5 of 11
5
We’re Running out of water
Posted: 15 January 2014 03:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02

I don’t see how any of that has anything to do with my statement, to be honest.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2014 04:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3162
Joined  2011-08-15

Damn Robert, how can I make any more clear? You brought up re-engineering and I gave you ample examples of same. The rest I just threw in to illustrate how we have to accommodate nature whether we like it or not; some natural forces can’t be re-engineered at present but who knows in the future that we might be able to harness say volcanoes for geothermal energy. Now tornadoes, don’t see how. That’s the brutal part Sine mentioned.

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2014 04:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3162
Joined  2011-08-15

I like you Cap’t Jack.
That was a roaring good response to my rant.
I am not sure how we could destroy nature.
We can change it…..but I don’t believe that we can destroy it…...nature responds…...re-invents and rebounds. It has for a long time and I think that it will for a long time to come. We are nature after all.

You have a point there Sine, my
Point is basically that the more we destroy the more we make it difficult for ourselves to live on this planet. Everything we need to sustain us relies entirely on the natural World. Destroying forests deprives us of oxygen, warm up the planet and drought deprives us of food, overpopulation destroys tillable soil and we get the same result. Pollute the water supply and we all die of thirst. We can’t blow up the World with thermonuclear weapons but we can eliminate all corporeal life and turn our home into a barren rock for a thousand years before the plants and cockroaches take over again. Oh, and BTW, it’s not a rant, it’s a digression.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2014 04:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3162
Joined  2011-08-15

Oops, I meant mine was a digression. You can call yours a rant if you want, but if you don’t mind me asking why a rant? I’ve read your posts and you can compose a concise and cogent response when you want to, or are you angry that you’re forced to live in the cold? grin


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2014 05:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
Thevillageatheist - 15 January 2014 04:40 PM

Damn Robert, how can I make any more clear? You brought up re-engineering and I gave you ample examples of same. The rest I just threw in to illustrate how we have to accommodate nature whether we like it or not; some natural forces can’t be re-engineered at present but who knows in the future that we might be able to harness say volcanoes for geothermal energy. Now tornadoes, don’t see how. That’s the brutal part Sine mentioned.

All of which I’m aware of, hence why I’m wondering why you bothered to bring it up.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2014 06:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I really get annoyed with people who pull that kind of stuff during an argument.  He probably brought it up because it was apparent that even if you were aware of it, you didn’t include in your thinking. 

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2014 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3162
Joined  2011-08-15

I really get annoyed with people who pull that kind of stuff during an argument.  He probably brought it up because it was apparent that even if you were aware of it, you didn’t include in your thinking. 

Occam

Well, I’m not a mind reader and he didn’t address these issues directly so I brought it up anyway. That plus I like to take the shotgun approach in a discussion.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2014 06:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
Occam. - 15 January 2014 06:22 PM

I really get annoyed with people who pull that kind of stuff during an argument.  He probably brought it up because it was apparent that even if you were aware of it, you didn’t include in your thinking. 

Occam

Since when am I obligated to provide my entire knowledge base on a subject before making a comment about it?

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2014 09:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4297
Joined  2010-08-15

These recent comments have been rather ironic considering this thread got derailed quite early on, and never had a chance to get back on track.  Not that I’m going to be helping that much with this reflection based on reviewing the whole thing again.

You see, it seems to me Thevillageatheist’s thread was about this particular aspect of a big challenge/problem of Our Time.

Thevillageatheist - 12 January 2014 05:59 AM

Dumb Question Dept.: If Earth is a Closed System and We’re Running Out of Water, Where’s it All Going?
http://www.treehugger.com/about-treehugger/dumb-question-dept-if-earth-is-a-closed-system-and-were-running-out-of-water-wheres-it-all-going.html

{I’ll add a little}

water20cycle-jj-001.jpg

According to the IPCC’s latest climate model projections, the water cycle will intensify throughout the next century as annual precipitation continues to rise in the already wet near-equatorial and high latitude regions while continuing to fall in dry sub-tropical regions — trends that can neatly be summarized by the following expression: “the wet will get wetter and the dry drier.”

