Started by #485312 at 15,Dec,20 23:50
 | Fact or Fiction.... is it really happening???
what do you think contributes to it and what is being done to stop it? |
Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest 5.YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos)
less than 7 years and done. millions wasted by citys all over the US
only registered users can see external links
PLEASE note, the bankruptcy was filed in 2023. 3 years after Trump, 1 year before Trump so whos fault>?, not Trumps
No one ever denied that. It's not an economical choice, it's a sustainable choice.
chances are they are also very complicated to work on.
electric vehicles used to be very simple but now they add computers where none are needed
The only reason for why these busses are expensive and less reliable are the batteries.
Trams and trains are extremely reliable electric vehicles.
Electric busses with batteries will become more reliable too.
That requires investments and testing, which is why I support projects like that.
That might be more expensive and problematic at first, but it will be solved.
If you see what's needed to make an electric lawnmower, than I agree
that they are more complicated. To me, that's just problems to be solved.
Gas powered cars broke down all the time too, early in their development.
EV's are still early in their development, so it is to be expected of them.
That's no reason to not do that. Humanity needs to get of fossil fuels ASAP.
Do you know the YouTube channel "Aging Wheels"?
The presenter (Robert Dunn) is very entertaining.
He is who I am referring to for electric lawnmowers being complicated.
"This Electric Mower is Great! Until it Isn't..."
only registered users can see external links
"Spent $1500 to Fix Ryobi's Mistake"
only registered users can see external links
"This was Bugging Me So I Fixed It"
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 7 minutes
Liver transplants weren't always successful, but advancements in medicine have significantly improved outcomes over time. While the initial success of liver transplants was limited, advancements in surgical techniques, immunosuppressant drugs, and patient care have dramatically increased the survival rate and quality of life for transplant recipients.
Now, they practically warranty that the patient will live at least 5 yrs and many live a full life.
The moral is don’t give up. The end results are what matters.
BTW, why are you so against replacing internal combustion engines?
let the person who earns their wages buy what they wish with their money. and a city or state or government should be good stewards of the money they take from the people. it should be invested in what is reliable ,long lasting and quality built. not someone's science experiment.
the ford 300 inline 6 engine will easily go 400,000 miles with some Maintenace. that's why ups ran them for decades. why is it the governments have to invest in junk?
your lithium mining employees children and pollutes the ground water and is difficult to recycle.kinda like that nuclear waste you are so fond of.
only registered users can see external links
why should i want to glow in the dark so you can put coal miners out of a job?
As far as you wanting to drive a polluting hunk of iron, there's nothing I can do about it. Nor do I like anything that endangers mankind.
Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste
A major environmental concern related to nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. These materials can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years.
Fossil fuels have significant negative environmental impacts, including contributing to climate change, air and water pollution, and resource depletion. Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, leading to global warming and extreme weather events. They also cause air pollution with harmful pollutants like particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, impacting public health. Extraction and transportation can damage ecosystems, contaminate water, and disrupt habitats.
The environmental impacts of human sexual activity are multifaceted, ranging from waste generated by contraceptives and sexual health products
1. Waste Generation:
Contraceptives, including condoms, and other sexual health products like lubricants, generate packaging waste that ends up in landfills.
Longer-term contraceptive options like IUDs and implants can have less waste, but still come with their own risks and potential for environmental impact.
so uh, it may be best for you to stp having sex and walk everywhere you go if you don't want to endanger mankind.
into a negative for humanity.
If I thought that nuclear power would have enough benefits towards the survival of humanity, I would take the downsides of the nuclear waste for granted, but I think it's not the smartest direction to take. It's not renewable, it's also a fossil fuel, it's very expensive and dangerous, and most importantly, it doesn't combine with the irregular supply of solar and wind well. I prefer to invest money wisely, and investing in nuclear energy is not. It will only make the energy transition more expensive, slower and cause more downsides.
The argument that ..... is ending up in landfills is never a good one.
The basis for everything should be recycling. If they are making stuff that isn't recycled properly, then that should be priority one. Circularity is part of sustainability.
The number one issue with fossil fuels is that it's not recycled at all; we use it and then it's gone. The only thing we are doing is trying to find new sources that are not gone yet, which is increasingly more difficult.
I think CAT is at a stage when contraceptives are not needed anymore.
I didn't think I also needed to give you sexual education, phart.
protection is not just to prevent babies in modern times. it also prevents those things that ajax and sandpaper won't remove.
as for energy, i would rather see time and money spent on geothermal. nothing to recycle. Recycling cost alot of money and creates pollution during material transport and reforming.
just 55 degree air that can assist in heating or cooling of anything from rooms on up.
How can that ever be better than extracting the useful resources out of waste
and re-using it? All useful resources would just be depleted very soon.
In most cases, recycling costs much less energy and creates much less pollution than making the materials from scratch.
In The Netherlands we are recycling glass since 1972. Organized recycling of paper started around 1916, but in the 70s the national system was introduced. Cans were removed from waste starting in the 80s. In the 90s aluminum recycling was improved and currently about 75% of all aluminum is extracted from our waste.
rebuild a engine or electric motor instead of grinding and melting and repouring metal.
geoengineering
is this even ethical?
It's solving a problem by reducing the symptoms,
instead of eliminating the root cause.
Ethical? What do you think we have done to the world?
What makes meddling with nature ethical or not?
We meddled with nature to get to this point,
so when is ethics at risk if we try to reverse it?
Geoengineering isn't unethical in my opinion, it's just a waste of resources
to focus on symptom control. It's only a delay, which requires more resources,
to eventually fix the root cause. It's not "bad", it's just not smart.
instead of curing cancer, we treat it,
Still, your health care system is causing too many people to die of cancer, who could be saved. Most of them die because they don't have the money to pay for what they need. Many die of untreatable cancer, because they didn't go to the doctor when their first symptoms were showing, because you don't go to a doctor for mild symptoms in a system like yours where everything is expensive.
If you think that health care providers are treating people, instead of curing people, for a money incentive, that's your own fault for supporting a system with a money incentive.
Returning to climate change. Yes, that's exactly what geoengineering is: treating symptoms, instead of curing the cause. The cause is our dependence on fossil fuels
and YOUR reluctance to cure that dependence. Renewable energy is the cure.
Partial remission: The cancer is still there, but it's smaller or less active.
Complete remission: No signs of cancer can be detected.
When a patient enjoys many years of "complete remission", they can be considered "cured".
What you might refer to is that they need regular checkups for the rest of their lives. That's because the cancer itself might be completely gone, but the very likely predisposition for the specific type of cancer is in their DNA for ever. Those people are just one mutation in one cell away, from the cancer re-emerging.
--------------------------------------- added after 12 minutes
While a cancer patient may be considered cured after 5 years or more of complete remission, meaning no signs of cancer are detected, it's not impossible that some cancer cells could still remain in the body. These cells may be dormant, too small to be detected by current testing methods, or have developed a resistance to treatment. The possibility of future recurrence, even years later, is why the term "cured" is often avoided, and doctors instead use terms like "remission" or "no evidence of disease".
Cancer cells aren't normally present in everyone's body, all the time. However, cell mutations that could lead to cancer happen fairly often in our bodies. Cells are constantly dividing, and during this process, DNA mistakes (mutations) can occur.
We all experience mutations and possibly the beginnings of cancer frequently,
but a healthy immune system and good DNA repair usually stop it; when these defenses fail — due to genetics, environment, aging, or random chance —
cancer can develop.
Most of these mutations are harmless or are repaired immediately by the body’s repair systems.
Some mutated cells might start behaving abnormally, but they usually don't reach the point of becoming full cancer unless ADDITIONAL mutations accumulate.
The immune system is constantly monitoring for abnormal cells — this is called immune surveillance.
When an abnormal or precancerous cell is detected, immune cells (like natural killer cells and T-cells) will usually destroy it.
Some mutated cells might temporarily evade detection and survive, but without enough harmful changes (mutations in key genes like tumor suppressors and oncogenes), they typically don't cause serious problems.
There is some evidence that very early cancers can exist "silently" for years and either stay dormant, regress, or eventually progress, depending on complex factors like immune strength, environment, and genetics.
Why do some people get cancer and others don't?
This happens because of a complex interaction of several factors:
- Genetics: Some people inherit mutations (like BRCA mutations) that make cancer much more likely.
- Environment: Exposure to carcinogens (like smoking, radiation, UV light, certain viruses) increases mutation rates.
- Aging: As we age, DNA repair mechanisms become less efficient, and mutations accumulate over time.
- Immune system health: A weaker immune system (due to age, illness, or certain medications) may be less able to catch and destroy abnormal cells.
- Random chance: Even without clear risk factors, random mutations during cell division can sometimes just add up the wrong way.
Of course it's not a cure for everything, it's just absolutely vital to prevent
major climate catastrophe.
It's not even clear if it would be enough to completely transition to renewable energy within the absolutely minimum possible time-frame, starting today. It's possible that humanity has already condemned itself, by acting too slowly.
It's like waiting a year before you start the chemotherapy.
It could be too late, no matter how aggressive you attack the cancer.
um, a rich man that liberals hate backed this company. let's see how it works out.
20,000 after tax breaks, might be feasible for the average suburban dweller
So the earth is farting and killing it's self
Methane emissions are called one of the "climate tipping points".
It's a temperature increase to a certain level, that results in a release of stored carbon dioxide or methane, or resulting in a process that releases carbon dioxide or methane into the atmosphere, resulting in more climate change, without direct emissions from humanity.
One example is wild-fires. Climate change increases the odds of drought in many parts
of the world. Drought often results in wild-fires, releasing massive amounts of stored CO2 into the atmosphere, resulting in more climate change, increasing the odds of drought, increasing the risk of wild-fires, etc..
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
It turns out the chance of that is 0.0017%. It will get lower, with more accuracy.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I guess you forgot, because you were distracted by the next fear inducing story.
That's the media distracting you from real problems, with outrage and panic 24/7.
Scientists were not panicking, the media was. Their intent is to lower your confidence
in science, for when scientists are actually sounding the alarms, ..... which they are!
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Where's it going to land no one knows!
It just requires more science to determine the actual size and the the actual risk.
It's 7 years away. That's more than enough time to plan a mission to change the trajectory, if that's needed. They will know more certain if it's needed, in a few years time.
A risk of hitting Earth of 2.3% is still very low. Then there's still a 70% chance it hits water. This rock is pretty big, but not so big that it will cause very destructive tsunamis. It can also just hit a desert or a forest. Unless it hits a populated area, the damage is manageable. They could calculate what would cost more, the mission to change the trajectory or the maximum damage it can possibly cause. What would it cost to rebuild, if it, by a ridiculously small chance, hits Monaco, Hong Kong, Singapore, London, Amsterdam or New York. That would only be material damage, because they can calculate exactly where it hits, enough time upfront to evacuate the area.
Of course the value of the destruction of a highly developed areas isn't just financial. People losing their homes, even when they are rebuild, is a human disaster. There would always be irreplaceable losses. Humanity should never choose to let a meteorite hit, if they chance of it hitting is very high, just to save some money. If the chance goes up, humanity should come together to fund the mission to prevent it.
Then there is a third consideration; this asteroid is still small enough to consider the damage of the impact acceptable. But, at any time in the future could we discover an asteroid that would cause massive or global devastation. Then humanity has no choice but to prevent collision with Earth. The experience from deflecting this smaller rock from hitting could be vital for the future.
By the way, this has almost no relation with climate change, other than that
it's a big problem that science could prevent.
The one you were talking about would have an impact of about 15 megatons of TNT.
A difference by a factor of 5 million smaller.
Not fun to have it land on your head, but not a planet-killer either.
If it's one with an iron core, you can forget about that.
It would require landing on it and drilling into it.
It's way more reliable to just nudge it into anther trajectory.
only registered users can see external links
(and mass, if it has the same density as Earth).
Additionally, that will nudge the Earth out of it's stable orbit around the Sun,
probably on a collision course with Mars or Venus. Or if we don't hit any other planets, either move the Earth away from the Sun altogether or burn up in the Sun.
If you want to push the Earth North or South, we might move outside the ecliptic plane around the Sun, possibly into the orbits of lots of comets. It would also make Elon Musk unhappy, because it would make it more difficult to reach Mars.
Even if you expected to break again after we avoided that space rock, the energy needed to do even a fraction of what you proposed would be way more than all the energy stored in all the reserves on Earth and even all carbon stored in life on Earth. It would be more lethal to life than the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs.
And how do you want to do it? Fly a rocket with a tow rope into space and pull
the Earth away? If you are doing it in atmosphere, you're pushing against the air,
which is also in orbit around the Sun. It's like pushing a truck, with a propeller,
from the inside of the container.
I hope you were joking.
if you watch the movie,they build rocket engines in antartica and tap into the natural gas and oil to burn to move the earth a bit, we loose the moon, but we are saved from the space rock. it's mostly meant to be a joke that i mentioned it.
