I think the real problem with Jesus vs. any other figure from that time period is simply the mythological factor involving Jesus.
A lot of Greeks wrote terribly untrue shit about their Gods. The Bible has to be thrown out of the evidence pile right off the bat due to the conflict of interest.
Later writers that don't really corroborate each other, and barely corroborate that the guy existed aren't worth a hell of a lot, either, mostly because their writings existed (or were altered) long after a myth could have taken hold.
I don't think one needs a conspiracy theory to doubt the historicity of Jesus, particularly when so many people are so willing to make some really wild shit up to desperate prove he was a historical figure. A lot of people had 2000 years to push a narrative they were willing to kill over forcing people to believe in. It throws an air of suspicion on it all. Me? I don't really care if he existed or not. He wasn't a God, whether he did or not. I don't believe Hercules existed, either- but a ton of Greeks wrote of him do some miraculous shit that they heard about in the not-so-distant past.
Chixulub impact energies make me dizzy. The energy involved, for me, is unimaginable. I wish we could see something like that hit a rocky planet just to wake people up. Preferably not THIS one. Evidence has never been enough for a large portion of Americans. They need to see it with their own eyes.
Historically speaking, just about any regime that seizes power evolves into an authoritarian regime, and in the grand scale of things, far more internal authoritarian regime changes have been right-wing, the left-wing ones just stick in your head because they achieved relevance.
You *have* to understand why that's a stupid argument to make... You just have to.
You can't be that fucking stupid. This has to be what's going on with this country- the capacity for rational arguments is straight up fucking gone.
The DPRK calls itself democratic. Is Democracy the cause of 4 million North Koreans starving to death?
I don't think anyone means to say that the planet is going to explode by Death Star fire if we completely fuck up its ecosystem. I think they mean *the planet they know*
That's just because I apparently provide major cash incentives through my taxes to ranchers in the midwest not to do absolutely nothing with that shit ton of land they inherited from their grandpappy.
The people we do have a problem with are those people with no kids that (a) tell us how we should raise our kids or (b) get irritated with something they perceive as annoying behavior from our kids.
It's a rare form of human that enjoys when someone calls them out for being a dimwitted fuckbag.
There is a hose from outside the glass bubble. Only it's a drill down to a pocket of carbon that has been removed from the cycle for millions of years. Importantly- for the duration that mankind has existed as a species.
No, but you have made yourself look rather ignorant.
Let's propose an experiment.
Let's say you're locked in a glass bubble with a pool of water at its lowest point, and a bush on its edge. You drink from this water, and you urinate on that bush. Over time, your urine evaporates, eventually condenses, and eventually ends up back in that pool of water.
Drink as much as you want, piss as much as you want, the amount of water in the cycle is static.
Now, this process, it's too slow for you. It's locked up in the cycle for too long before it turns back into potable water. So you have someone hook up a hose to the outside of this glass bubble. It sends you some extra water every day.
Slowly, you notice that puddle of water is starting to get deeper.
No sentient molecules required. No magic faeries. No physical difference between the molecules.
But when you drink from that pool, instead of that hose, you're water-neutral. Get it? I thought so. You're no simpleton.
Because the carbon from fossil fuels has been removed from the cycle for millions of years. It has been sequestered. We're putting it back INTO the cycle. If we were to put it back into the cycle as *mass* (offset every pound of CO2 from coal/whatever with a pound of carbon biomass), then even the insertion of fossil fuel into the cycle would be neutral to the gaseous portion of it.
The problem isn't necessarily the reinsertion of that carbon back into the cycle, it's that we have no way to balance it equally amongst biomass and CO2, to keep the homeostasis of the cycle intact. We are inserting carbon into the cycle in pure gaseous form, relying on nothing but nature's carbon fixation methods (mostly, plant growth) to equalize it. That's a goddamn slow process. In the mean time, we have a rise in atmospheric carbon levels, and a corresponding rise of temperatures caused by the simple fact that the shit is opaque to infrared light, the way our planet sheds the heat it gets from the sun's radiation being absorbed by all the shit down here below the atmosphere that is largely transparent to those wavelengths of light.
Oh I entirely understand they failed to meet expectations. But they still did not *lose* representation.
I also fully understand that by failing to meet expectations this time around, they're setup to actually lose.
But they still didn't *lose*. Their representation is greater than it was prior to the elections, and they had a very clear plurality in the Presidential election.
As per their usual, they're doing well popularly, but the ground strategy regarding geographic considerations is really kicking their ass.
