It's sad to see the so-called scientists here on slashdot continuously ignore the most pertinent points.
Still trying to see what you consider those points to be so I can judge their pertinence.
C02 is the albatross of the AGW movement and blinds people to the real causes of climate, which are extremely complex and cannot currently be modeled.
Ah, this is, I believe, a straw man.
Nobody in their right mind would argue that CO2 is the "cause" of climate. Nor would they argue that the climate is truly able to be perfectly modeled.
CO2 is, however, the cause of Earth being warmer than the difference between its solar input, it's ambient internal temperature, and its radiative output.
Sure there are other atmospheric components that also affect that flux, but they all grind to a stop without CO2. CO2 is the driver.
When in reality, they're just middleware for interacting with Xlib with pretty widgets and constructs.
I remember the days before we had good toolkit libraries though. Thank god for Qt and GTK.
How much of this issue goes away if a developer instructs quality control to treat Wine as a fully supported platform alongside Windows 7 and Windows 10?
All of it, practically speaking. Wouldn't that be nice?
How is a Wine app on a GTK+ system any less "native" than a Qt app on a GTK+ system? It's literally just a different set of userspace libraries.
Not quite, though.
Most of those userspace libraries are emulating behavior that isn't well defined and translating behavior with a *very* thick compatibility layer encompassing *literally* every single aspect of a program's interaction capabilities.
Wine isn't implemented as a personality within the kernel to interact directly with native primitives, nor is X running a GDI subsystem.
Ultimately, I guess what is native then?
I suppose it's shades of gray. One could argue, I suppose, that qemu binary cross-architecture emulation is also native using your constraints, and I suppose I couldn't really argue with them.
Sure isn't. It's logically stupid, because one factor is not relevant. Asserting that it is does not make it so.
Governments represent people. For simplicity's sake, let's say we're talking about food.
The government of China has 1.3 billion hungry mouths. The government of the USA has 350 million hungry mouths.
Americans, in their great opulence, consume around 5 billion tons of food a year for their 350 million hungry mouths.
The Chinese consume about 9 billion tons of food a year for their 1.3 billion hungry mouths.
You are arguing that the Americans should be complaining that the Chinese, who represent 3.7 times more hungry mouths, are using 80% more food than the Americans in total.
That is a stupid fucking argument.
It seems that understanding a single fucking factor is too complicated for your little brain, AC.
Nothing cited in that blog post, which is full of so many errors as to be laughable, yet I will take at face value, disagreed with anything I wrote.
His conclusions are rather bizarre, but that isn't entirely surprising given that it looks like it was written by someone with an 8th grade education stumbling through complex literature and trying to fake understanding of it.
I could see you arguing this point in relation to America, but even then you would be wrong.
Now you're walking yourself further into idiocy and trying to wax philosophical.
The fact that the de facto government of of a sovereign nation represents that countries constituents is not in dispute.
You can argue whether or not that representation is willful all day long, and there are many shades of gray in that department- but that's *not* fucking relevant.
Use your fucking head.
The average Chinese person has absolutely no say in how the government decides to do things.
That is not even *remotely* relevant. Stop being an idiot.
The average person has absolutely no say in how the government decides to do things, period. That doesn't matter. Representation at the global level is via governments, and those governments represent their people, in the literal sense of that word, whether or not they represent the will of those people.
What makes you think I hate China? I am attempting to identify the power structures that can affect emissions. In China, as in America, it is not the citizens that have that power. It is the Executive that does.
That only matters within that power structure. Externally to it, it's not relevant.
In China, there are ~1.3 billion people represented in international negotiations by a government. The United states has ~350 million or so (?) represented by a government.
The internal power structure beyond those governments is quite simply not relevant. All that matters is what those governments represent, and in that case, it's 1.3 billion, and 350 million, and the carbon those people emit.
You cannot argue that this is a 1:1 debate instead of a 13:3.5 debate handled by representatives of those constituencies, because that is literally what it is.
My turn? It never stopped being my turn. You're flailing in the wind trying to make points to arguments no one ever made on philosophical points that aren't relevant.
Also, I didn't say you hated China. I said you hated the Chinese Government.
I would argue the same for you. Dividing it per capita is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard.
I'm unsurprised, as you are a moron.
Your average Chinese person is a peasant living in poverty emitting no more CO2 than their fucking breath.
Again, how that grouping of people decide to allocate their per capita expenditure is between them and their government.