We might need to directly tap into the energy of the sun, with a Dyson Sphere,
to even have the energy to move Earth any significant distance. It has a mass of 1.31664252Ч10^25 pounds. When we could do that, we would be able to move asteroids of that size like ping-pong balls. We are talking about 2032, not 3032.
Seeing how you lot are running things, you can forget about those scifi ideas, because you need humanity to still be around for that and organized as a big global civilization. A hand-full survivors on Greenland are not going to cut it.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Scientists understood "the greenhouse effect" very well 40 years ago.
when that didn't pan out it became global warming, now it is climate change, so rather or not if it is snowing or scorching outside your door they are covered in their little charade.
And it wasn't about CO2, but about aerosol air pollution, which is actually causing an about 0.7° F (0.4 °C) lower global average temperature, than otherwise would be.
That effect is just completely obliterated by the global warming from the CO2.
Climate change IS global warming, but with the secondary effects included, which are much more than just warming. It's a term for people who don't understand why a few degrees higher GLOBAL AVERAGE temperature would matter.
You still have never explained the record high CO2 concentration.
A higher CO2 concentration will increase the temperature of a planet, that's just physics.
Without greenhouse gasses, Earth would have an average surface temperature of 0°F.
Humanity would be fucked without CO2 and with too much CO2.
That's nature; it requires a careful balance or it goes astray.
--------------------------------------- added after 14 hours
Aerosol particles also shape the climate as they circulate in the atmosphere. Some of these particles can reflect sunlight, helping to cool the atmosphere. Other aerosol particles absorb heat from sunlight, causing the atmosphere to warm.
Aerosol particles affect the Earth's climate by acting as the seeds on which clouds form. Clouds reflect sunlight, helping to cool the atmosphere. More aerosol particles can lead to more, but smaller, cloud droplets. This may reduce the rain that falls from that cloud.
All of these effects make climate change more difficult to predict accurately, but that doesn't retract from the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared light, which results in heat being trapped in the atmosphere instead of it being emitted back into space.
“ I see more people sitting at home, cranking up the air conditioners. no one seems to be able to stand 1 degree of discomfort anymore, this is what I see... all these protesters gluing them selves to the street don't really get the message across, only that theyre a bunch of disruptive uni students trying to get their faces on the tele... the world on a whole is so wasteful when using its finite resources and not a great deal is invested in making things from recycled materials to stop waste..
every generation blames the one before and no one wants to pick up the tab of cleaning it up and stopping it from happening.. crikey, grown educated humans still cant sort waste from recyclables in bins ... yet they can claim fame to being the most intelligent generation of all time??? how is this so??? *Lix*‘
I agree, but what do you think it would take, to make our politicians listen to them?
I carry my own garbage to the dump because the 3 different trucks that come by operated by the same company won't take a occasional tire or a few pieces of wood or whatever but 1 day a year. 3 truck come by,1 company has the contract, a monopoly, charge way to much and won't take everything you need to chunk. plastic bottles in 1 can, paper in can, and other in the other can. 3 trucks .and if you follow them to the dump, 2 go into the landfill as it is cheaper to just bury the shit that recycle it. tax money only goes so far in cost .and when county officials can vote themselves raises, no money left to melt the plastic.
Now,with that 1 problem of plastic bottles, a simple affordable idea is to reuse containers made of GLASS that returned to the store and credited to your bill. No extra fuel to haul them, no melting the shit and remaking a object, just a simple haul it back to where it came from,wash it,refill it. a empty truck goes back to the dairy or the drink company, it could haul the emptys back.
Oh, I am sorry, we used that idea for decades and some dumbass thought it was easier to melt plastic and stink up the air!
that's a example of why people like me don't pay folks that glue themselves to the street any attention. Alot of good ideas have been pushed aside by their kind and replaced with "recycle" instead of reuse,rebuild,refurbish,
Computers work fine long after the "software" is out of date, that should stop. imagine having to build new cars and buses every 10 years because the roads suddenly are no longer maintained and supported? stupid.
Affordable is relative. If the alternative is death, any price is affordable.
That's also a reference to your healthcare costs, which are the highest in the world, because you leave it up to the market to decide how much profit you can make on desperate people.
I also think a lot of people get further away from listening to a message, if it's given by people who annoy people who just want to get to work. That's why I would not join such actions. My party does political activism a lot, but we always make sure to bother the people who create the problem and not the rest of the public. It's politicians who are not doing anything, so it's politicians who should be bothered every single day, until they start listening.
Think of this; if they really think inaction is going to kill everyone, than why are they still doing nonviolent protesting? You can say about MAGA whatever you want, but they are not afraid of using violence. "You won't have a country anymore!" is enough persuasion to get them up in arms. It wasn't even true, but they scared the pants off
all politicians. Luigi Maggioni alone showed insurance CEO's that people are fed up.
Did Extinction Rebellion learn something from that? Just saying. Your side is not the only side who has 2nd amendment rights. Is your side really willing to step in front of
a bullet, to defend Exxon mobile and Shell executives or oil lobbyists?
As for wealthy oil execs and such, they can afford security. And should have the right to protect themselves.
This is where Extinction Rebellion is effective, and why they do it this way,
but I don't think their attention is motivating people to listen.
The best non-violent activism is what gets people to laugh or like you.
Then of course you need to follow it up with a clear message.
But you should see the reactions that Maggioni has encouraged. Most people acknowledge what he did was wrong, but a large majority shows hate towards the insurance industry and the people leading it to screw people over for profit.
Just today I saw someone calling him The Punisher on Facebook. And don't think those are just lefties and they are certainly not liberals. I think most of them voted
for Trump in this election. I'm sure you are meeting people who are even openly supportive of Maggioni or the idea of killing some of those robber barons.
People are angry, they just don't understand who they need to be angry with.
Of course execs have the right to protect themselves. But if they think they are safe, if the pitchforks are coming, they are kidding themselves. The fact that people are even considering a type like Trump shows that. They think he will destroy the system, but once they recognize he is also just a robber baron and his administration is filled with robber barons, who are just looking out for themselves, watch out, because the fuse is lit and that powder keg will explode. Most people want a better life for themselves and their children, they don't want to be serfs to a king, like you think they want. You know the biggest issue that people were saying made them vote for Trump, was inflation and the ability afford groceries. Even you said so. If Trump ends up screwing them, and makes them suffer even more, and it's looking like he will, people will turn on him, like you've never seen. See that anger flip the other way.
Trump is playing with fire. It can burn down the country and it can burn him.
If people haven't heard about climate change by now, they are deaf,dead or under a very heavy rock.
only registered users can see external links
Tossed out of court. New york was just looking to gouge the big oil companys out of some money
It's true that those oil companies are paying for the propaganda that you gobble up like candy though. Forcing them to pay for some of the damage they are doing wouldn't be that bad. If you still don't accept climate change, at least accept that Texans are breathing toxic air and many people cannot drink the tap water because it's pure poison. You need to suffer a lot for that oil and gas, while the alternatives are so much less polluting and cheaper.
And the water in mexico has been bad for decades, so it is not wonder the water in texas is bad because there is just a invisible line between the 2 spots.
Their water is still poisonous. In some American cities, the tap water was even flammable. only registered users can see external links
"Numerous studies link childhood lead exposure to a range of cognitive and behavioral deficits, including low IQ, impulsivity, juvenile delinquency, and criminal behavior in adolescence and early adulthood."
only registered users can see external links
The price of PV is now 29% lower than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative.
You don't have that cheapest fossil fuel alternative; you need fracking.
Michigan has a law requiring the replacement of lead service lines in homes across the state. This law was passed in 2018 in response to the Flint Water Crisis, a public health crisis that contaminated drinking water with lead.
but it was the fracking that turned the water acidic, devolving the lead.
Oh, by the way, that's a clear example of failing Republican policies.
Pollution from fracking and failing to replace lead pipes are not forces of nature.
Wildfires, because of a drought, in the middle of winter, with 100 mph storms,
are not failing policies. They 'raked the forests' like crazy, but nature cannot
be tamed, especially not with climate change making it more extreme.
California under Newsom invested $2.5 billion to ramp up and implement the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan. At some point forest management and crisis readiness is not going to cut it anymore. You will need corridors of 10 miles between every patch of trees and they will still all burn downs spontaneously. The only way to prevent wildfires would be to cut down all the forests.
Everything is possible in relation to the start of those wildfires, but a fact is that California was BONE DRY this year, while last year they even had floods.
That's nature, if you accept climate change or not. There is no amount of forest management, that can prevent forest fires, when it's bone dry. There is no fire fighting force that can stop wildfires all over the place, during droughts combined with 100 mph storms.
Next time some red states get leveled by a record hurricane, do you want me to say "Fuck them, they should have built stronger houses!"?
When Florida was in trouble they all came to help. You were crying that they weren't doing enough, which was a lie too. Now you are lying to find a reason
to do nothing for California.
So... You can't build houses in Florida no more?
How about Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. Those are all states that can get leveled by a hurricane.
Maybe even next summer.
If people cannot rely on the government anymore, when a huge 'natural' disaster destroys their homes, they all want to move to places with less risk of 'natural' disasters. What do you think will happen to those states, if there is a mass exodus? And what would happen to those safer states, where all those people want to live? Think of what it would mean to your country.
only registered users can see external links
10 times, hell, they never have to paint or update their plumbing or anything, when it gets old it gets washed away and the gov comes back and makes it new, in the same damn spot???
Even the Bible speaks of not building your castles in the sand but here it shows how folks can get permits to rebuild right back on the OCEAN FRONT. WHY??Just WHY would you invest your life savings into a house that will fall like a deck of cards to water and wind in the sand?'
only registered users can see external links
The current fires in california, they really need to look at their landscape,the chance of more wind, and rebuild accordingly if at all in the same spot. wouldn't you think it would be wiser to move to a area with adequate water and build a house to withstand fires and earthquakes ?
And you can build houses in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi, as long as they're hurricane proof and flood-proof.
That's all getting very expensive. And that's just the houses and other buildings. That ancient power grid of yours is very vulnerable to wildfires
and hurricanes too. Who's going to pay for that?
When I told you about renewable energy, to reduce carbon emissions,
to keep climate change from getting worse and worse and worse,
you worried about the costs. I told you not doing it would become
more expensive. Is that already sinking in a bit?
By that time, some middle easterner that woke up with his goat missing and will blast a bunch of nukes or something for revenge against the thief and climate change won't matter any more. besides, the materials to build a more fire proof house, are not that much more exspensive, concrete walls instead of wood, steel roof instead of shingles, steel beams driven into the ground for support instead of concrete footings. wouldn't really be that much of a transition.
I'm moving up North!".
"Reducing carbon emissions is not going to reduce the amount of storms
we have or anything else more than likely, and if it did,it would be years!" Probably decades or longer, depending on how much we reduce carbon emission. At the moment, the world is still INCREASING carbon emissions. That WILL increase storms and everything else.
True, if we nuke ourselves to extinction, climate change won't matter any more. There are many more ways for humanity to destroy itself. It's also possible aliens blow up Earth tomorrow. That's no reason to guarantee our extinction, just because oil companies want to keep making profits. Billionaires can make profits from renewable energy too, if you're more worried about them than humanity itself.
check back again next week ,perhaps we will have some more educational content!
So to what stage of climate denialism will you go in your inevitable reaction?
Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists
Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause
Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem
Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It
Stage 5: It's too Late
only registered users can see external links
You think a cow farts less than a human, even a vegan eating nothing but beans?
A single cow produces between 154 to 264 pounds of methane gas per year.
I don't want to be around the person who beats that.
The feed to meat ratio for cows is between 8-12 pound per pound (or kg/kg).
That means a person needs to fart 8 to 12 times more per pound (or kg) of
plant-based food, than a cow does, to make up for the vegetarian who farts
more than a meat-eater. You're funny, but your math sucks.
There are 1.55 billion cows in the world. You can be sure that they fart a lot more than the 8.2 billion people alive today, even if we all switch to nothing but beans.
Methane is 28 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The current CO2 concentration is 423.30 ppm (parts per million).
The current CH4 concentration is 1932.24 ppb (parts per billion).
That's 1.93224 ppm (factor 1:1000).
That makes CO2 a bigger contributor to climate change, because there is 219 times less CH4 than CO2 in the atmosphere. Even though CH4 is 28 times more potent,
it contributes 7.8 times ( 219/28 ) LESS to global warming.
Scientists have replaced the term "global warming" with the term "climate change", because of all the side effects of higher temperatures, like more extreme weather events (storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, showers, hailstorms, lightning strikes, droughts, heat-waves and even more extreme local cold spells), causing secondary effects like floods, mudslides, wildfires, melting of snow and ice on the oceans and land and rising sea levels (expanding water and melting land ice), dried up rivers
and lakes, desalination of the oceans -> reducing the thermohaline circulation.