A gram of CO2 from a volcano is the same as a gram from a person's respiration is the same as from a fossil fueled vehicle is the same as from a "Carbon neutral source"!
That's where you're wrong though. They're not the same.
The gram from a volcano, and the gram from fossils fuels came from outside of the cycle.
The gram from your respiration came FROM the cycle. The gram of CO2 you just respired came from CO2 only a few years earlier, was turned into carbohydrates and other organic molecules with the addition of sunlight by plants, converted a few more times by other heterotrophs, and eventually into your dinner. But it came from the air. Before the air, it came from some other heterotroph. It is a CYCLE. Unless of course, you're keen on eating rocks, or plants that have never and never were going to die.
I just don't see how adding another human would be carbon neutral.
Where do you think that human's carbon came from? Adding a human isn't carbon neutral- it's a net decrease in atmospheric carbon for as long as he's alive.
If there isn't enough plant life to recycle all the CO2
Plants don't recycle the CO2 in the sense that you're using it. They are the primary converter of atmospheric carbon (CO2) into solid carbon (carbohydrates. They convert CO2 into the food that all non-producer life on this planet requires to live)
it doesn't matter if the CO2 came from humans or fossil fuels.
The only atmospheric carbon that comes from human is from fossil fuels. We are otherwise just a part of the cycle. It took CO2 to make us, and we will convert lots of converted CO2 back into CO2 in our lifetimes. But it all came from the atmosphere to begin with. Every link in the chain extracts some energy from what the plants originally put into it when they combined it with sunlight to make complex molecules.
The carbon cycle is the food chain. You're just a step in it, minus the part where you consume massive amounts of previously non-cyclical carbon in the form of energy produced from it. Nothing you ate came from fossil fuels. It came from the atmosphere. Therefore, not a single breath of CO2 you exhale didn't come from the CO2 itself less than a few years before you took that breath.
Showing disrespect for all that we stand for serves no useful purpose.
You may very well be right about that. But freedom of speech isn't about ensuring that everything done serves a useful purpose. Your proposal to criminalize disrespect of what YOU stand for is fascism, pure and simple. You try to paint it as something else, but you're straight up delusional.
What horseshit? The movie was made and I think that everyone realizes the left means harm. They have such a rich history of that. From the Russian revolution, Nazis, even domestically with Bill Ayers. Bill teaches now instead of having a jail cell. Never served a day.
The left? Oh boy. Nazis? The Nazi party may have started as a left-wing party, but it ceased to be one on The Night of the Long Knives when every single leftist in it was purged (see: executed) by the Hitler-supporting far-right wing of the party. You don't get to call the Nazi atrocities some kind of left-wing stereotypical behavior... Well, you do, because you're free to do and say anything you like, regardless of how stupid it is, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights.
No, the real horseshit is in saying it's somehow free speech when it's a clear attack on everything we stand for. I understand you may have a tough time, you think things could be better, and so on. Realize that simply being an American citizen living here, you already are in the top 1% of the world. Have a little more respect. It's not too much to ask.
You need to get out and see the world. 1%? Not even close. Pretty high up- sure. Nowhere near 1%.
Again- an attack on the things you stand for is not an attack on you. You don't get to censor those who attack your beliefs. That's fucking fascism. You are a fascist. I don't personally burn flags, but I defend the *RIGHT* of asshats to do it.
I would think otherwise, but I will have to read about it I guess. Considering that humans are getting energy from this chemical synthesis and producing a waste product that accumulates in the atmosphere. It seems to have been established, in this conversation at least, that if there weren't enough plants to convert it back then humans breathing would be enough to cause the greenhouse effect.
I think I see where you're coming from. You're thinking extant plants are an ongoing cycle balancer... That isn't the case. A fully grown plant is carbon neutral.
They provide the engine that moves carbon from the atmosphere to solid biomass by way of their growth... There can never be not enough plants to offset what we breathe... unless we prevent them from growing.
But it's still not our metabolism that's altering the cycle. It's our reduction in photosynthetic biomass that is the engine the moves that carbon from the atmosphere into carbohydrates, and eventually, hydrocarbons.
In the end- every molecule of carbon you exhale, got to you by way of the air to begin with. All you're doing is sending it home.
Do you mean that we tend to replace the food we consume because we will want more food, or that this replacement is unavoidable?
Both. But the timescales involved for the rebalancing of the cycle are different.
We do in fact grow more because we want to keep eating. That's the fast-path toward non-photosynthesizing organisms carbon neutrality.