How are they going to reduce their CO2 footprint? Stop breathing?
Who gives a shit? That is, again, a discussion between them and their government.
Talking about Chinese emissions in relation to the country as a whole is fine since the Chinese government has all of the options to deal emissions
You're splitting apart the Chinese government from its de facto role as the representative of China's citizens. That's all it is for any reasonable measure of global anything- a placeholder for the *people* of China. All you've done here is support per-capita measurements.
The Chinese government can pass laws that ALL industries and individuals within China are required to obey.
Yes, it can... That isn't even a relevant point. The Chinese people can definitely pass laws or choose how they use their per-capita * capita CO2 allotment.
The average Chinese individual can have no such effect
Yawn. You keep beating that poor dead horse.
A government represents its people on the Global stage.
I just don't get you people who want to measure emissions per capita
I know you don't. I'm beginning to think it's because you're just not very intelligent.
It is industry that is doing the majority of emissions.
And the role of the people, through their government, to decide who emits. If the Chinese want to put 50% of their population into peasantry so that some other percentage can emit more, that's their business. At the end of the day, you haven't changed the fact that that pool of people emits less than us per person.
How does per capita help with anything other than spreading the majority of the blame onto individuals who have no fucking power to change how industry emits CO2?
The Chinese people are not powerless. Sure, they live under an authoritarian government, but ultimately, they put it in place.
You're trying to join your hatred of the Chinese government with global emissions in a way that defies logic. You're doing this because you're either not very intelligent, or you're just manipulative and think you're really smart.
So how does it help [some social problem within the borderes of China]? It doesn't. But that's not what this discussion is about.
There is absolutely no evidence that is even remotely true.
What the hell are you talking about?
CO2 is the weakest GHG, water vapor is way more potent.
Without CO2, there is no water in the atmosphere. There isn't enough energy from the sun and the Earth to raise the Earth's temperature above freezing.
CO2 absorbs less than 11% of black body IR and it exists at concentrations of 1 CO2 molecule out of every 2500.
You either don't understand how it works, or you're gaslighting.
The concentration is completely irrelevant in that context, and some very simple logic would lead you to conclusion. All that matters is how many molecules stand between any square millimeter of ground and its path to space.
Historic evidence shows that CO2 increases follow temperature increases,
Historic evidence shows no such things.
And temperature changes more closely correlate to solar activity than to any other single item.
This is ridiculous on its face. The output of the sun is well known. It isn't nearly enough to even heat this planet above freezing.
But if it is so easy to prove, then you do the math in keeping with the laws of thermal dynamics and you show us exactly how hot a single molecule of CO2 has to be or how much heat has to be reflected to increase the temperature of the other 2499 molecules by even a single degree.
Are you serious? Because that math has been done over and over again, why do you think the debate is considered over?
First off, no I don't.
I don't know what to do about it. Your argument isn't with me.
But if you think denying it's even happening and gaslighting the conversation is a valid way to conduct the argument because you're afraid of the potential fixative measures, you're a piece of shit. If you don't do those things, then this conversation wasn't really about you.
Oh I'm well aware the planet is not a greenhouse with a hole at the top. I was simply giving the easiest example of how a small change can affect quite a large space, and the people living within it.
Now, do I even know how to calculate the amount of warming we'll get with a doubling of CO2?
Fuck no- nobody does. That's the problem you assholes are pinning your entire argument on. The pure increase in temperature caused solely by the CO2? Yes, that's quite easy to calculate. All of the other feedbacks are not, because they're simply not all known or completely understood.
And of course, it's further complicated because CO2s effect is greatly magnified since increase of temperature causes an increase of water retention in the atmosphere, which is of course, the most potent greenhouse gas.
The amount of CO2 we've added to the atmosphere is measure in parts per million,
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we started humanity's large-scale atmospheric engineering project were measured in PPM. What's your point?
CO2 is responsible for 100% of this planet's temperature past -18C.
Those few PPMs- 28C of warming past baseline.
Back to our earlier example- if I shut down convection in that hypothetical glass house, you will die. You will overheat, and you will die. Because thermal radiation will no longer have any way to escape, because glass, my friend, is partially opaque to infrared radiation. Like CO2.
I do, in fact. The change in weather was noticeable in the Pacific Northwest, as well.
17Mt of sulfur dioxide is a great example of how even small changes in atmospheric composition that affect radiation flux, spread across the entire globe can effect radical shifts in climate.