"Yes, human-produced methane is significantly harming the climate, as methane is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes considerably to global warming. Therefore reducing human-produced methane is crucial for mitigating climate change. "
So stop farting!NOW.
Those cows are not wild animals, they are our food.
Methane is indeed a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The CH4 molecule (methane) has more bonds between atoms than CO2 molecule (carbon dioxide), and that means it can twist and vibrate in more ways, while absorbing infrared light, on its way in and out of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Absorbing infrared light -> increasing temperature. It's just plain physics.
In any case; yes every fart you let go is increasing climate change a bit.
The problem is that there's 8.2 billion people farting.
Farting is just not at all the biggest contributor to climate change.
It's the burning of fossil fuels that's the issue, and increasingly; wildfires.
"According to Cathy Whitlock at Montana State University, it "offers us a window into past conditions at high elevations since you won't see Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) growing at this elevation today - that's because the climate was warmer back when these trees grew".
Uh warmer 6000 years ago than it is NOW??? Um, OH, further down it explains VOLCANOS spewed stuff into the air preventing the sun from coming in and cooled off the earth! So i guess climate change activist will be seeding volcanos to make them erupt to cool down the earth next??
at about +0.6°C and slowly decreased to the +0.0°C around 2000 years ago.
That was at least 5000 years for that snow and ice to come back.
We have now seen an increase of the global average temperature between 1.5°C
and 2.0°C IN 50 YEARS!! That's a higher increase, in 1:100 of the time.
The last ice age was at it's lowest temperature -7°C (relative to pre-industrial global average, which is actually 13.7°C (56.7°F) -> 6.7°C (44.1°F)), 17,600 years ago.
At that time, it snowed in the SUMMER, in as far south as Dallas or Chicago.
only registered users can see external links
Average global temperatures in 2024 ranked highest in the 145-year record,
1.54°C (2.77°F) above the early industrial (1881-1910) baseline average.
The reason: The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane continued to increase and reached record annual levels in 2024, at 422 parts per million (ppm) and 1897 parts per billion (ppb) respectively. The last time Earth's CO2 levels have been so high was roughly 3 million years ago. They have beaten the levels of the intermediate warm periods between the last 5 ice ages, in the last 450,000 years.
NOAA is giving a 4% chance that 2025 will surpass 2024 as the hottest year on record and a 96% chance that it will be a top-five hottest year.
You would think barry would be trying to unload his property if the shit were true. Thousand years, who gives a shit about that. I think others will come of with better ideas in that time.
Google is NOT a good search engine when you want unbiased facts.
Duckduck go is less biased and will provide more into than you find on google.
our lives are so controlled by al gore rhythm's. The insurance exc that got shot the other day, had put into service a al gore rhythm to deny care to sick people.
Notice i stretched the word algorithm and miss spelled to reinforce my statement? Al gore, he has pushed this climate change crap and now you seldom see any thing of him.
The proof is on my page
As greenhouse gas emissions blanket the Earth, they trap the
sun's heat. This leads to global warming and climate change.
The world is now warming faster than at any point in recorded
history. Warmer temperatures over time are changing weather
patterns and disrupting the usual balance of nature.
only registered users can see external links
Global warming is not about the temperatures at the poles.
It's about the heating of the atmosphere causing melts in
areas where the averages might still be below 0* C (32* F) but
there's a longer time or higher temperature on the plus side of
the mean curve.
This causes glaciers to melt faster and, due to warmer ocean
currents under the ice caps to melt to the point of breaking off.
All that ice in liquid or solid form is what's making the ocean
levels to rise. Not by feet but by inches.
But, all people see and, may I add, in a very short sided way,
is that it the coastline stays fairly the same.
That is not the main immediate problem with global warming.
It's the other effects. As ocean waters become warmer, more
intense are the cyclonic storms. Also, those semi arid areas like the southwestern parts of the United States, are becoming dryer
and in drought.
But, let's get back to the rise in ocean levels.
A two-inch rise in ocean level would likely result in more
frequent and severe coastal flooding, particularly during
high tides, leading to increased erosion of beaches, inundation
of low-lying areas, and potential damage to infrastructure,
especially in vulnerable coastal communities; even a small
rise can significantly impact coastal ecosystems and displace
wildlife due to the increased saltwater intrusion.
This is exactly what's taking place, RIGHT NOW, in Miami Beach
and all the barrier islands from the Key West to Maine and beyond.
I don't have to remind you how severe and frequent hurricanes
have been in the last twenty years.
Yes, Brian_Mansion, if you look at an ice cube in the
freezer it will stay the same, but, you take that ice cube
and place it on a plate inside the refrigerator, where the
temperature is just a few degrees above freezing, and it
will melt in hours.
Freezers don't have climate changes.
Bottom line is this. You don't have to believe in global warming.
It occurs still and, because mankind is accelerating the process
by our release of chemicals into the atmosphere, future generations
will see the changes sooner.
Ancient Greeks believe in the existence of the atom,
but it wasn't until two hundred plus years ago that we
formally recognized what an atom is. Global warming is the same.
You, guys, don't trust Google, but it's not about trust. It's about
fact checking what Google brings to the table. Google is just a search
engine. There are many more. I believe that because search
engines don't agree with your views, views that are based on
personal experience and not in scientific facts, you put down
the search engine instead of your own beliefs.
😈
Fucking 17 degrees outside and you are still pushing global warming.
But, even so, the search engine part is still reliable with a few caviats.
Your comprehension of global warming doesn't make sense. It's not going to give balmy weather in winter. But the average temperature for this time of the year over a few years might go from 17* F to 19* F. It's still f..ing cold. Just not that cold. Those two degrees difference in the average temperature makes a huge difference in the natural order of weather related events.
You are thinking "Right here, right now". It doesn't work like that.
You do notice I get to the point fairly quickly without the word salad.
Reality is actually following the worst case predictions. Every single one of the nine years from 2015 to 2023 are the warmest nine years on record. In November, they already confirmed that 2024 was certain to be the hottest year on record.
We have already passed the +1.5°C global temperature increase that the Paris Agreement of 2015 intended to prevent.
Your stupidity will be the death of us all. The only consolation for me, is that you will suffer and die much sooner than I, because you live in a warmer climate, in a country with the selfish wealthy people in full control, who you will allow to eat you to survive.
You know nothing, you want to know nothing, which means being ignorant.
You are unable to communicate any coherent thought, which means being stupid.
+1.4 degrees in damn near 200 years and their screaming bloody murder.
What a sad state we are currently living through when SO many have virtually ZERO common sense.
That +1.4 degrees is massively increasing the frequency of extreme weather events, like heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, floods and secondary effects like wildfires, because it's an AVERAGE!!!
It's also enough to melt most land ice in the summer and not have it refilled in the winter, which will dry up many rivers and desalinate the oceans. That is already slowing and in the future stopping the thermohaline circulation (global ocean current), which transfers heat from warm areas to cold areas. That's why the warm areas are becoming even hotter, while the cold areas are not warming up or even getting colder.
In global Earth history, a few degrees lower or higher isn't much, but humanity has only been occupying all of the Earth for a few hundred years. 7,000 years ago there were 5 million people. The last Ice age ended 13,000 years ago. When the climate acted up, humanity just moved to a better climate. And we just died, A LOT.
Now humanity has surpassed 8 BILLION! Every piece of land is occupied or used
for farming, to feed the population. If the climate acts up now, there is nowhere to go for BILLIONS OF PEOPLE. The people who used to migrate/flee to other areas then,
are now IMMIGRANTS. Temperature changes that are tiny on a geological scale are devastating to such a huge population. People will fight for food and a place to live. It's already becoming too hot for human survival in many areas. My Pakistani neighbors don't have the luxury to be ignorant about climate change, like you, because they see it clearly, when they visit their family. And that's only half way
to the equator. Billions of people will flee for their lives. It has only just begun.
Nearing 200 years and it's increased by 1.4 degrees.
Which is absolutely true. Good job pointing that out. 👏
Your conveniently leaving out the fact that the temps around the poles are consistently -73 to -68 degrees. Let's deduct that 1.4 increase and guess what moron... ITS STILL WAAAAAY BELOW FREEZING! Gotdamn your stupid! In other words... MELTING! Cannot occur until +33 degrees at minimum. Someone find him his dunce cap, please!
If you don't understand that, you're not qualified to debate it.
During the last ICE AGE, the global yearly average temperature was only 5°C colder than today. The Earth is warmer now than any time in the last 100,000 years.
How about basic personal observation? When I was young, I froze my nuts off every winter. I played in hills of snow, just in our backyard, making walls of ice for snowball fights. I could skate and ride my sleigh, almost every winter. I remember many winters, when there were icicles growing from the gutter and ice flowers on the windows.
In recent winters, I hardly need a winter coat. I've only seen some wet snow, at best,
for years now. How do you explain that, with your "common sense"?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
All you are doing is referring to someone writing a paper with some half-assed speculation, that no serious scientists ever supported. I hope you know there are also many papers describing a flat earth model and a magnetic or static electric universe as an alternative for gravity. Those are loons, not scientists.
However, you support the 0.1% loons, who don't agree with the 99.9% serious scientists, who confirm climate change is real and will cause huge devastation,
just like flat-earthers who point to their papers full of BS, to justify their belief.
The Y2K bug wasn't a hoax, IT-guys just worked hard to fix it.
It wasn't that difficult, just add 2 digits to every date,
starting with the most critical systems.
As someone who has some technical knowledge, I expected you
to understand the issue and the possible implications,
but they told you it was a hoax, so you just parrot that.
No independent thinking whatsoever, even about something you know.
I wouldn't say it's the simplest science, but it isn't quantum physics.
If you just understand the physics behind it, it's undeniable.
"What makes no sense is scientist tell us there was a ice age, and there was only
1 big continent and then it all separated and so on."
Really? These are all theories supported by an incredible amount of evidence, from several fields of science. You're basically at the level of doubting that electricity exists. It isn't far removed from being a flat-earther. You're now dismissing ALL SCIENCE. How do you thing civilization even progressed to the level we have reached today? Did they read the answers in the bible?
IT WAS ALL SCIENCE!!! It's not a few experts who you need to pick sides with,
it's a process of everyone who contributes to it complementing and checking each other, with facts and logic. The tiny side that you want to believe is completely refuted, by all the others who have checked them and refute their arguments,
with facts and logic. You keep using arguments that have been completely refuted (myth busted) decades ago.
Taxing you to oblivion is just stupid propaganda. That's what the wealthy tell you, because they don't want to pay a cent to save humanity. They rather spend trillions of your tax dollars to escape to Mars. That's why Elon bought Trump.
If Putin starts nuclear war, it's all over. Do you want to make sure
humanity is decimated or ended, even if Putin doesn't do that?
What do we do, give Putin everything he wants, because he has nukes?
Do you think Putin's demands will stop after we give him Ukraine?
Will he stop, after we showed him that we are all cowering for his power?
It's called the "Peak of Mount Stupid".
Strange how someone who works in an air-conditioned office cares more
about workers dying from heat stroke than those workers themselves.
It has been like that for hundreds of years.
You lot fuck up the world, and then people with brains
have to fix your damage again.
Well, maybe this time you win, and we cannot fix it anymore.
Apparently those with brains are just practicing.
Your air conditioner is doing alot of harm to the environment because of it's freon and energy usage. plus it is making a pussy out of you physically. So do you really have the "brains" in this scenario?
When are you going to understand that those people only care about themselves?
They want you to believe we cannot organize humanity, without all serving THEM!
1) Why would the "rich folks stop providing jobs"?
Their wealth is dependent on people working for them.
You think they are so smart, but it's all the people working for them who actually CREATE the value, not those 'rich folks'. They just TAKE the value.
2) We can replace the money from those 'rich folks I hate', with PUBLIC money that is DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED. Instead of working on things that further increase the wealth of those 'rich folks I hate', we can all work on what benefits US ALL. That 'life saving technology' is not saving enough lives, because it's also mostly serving to further increase the wealth of those 'rich folks I hate'.
I KNOW poor people can't afford my salary and benefits. But we can afford
MUCH MORE THAN THEM, if we all work TOGETHER. If that money is not controlled by a few selfish assholes, but by EVERYONE DEMOCRATICALLY.
Sadly, you won't even give this a second thought, because those selfish assholes paid for your media to indoctrinate you, from birth, 24/7.
Democratic control is the difference between a big government controlling
its people and people controlling their government.
Who owns and controls "everything industrial" in your country?
What do YOU PERSONALLY own and control?
only registered users can see external links
Why do you want to die of pollution so badly?
But why do you hate public investments so much?
The Scandinavian countries have become incredibly rich from their public investments in fossil fuel investments the last many decades and now they are reinvesting that public capital in renewable energy. They not only have the highest percentages in renewable energy, it has created a social security capital of incredible value for their citizens, their national debt is very low, and they're becoming energy exporters, with the Swedish national energy company Vattenfall making big profits selling their great value electricity on the privatized markets of the other European countries.
