-ing moronic. If we stop burning three billion tons of oil a year, that means we have to quit making a million tons of plastics? Why f-ing stidity is this? Damn that is some whale-sized pig-tallow ignorance.
thumper 05-Dec-21, 22:47	Stål I was just asking about your proposals. I was expecting some pretty straight forward comments. I wasn't expecting you to be so defensive, elusive and coy. Do you even have any actual proposals? You say 'we must do something' and when I ask you 'what do you think we should do?', you respond with 'unless you agree with me it's a waste of effort to discuss'. That sounds pretty slippery to me.
lord_shiva 05-Dec-21, 22:50	Thumper Agrees I think we can taken as given Thumper concurs we have a problem. Hence his interest in solutions. First, we stop building new coal plants, and shutter old ones. We focus on wind, solar, and hydro. One big problem with wind and solar is that where the current is generated is far from where it is used, so we have to develop transmission capacity. Hydro runs day and night, unless there is a drought. Nuclear too. We know wind and solar, properly sites, are far more reliable than naysayers indicate, because Germany derives a significant fraction of its power from wind and solar, consistently. Even during solar eclipses. Germany also abandoned all of its nukes, so they still burn too much coal. Giving up coal for electricity production does not, of course, mean that we must all strip naked, wear animal skins, bathe in pig's blood, join the GOP and swear allegiance to Groper.
thumper 05-Dec-21, 23:07	LS After smartassing and smugly insulting me and many others for post after post after post after post you lost the ability to fake any real dialogue with me. You have some chess ability (on a lower level) but beyond that I find you to be little more than a self-righteous punk who thinks himself clever.
stalhandske 06-Dec-21, 05:59	Thumper <I was just asking about your proposals. I was expecting some pretty straight forward comments. I wasn't expecting you to be so defensive, elusive and coy. Do you even have any actual proposals? You say 'we must do something' and when I ask you 'what do you think we should do?', you respond with 'unless you agree with me it's a waste of effort to discuss'. That sounds pretty slippery to me.> You are the one who is suspicious. I have absolutely no hidden agenda here, but only wanted to make sure the discussion would not be in vain, which it obviousy would be if one of the discussants denies thatthere is a problem in the first place. You see, my sense of trying not to lose time is well founded: you only need to read the very title of this thread, and I have experienced analogous denials in the NG club, as well as analogous denials of the seriousness of the covid-19 pandemic. So, my caution should not come as a surprise to you. But I notice that you nevertheless won't answer my very simple question about whether or not you think there is an anthropogenic global warming. If you give me a clear YES, we can start a useful discussion of how best to counteract it.
softaire 06-Dec-21, 08:31	LS "Who is saying give up products? Does drastically reducing burning oil mean we must give up plastic? It is always all or none with people who erect roadblocks to rational thought." I am probably wrong on this, at least in your view, but it seems to me there is a cost to refining oil. The cost to refine the oils so that it can be used in all the differing ways for differing products probably is expensive and must be offset by revenues from bulk sales of all oil. If you shut down production don't you also shutdown the ability to refine oil? It seems to me that it would not be cost feasible to shut down the production of 3,000,000,000 tons of oil production to keep 1,000,000 tons of consumer plastics production. That's a 99.996 loss in production and sales capacity. I can't imagine any company (or industry) surviving that loses 99.96 of their product and sales capacity. It just isn't cost efficient... so, how do you keep the ability to produce 1,000,000 tons of oil for consuer products if you lose the capacity for producing 3 Billion tons of capacitu?
stalhandske 06-Dec-21, 20:45	Thumper <You say 'we must do something' and when I ask you 'what do you think we should do?', you respond with 'unless you agree with me it's a waste of effort to discuss'. That sounds pretty slippery to me.> You may call me slippery, but I play with open cards as can be verified by anyone reading these exchanges. I rather think you have shown indications of 'slippery' as you won't even clearly state your position with respect to anthropogenic global warming. To state that position is of course key to having any further discussion on the details of that problem. You are the slippery one avoiding at all cost to give your opinion here. Just like earlier times when you withdrew (despite promises to respond) from your accusations of the reliability of archaeological determinations of age. Yes, I have a long memory.
thumper 06-Dec-21, 20:58	Stål I won't continue a 'conversation' when I'm told, 'agree with me or there's nothing to talk about'. OK <Just like earlier times when you withdrew (despite promises to respond) from your accusations of the reliability of archaeological determinations of age. Yes, I have a long memory.> Then you should remember why I walked away from that... conversation.
stalhandske 06-Dec-21, 21:04	Thumper <I won't continue a 'conversation' when I'm told, 'agree with me or there's nothing to talk about'. OK > OK, thumper, just take the essence out of my point as you have no other means. I ONLY wanted you to TELL ME whether you agreed with me that there IS anthropogenic global warming. Tell me that you disagree with that - fine - and I will stop discussing it (as it would clearly be in vain). As usual, you are withdrawing when you realise that you will be in deep trouble, but that is another matter. I must admit that I had thought better of you.
Pages:  1 2 3 4 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, Internet chess league, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.