Should we fail in that task, the slower-paced action will take place- the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the stronger and faster plants will grow, just by themselves, and spread.
Of course, sustained destruction of photosynthesizing biomass (and an overall systemic decrease) can and does ruin that neutrality, but it isn't the act of us breathing that does it.
Pure poppycock. It's only not if you constrain your data set to small enough windows of time, strangely starting at points in the time series that are record highs, and for no other reason than to hide the trend line. It is warming. The fact that you disagree with how data is processed doesn't mean they're hiding something from you (or even that you're qualified to fucking judge the method.)
So, in another words, the theory of AGW does not provide a basis for making useful predictions about the future, but we should implement economically crippling regulations in order to prevent unknown bad things from happening any way, even though we have no idea if those bad things will really happen.
I didn't say that. Some people are certainly saying that. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're not. I don't know. Not my department.
I can say with certainty that the final outcome (as far as civilization is concerned), if not stopped, can only be bad. I can't begin to speculate on the time scale required for it, though.
But denying the science itself because you disagree with the actions championed in its name is lunacy. And frankly, stupid and dangerous.
The Democrats have only themselves to blame for losing so badly in November.
Did we watch the same election?
They picked up seats in the House and the Senate, and if not for the citizen vote multiplier between populous states and dank shithole states, they would have won the Presidency as well... Unless by "losing so badly" you mean "didn't completely fucking destroy the Republicans," which I can almost agree is a pretty bad loss given what they were against.
and it can be re-harvested from the atmosphere if we really wanted to get it back.
Wait- can it? My understanding is that atmospheric helium is simply a flux between radioactive decay in the Earth, and Space. And a fast-moving one at that. I think toy balloon helium is probably 100% unrecoverable. As in "forever lost to humanity."
Fortunately... The Earth is constantly making more of the stuff.
If you really want to look at it from the big picture, every human added, in terms of carbon biomass, is net negative toward the atmospheric carbon budget. From the air, to plants, to cows, to our parents, to us. All your carbon comes from the air. Your body mass took a whole shitload of CO2 to make.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the real problem with Jesus vs. any other figure from that time period is simply the mythological factor involving Jesus.
A lot of Greeks wrote terribly untrue shit about their Gods. The Bible has to be thrown out of the evidence pile right off the bat due to the conflict of interest.
Later writers that don't really corroborate each other, and barely corroborate that the guy existed aren't worth a hell of a lot, either, mostly because their writings existed (or were altered) long after a myth could have taken hold.
I don't think one needs a conspiracy theory to doubt the historicity of Jesus, particularly when so many people are so willing to make some really wild shit up to desperate prove he was a historical figure. A lot of people had 2000 years to push a narrative they were willing to kill over forcing people to believe in. It throws an air of suspicion on it all. Me? I don't really care if he existed or not. He wasn't a God, whether he did or not. I don't believe Hercules existed, either- but a ton of Greeks wrote of him do some miraculous shit that they heard about in the not-so-distant past.
True Christians... I wish you an expedient journey to your 72 virgins, or pearly gates, or whatever it is you're rewarded with.
Chixulub impact energies make me dizzy. The energy involved, for me, is unimaginable. I wish we could see something like that hit a rocky planet just to wake people up. Preferably not THIS one. Evidence has never been enough for a large portion of Americans. They need to see it with their own eyes.
Yes, exactly the definition of socialism pasted onto any US politician that is in favor of any sort of welfare.
The beauty of that remark will be entirely lost upon him.
Historically speaking, just about any regime that seizes power evolves into an authoritarian regime, and in the grand scale of things, far more internal authoritarian regime changes have been right-wing, the left-wing ones just stick in your head because they achieved relevance.
You *have* to understand why that's a stupid argument to make... You just have to.
You can't be that fucking stupid. This has to be what's going on with this country- the capacity for rational arguments is straight up fucking gone.
The DPRK calls itself democratic. Is Democracy the cause of 4 million North Koreans starving to death?
Let's ignore Texas, and Hillary won by 4 million votes.
Sure you can see how dumbfuck stupid your logic is, yes?
and to delegitimize the incoming administration, is treason.
Ignorantly accusing someone of treason with no idea what the word means is treason.
I don't think anyone means to say that the planet is going to explode by Death Star fire if we completely fuck up its ecosystem. I think they mean *the planet they know*
That's just because I apparently provide major cash incentives through my taxes to ranchers in the midwest not to do absolutely nothing with that shit ton of land they inherited from their grandpappy.
The people we do have a problem with are those people with no kids that (a) tell us how we should raise our kids or (b) get irritated with something they perceive as annoying behavior from our kids.