More broadly, the increases in global temperatures we are witnessing — which have already helped trigger the rapid and large-scale melting of ice sheets in Greenland — will continue eliminating valuable freshwater buffers (like glaciers) and contribute to ever rising sea water levels. These rises, in turn, may result in some saltwater bodies encountering once isolated freshwater bodies, contaminating them and making them inaccessible to us for our needs. This will only spur unsustainable practices such as the continued drilling and extraction of water from underground wells. ...

Based on projections made by the International Water Management Institute, freshwater shortages are likely to become more prevalent among poorer, rapidly developing countries in Africa and Asia by 2025 {Europes OK because it’s richer and already developed}

A look at the entire article shows that it’s about clean, potable water for human consumption.

What kind of objection do we get,
a typical misdirection straight out of the Right Wing Propaganda textbook -
Reframe the issue:

Robert Walper - 12 January 2014 04:45 PM

Any claim we’re running out of water is pure nonsense and stupidity.

We live on a planet that is 78% covered in water and have access to a practically infinite source of solar energy ten thousand times more than our entire civilization consumes.

~ ~ ~

This one was smooth

Robert Walper - 12 January 2014 09:41 PM

You’re actually going to sit there and pretend nature does not desalinate and distribute fresh water across the globe? Are YOU actually that naïve?

Notice Robert’s implication is that if large scale geophysical processes make it seem easy, it should be easy for any of us to pull it off.
It’s such a weird thought, something that could only be spawned within a world-view that’s completely disconnected from our planet’s geophysical processes.

Incidentally, here’s a fantastic video that describes our global heat distribution engine based on real data
it’s really quite the tour de force:
Earth From Space (HD) - Nova
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38peWm76l-U

~ ~ ~

Then there’s this Roveian Dagger.

sine dues - 13 January 2014 08:35 AM

to Robert Wolper- DarronS is not a scientist. He is an environmentalist. He sees the sky fall where ever he looks. I bet he is almost ready to write a book about it. As informative and truthful as ‘an inconvenient truth’.
He is not much fun most of the time….ask him about his specialty….climate change…or running out of oil…....

Forget about the topic, pile on the messenger, out scream the topic of discussion.
Denial, Dismissal, Diversion and Defamation, yes sine dues you have learned the machine’s tools well
~ ~ ~

Oh yea, then when all else false, it’s like some sick country song: if I can’t have her, no one can, so I’ll blow her away.

Robert Walper - 14 January 2014 10:53 PM

I’m actually in favour of nature disappearing in its current form. Nature is a brutal, vicious, amoral, and inefficient system. While the beauty of nature exists, it’s only appreciated by those who live outside of it in the comforts of modern living in artificial environments.

WOW shock the Evangelical Neocon Republican/libertarian bottom-line: fuk that “nature” jazz; “environment”, we hate it to begin with - we want to destroy it and build something better, God’s world, nice and sterile, white walls everywhere and not a germ to be found.

Yea Robert, SD, et al., your klan will get their wish.  But, you won’t like the prize and your kids will curse you for it.



Sorry Occam, guess the kinder gentler still hasn’t taken hold.
But, this Robert isn’t some innocent.

red face

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2014 10:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
citizenschallenge.pm - 15 January 2014 09:52 PM

A look at the entire article shows that it’s about clean, potable water for human consumption.

Which can be obtained by the simple process of boiling seawater to remove the salt content. An energy intensive effort for sure, hence why I just accidently mentioned the fact we have ten thousand times more energy we need in the form of solar energy.

This one was smooth

Robert Walper - 12 January 2014 09:41 PM

You’re actually going to sit there and pretend nature does not desalinate and distribute fresh water across the globe? Are YOU actually that naïve?

Notice Robert’s implication is that if large scale geophysical processes make it seem easy, it should be easy for any of us to pull it off.
It’s such a weird thought, something that could only be spawned within a world-view that’s completely disconnected from our planet’s geophysical processes.

Notice citizenschallenge’s implication desalinating water is impossible.

Oh wait, what’s that? You didn’t say it was impossible? Funny, it’s almost like it’s dishonest to pretend someone makes a claim by dressing up your perceived ‘implication’ as an actual claim.

You are incredibly dishonest, citizenschallenge. Do not dress up your fantasy ‘implications’ as my actual claims and positions.