Fortunately, SO2 doesn't stay in the atmosphere all that long.
I think I missed the point you were trying to make, though?
Massive scale? The composition of the atmosphere has been changed a fraction of a tenth of a percent.
Yes, the composition of the atmosphere, which has a mass of 5.15*10^18 has only changed a small amount.
Are you really too stupid to understand that it requires a "massive scale" to enact a measurable change to something that large?
The overall change in composition has been very small, my dear Oregonian. What do you think, very very small changes in the composition of the atmosphere are going to destroy humanity?
An interesting question!
Let's imagine I placed you in a completely thermally insulated glass house with a light shining on it at about 320W/m^2 worth of power.
Let's imagine you had a little hole at the top of it with a fan blowing air out, and a little hole allowing for air to come in.
What very small change to that environment could I make to destroy you?
I was beginning to think you were innocently ignorant. I can now see that you are willfully stupid.
I spent $1000 on a 1080Ti 11GB.
I felt like it was a little overkilly at the time (those were the market prices at that unfortunate moment in time).
I bought it because I wanted to get into VR, and I didn't want to take chances getting into shitty VR.
I don't know what the benchmarks are, but my 1080Ti mops the floor with my best friends Vega 64, both running first gen Optimus sets. Mine is buttery smooth, and his is... well, not. In the end? I'm glad I spent the money. For VR, at least.
It's very true. I am the chief network engineer for 7 datacenters, and on the facilities side, we employ probably 5 people, depending on how you classify them.
Can't argue with your numbers, but I fall well within the 9.9%, and well below the 0.1%, and I don't feel very bourgeoisie. I own... well, not a hell of a lot more than my car.
I guess technically speaking, I have a shit ton of stocks managed by a 401k management agency, but who doesn't? I had that back when I was making 8.50 an hour in fast food.
Technically speaking, I'm a lot more like a really well compensated prole, and I think quite a few people within the 9.9% are just that.
The point, my governmentally ignorant friend, is that countries make policies and pollution, not individuals. If we are going to whine about individual pollution count then put al gore and the rest of his Hollywood pals in prison immediately.
That point is not wrong, however it doesn't apply to this argument in the slightest you ignorant fuckstick.
If we are going to whine about individual pollution count then put al gore and the rest of his Hollywood pals in prison immediately.
Yes, right along with all of the goddamn morons south of the Mason Dixon line who think it's all a hoax, because they're collectively doing a lot more fucking damage than Al Gore is, and since it's the total amount that matters, not the per-person, those guys are just as criminally fucking liable.
But again, how does this matter? Oh right, it fucking doesn't. Because at the end of the day, we as a species emit so much CO2. The only logical way to measure the greatest offenders is by the amount of CO2 they emit per person that constitutes that country. Otherwise, we could just draw arbitrarily large lines. Fuck, you know who the largest offender is? Western Civilization. It dwarfs the Chinese. Wait, now you want to count the Indians too? Sorry asshole, we're drawing arbitrary lines here.
If you really want to live like the average Chinese peasant however, go right ahead.
I sure the fuck don't. What's that got to do with it? That's even *more* of an argument to quit fucking bitching about China's less-than-half-our emission per capita. Unfortunately, you're too stupid to realize when you make my point for me. You are fundamentally incapable of rational thought. You are, in a word, a moron.
Their cities make US cities look like paradise on the cleanliness scales.
Again, so?
The scales are a bit different. You have to drop down to their #6 metropolitan area to find one with less people than the entire fucking state of New York. How they choose to concentrate their emissions doesn't fucking matter for the global accounting. You're grasping for straws, because realistically, you're likely just a racist redneck piece of shit.
Part of the year you cant breathe in Beijing without a mask and you probably shouldnt the rest of the year either.
Big fucking deal. If we replaced all of the Chinese in Beijing with 45% as many Americans, it would be just as dirty. Good point you made there, buddy.
Oh, yeah, you are an idiot know nothing.
You are killing our species you piece of shit. Go back to your shithole shanty in Arkansas, and let me get back to paying for your infrastructure.
Alright, 2.2 Chinese are responsible for the CO2 of each America.
My numbers were from 2009, but that doesn't change the point in the slightest.
while America comes down.
So? What the hell is the point of that? We can criticize when we pass them.
Until then you're bitching about someone using less than half the amount of CO2 per person than we are.