It's a rare form of human that enjoys when someone calls them out for being a dimwitted fuckbag.
There is a hose from outside the glass bubble. Only it's a drill down to a pocket of carbon that has been removed from the cycle for millions of years. Importantly- for the duration that mankind has existed as a species.
No, but you have made yourself look rather ignorant.
Let's propose an experiment.
Let's say you're locked in a glass bubble with a pool of water at its lowest point, and a bush on its edge. You drink from this water, and you urinate on that bush. Over time, your urine evaporates, eventually condenses, and eventually ends up back in that pool of water.
Drink as much as you want, piss as much as you want, the amount of water in the cycle is static.
Now, this process, it's too slow for you. It's locked up in the cycle for too long before it turns back into potable water. So you have someone hook up a hose to the outside of this glass bubble. It sends you some extra water every day.
Slowly, you notice that puddle of water is starting to get deeper.
No sentient molecules required. No magic faeries. No physical difference between the molecules.
But when you drink from that pool, instead of that hose, you're water-neutral. Get it? I thought so. You're no simpleton.
Because the carbon from fossil fuels has been removed from the cycle for millions of years. It has been sequestered. We're putting it back INTO the cycle. If we were to put it back into the cycle as *mass* (offset every pound of CO2 from coal/whatever with a pound of carbon biomass), then even the insertion of fossil fuel into the cycle would be neutral to the gaseous portion of it.
The problem isn't necessarily the reinsertion of that carbon back into the cycle, it's that we have no way to balance it equally amongst biomass and CO2, to keep the homeostasis of the cycle intact. We are inserting carbon into the cycle in pure gaseous form, relying on nothing but nature's carbon fixation methods (mostly, plant growth) to equalize it. That's a goddamn slow process. In the mean time, we have a rise in atmospheric carbon levels, and a corresponding rise of temperatures caused by the simple fact that the shit is opaque to infrared light, the way our planet sheds the heat it gets from the sun's radiation being absorbed by all the shit down here below the atmosphere that is largely transparent to those wavelengths of light.
Oh I entirely understand they failed to meet expectations. But they still did not *lose* representation.
I also fully understand that by failing to meet expectations this time around, they're setup to actually lose.
But they still didn't *lose*. Their representation is greater than it was prior to the elections, and they had a very clear plurality in the Presidential election.
As per their usual, they're doing well popularly, but the ground strategy regarding geographic considerations is really kicking their ass.
A gram of CO2 from a volcano is the same as a gram from a person's respiration is the same as from a fossil fueled vehicle is the same as from a "Carbon neutral source"!
That's where you're wrong though. They're not the same.
The gram from a volcano, and the gram from fossils fuels came from outside of the cycle.
The gram from your respiration came FROM the cycle. The gram of CO2 you just respired came from CO2 only a few years earlier, was turned into carbohydrates and other organic molecules with the addition of sunlight by plants, converted a few more times by other heterotrophs, and eventually into your dinner. But it came from the air. Before the air, it came from some other heterotroph. It is a CYCLE. Unless of course, you're keen on eating rocks, or plants that have never and never were going to die.
I just don't see how adding another human would be carbon neutral.
Where do you think that human's carbon came from? Adding a human isn't carbon neutral- it's a net decrease in atmospheric carbon for as long as he's alive.
If there isn't enough plant life to recycle all the CO2
Plants don't recycle the CO2 in the sense that you're using it. They are the primary converter of atmospheric carbon (CO2) into solid carbon (carbohydrates. They convert CO2 into the food that all non-producer life on this planet requires to live)
it doesn't matter if the CO2 came from humans or fossil fuels.
The only atmospheric carbon that comes from human is from fossil fuels. We are otherwise just a part of the cycle. It took CO2 to make us, and we will convert lots of converted CO2 back into CO2 in our lifetimes. But it all came from the atmosphere to begin with. Every link in the chain extracts some energy from what the plants originally put into it when they combined it with sunlight to make complex molecules.
The carbon cycle is the food chain. You're just a step in it, minus the part where you consume massive amounts of previously non-cyclical carbon in the form of energy produced from it. Nothing you ate came from fossil fuels. It came from the atmosphere. Therefore, not a single breath of CO2 you exhale didn't come from the CO2 itself less than a few years before you took that breath.
Showing disrespect for all that we stand for serves no useful purpose.