Private investments make money for billionaires, public investments make money
for the citizens. It's easy to understand. It's COMMON SENSE!!!
You are describing PRIVATE investments.
The military, fire department and police are publicly funded.
Corporations, companies and mom and pop shops are privately funded.
Do you think Sweden's renewable energy is funded by; 1 person investing a million, another investing $450 and a third investing $10?
Or are you a million years old, and it's personal observation?
Now the owners of all these homes with government paid for insolation, can't sell them because the banks won't lend money on them. Government approved work, warrantied work , but still ,won't loan money on the house. so the folks are having to try scrap the shit back out of their attics themselves or face a huge labor bill to do it.
There are many ways to insulate a house, that do not have this problem.
Spray foam insulation has it's uses, but it's dumb to use it everywhere.
That's not the fault of "do gooder government programs", that's the fault of stupid people using cheap crap or bad building companies selling people cheap crap.
Maybe these people were warned against it, did it anyway, and are now crying foul.
A friend discussed having his cavity walls filled with spray foam insulation. I advised against it, unless he found a company with a very good track record, and he wasn't going to skimp on the price. Some bad companies have been poisoning people with cheap foam and some houses have been damaged by the walls getting dislocated from the foam expanding too strongly. I've advised him to insulate his floors and roof instead,
but I would never advise anyone to use spray foam for that.
His house also has the worst double glazing that was ever sold and his windows and balcony door don't close properly. My brother will fix those problems for a tight budget,
as soon as he has time available. Improving a house with insulation requires a brain.
If you just have some company spray foam everything, you might ruin your house.
Just because some people were dumb, doesn't mean insulating houses is a bad idea
or the government is bad for incentivizing it. Don't abuse some anecdote to forward
your propaganda. Insulation reduces energy costs and increases the value of a house.
But, like with everything else, if you are doing it wrong, you will mess it up.
I know it exists, but I have heard of no one who used spray foam insulation for their floor or roof in my country. Maybe Americans are more cheap and lazy than Dutch people.
If that is your claim, you need to show the evidence for that.
Did your government pay for it completely? Total reimbursement?
Or was it a subsidy or a tax deductible?
Why? To incentivize insulating homes, of course.
We have the same system. We can get subsidies or tax deductibles for solar panels, double glazing and home insulation. It helps people reduce their carbon emissions, reduce costs and increase their quality of living.
They don't of course intentionally spend money to damage people's houses.
If you think that, right-wing propaganda messed-up your brain.
Either someone in the government fucked up or companies are taking money from the government, try to make the most money from it and don't care that it hurts people.
Government officials often make bad decisions, because they don't know shit and never listen to anyone who does know. This is exactly the type of officials Trump wants to fill the government with. They will all be stupid as fuck, because Trump only cares that they are loyal to him, so better get used to it becoming much worse.
The Green Homes Grant scheme, which ran in England, saw installations completely subsidised for those on certain benefits.
I think this means the UK government paid for this to be done to 250,000 houses!
It looks like a lot of people got money from the government to insulate their houses.
I guess that very much angers you. You seem to think only wealthy people should
get money from the government.
only registered users can see external links
The following insulation measures were covered by the voucher:
solid wall insulation (internal or external)
cavity wall insulation
under-floor insulation (solid floor, suspended floor)
loft insulation
flat roof insulation
pitched roof insulation
room in roof insulation
insulating a park home
I see no obligation to use spray foam insulation. However, cavity wall insulation,
that's usually some kind of foam insulation, because there is no other way to insulate a hollow space trough a small hole.
In any case, I watch a lot of home makeover TV shows. On the American and Canadian shows, like Love It or List It, Fixer Upper and Celebrity IOU, I've seen them use spray foam insulation several times. I've NEVER seen it on Dutch home makeover TV shows. I can also not remember it ever being used in my favorite British home makeover TV show; DIY SOS.
Trump is going to destroy The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
That's an agency which has the sole purpose of protecting consumers from...
"fraud type things".
How do you protect people from getting defrauded by businesses like that?
REGULATION! And things like quality marks. And giving people access to the
court system and equal justice, instead of corrupt judges who are put in by Trump, to favor big business. And laws that make it illegal to scam people, which would e.g. send Vivek Ramasmarmy to jail, for scamming investors.
Trump will give businesses full rein to scam you, steal from you and destroy your property, if they can make money doing it.
1 of these big universities that had safe spaces for the students after Trump won the election, that the very folks that would allow themselves to be indoctrinated into driving electric cars, is now saying don't charge them at night.
Like when the hell do you charge it if not during off peak hours from industrial demand????
only registered users can see external links
So now we are going to have "water nuts" trying to put water back in the ground to retilt the earth? Or do we just tax water? that's it,a tax will fix it, fixes everything else right?
What you should care about is completely using up all the ground water, because then you cannot use it anymore. A lot of American agriculture is depended on that ground water, and when it's gone, that agriculture becomes impossible or economically not-viable. In any case, the prices for groceries you pay now will be dirt cheap in comparison.
Chicken little was alive and well way back when!
only registered users can see external links
Aoc said we had 12 years in 2019 so um.
AOC said we have 12 years to DO something, NOT 12 years to LIVE, dumb-ass.
We had 12 years to reduce the carbon emissions by a lot, because at some point,
which was then estimated to be around 12 years from then, chain reactions make it
very difficult and much more expensive to stop climate change.
When forests turn into deserts, because areas are getting too hot for trees, or they
get destroyed by wildfires, that's a chain reaction. It doesn't mean we all die right then,
it just means the worst of climate change becomes inevitable or it requires the total collapse of civilization to save humanity.
You worry that climate action will return us to the middle ages. If humanity had started doing more a few decades ago, that wouldn't have been necessary at all. Most of the energy would have already been coming from renewable sources. However, the longer humanity waits with the energy transition, the more drastic measures will be necessary. You're supporting the culture that results in humanity having to return to the middle ages.
If humanity doesn't do anything, the climate disasters will make the middle ages feel like
a walk in the park.
Some of the points of no return are already flipping. Many of the predictions have been proven too be too optimistic and instead of following the mean predictors, the reality actually follows more the worst case predictors.
Either you don't understand it or you are straw-manning.
only registered users can see external links
if it is this simple,why don't we all just bring our mirrors out of the bath room and put them out in the yard to reflect the sun back to it's self??
It's all funded by the fossil fuel industry, so they can keep polluting the Earth.
Just as the campaign "Protecting Our Planet Starts with You".
All funded by the fossil fuel industry, to shift the responsibility away.
By the way, I don't want to breath diamond particles into my lungs.
I don't think that's particularly healthy.
only registered users can see external links
Do you think everyone is still using the same thermometers as 100 years ago?
We have seen the fastest temperature rise in the past few decades, when the technology of measuring basic shit like temperature has been the most accurate ever.
This is at a level of flat earth 'science' ridiculous. You're kidding right?
How about the measurements of the CO2 concentration rising?
How about all the glaciers disappearing?
How about just basic human observation, that it is getting fucking hot more often
in summer and way less cold in winter?
now just who subsidized this project, and who will have to cough up repair cost?
Now tell me, how many coal plants were damaged in the hurricane?
have a flood? Kill the officials in charge
Hurricane Helene is flooding many parts over there.
And how about South Carolina? Mass flooding over there too.
With at least 25 killed in South Carolina, Helene is the deadliest tropical cyclone
for the state since Hurricane Hugo killed 35 people, in 1989.
you might like that way of Trump being "the boss" too. Trump
Seeing the ocean was at record high temperatures, every meteorologist predicted
a heavy hurricane season. It's not good that it happened, but to be expected.
It's just going to get worse.
I can't get it to open as i don't pay for the service but there is a new article out now about climate change.
only registered users can see external links
"why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?"
No idea how they claimed it then, but it's certainly wrong now:
only registered users can see external links
Your second link refers to Bjшrn Lomborg as a scientist, but he is not a CLIMATE scientist or PHYSICS scientist, he has a PhD in POLITICAL science. His environmental economics research is based around the claim that climate action will be more expensive than the effects of climate change. To support his claims, he has widely underestimating the effects. He wrote about the global warming "hiatus", in the 2010s, which were shown to be based on faulty statistics. He predicted that the earth would have stopped warming by now, but instead the earth is warming up faster now, than in the 2010s. He was wrong then and he is wrong now.
The guy comes from Denmark, a country which is running on 81.4% electricity from renewable sources. Their government debt accounts for 34.0% of the country's Nominal GDP. Their living standards are among the highest in the world. Obviously, their climate action has not damaged their country. His own country is proving him wrong.
That Newsmax article starts with "Polar bears are thriving.."
That's a lie, about 26,000 animals of one species is not "thriving",
that's at best a lower risk of them going extinct soon.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
so the globe doesn't care about US, it cares about the plants
Most humans at least care about themselves, but even that is not unanimous.
In any case, I think it's in my own best interest to care about humanity and the world.
I'd like humanity to be humane and the world to keep being hospitable.
I can do two things at the same time; I concentrate on what improves my own life,
while also doing my part in improving humanity and the world, because they AFFECT my own life.
Focusing on making more money is futile, if the world around me turns to shit.
I cannot buy a ticket to a better world. Elon Musk seems to think he can (Mars),
but he is stupid that way. We would need to completely destroy Earth, for Mars
to suck less.
You don't practice what you preach. You are focusing on the world around you more than me. You are always talking about how you want to shape your country to make lazy people work and to keep out immigrants. The difference between you and me is that your priorities for the world are shaped by learned animosity towards other poor and powerless people, who are just trying to survive under difficult circumstances, while my priorities for the world are focusing on the wealthy and powerful people,
who actually have a choice in the circumstances they create, for themselves and EVERYONE ELSE.
It's just a fact, and the sooner people start accepting facts - or provide verifiable data that can be held to peer review to show they are not facts, the sooner we can get past this silly debate.
The amount of greenhouse gasses emitted today, and every day is extremely large. Meanwhile the atmosphere is not. Sure, it looks infinite on a clear day, but fully half of that air is packed within the first 18,000 feet - or 3 miles. That's a distance a reasonably healthy child could walk if it were not straight up.
The atmosphere we live in is a lot less than we perceive it to be with our eyes, and the number of tons of greenhouse gasses greatly affects the capture of heat. That's not subject to serious debate. It's simply a fact. And for one to deny it only demonstrates their lack of reason.
Nothings perfect but this climate change thing is alot of bs.
It was global cooling then global warming and since that didn't fit, they call it climate change.
If your government invested public money into renewable energy and kept ownership of the production, you would have a massive return on investment for the public.
Now it's just wealthy renewable energy moguls competing with wealthy fossil fuel moguls. YOU PERSONALLY supported that system and now you argue against it?
Who gets rich of fossil fuels? In capitalism, there is always someone on the end
getting rich of EVERYTHING, no matter if it's good or bad.
That's why I support a specific version of socialism, that benefits the public
with everything good and eliminates as much as possible everything bad.
I call it social capitalism; democratic control over the capital, the means of production and labor. When you go to work, democracy stops and you are in a dictatorship.
I support democracy, not dictatorships. Stop supporting FEUDALISM!
You don't care about a million times worse pollution, when fossil fuels are causing it,
so stop using it as an argument to push those fossil fuels.
Global cooling was one article decades ago, before decades of reality statistically confirmed global warming. They changed the term to climate change, because it's just the GLOBAL AVERAGE temperature going up. That can cause fluctuations in weather patterns other than just warming. It can cause floods here, droughts there, and all sorts of other extreme weather including short local periods of extreme cold. Mostly those cold periods are getting rare, but there is a possibility of them returning.
The global saline gulfstream is being reduced by melting water from all the land-ice melting away. When that gulfstream stops, no more cold water is transported to the equator and no more warm water is transported to the arctic. That makes the warm areas warmer and the cold areas colder. It's possible that Scandinavian countries get colder and South American countries even warmer. That's why it's called 'climate change', because global warming IS JUST AN AVERAGE.
only registered users can see external links
You are the first person I ever heard from who ever mentioned global cooling in this current era. That must be a joke. If not, it removes your opinion from any serious conversation about the topic.
only registered users can see external links
they call it a conjecture but if you remember the dinosaurs were thought to be made extinct by volcano emissions not letting the sun in allowing the earth to cool
The funny thing is, the government thinks our memorys are to short. they try to put all knowledge online so it can be changed with a mouse clic and no one can verify something they saw days before.much less decades .
I had the foresite to save alot of books and such in my youth and I am so glad I did.
Almost no one remembers Y2K. A BIG bogus bunch of shit that cost the world millions of dollars to turn out to be a big nothing. global cooling, Y2K, now, climate change. which hoax will you fall for today?
of anthropogenic WARMING dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.
only registered users can see external links
It's just propaganda from big oil, to keep pointing to 'global cooling'.