The population size does not matter.
It absolutely fucking matters. We are all in this together, and China puts out a relatively small amount of CO2 for the amount of people they have. We are the offender, not them. Now could that change some day? Sure. But I'm not going to point fingers at them as long as we're the person driving a Suburban, bitching about the Honda drivers wasting gas because there's so fucking many of them.
China has emitted the MOST as a nation since the time of christ, 1850, 1950, last 10 years, etc. They continue to grow their emissions.
So? What the fuck is your point here? Your argument is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard.
You're literally making the argument that we should draw arbitrary lines around groups of emissions and judge them on the whole instead of the content. You are terminally stupid, dude.
Only an idiot would sit in this shit and continue to let it happen.
Only a complete fucking moron would sit there from his castle and complain about the masses of poor people below him hoarding money.
Volcanos would like to have a word with you outside sir....
Horse shit, they would.
Volcanoes eject about 200 million tons of CO2 from the crust annually, human fossil emissions are about 24 billion. They're not even the same fucking sport. Quit lying.
Last word? If your argument relies on your being full of shit to make sense, that makes you a fuckwit.
Clarify for me, please.
Am I to take this as you saying you don't think massive-scale alteration of the Earth's extant carbon cycle will cause this planet to warm?
None of this tackles the most important point about Global Warming.
You have to be an ignorant fuckwit in order to have even an iota of certainty about it occurring due to anthropogenic carbon cycle short circuiting.
I don't give a shit about the models, the predictions, or any of that shit. That's the job for the guys trying to determine how quickly we'll kill ourselves. The fact that we are should be completely without question.
We are fundamentally altering a cycle that has been stable for millions of years, by injecting trillions of tons of carbon into it that was previously excluded from the system. There can be only one result to this action- warming. I don't give a shit about the political nightmare those poor scientists have to go through to make the retards believe in it- basic fucking QED and thermodynamics insist that what we are doing must warm this planet. You can keep kicking the goalposts away to whatever idiotic fucking theory you have as to what might "really" be causing it all fucking day long, but you are literally contributing to the death of us all by doing it. Thank you for being a useless sack of flash.
Slashdot Mirror
99% vs 1%
99% what, vs 1% what?
It's sad to see the so-called scientists here on slashdot continuously ignore the most pertinent points.
Still trying to see what you consider those points to be so I can judge their pertinence.
C02 is the albatross of the AGW movement and blinds people to the real causes of climate, which are extremely complex and cannot currently be modeled.
Ah, this is, I believe, a straw man.
Nobody in their right mind would argue that CO2 is the "cause" of climate. Nor would they argue that the climate is truly able to be perfectly modeled.
CO2 is, however, the cause of Earth being warmer than the difference between its solar input, it's ambient internal temperature, and its radiative output.
Sure there are other atmospheric components that also affect that flux, but they all grind to a stop without CO2. CO2 is the driver.
So really, you're Not Even Wrong
When in reality, they're just middleware for interacting with Xlib with pretty widgets and constructs.
I remember the days before we had good toolkit libraries though. Thank god for Qt and GTK.
How much of this issue goes away if a developer instructs quality control to treat Wine as a fully supported platform alongside Windows 7 and Windows 10?
All of it, practically speaking. Wouldn't that be nice?
How is a Wine app on a GTK+ system any less "native" than a Qt app on a GTK+ system? It's literally just a different set of userspace libraries.
Not quite, though.
Most of those userspace libraries are emulating behavior that isn't well defined and translating behavior with a *very* thick compatibility layer encompassing *literally* every single aspect of a program's interaction capabilities.
Wine isn't implemented as a personality within the kernel to interact directly with native primitives, nor is X running a GDI subsystem.
Ultimately, I guess what is native then?
I suppose it's shades of gray. One could argue, I suppose, that qemu binary cross-architecture emulation is also native using your constraints, and I suppose I couldn't really argue with them.
Sure isn't. It's logically stupid, because one factor is not relevant. Asserting that it is does not make it so.
Governments represent people. For simplicity's sake, let's say we're talking about food.
The government of China has 1.3 billion hungry mouths. The government of the USA has 350 million hungry mouths.
Americans, in their great opulence, consume around 5 billion tons of food a year for their 350 million hungry mouths. The Chinese consume about 9 billion tons of food a year for their 1.3 billion hungry mouths.