Robert Walper - 14 January 2014 10:53 PM

I’m actually in favour of nature disappearing in its current form. Nature is a brutal, vicious, amoral, and inefficient system. While the beauty of nature exists, it’s only appreciated by those who live outside of it in the comforts of modern living in artificial environments.

WOW shock the Evangelical Neocon Republican/libertarian bottom-line: fuk that “nature” jazz; “environment”, we hate it to begin with - we want to destroy it and build something better, God’s world, nice and sterile, white walls everywhere and not a germ to be found.

Yea Robert, SD, et al., your klan will get their wish.  But, you won’t like the prize and your kids will curse you for it.

More of your blatant dishonesty rearing its ugly head. I said I’m in favour of nature disappearing in its current form (as an example, cruelty and suffering of animals in the natural world). I didn’t elaborate, but that’s no excuse for you to sit there and blatantly lie by making up your own fantasies and pretending they are my position.

Again, you are an very dishonest individual, citizenshallenge.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2014 08:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2012-07-25

citizenshallenge- about the roveian dagger…I was addressing Robert, giving him background….not engaging in an ad hominem bit of nasty. Just not sure if he has had the pleasure of engaging darrons before.
...as far as ‘learning the machine’s tools well”- not too sure about what you mean…..If you mean the machine of science-yes I have learned it well. But there is doubt in my mind that that was what you meant.
I am going on and on about this because I see and hear so much about how terrible the state of the earth is these days…...it is not true. The general state of the earth-how livable/comfortable it is for humans has never been better. That is because we have TAMED nature. Yes ! It is OK to say it. Without science and the energy accessibility it provides we could not TAME nature. TAMED nature is way better than tooth and nail and viral/bacterial/fungal suffering.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2014 08:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4297
Joined  2010-08-15
Robert Walper - 15 January 2014 10:26 PM

I’m in favour of nature disappearing in its current form

‘nough said.

Robert, why not try the experiment of purifying all your own water for a couple weeks, it would be an eye opening experience for you.
Then you can report back on how easy it is.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2014 10:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
citizenschallenge.pm - 16 January 2014 08:33 AM
Robert Walper - 15 January 2014 10:26 PM

I’m in favour of nature disappearing in its current form

‘nough said.

Robert, why not try the experiment of purifying all your own water for a couple weeks, it would be an eye opening experience for you.
Then you can report back on how easy it is.

I never claimed it was easy. Another example of your rampant dishonesty by demanding I defend claims I never made.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2014 03:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20

We’ve also got pollution from coal mines going into our rivers.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/alberta-orders-coal-mine-cleanup-plan-after-chemicals-found-in-athabasca-river/article15519225/

Test results released Tuesday show a host of noxious chemicals and metals made their way into the Athabasca River after last month’s massive coal-mine spill near Hinton, Alta.

Alberta’s environment department has now ordered Coal Valley Resources Inc. and Sherritt International Corp. to make detailed plans for cleaning up the spill from the Obed Mountain mine, and to take steps to prevent any further pollutants from entering the Athabasca – the province’s longest river – from the creeks near the mine site.

There’s also concerns about pollution from the tar sands entering the rivers in the region.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/charges-urged-over-alleged-pollution-in-athabasca-river-from-oil-sands-companies/article9292758/

The federal government should pursue charges against two energy companies, an environmental group says after conducting a study that showed how oil-sands air pollution can find its way into the Athabasca River.

A digital projection by a scientist with Vancouver-based Ecojustice suggests particulate matter, which can contain toxic polycyclic aromatic compounds, from two oil-sands operations is falling to the ground and waterways.

I live in Edmonton and we depend on the North Saskatchewan river for most of our needs, what will happen in coming decades as the glaciers in the Rockies continue to melt is uncertain, we may go through periods where there is little water available for use during some parts of the year.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2014 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2012-07-25

How come the government is not pursuing charges against windmill energy companies for killing birds ?
I feel the warm breeze of the green eco- double standard !
The EPA freaks out about nanograms of mercury in coal and yet they push cfl bulbs with more Hg than a coal plant.
Ya, the
Canadian gov fines Syncrude a couple of million dollars for drowning 35 ducks in a tailings pond…but no charges for killing raptors and other rare birds…...

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 11
5