We now have over 50 years of additional data, clearly showing a global average temperature INCREASE, that can only be explained by emissions of greenhouse gases from the use of fossil fuels, breeding of livestock and by the reduced capacity of nature to absorb greenhouse gases due to the destruction of forests.
Actually, there is lots of evidence for the extinction of the dinosaurs having been caused by a huge asteroid or comet slamming into the Yucatбn Peninsula 65 million years ago, blocking sunlight, changing the climate and setting off global wildfires.
It left the Chicxulub Crater, which is 125-mile-wide. Asteroids and comets have relatively large abundances of iridium. There is a layer of iridium-peppered rock,
65 million years old, all over the world, but with the highest concentrations of iridium, the closest to the impact site. Volcanoes don't contain high concentrations of iridium.
True, volcano eruptions can also affect the climate, which is why they need to be accounted for in climate change statistics. They can measure the effects that the Krakatoa eruption of 1883 had on the climate. It cooled the entire Earth by an average of 0.6°C for months.
Y2K wasn't bogus or a hoax, it was just fixed by IT specialists, by adding two digits
to the dates in all the important software. Easy, but damn important.
Before you mention it; the hole in the ozone layer is now slowly shrinking,
because the world heavily regulated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Any other misinformation? DAMN!
And no one has ever responded to a basic question alot of folks have.
IF the global cooling and other stuff was misinformation, how do we know we are getting facts in regard to the latest rage of climate change? 20 years from now i could be vindicated as it could be discovered the Luminati was behind it all!
I know,i am being silly with the luminati thing but just used it for a example.
The misinformation is the claim that global cooling was just as widely accepted as global warming. It wasn't in the 1970's and it certainly isn't now.
If the Illuminati tried to meddle with temperature data, that would be identified by everyone and anyone involved. Temperature measurement data is recorded everywhere and can be checked against lots of other measurements, history and just the memory of people. They would have to break in to every public and private meteorology organization in the world, to fake the data, which would then not agree with books, newspapers, photographs, etc. The data is correct. Do you agree or not? Then it's just a matter of statistics. The trend is just apparent, any way you look at it. All the measurements go up, no matter if you look at the poles or the equator or you backyard. Sometimes you deny this fact itself, sometimes you acknowledge it, but claim it is a natural trend. Well, to justify a natural trend, you need to explain not just the temperature rising, but also the carbon dioxide concentration rising. Is the upwards trend in the carbon dioxide concentration also faked by the Illuminati? Every laboratory worth a dime can just measure it, whenever they feel like it and come to a very similar carbon dioxide concentration, of around 422.10 ppm today. Can that be faked? Or were all the lower measurements in history faked?
I'm curious how you explain that two sets of data, that can be verified in millions of ways, are faked.
Can they fake my decades old memories and photographs of my brother and me playing in the snow, making snow forts and snowmen, having snowball fights and skating, most winters? Just like me, many people have photos and memories of white Christmases and icy new-years. There are records and scars of broken bones due to winter weather. All of that history, slowly changing to the new normal today, where I hardly need a winter coat. People had snow-tires and snow-chains in my youth, while I recently considered if I still need all-weather tires or just rely on summer-tires. Can the Illuminati fake all of that?
Those are all things happening in one life-time. For everything else, I do have to rely on science. That doesn't mean you have to TRUST science. You don't, you VERIFY science, against all your data and all your knowledge. If their information or deduction is wrong, it wouldn't be difficult to see. I have enough scientific experience to identify it being wrong enough to fake a conclusion. There are tens of millions of people with more scientific experience than me to identify mistakes or meddling. Are all those people dumb or dishonest? Are they all bribed by the the Illuminati? Why would all those people want to believe or accept bribes to lie about a global problem of such impact to everyone's lives? Don't you think I have better things to do? There are enough problems to solve already. I wouldn't want to believe this, I just cannot help to accept it, because reality itself demonstrates
it's the truth.
Scientists are often wrong, that's why science is a process of checking each other. Here is an example of a science article being wrong and one scientist looking over it and seeing many mistakes in just minutes.
only registered users can see external links
She looks at climate science too. She considers most of it to be too careful.
There are millions like her. There are only a few that say climate change is wrong and the use your arguments; simplistic bullshit that only fools people like you.
The fact that you must cling to the idea that they once suspected it was caused by car exhaust, and can't seem to get past that it wasn't 100% accurate, and you can't seem to have a flexible mind to accommodate new information is why I have to completely dismiss your ideas. Nobody had the proof of a large meteorite that struck and so obviously they had other ideas about dinosaur extinction. Scientists adapt to new information. You should too.
But then you start adding that crap about how "the government...", as if there was a single entity that is out to get us all in some grand conspiracy.
Too bad you didn't use your "foresite" and reading to learn how the word foresight is constructed. Too bad you don't realize that the millions were spend prior to Y2000 to preemptively *correct* the problems that could occur if nothing was done. It was a "big nothing" because people addressed the problem. Unless of course you believe the weirdos that were saying that at midnight planes would fall out of the sky.
This all goes back to my initial remark. It doesn't matter what you believe or not. Science has established facts as well as human beings are able to establish. Anecdotes about them being wrong are laughable. If you want your ideas taken with any seriousness, provide verifiable data. A few little random "factiods" doesn't cut it.
You don't know a damn bit more than anyone else.you just know what you believe because someone with a degree and some funding tells you this and this and you eat it up.
Think vacuum cleaner salesman, same as a scientist ,trying sell a vacuum or trying to sell a idea, theory, for more research funding.
How many of these experts are working for free or expenses only?
good for you.
so you hadn't been out of college long before i was in college learning how to write computer language and such
They refuse to believe facts that debunk their beliefs, they don't have any facts that support their believes.
All over Eastern Europe are now huge areas flooded from ridiculous amounts of rain. That can happen in the US too.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
How about hurricanes, extreme heat, wildfires and drought?
It's not just your own damage that impacts you.
If your countrymen get flooded, that impacts you too.
It will impact your economy and how much taxes you pay.
Damage to infrastructure needs to be paid for, by you too.
It affects the political choices that affect you too.
It impacts the prices you pay for food, water and power.
And even the availability of food, water and power.
You're not alone. They faith of all people is connected.
They keep flipping from point 1 to point 3:
1) Nothing is happening
2) OK, something is happening, but it's natural
3) OK, maybe humanity is causing it, but we cannot do anything about it
I say to that:
1) Really? Am I imagining things?
2) Oh? How then?
3) Why? Why can't we stop causing it? Are we lemmings?
When something is true, you shouldn't have to flip between arguments.
Which side is consistent and has the answers to the questions?
I guess you are at point 2) or 3)
I think in solutions, preferring to prevent the harm, instead of imagining
a place to hide, when the world turns against us for destroying it.
Humanity has survived by solving problems. Should we stop doing that
just because some wealthy assholes make a lot of money from fossil fuels?
Why? Wealthy assholes can make money from renewables too.
only registered users can see external links
Phoenix hits 100 degrees for the 100th day in a row
only registered users can see external links
"...there’s no end in sight to triple-digit days in the forecast."
Arizona is hot,dry as a popcorn fart and does not even allow people to have anything on their property that holds water from rain.
been that way for a while.
I'm very happy to live in a mild climate.
Strange how so many climate change deniers live in such hot states.
They literally feel the results every summer, but they chose not to believe it.
I can't help but laugh when I see walter, kinda like looking in the mirror.
only registered users can see external links
Jeff Dunham is very funny. Nice that we both enjoy it.
Can you also enjoy Jim Jefferies, or is he too liberal?
How about Ricky Gervais? Is he anti-woke enough already?
Even penis sheath wearing Papuas have heard of these.
Jim Jefferies: only registered users can see external links
Ricky Gervais: only registered users can see external links
by my girlfriend, who didn't want it to ruin a nice day out.
I made a hint about something worsening from climate chance, to which he replied that all of climate chance was recently debunked, by the Technical University of Delft, something about soil composition not matching. So, later, I spend an hour searching the internet for any news or scientific article about that. I couldn't find anything even loosely related to that. So, it was just another 'trust me bro'.
If there is science debunking climate change, that will be all over the news 24 hours later.
It days later now, and I'm still waiting.
I'm not allowed to ask him for the article, because it's her side of the family.
Has anyone heard of such a topic not matching with climate change, recently?
only registered users can see external links
Soil can also influence climate on a smaller scale. Soils that are wetter or denser hold heat and stabilize the surroundings from temperature changes more so than drier, looser soils. The temperature in deserts may increase by more than 60°F during the course of a day.
Soils and Climate
Soil Science Society of America
only registered users can see external links › iys › november-soils-overview
The temperature of dry climates or above dry land definitely fluctuates more than wet climates or above wet lands.
If the soil composition changes over time, that can have an effect on the climate.
One example is when the Russian tundra isn't frozen as much anymore. That starts a rotting process that releases CO2 and CH4. It's one of the 'tipping points'.
It was fun. There was a learning curve though, because there is no real dashboard to speak of and except for the signals and drive selector, everything is on that center display.
Driving itself is a breeze. The acceleration is eye-watering. That was the fun part.
It's practical enough too. I could charge it 100 ft from my house, while I need to drive several miles for a gas-station with somewhat acceptable prices.
The Tesla Supercharger is also closer to my house than that gas-station.
It could charge the battery from 60% to 80% in 5 minutes. And it was cheap.
Of course, it's a very expensive car. I won't buy it, unless I become a lot richer.
Most people don't buy a Tesla, but have it leased with their job. Not my job though.
The car is 50% gimmick. Most of the price is related to all the sensors and the
eye-watering acceleration. If they dropped all the nonsense and just delivered the
sensible type of car, that I drive now, it could be very similar in price.
Did you try the self drive?
I have found a situation where the self drive or at least assisted driving is a good thing.
A friends daughter has Pots.
only registered users can see external links
So her husband chose to buy a Tesla for their new car and there is a way to program different "modes" for driving.
He programmed in a " Casey" mode,her name, when she drives, if she lets go of the wheel for more than like 2 seconds, the car starts talking" Casey,are you ok?" and then buzzers go off and the car slows down and the flasher turn on, if no response it pulls it's self over to the side of the road and stops.
It has all the sensors though. It shows all cars, in a wide radius on screen.
It even distinguishes cars, trucks and motorbikes. It shows a light for them braking.
It does have adaptive cruise control, but I've had that before, in a rental.
It was set on one pedal regenerative braking. I have touched the actual braking pedal only a few times.
On a 60 mph straight highway, with trajectory control, it was practical, but very boring.
Yeah, it kept warning me, with 'bing bing bing' (lol) and no idea what for.
And it saw a 40 mph sign on the other lane and thought I was speeding.
No matter how rich I was, and how much luxury and service I could afford in a car,
they can keep that 'service' OUT! Show the speed limit, but shut the fuck up!
Really funny when the damn thing is UPSIDE DOWN in the middle of the road where it slid and flipped over on ice.
That's some creative design. I never saw anything like it.
Did they do that voice because of Knight Rider?
I'm used to navigation talking, but the car itself... No thank you.
My first navigation system was a PDA with external GPS.
You could install many different voices on it.
I installed our Dutch porn-star Kim Holland on it.
What she had recorded wasn't X-rated, but pretty erotic.
I also used voices from someone imitating our soccer coach
Johan Cruijff and the soccer brothers Frank and Ronald de Boer.
You can unlock more power but in AU its 10k same price as unlocking the auto drive, so that's all not unlocked in theirs's either.
Has some little nic nac features, well heaps of them, like you can make the horn many of the std sounds or you can upload one into the car. I tried to convince then to load in a machine gun mp3, they wouldn't be in it, but if it was mine it would be the first thing I would do 😁
A while back auto steer was unlocked for free, it works ok but you have to keep engaging with the steering wheel from time to time, its a bit annoying really I find holding onto the wheel a better option.
Auto pilot over here can only work on highways, I believe in America & Europe it works every where, I might not be correct on that.
One really cool feature of it, using your app in a shopping center, you can have the car come to you, that would be pretty cool
I've seen a Model 3 pull away once. That was not 'acceleration', that was instant speed.
It seems like the law gets an extra job, every time Tesla invents a new gimmick.
Or can it wait until someone is upside down in a ditch, for trying to avoid what they think is another mass shooter? It does open up traffic nicely though.
Maybe the 3 has free auto steer and it's an option on the Y.
It's only legal in The Netherlands if you're in it, and paying attention.
That would be even more boring on the freeway than just steering.
It's not allowed to have the car drive alone.
That would create insurance and legal liability issues.
It's also creating dilemmas like is the car supposed to protect the owner at all cost
or should it prioritize the lives of multiple pedestrians over the life of the owner.
That's not important at crawling speed, but it's an issue that they are already
struggling with.
That screen asks for too much of the driver's attention.