You are arguing that the Americans should be complaining that the Chinese, who represent 3.7 times more hungry mouths, are using 80% more food than the Americans in total.
That is a stupid fucking argument.
It seems that understanding a single fucking factor is too complicated for your little brain, AC.
Nothing cited in that blog post, which is full of so many errors as to be laughable, yet I will take at face value, disagreed with anything I wrote.
His conclusions are rather bizarre, but that isn't entirely surprising given that it looks like it was written by someone with an 8th grade education stumbling through complex literature and trying to fake understanding of it.
I could see you arguing this point in relation to America, but even then you would be wrong.
Now you're walking yourself further into idiocy and trying to wax philosophical.
The fact that the de facto government of of a sovereign nation represents that countries constituents is not in dispute.
You can argue whether or not that representation is willful all day long, and there are many shades of gray in that department- but that's *not* fucking relevant.
Use your fucking head.
The average Chinese person has absolutely no say in how the government decides to do things.
That is not even *remotely* relevant. Stop being an idiot.
The average person has absolutely no say in how the government decides to do things, period. That doesn't matter. Representation at the global level is via governments, and those governments represent their people, in the literal sense of that word, whether or not they represent the will of those people.
What makes you think I hate China? I am attempting to identify the power structures that can affect emissions. In China, as in America, it is not the citizens that have that power. It is the Executive that does.
That only matters within that power structure. Externally to it, it's not relevant.
In China, there are ~1.3 billion people represented in international negotiations by a government. The United states has ~350 million or so (?) represented by a government.
The internal power structure beyond those governments is quite simply not relevant. All that matters is what those governments represent, and in that case, it's 1.3 billion, and 350 million, and the carbon those people emit.
You cannot argue that this is a 1:1 debate instead of a 13:3.5 debate handled by representatives of those constituencies, because that is literally what it is.
My turn? It never stopped being my turn. You're flailing in the wind trying to make points to arguments no one ever made on philosophical points that aren't relevant.
Also, I didn't say you hated China. I said you hated the Chinese Government.
What the fuck do you think a layer is in the context of a sphere?
Christ, why do we even debate with such ignorant fucking people?
No.
That is a logically stupid proposition.
I would argue the same for you. Dividing it per capita is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard.
I'm unsurprised, as you are a moron.
Your average Chinese person is a peasant living in poverty emitting no more CO2 than their fucking breath.
Again, how that grouping of people decide to allocate their per capita expenditure is between them and their government.
How are they going to reduce their CO2 footprint? Stop breathing?
Who gives a shit? That is, again, a discussion between them and their government.
Talking about Chinese emissions in relation to the country as a whole is fine since the Chinese government has all of the options to deal emissions
You're splitting apart the Chinese government from its de facto role as the representative of China's citizens. That's all it is for any reasonable measure of global anything- a placeholder for the *people* of China. All you've done here is support per-capita measurements.
The Chinese government can pass laws that ALL industries and individuals within China are required to obey.
Yes, it can... That isn't even a relevant point. The Chinese people can definitely pass laws or choose how they use their per-capita * capita CO2 allotment.
The average Chinese individual can have no such effect
Yawn. You keep beating that poor dead horse.
A government represents its people on the Global stage.
I just don't get you people who want to measure emissions per capita
I know you don't. I'm beginning to think it's because you're just not very intelligent.
It is industry that is doing the majority of emissions.
And the role of the people, through their government, to decide who emits. If the Chinese want to put 50% of their population into peasantry so that some other percentage can emit more, that's their business. At the end of the day, you haven't changed the fact that that pool of people emits less than us per person.
How does per capita help with anything other than spreading the majority of the blame onto individuals who have no fucking power to change how industry emits CO2?
The Chinese people are not powerless. Sure, they live under an authoritarian government, but ultimately, they put it in place.
You're trying to join your hatred of the Chinese government with global emissions in a way that defies logic. You're doing this because you're either not very intelligent, or you're just manipulative and think you're really smart.
So how does it help [some social problem within the borderes of China]? It doesn't. But that's not what this discussion is about.
You somehow made this about vegetarianism.
What's worse, is you literally started your post with an outright lie. You can't even be conversed with.
There is absolutely no evidence that is even remotely true.
What the hell are you talking about?
CO2 is the weakest GHG, water vapor is way more potent.
Without CO2, there is no water in the atmosphere. There isn't enough energy from the sun and the Earth to raise the Earth's temperature above freezing.