You may very well be right about that. But freedom of speech isn't about ensuring that everything done serves a useful purpose. Your proposal to criminalize disrespect of what YOU stand for is fascism, pure and simple. You try to paint it as something else, but you're straight up delusional.
What horseshit? The movie was made and I think that everyone realizes the left means harm. They have such a rich history of that. From the Russian revolution, Nazis, even domestically with Bill Ayers. Bill teaches now instead of having a jail cell. Never served a day.
The left? Oh boy. Nazis? The Nazi party may have started as a left-wing party, but it ceased to be one on The Night of the Long Knives when every single leftist in it was purged (see: executed) by the Hitler-supporting far-right wing of the party. You don't get to call the Nazi atrocities some kind of left-wing stereotypical behavior... Well, you do, because you're free to do and say anything you like, regardless of how stupid it is, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights.
No, the real horseshit is in saying it's somehow free speech when it's a clear attack on everything we stand for. I understand you may have a tough time, you think things could be better, and so on. Realize that simply being an American citizen living here, you already are in the top 1% of the world. Have a little more respect. It's not too much to ask.
You need to get out and see the world. 1%? Not even close. Pretty high up- sure. Nowhere near 1%.
Again- an attack on the things you stand for is not an attack on you. You don't get to censor those who attack your beliefs. That's fucking fascism. You are a fascist. I don't personally burn flags, but I defend the *RIGHT* of asshats to do it.
I would think otherwise, but I will have to read about it I guess. Considering that humans are getting energy from this chemical synthesis and producing a waste product that accumulates in the atmosphere. It seems to have been established, in this conversation at least, that if there weren't enough plants to convert it back then humans breathing would be enough to cause the greenhouse effect.
I think I see where you're coming from. You're thinking extant plants are an ongoing cycle balancer... That isn't the case. A fully grown plant is carbon neutral.
They provide the engine that moves carbon from the atmosphere to solid biomass by way of their growth... There can never be not enough plants to offset what we breathe... unless we prevent them from growing.
But it's still not our metabolism that's altering the cycle. It's our reduction in photosynthetic biomass that is the engine the moves that carbon from the atmosphere into carbohydrates, and eventually, hydrocarbons.
In the end- every molecule of carbon you exhale, got to you by way of the air to begin with. All you're doing is sending it home.
Do you mean that we tend to replace the food we consume because we will want more food, or that this replacement is unavoidable?
Both. But the timescales involved for the rebalancing of the cycle are different.
We do in fact grow more because we want to keep eating. That's the fast-path toward non-photosynthesizing organisms carbon neutrality.
Should we fail in that task, the slower-paced action will take place- the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the stronger and faster plants will grow, just by themselves, and spread.
Of course, sustained destruction of photosynthesizing biomass (and an overall systemic decrease) can and does ruin that neutrality, but it isn't the act of us breathing that does it.
Pure poppycock. It's only not if you constrain your data set to small enough windows of time, strangely starting at points in the time series that are record highs, and for no other reason than to hide the trend line. It is warming. The fact that you disagree with how data is processed doesn't mean they're hiding something from you (or even that you're qualified to fucking judge the method.)
So, in another words, the theory of AGW does not provide a basis for making useful predictions about the future, but we should implement economically crippling regulations in order to prevent unknown bad things from happening any way, even though we have no idea if those bad things will really happen.
I didn't say that. Some people are certainly saying that. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're not. I don't know. Not my department.
I can say with certainty that the final outcome (as far as civilization is concerned), if not stopped, can only be bad. I can't begin to speculate on the time scale required for it, though.
But denying the science itself because you disagree with the actions championed in its name is lunacy. And frankly, stupid and dangerous.
The Democrats have only themselves to blame for losing so badly in November.
Did we watch the same election?
They picked up seats in the House and the Senate, and if not for the citizen vote multiplier between populous states and dank shithole states, they would have won the Presidency as well... Unless by "losing so badly" you mean "didn't completely fucking destroy the Republicans," which I can almost agree is a pretty bad loss given what they were against.
and it can be re-harvested from the atmosphere if we really wanted to get it back.
Wait- can it? My understanding is that atmospheric helium is simply a flux between radioactive decay in the Earth, and Space. And a fast-moving one at that. I think toy balloon helium is probably 100% unrecoverable. As in "forever lost to humanity."
Fortunately... The Earth is constantly making more of the stuff.
If you really want to look at it from the big picture, every human added, in terms of carbon biomass, is net negative toward the atmospheric carbon budget. From the air, to plants, to cows, to our parents, to us. All your carbon comes from the air. Your body mass took a whole shitload of CO2 to make.