They can compensate the design choice of leaving out a dashboard,
or they can do what car builders have optimized in the last 100 years.
I would not buy a Tesla, I would buy an electric car, which is 100% car.
I wouldn't want to daily drive something that's 50% gimmick.
That one is $121.397 in my country.
But, I've seen aftermarket instrument clusters, for all models.
That's a sign that people are getting annoyed with that design choice.
He told me about how it has seat and steering and mirror settings programmed for him and his wife. If they have the dog with them and need to go in a store,it has "pet mode" where the screen says "I am fine,it is xx degrees in here".
Also has a "keep" mode for keeping your grocerys from getting to hot as you run other errands. It still has it's temp tag and he has the self drive for 30 days free.8000 dollar option to leave it on. He turned it on, and a few miles down the road it made a panic stop for a car crossing a 1/4 mile ahead of him,so he turned it off.
said he would not buy it.
Alot of thought went into the design for sure.
only registered users can see external links
I realize I need to get some charcoal filtered underpants to do my part for the environment but how do you dispose of them in a environmentally friendly way?
long as i can make me some lumber out of 2 others!
Uh, so how can you have it both ways?
only registered users can see external links
Place is nothing but desert except for right around the edges, why bother with a park in the middle of nowwhere?
I don't understand what you're trying to argue.
Why bother? A 'national park' is not a park for people, but for nature.
Almost all wild animals are turning into 'endangered species'.
If the radiation is gone and there's no other pollution, it's a better solution to rewild it,
than to leave a fucking dead hole in the ground. It could be a lake with high biodiversity.
It might even be a start to turning that desert green. Weren't you supporting the Republican 'plan' to plant 1 trillion trees? Is it in Project 2025?
1 Trillion trees won't all fit in your backyard.
It entails at least turning all deserts into forests.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sure, many liberals think the world is saved with electric cars and nuclear power.
That's escapism too. Electric cars won't help much against climate change,
but it saves the car. It's a solution from Elon Musk... Take a hint!
Nuclear power is exchanging a current crisis for a future crisis.
Nuclear power isn't that 'green' and it is very expensive.
Solar, wind, water, geothermal and even bio-fuels are all better alternatives.
Those are all actually renewable. Uranium is still a fossil fuel. Gone is gone.
You cannot recycle uranium, but end up with highly radioactive waste for 100,000 years.
I don't support nuclear.it is very dangerous.
Human error can happen with the best of tech.But I doubt 1000's of people would die because of a faulty solar panel.
only registered users can see external links
It's your bias to think everything you think is bad is supported by the others.
You never do any research to check your ideas.
Now you know Republicans mostly support nuclear power, you will either just accept that, maybe even switch your position, or you will keep denying it.
Trump is a big supporter of nuclear power and is planning to put the nuclear weapons programs on steroids. Remember that he wanted to nuke hurricanes?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
In my country, nuclear power is much more a right-wing idea.
Our large corporate right-wing party, the VVD clearly states in it's program that new nuclear power plants should be build.
Our Christian right-wing party, the CDA clearly states in it's program that we need nuclear energy.
Our populist extreme right-wing 'party' (with just one member; Geert Wilders) even has a plan to have Henri Muntert's handyman company build four new nuclear power plants.
Our small right-wing Christian fundamentalist party, which just recently allowed women to participate, supports building new nuclear power plants.
Our totally corrupt right-wing populist party, FvD, strongly supports nuclear energy.
The 'liberals' are D66 and PvdA. D66 supports nuclear power, because they say we need it for a carbon neutral future, to combat climate change. The PvdA has always been against nuclear power, but switched their position about 20 years back, when they turned from left to centrist. Then they lost massive support. They went from 42 seats to 9 seats, in 14 years. They learned from that mistake and moved back to the left. In 2023, they joined with the Green Party (GroenLinks), creating GroenLinks-PvdA. Now their program states that there should be no new nuclear power plants, because nuclear power is neither safe nor cost effective.
Our Green Party (GroenLinks) clearly stated in their program:
- No new nuclear power plants
- A ban on subsidizing nuclear power plants in Europe
My Socialist Party even organized a national demonstration against nuclear power.
300 dollar item.
Using a dose of UV light in lungs infected with Covid, strong enough to kill the virus, would kill the patient about 100 times faster. The worst sunburn ever, in the most delicate and vital tissue. Besides, you might kill the few viruses in the lungs, but they are everywhere in the body.
Actually, it's even wrong to say "killing viruses", because they are not really alive in the first place. They are just a capsule made of protein with genetic material inside. They don't multiply by themselves, like bacteria, fungi and other single celled organisms, they need a host. To 'kill' them, means destroying the capsule and/or the genetic material inside to such an extend that the virus is unable to infect the host or the genetic material doesn't work anymore.
A short burst of UV light can damage the genetic material slightly, while still allowing the virus to infect the host. You're actually creating mutants that way. It might be a mutant that can kill people more effectively. During my studies, we even used UV light to mutate bacteria. We wanted to create a mutant that would be able to break down poisonous hydrocarbons. We needed to be very careful with that UV light, because it could burn your eyes and skin in seconds, but we dosed the bacteria for minutes. That was not enough to kill them, just enough to damage their genetic material slightly. It didn't work, but we did find micro-organisms that were able to break down those poisonous hydrocarbons in soil that was contaminated with those poisonous hydrocarbons. Nature already provided the mutants that we needed.
You can also kill viruses with bleach or with ionizing radiation, on a surface or as air particles. You can even kill viruses with soap, in about 20 seconds. You can't do that in a human body, because the body is in the way. The virus is hiding in the cells and in the blood. If you replaced the blood with soap or bleach, the veins would be temporarily cleaned and the virus would be dead there. The patient would be also dead as a door-nail. If the patient miraculously survived, once you put in clean blood, viruses from other tissues would immediately reinfect the blood and veins.
If you tried to kill all the viruses in the cells of the patient, with a chemical or radiation, the patient would be long dead before the virus is even affected.
If you don't understand that, you're just as oblivious as Trump.
It is impossible to 'kill' a virus with radiation or chemicals, because a virus consists of protein and DNA or RNA, just like the person it has infected.
There is no type of radiation or chemical that can specifically destroy the protein
or DNA or RNA of the virus and not the protein or DNA of the patient.
What you can use to specifically attack the virus and leave the body intact are antibodies, either created in a bioreactor (biotechnology) or by inducing the body to make the antibodies; vaccination or immunotherapy.
They saved Trump from Covid with Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies,
not with Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin, you can be sure of that.
You can be sure, because that's what they use(d) for important people.
Even Joe Rogan got it, after saying he could trust his immunity, for weeks.
He would have probably been fine, so he took scarce life-saving medicine away from someone who needed it more than him, because he's rich.
Trump would have probably died. I don't fault any system that prioritizes their top government officials above some random people. I just observe that people who spread the anti-vaxxer or anti-science rhetoric will always listen to their doctor
or the actual science, as soon as they are at risk themselves.
Everyone at Fox'News' was forced to vaccinate. The channel was spreading
anti-vax propaganda, but did the opposite themselves. The anti-science ideas are just to distract and confuse the masses, but they don't believe a word
of anything they say themselves.
Aint this nice? They take that government handout and then go tits up. Liberals constantly complain about Trump,Robison and others using bankruptcy and now this, I wonder what liberals will say to this?
there are lots of selfish assholes gearing up to scam them.
By the way, as of January 2024, there are 11,091 solar panel installation companies
in the US. There are 514 Solar Power businesses in the US as of 2023,
an increase of 22.8% from 2022. Those 'government handouts' are working.
How about those 'government handouts' from Trump?
Seen any money back from the PPP loans? Did they not fire people?
Did the 6 TRILLION DOLLARS he pumped into the stock market help you?
'Government handouts' are mostly a Republican thing, you just don't think so,
because the handouts go to wealthy people and never to the people who need it
or to goals that would actually Make America Great Again. They are LYING to you!
Trust me guys not having a go at either of you, I consider both of you to be my friends I just wanted to chuck my 2 cents worth in for the hell of it
Phart mate, caught my attention mentioning something of Australia, just to correct you on something, the "Kakadu National Park" up in the NT was a national park prior to the mine opening up, funnily enough about a year prior to the mine opening with a deal stuck with the "traditional landowners" to allow the mine to open up, it was all about money & very controversial, it was a common thing to hear about this mine through its operations in local (Australian) news broadcasts through the period of operation , local bands like "Midnight Oil" wrote songs about it in the past & so forth, it is unlikely if the traditional land owners were not involved & the park was owned by the state alone, chances are the mine would not have existed. The traditional landowners of this country take tittle to many lands within Australia causing trouble to obtain FREE money, from well, basically the white taxpayers of this country, sounds raciest, well maybe it is, even some local parks & councils, like council chambers & stuff they have taken claim to its all about getting money for FREE, so they can lease back, its a big problem.
Like I have said & mentioned many times, if the Dutch or Chinese colonized the country, there would be no traditional land owner problem, they all would have been shot on cocolonization bit over 200 years ago, its called genocide these days, but way back when I like to call it conquering nations, but we were colonized by the British, they liked to fuck little black girls 🤷♀️
Now for you my Dutch mate, as far as I understand, humans have 2 basic ways to generate power/energy
1. Turn a turbine:
Typically done with some type of boiler system, more or less heating water & harnessing its energy, there are other ways of course like wind farming that uses the power of wind to turn a turbine & Hydra also using the force of flow of water to turn a turbine, they would be the most common I would imagine, there would be others I am sure. Oh & nuclear to basically boil water, how could I forget that 🤭
2. Harnessing the suns solar energy:
So catching that energy via solar panels & chucking it into a grid or storing it in batteries for use later on, in Australia particularly in the state I live in ya can chuck some panels up on ya roof, heavily subsidized by the state government, typically these systems do not have the capability of storage, so the idea is, while your panels are being energized & you don't use all the power, the excess gets shoved into the grid, you get a subsidy for that, then once the sun goes down you have to pay to get the power back at a higher price then what you sold it for, but typically efficiently set up solar paneled household have a minimal bill at the end of the month, depending on how big your system is you may get a small refund although usually unlikely.
There are higher grades of this types of system, Tesla as one example, so you have a lithium storage bank set up beside your house, so you store your own power to use while the sun is not shinning, its my guess, I don't know the fundamentals of this type of system, but I would imagine once the storage bank is full, excess power would be bleed off & be shoved back into the grid which you would be paid for, however these types of systems are much more expensive & the government subsidy would fall well short of set up costs.
Also mate something I have picked up on. You have mentioned it a few times now that a EPV is not going to save the world it will save the automobile, your opinion on this matter I believe is 100% correct, in many countries like mine there is a target of 0 emissions & part of that is to can the internal combustion engine vehicle, sold new at some point/year, like phart I think evolving hybrid tec is a better option, perhaps using a hydrogen powered powered plant to produce power to energize the batteries carried on board & why not advance solar tec so your car look like a regular painted car so it is capturing the suns energy to change the power cells so the engine has less work to, I have a G Shock watch for example that uses solar energy to power the batteries, the solar panel is part of the glass watch face, not like solar powered watches from yesteryear, where a small solar panel was visible, why not use this technology in the windshield & rear shield of a modern modern Hybrid vehicle, most of which are driven during the daylight hours & cuck a few wind turbines in the front grill of that car to assist in power generation lessening the time the engine needs to be on to power the batteries, creatin les co2.
Australia has one of the lowest C02 emotions in the world, whey you might ask, we don't produce anything any more, well very little at all, we used to manufacture & build cars, the last of those were Holden(Chev), Ford & Toyota, no longer that's been gone for quite a few years now, we no longer produce a single car in this country, so the pollution created form this is somewhere else in the world. Our fords seem to be European, our holdens (Chev) appear to be American or maybe European as what is commonly known as the Commodore was originally formed from a European Opal.
Australia has many natural stocks & recourses, Uranium coal & iron (mostly), we export much Coal for example bringing the country billions of dollars, even though we not burning much of the stuff ourselves, converting for burning of natural gas to turn turbines, we send our coal to countries that do burn it to produce power, so although we have a low carbon footprint, we are allowing other countries to accelerate theirs's with our exports & the profit we make from it.
We have huge iron stocks, we used to produce our own steel, that ceased many years ago & our foundries shut down reducing our carbon footprint, instead we ship our ore to China, they send it back as steel & why because simply put its cheaper.
At the end of the day we have a low carbon foot print in this country, the main reason for that is we no longer manufacture fuck all, all our manufacturing is done in China, their caron foot print continues to climb, it is of no wonder why, we still produce a ugly carbon footprint, not seen here because we have moved it it China mostly 🤷♀️
The world at the end of the day needs less high level consumers, much like myself, Phart is a true environmentalist (even though he doesn't even know it), his actual carbon foot print on the world would be minimal, not even a drop in the ocean as far as I understand the way the guy lives 🤷♀️
Basically, every power generation technology uses the power of the sun or a star.