CO2 absorbs less than 11% of black body IR and it exists at concentrations of 1 CO2 molecule out of every 2500.
You either don't understand how it works, or you're gaslighting.
The concentration is completely irrelevant in that context, and some very simple logic would lead you to conclusion. All that matters is how many molecules stand between any square millimeter of ground and its path to space.
Historic evidence shows that CO2 increases follow temperature increases,
Historic evidence shows no such things.
And temperature changes more closely correlate to solar activity than to any other single item.
This is ridiculous on its face. The output of the sun is well known. It isn't nearly enough to even heat this planet above freezing.
But if it is so easy to prove, then you do the math in keeping with the laws of thermal dynamics and you show us exactly how hot a single molecule of CO2 has to be or how much heat has to be reflected to increase the temperature of the other 2499 molecules by even a single degree.
Are you serious? Because that math has been done over and over again, why do you think the debate is considered over?
First off, no I don't.
I don't know what to do about it. Your argument isn't with me.
But if you think denying it's even happening and gaslighting the conversation is a valid way to conduct the argument because you're afraid of the potential fixative measures, you're a piece of shit. If you don't do those things, then this conversation wasn't really about you.
Now, do I even know how to calculate the amount of warming we'll get with a doubling of CO2?
Fuck no- nobody does. That's the problem you assholes are pinning your entire argument on. The pure increase in temperature caused solely by the CO2? Yes, that's quite easy to calculate. All of the other feedbacks are not, because they're simply not all known or completely understood.
And of course, it's further complicated because CO2s effect is greatly magnified since increase of temperature causes an increase of water retention in the atmosphere, which is of course, the most potent greenhouse gas.
The amount of CO2 we've added to the atmosphere is measure in parts per million,
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we started humanity's large-scale atmospheric engineering project were measured in PPM. What's your point?
CO2 is responsible for 100% of this planet's temperature past -18C.
Those few PPMs- 28C of warming past baseline.
Back to our earlier example- if I shut down convection in that hypothetical glass house, you will die. You will overheat, and you will die. Because thermal radiation will no longer have any way to escape, because glass, my friend, is partially opaque to infrared radiation. Like CO2.
You done?
I do, in fact. The change in weather was noticeable in the Pacific Northwest, as well.
17Mt of sulfur dioxide is a great example of how even small changes in atmospheric composition that affect radiation flux, spread across the entire globe can effect radical shifts in climate.
Fortunately, SO2 doesn't stay in the atmosphere all that long.
I think I missed the point you were trying to make, though?
Massive scale? The composition of the atmosphere has been changed a fraction of a tenth of a percent.
Yes, the composition of the atmosphere, which has a mass of 5.15*10^18 has only changed a small amount.
Are you really too stupid to understand that it requires a "massive scale" to enact a measurable change to something that large?
The overall change in composition has been very small, my dear Oregonian. What do you think, very very small changes in the composition of the atmosphere are going to destroy humanity?
An interesting question!
Let's imagine I placed you in a completely thermally insulated glass house with a light shining on it at about 320W/m^2 worth of power.
Let's imagine you had a little hole at the top of it with a fan blowing air out, and a little hole allowing for air to come in.
What very small change to that environment could I make to destroy you?
I was beginning to think you were innocently ignorant. I can now see that you are willfully stupid.
I spent $1000 on a 1080Ti 11GB.
I felt like it was a little overkilly at the time (those were the market prices at that unfortunate moment in time).
I bought it because I wanted to get into VR, and I didn't want to take chances getting into shitty VR.
I don't know what the benchmarks are, but my 1080Ti mops the floor with my best friends Vega 64, both running first gen Optimus sets. Mine is buttery smooth, and his is... well, not. In the end? I'm glad I spent the money. For VR, at least.
It's very true. I am the chief network engineer for 7 datacenters, and on the facilities side, we employ probably 5 people, depending on how you classify them.
Can't argue with your numbers, but I fall well within the 9.9%, and well below the 0.1%, and I don't feel very bourgeoisie. I own... well, not a hell of a lot more than my car.
I guess technically speaking, I have a shit ton of stocks managed by a 401k management agency, but who doesn't? I had that back when I was making 8.50 an hour in fast food.
Technically speaking, I'm a lot more like a really well compensated prole, and I think quite a few people within the 9.9% are just that.
The point, my governmentally ignorant friend, is that countries make policies and pollution, not individuals. If we are going to whine about individual pollution count then put al gore and the rest of his Hollywood pals in prison immediately.
