Comments by "David Ford" (@davidford3115) on "Tonga volcano: How much damage did it cause? | DW News" video.

@Danny451 Didn't your mother ever teach you that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all? Indecently, how would you feel if people mocked you in your time of need?
5
The Earth is ambivalent to us. We are but a blink of an eye to her 4 billion years of existence. Don't fool yourself into thinking we have any control over nature.
4
@Danny451 No, you are trolling. There is a difference.
3
@Danny451 Funny, because the great futurists Arthur C. Clarke, Issaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and Michael Crichton were men of faith, but unlike you, they were not setting out to either prove or disprove the existence of an almighty. They knew how to partition out matters of faith from temporal affairs. Something you can't seem to achieve. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," -Arthur C. Clarke "Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God," -Michael Shermer
3
@jasonlarsen4945 And how quickly have those environments recovered on volcanic islands? If Surtsey in Iceland and Mount St. Helens is any indication, it will be a lot faster than you think.
2
@jasonlarsen4945 Moving the goal posts. Typical. But then I expect that from alarmists like you who have such hubris you think you can tame the planet.
2
@decimusrex92 Pure hubris. To quote George Carlin, "The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas". Man is not nearly as powerful as you would like to believe.
2
The Deccan Traps were laid down around the same time as the K-T extinction event.
2
Volcanic lighting is more common than thunderstorm lightning.
2
The Earth doesn't even notice us. We are a blink of an eye to her 4 billion years of existence.
2
Could be possible it was damaged by the tsunami. Under the surface, there is much turbulence that goes undetected.
2
@Danny451 Funny, because existential nihilism leads to madness and insanity. It is NOT the path one wants to take when they are spiritually shallow. But hey, you do you. Just don't be surprised when you meet your maker, and he holds your lack of faith against you.
2
That explosion was orders of magnitude larger than Tsar Bomba. Don't fool yourself.
2
@jasonlarsen4945 "Master's degree in environmental science"? You mean a degree in political activism pretending to be science. Biology degrees falls into two categories: Zoology and Botany. Earth Sciences typically fall into either geology or meteorology. Your "environmental science" is too broad to be a specific scientific discipline, hence it is political activism degree. It is also the appeal to authority logical fallacy, which is always used to stifle any discussion because those who invoke it know their position is weak on substance.
2
@michaeldeierhoi4096 "Fairy tale"? You are arguing with Sir Issaac Newton! Namely the second law of thermodynamics often invoked in chemistry. Namely you cannot create nor destroy matter, nor can you create nor destroy energy. It very much is a zero-sum game with regards to physics and chemistry. Any high school chemistry student can tell you that. But I get it, you are pushing your neo-pagan Earth mother (Greco-Roman Gaia) worship.
2
@Chepicoro I think he needs a bigger boat.
1
@Danny451 You would reject the preponderance of evidence even if presented before you. Nothing will convince you because you have closed off your heart and your mind. Nietzsche talked about the death of faith and spiritualism in people like you. Notice, I am not trying to convert nor proselytize to you. But you are so dead set in you mesotheism that you have made it your mission to covert others to your faith hating non-theistic religion. That speaks volumes.
1
@jasonlarsen4945 Completely false. Volcanic emissions vastly outperform anything humans can do. Incidentally, fossil fuels come from carbon that was already on Earth since its formation 4 billion years ago. Stop this grifting over "man cause climate change". It is the same false argument about "human caused global cooling" in the 1970s.
1
@michaeldeierhoi4096 Talking about strawman arguments, the ONLY argument for climate change being the result of man is consensus. That isn't science, that is appeal to authority. The data is inconclusive at best. "Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough." -Michael Crichton's 2003 CalTech speech on Global Warming.
1
@michaeldeierhoi4096 To quote Michael Crichton, "the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period." You resorting to claiming consensus is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority which makes anything else you claim based on that illegitimate. "Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way." -Michael Crichton
1