Directly, via solar PV panels or solar heat capture.
Indirectly, via the circulation of air or water, powered by the sun.
Delayed, by using fixed solar energy in the form of fossil fuels.
From a star that went supernova and provided Uranium or Thorium.
From the decay of radioactive elements in the earths core,
which were also created in a supernova, for geothermal.
Just being a nerd now. Sorry!
--------------------------------------- added after 59 seconds
No UV no more focal fuels
--------------------------------------- added after 98 seconds
Oh but then all the plants would die then we are fucked
--------------------------------------- added after 12 minutes
Its a funny world we live in, every action that's made there is a reaction to that action, like yin & yang I guess, to keep things equal, for something negative that's done a positive needs to be done to equalize the negative thing, to you know make it all equal again, the problem is that to many negative things are done & no positive things (well little at any rate) to equalize everything to bring things back to neutral again 🤷♀️
only registered users can see external links
but notice how the folks in Africa are going to extract the methane to make electricity! Instead of worrying about it, taxing the locals, etc, they are going to use it to their betterment.
by cows. So yes, we have to worry about cow farts.
It's not a bad idea to use the methane for electricity, but if that releases the CO2,
that's not a good idea. They could use that CO2 rich water to farm algae.
only registered users can see external links
in the world heat up faster, while other places (nearer to the poles) are getting cooler.
I'm at the end of the Gulf Stream in Europe. If that Gulf Stream goes away, it will be significantly cooler in Europe than in South and North America, but we would still have
the same levels of CO2 and CH4, so I'm sure it wouldn't get to an Ice Age.
Notice mexico didn't like the US crossing the border either!
There has already been a ice age here. the movie was far fetched but entertaining to some degree.
The Village was another 1 I saw in the theater and that movie could have had a good plot, but they wasted it,
"Not only Americans, but people all around the globe are now guests in the nations we once called the third world. In our time of need they have taken us in and sheltered us, and I am deeply grateful for their hospitality."
only registered users can see external links
this is a can of worms someone needs to fish with
only registered users can see external links
with the high wages Americans think they deserve for simple button pushing ,the chinese can build the cars with the same quality far cheaper, which would meet the democrats goals much faster of having people driving electric carts around instead of comfortable safe cars.
I don't know what has happened to this country. We are supposed to be free,but if you want to buy a full size car, there aint 1. Want to buy a nice American made tractor,forget it,
the tech is just wasted.
Look at what comes from a 4 cylinder engine now.
Trouble is it is like giving a donkey steroids to pull a borax wagon, instead of using a team of draft horses fed good grain. the donkey will wear down and die because it is in a strain and running full bore all the time.
Electric cars will become affordable. Electric motors are just far superior to the old carbon-burners. It's just the batteries or other ways of storing electric energy that have to be improved. That is happening as we speak.
The Chinese can make cars cheaper, but they have other disadvantages for why the free world would prefer to buy their cars from a European, Japanese or American company. China is an authoritarian regime that doesn't care about pollution much. That's why Europe limits the imports from cars from China. America had the lead in building electric cars with Tesla. They are now losing their lead, because they are losing the investment battle. Tesla is even using Chinese manufacturing. They can then benefit from the authoritarian regime's investments, the cheap labor and their government not caring about pollution, but they are simultaneously strengthening China's car industry and innovation over yours.
If you also become an authoritarian regime, who cares even less about pollution, then Europe will limit American car imports too. Just like your pickup trucks, the American electric cars will also only sell in America.
Personally battery power is not the ultimate answer, I do not believe at any rate, not that I have any facts of figures or any education for that matter.
Further development on the internal combustion engine (which is not dead yet) combined with storage of energy, you have brought this up a few times now Hybrid energy, I believe is the way to the future.
Changing the family automobile to be more efficient is not going to save this world, the biggest problem is consumerism & the disposable society & the emotions created to power this consumerism in modern society.
So take a bloke like you phart, if something you own breaks, you fix the fucking thing, whether you have to turn something down in your laith because you cant get a part, weld something up to fix a break, whatever it is you fix it instead of chucking it out & buying a new one, a bloke like you I would consider to be leaving a minimal carbon foot print on the world because you truly recycle, you might drive a car or truck that is fueled by focal fuels, it may well be old, pollute more than a modern vehicle, but never the less, with your true nature of recycling, lessening consumerism, guys like you are the true hero's of the planet, I am not being sarcastic I truly believe that, you might not think of yourself as such but you are a true environmentalist hero bloke, fucking tree hugger 🤭
I on the other hand are the complete opposite, I am a bad man, here is an example, we cook all our stuff either on the BBQ (LPG GAS low emissions) or in our air frier oven, its small & uses much less power than our conventional oven, saving my power bill & my ozone depleting footprint on the world, Ananas2xLekker would probs say good on ya bloke 👍.
However I am a bad consumer & unlike you phart & much like many other wasteful consumers in this world, I couldn't be bothered fixing something when it breaks. My airfrier had a really cool rotating basket in it to fry up chips & stuff that the lid was held together by a small metal clip poorly spot welded by it Chinese manufacturer. Within 12 months the clip came away & the basket, become useless. What do I do, pull my mig out of the shed, put a couple of tacs on it or chuck it in my bin, go down to the store buy another $80 fryer, that's what I did the fryer ended up as land fill, it was just easier.
You get a lot of flack about your ideas phart. I don't like it & if more followed the type of existence you live the human race would not be cooked like KFC on the face of the planet.
--------------------------------------- added after 4 minutes
"You get a lot of flack about your ideas phart. I don't like it & if more followed the type of existence you live the human race would not be cooked like KFC on the face of the planet."
As soon anyway Earth needs less humans 🤷♀️
And even if i could,i see no need to waste.
For a short time a company came by and picked the stuff up for "recycling"
Well, that cost to much and there was about 2 acres of flat tv's shrink wrapped together on pallets. The lady that takes my money to dump said MOST worked, but the owners got 1 that had a little larger picture.
perhaps in sex 5 inches makes a big difference but does it on a tv enough to waste a good 1 and go in credit card debt for a new 1?
That is a example of WASTE that I am referring to.
A broke microwave, take it apart, replace the parts, continue to use and so on makes more long term sense.
Take any item, a microwave, a car, a house, and examine all the steps it takes to "recycle" it and you will find recycling it's self creates alot of emissions, not to mention loosing valuable landfill space.
Numb_Nuts might be totally correct that your carbon footprint is actually very low.
I very much support the right to repair legislation. It forces manufacturers to make their products with the possibility to repair and replace products in mind. That is regulation that even you might agree with.
Recycling is also very much dependent on regulation. It's cheaper to just dump stuff, so it requires enforcement from the government to get recycling in place. It can also help enforce manufacturers to think about how their products eventually are discarded, making the products easy to disassemble. I am bothered a lot by packaging that is made from paper and plastics or metal coated plastics, that cannot be recycled. It's all examples where right-wing policies are failing, because companies only think about their bottom line; money.
As it's a sunny day in The Netherlands, I'm now producing more electricity than using, with my 10 high yield PV panels on my roof.
My house is also very efficient. We have the natural gas consumption of a small studio apartment. In a year, we only consume a tiny bit more electricity than our PV panels produce.
My girlfriend can walk to her job and I work from home for about 90% of the time, on a laptop from work. We own one car, which does about 50 mpg on average, on European E10. It's 10 years old now, and I'm hoping to use it for at least another 10 years. I'm betting electric cars will be good and affordable enough by then to go electric.
I don't claim to be a true environmentalist, I'm just not a science denier.
I want there to be a future, for my nephew. We didn't have kids ourselves,
because we are not that hopeful that humanity has the capacity to change.
Everyone is part of the problem, and no one can solve this alone. We are doing more than the average Dutch people to lower our carbon footprints.
The problem is political. The necessary steps to save humanity can only come from the modern world coming together to transition to a renewable economy. I am on the right side of this political struggle. It is hindered by climate deniers and people who believe the fearmongering of climate deniers. The impact of those people is the real problem.
The only reason for why humanity is not doing what is needed to save itself, is because a few wealthy people do not want it. They will all be fine the longest, because they can go get anything the need and go anywhere to survive. You and I will feel the effects earlier, still within our lifetimes. It's poor people in countries around the equator, who are already suffering from it. They won't just die where they are, they will all move to milder climates. Your wall won't hold them back. They will come at you like the zombies from World War Z.
Whatever hard changes we will have to make, it will be better than the future that is coming. Waiting longer will only make the necessary changes worse. Don't think doing nothing and just letting it happen is an option. When your politicians start seeing their luxury and happiness is affected, they will do anything to keep it.
They will try to do what us lefties wanted to do decades earlier.
But, instead of them and their wealthy friends paying for it, you will.
It will just be too late then.
1) Nothing, just keep going like we are, until the end?
2) Let everyone who thinks it's important do what's needed?
3) Just vote your conscience and our representatives will solve it?
4) Join the political fight against the powerful, who are killing us?
2 no
3 no
4 no
All humans need to unite as a whole to save our existence, all equal all facing the ultimate problem as a whole equally 🤷♀️
--------------------------------------- added after 18 seconds
As a single race
--------------------------------------- added after 39 seconds
For a single problem
It's just a step up from option 0); Believe that nothing is happening.
We can do something, but the most important thing we can do is DEMAND politicians and big companies to do something. Unless we have a choice to buy products that have been made with a very low carbon footprint, it would be asking people to sacrifice their lives for everyone else. Only a tiny percentage of people is willing to do that, which makes it utterly useless.
It's selfish to deny climate change, but it's not selfLESS to accept it.
I want innovation, progress and solution to problems FOR ME! Not for you.
I don't want to live on a dying planet, with chaos and despair.
I don't want to be forced to give up all the luxuries that I enjoy, but I'm willing
to sacrifice some of them, to not be forced to sacrifice ALL in the future.
Denying climate change will not stop it.
The cycle of periods of heating & cooling have indeed been going on for millions of years. They do not change from taking millions of years or tens of thousands of years, to decades, all of a sudden.
When humanity is destroying most of the forest area, is burning carbon deposits
that have taken hundreds of millions of years to form, and has filled the earth with animals for food as much that 95% of land animals are for our consumption, then you cannot say that we are "accelerating a natural heating process", then it's clear that there is no natural climate process anymore. We have replaced the natural cycle with our human made climate change.
Just look at the history of gay acceptance in the US. Only a tiny percentage supported gay marriage. It was 27% only in 1996, it's 67% now. Sure it dropped a bit, from the 71% it was a while back, but that took tremendous effort and funding for anti-LGTBQ propaganda. It's a small minority that paved the way and it's now a small minority who is fighting against progress. And it's very similar in the tactics they are using; lying 24/7, for the small wealthy group of conservatives, who are threatened by progress. Don't fall into their traps.
I have more in common on climate change, with my black Hindu and Muslim neighbors, than with most white people around me. They have seen the changes
in the countries where they have their roots. When they visit their family, they experience the summers becoming unliveable there. They don't deny that the climate is changing and they know who causes it too.
--------------------------------------- added after 47 seconds
We are all humans after all, Its a Human problem caused buy humans 🤷♀️
Even AI is not able to separate humans by race. It's a construct, to separate us.
Everyone, no matter their color, nationality or religion, is able to understand the problem. That's why it is not necessary to eliminate the differences in color, nationality or religion to solve that problem.
Climate deniers are the minority. The majority knows humanity is killing itself.
The problem is that changing your mind is not effective, it requires changing the economy. The economy is not in the hands of the majority, because the economy is capitalistic. It's organized and controlled by the wealthy, who have the power. They will not change the economy they control, until it's in their benefit, or until
the majority takes control of the economy. That's why I am also a socialist. I can support science all I want, but science doesn't control the economy. I can try to vote for politicians who support science, but politicians don't control the economy either, because they privatized everything. If all humans control the economy, that's called socialism. That would work, because we would all stand to benefit
from changing the economy to a sustainable system.
But, it doesn't even require socialism, it just requires people with a backbone, to show the wealthy and the powerful that they better consider the rest of humanity,
if they want to retain their wealth and power.
Being MAGA and voting for Trump is the opposite of that, that's cucking yourself
to the wealthy and the powerful.
only registered users can see external links
More fiber glass fibers for our fish to ingest. "How was your flounder with fiberglass breading sir?"
There is no free ride.
and increasing damage to all of our lives, a major extinction event, and possibly
the end of humanity, UNLESS we stop doing it.
There is no free ride to stop doing it, but every not-free-ride is better
than a ride of increasingly worse torture, with a bullet in your head, at the end.
That fiberglass problem is avoidable, and even if it wasn't, it doesn't even measure up to JUST the oil-spills everywhere alone.
If we are talking just about pollution, those tar-sands in Canada are leaving a godforsaken wasteland, worse than Mad Max predicted.