That point is not wrong, however it doesn't apply to this argument in the slightest you ignorant fuckstick.
If we are going to whine about individual pollution count then put al gore and the rest of his Hollywood pals in prison immediately.
Yes, right along with all of the goddamn morons south of the Mason Dixon line who think it's all a hoax, because they're collectively doing a lot more fucking damage than Al Gore is, and since it's the total amount that matters, not the per-person, those guys are just as criminally fucking liable.
But again, how does this matter? Oh right, it fucking doesn't. Because at the end of the day, we as a species emit so much CO2. The only logical way to measure the greatest offenders is by the amount of CO2 they emit per person that constitutes that country. Otherwise, we could just draw arbitrarily large lines. Fuck, you know who the largest offender is? Western Civilization. It dwarfs the Chinese. Wait, now you want to count the Indians too? Sorry asshole, we're drawing arbitrary lines here.
If you really want to live like the average Chinese peasant however, go right ahead.
I sure the fuck don't. What's that got to do with it? That's even *more* of an argument to quit fucking bitching about China's less-than-half-our emission per capita. Unfortunately, you're too stupid to realize when you make my point for me. You are fundamentally incapable of rational thought. You are, in a word, a moron.
Their cities make US cities look like paradise on the cleanliness scales.
Again, so?
The scales are a bit different. You have to drop down to their #6 metropolitan area to find one with less people than the entire fucking state of New York. How they choose to concentrate their emissions doesn't fucking matter for the global accounting. You're grasping for straws, because realistically, you're likely just a racist redneck piece of shit.
Part of the year you cant breathe in Beijing without a mask and you probably shouldnt the rest of the year either.
Big fucking deal. If we replaced all of the Chinese in Beijing with 45% as many Americans, it would be just as dirty. Good point you made there, buddy.
Oh, yeah, you are an idiot know nothing.
You are killing our species you piece of shit. Go back to your shithole shanty in Arkansas, and let me get back to paying for your infrastructure.
while America comes down.
So? What the hell is the point of that? We can criticize when we pass them.
Until then you're bitching about someone using less than half the amount of CO2 per person than we are.
The population size does not matter.
It absolutely fucking matters. We are all in this together, and China puts out a relatively small amount of CO2 for the amount of people they have. We are the offender, not them. Now could that change some day? Sure. But I'm not going to point fingers at them as long as we're the person driving a Suburban, bitching about the Honda drivers wasting gas because there's so fucking many of them.
China has emitted the MOST as a nation since the time of christ, 1850, 1950, last 10 years, etc. They continue to grow their emissions.
So? What the fuck is your point here? Your argument is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard.
You're literally making the argument that we should draw arbitrary lines around groups of emissions and judge them on the whole instead of the content. You are terminally stupid, dude.
Only an idiot would sit in this shit and continue to let it happen.
Only a complete fucking moron would sit there from his castle and complain about the masses of poor people below him hoarding money.
Volcanos would like to have a word with you outside sir....
Horse shit, they would.
Volcanoes eject about 200 million tons of CO2 from the crust annually, human fossil emissions are about 24 billion. They're not even the same fucking sport. Quit lying.
Last word? If your argument relies on your being full of shit to make sense, that makes you a fuckwit.
Clarify for me, please.
Am I to take this as you saying you don't think massive-scale alteration of the Earth's extant carbon cycle will cause this planet to warm?
s/certainty/uncertainty/;
s/flash/flesh/;
And again, fuck you very much.
None of this tackles the most important point about Global Warming.
You have to be an ignorant fuckwit in order to have even an iota of certainty about it occurring due to anthropogenic carbon cycle short circuiting.
I don't give a shit about the models, the predictions, or any of that shit. That's the job for the guys trying to determine how quickly we'll kill ourselves. The fact that we are should be completely without question.
We are fundamentally altering a cycle that has been stable for millions of years, by injecting trillions of tons of carbon into it that was previously excluded from the system. There can be only one result to this action- warming. I don't give a shit about the political nightmare those poor scientists have to go through to make the retards believe in it- basic fucking QED and thermodynamics insist that what we are doing must warm this planet. You can keep kicking the goalposts away to whatever idiotic fucking theory you have as to what might "really" be causing it all fucking day long, but you are literally contributing to the death of us all by doing it. Thank you for being a useless sack of flash.