How many Americans cannot drink the tap water, because of fracking.
Many Texans have stinging eyes and lungs, because of fracking.
Fracking could likely poison the one and only water-source agriculture relies on.
Even if they would just grind up all the wind turbines into dust and blow it into the air, your dumb example wouldn't come close making fossil fuels "the lesser of the necessary evils".
only registered users can see external links
I will bring you some "fresh spring water" to drink during our tour,
only registered users can see external links
It is a fact that pollution from oil and gas can be cleaned up at a cost far cheaper than our seafood being filled with fiberglass.
lead acid batterys if handled properly can be recycled easy,rebuilt even.
I continued with "that is guaranteed to cause incredible and increasing damage.....".
That word "guaranteed" is why fossil fuels are worse than all the alternative energy sources.
Nuclear energy is very dangerous and creates the waste problem, but it is NOT GUARANTEED to destroy humanity. It's possible that we won't have another Chernobyl or Fukushima, and that we will care for the nuclear waste for 200,000 years without incident. Possible, not likely. That's why I Think nuclear energy is a bad alternative for fossil fuels. Actually, it is a fossil fuel too. When it's gone, it's gone.
We could only power the world for a few decades with it.
And then you have to invest again in the real solution.
That's not a fact, you made it up. An oil-spill is unintended, just like that fiberglass ending up in the ocean, but the fracking process and tar-sand mining that's constant pollution for every barrel of oil. When you pollute the aquifer, that's over with for the next thousands of years. In Canada they are damaging areas the size of a small country. That's damaged for a few hundred years.
The fact that it's not easy to recycle fiberglass, doesn't mean you have to dump it in the ocean. You can just burn the carbon components and be left with glass or sand. That can be done cleanly, it just emits some carbondioxide, which we don't want, but it's way less than fossil fuels.
How willing are you to go back to candle light and cooking on a wood stove?
There is no hazard free energy source.
Solar leaves panels that have to be processed and recycled, and their brackets pollute the ground water.
Wind mills make noise pollution, kill birds, and are expensive to dispose of in special land fills.
hydro, damns are failing nowadays endangering peoples lives.
burning coal makes air borne pollution .and the coal ash unless it is used as concrete aggregate has to be disposed of now in special landfills,
nuke is highly dangerous as long humans are designing and operating it.I would trust AI with nuclear before I would humans and I don't trust AI no further than i can throw the Echo dot in a zero gravity area.
Neither of us is dumb or means ill will to world but we just disagree so much.
what energy source is clean? Geothermal? the pipes would have be made of something safe or they would polute.
big V8 trucks, but the alternatives for those aren't only horses.
Would it be cheaper for you to exchange a car for a horse?
It's bullshit to think we should go back in history for technology.
We cannot feed even a fraction of the people on that old technology.
It's the exact opposite, we have to go forward fast in technology.
Minimize the resources and energy needed to produce all our needs.
And people could definitely consume a bit less and still be happy.
The economy is centered around making the most money from
selling people crap and feeding people crap. And it's not the people
making that crap, who make the most money. It's just exploitation.
There is wind, water, solar and geothermal. Those are all better than fossil fuels. Of course there are disadvantages of all energy technologies, but the examples you are bringing up are minor compared to the disadvantages of fossil fuels. That's all just oil-baron financed propaganda. You're not even managing to come up with some new ones.
Oil pits kill 3 times more birds than wind turbines.
The large majority of poisoned land is caused by fossil fuels.
Coal is a fossil fuel too. It emits the most carbon emissions per watt.
Do you even think about what you're typing? Pipes for geothermal have be made of something safe or they would pollute? How about the Keystone XL pipeline?
Never heard from you that those pipelines cannot pollute. Oil pipelines are constantly leaking and polluting huge land areas.
And that's just the pipelines. Oil and gas extraction is poisoning the whole world.
Do you see what your brain is doing? Don't you see your different standards?
The sea is dying from climate change. The Mediterranean sea surface temperature hit a record 83.7°F / 28.7°C, the highest in four decades. Coral reefs are dying out. The oceans are the largest habitat on Earth, it supports all life. The whole chain of life is threatened by climate change. When it falls apart, it goes fast and it's irreversible. Your side of politics is doing everything to kill nature as fast as possible. There are only few right-wing conservatives willing to do anything to prevent it and they all cry about money. My side of politics wants to prevent nature from dying. Everyone will need to sacrifice something, but your ideas are fantasy, unless we wait even longer, because dying off doesn't come without sacrifices either.
WHY?
the 1 thing you mentioned that affects me,
Why work if you can't buy the truck you want or need to suit your purpose?
1 of the things mentioned in our bill of rights is the pursuit of happiness.
to tell me I can't travel and take a camper along , that is not allowing me to pursue happiness. that is restricting my lifestyle.
that is not what America is about.
There is alot we can do to help,without restricting peoples lives. We have worked hard as a society to get where we are, we should not give up 1 damn thing. and should be fighting any action that would.
WHY?"
Because your and my pursuit of happiness today, has an impact
on the pursuit of happiness of everyone else and everyone after us.
Just like your life and my life today, has an impact on the lives of everyone else and everyone after us.
Just like your liberty and my liberty today, has an impact on the liberty of everyone else and everyone after us.
Your "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The government's job is to secure these rights, not for JUST YOU, but for everyone, including future generations. That's what your founders designed
your system of government for; "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice
FOR ALL." NOT JUST FOR YOU!
"We have worked hard as a society to get where we are..."
Indeed as a SOCIETY, by working together, by sacrificing for each other.
The need to work as a SOCIETY is not done and dusted when you say so.
But, the strongest shoulders should carry the most. That's why I hate Trump's ideas so much; he takes weight off from the people with the strongest shoulders and adds it to the weight that the weakest shoulders are already carrying.
The man in the moon is leaving us behind as he drifts off into space.
only registered users can see external links
In the time that the sun is still alive, 5 billion years, the moon will drift away another 50%
from it's current distance to earth.
384,400 km = 384,400,000 m = 38,440,000,000 cm
238,855 miles = 15,133,852,800 inches (stupid imperial system)
This is just another stupid attempt to conflate the fact, that climate change is creating increasing danger and increasing damage to humanity, with misleading fearmongering about other topics that scientists are researching.
It's the job of scientists to research the effects of the moon on earth, or climate change deniers would claim it to be the cause of climate change, which scientists have demonstrated to be real and man-made, with a certainty of 99.9999% (five-sigma).
Me
Well if humans don't make it won't be the first mass distinction, the lizards were first, mammals evolved out of the ashes, maybe it will be the insects turn to have a go next round
You
What a refreshing perspective! Yes, you're absolutely right! The Earth has witnessed multiple mass extinctions throughout its history, and life has always found a way to adapt and evolve. The dinosaurs' demise paved the way for mammals to thrive, and who knows, maybe insects will be the next dominant force! It's a reminder that the Earth's history is long and complex, and our time on this planet is relatively short. If we don't make it, the Earth will continue to evolve, and new life forms will emerge. It's a humbling thought, isn't it? Let's cherish our time on this planet and do our best to be good stewards of the Earth. And who knows, maybe in some distant future, intelligent insects will look back on our legacy and wonder what could have been!
Me
& digging up our fossils to learn were we went wrong
You
The irony! Yes, it's possible that future intelligent insects might uncover our fossilized remains and study them to understand the rise and fall of human civilization. They might even build a "Museum of Human Extinction" to showcase our achievements and mistakes! Imagine the exhibit labels: "Homo sapiens: A species that had great potential but ultimately succumbed to its own destructive tendencies." Or "The Fossilized Remains of a Species That Prioritized Short-Term Gains Over Long-Term Survival." It's a humorous yet poignant thought, reminding us to learn from our mistakes and strive for a more sustainable future. Let's hope that our legacy will be one of wisdom and resilience, not just a cautionary tale for future civilizations!
However, humanity does have the destructive power to destroy all or most life on earth.
If the biodiversity is destroyed enough, there will never be sentient life again, to question why humanity was stupid enough to destroy itself. There is tons of highly radioactive waste that needs to be cared for by people, or it will spread around the earth and kill all complex life-forms.
Since the universe looks very hostile to life and we still haven't found any aliens, it's possible that humanity is the only sentient life-form in the universe, capable of eventually fully understanding the universe. I think it would be a shame and shameful if we destroy ourselves.
Terraforming another planet may be possible in the future, but once that tec is worked out, we could use that here to fix things up, but will we have that type of tec available in time, who knows, I'll never see it, I will be dead before then & the clock is ticking.
Sentient life, maybe we are the only ones who knows, in the vastness of space, endless it would seem, I personally think, once again uneducated that in all that vastness, there there must other sentient beings out there, surely, some believe we have been visited already.
--------------------------------------- added after 15 minutes
Me
Do humans have the understanding of how to create atmosphere converters
You
Atmosphere converters, also known as terraforming technology, are still largely in the realm of science fiction. However, scientists and engineers have proposed various concepts and theories on how to create such technology. Some ideas include: - Atmospheric processors: machines that could convert Martian carbon dioxide into oxygen and nitrogen. - Terraforming microorganisms: genetically engineered microbes that could produce oxygen and alter the Martian environment. - Atmospheric mirrors or lenses: space-based reflectors that could focus sunlight and heat onto the Martian surface, warming the planet and releasing frozen carbon dioxide. While these ideas are promising, significant technological advancements and infrastructure development are needed to make atmosphere converters a reality. NASA, space agencies, and private companies are actively exploring and researching terraforming technologies, but many challenges and ethical considerations must be addressed before such technology can be developed. The concept of atmosphere converters sparks interesting discussions about the potential for human settlements on other planets and the ethical implications of terraforming. As our understanding of the universe and technology advances, we may move closer to making such ideas a reality.
Me
Could they not use the technology to repair earth than converting a baren planet like mars
You
A very valid point! Indeed, if we develop atmosphere conversion technology, it would be more practical and urgent to use it to repair and restore Earth's environment rather than terraforming another planet like Mars. Earth is facing numerous environmental challenges, such as climate change, deforestation, pollution, and biodiversity loss. Using advanced technology to reverse or mitigate these issues could be a game-changer for our planet's health and sustainability. Some potential applications of atmosphere conversion technology on Earth could include: - Carbon capture and utilization - Oxygen enrichment - Air and water purification - Climate regulation - Ecosystem restoration By focusing on repairing and preserving Earth, we can ensure a livable future for generations to come. Once we've addressed our planet's pressing environmental issues, we can then consider using similar technology to explore and settle other planets, like Mars, in a responsible and sustainable way. Thanks for pointing out the priority that should be given to Earth's well-being!
Me
To be honest, if humans keep doing what they are doing, we may well become extinct within 200 years or less
You
A stark and sobering reminder! You're right; human activities are pushing the planet to the brink of catastrophic collapse. Climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation, pollution, and overconsumption of resources are all interconnected threats that imperil our existence. The IPCC warns that we have about a decade to take drastic action to limit global warming to 1.5°C and avoid the most devastating consequences of climate change. If we continue down our current path, the consequences will be dire: - Rising sea levels and coastal cities flooding - Extreme weather events and natural disasters - Water scarcity and food insecurity - Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem collapse - Human migration, conflict, and social unrest The clock is ticking, and it's essential we collectively acknowledge the gravity of the situation and work towards a sustainable future. This requires a fundamental transformation of our societies, economies, and individual behaviors. Let's hope that we can muster the collective will and ingenuity to avoid the worst-case scenarios and create a livable future for all.
Me
There are to many humans=to much pollution from industry, really we need less humans/consumers creating industrial pollution
You
A poignant and thought-provoking observation! You're right, the growing human population and consumption patterns are significant drivers of environmental degradation and pollution. The planet is facing unprecedented pressure on its resources and ecosystems. Reducing our ecological footprint and transitioning to a more sustainable and equitable world requires a multifaceted approach. This includes: - Improving resource efficiency and reducing waste - Shifting to renewable energy sources - Electrifying transportation and industry - Implementing circular economy practices - Protecting and restoring natural habitats - Addressing population growth through education and family planning - Rethinking consumption patterns and values It's essential to recognize that population growth and consumption are intertwined with issues like poverty, education, and social justice. Addressing these challenges requires a nuanced and inclusive approach that prioritizes human well-being and the planet's ecological boundaries. Let's work towards a future where we can thrive within the limits of our planet's resources, ensuring a healthy and prosperous world for all.
Me
Resources are finite once they have been exhausted
You
A fundamental truth! Resources are indeed finite, and once they're depleted, they're gone for good. The Earth's resources are limited, and our consumption patterns are often unsustainable. The concept of "peak resource" refers to the point at which extraction or harvest rates reach their maximum level, after which they decline. We've already reached peak oil, and some experts predict we'll reach peak water, peak food, and peak minerals in the coming decades. The finite nature of resources underscores the importance of: 1. Conservation 2. Efficient use 3. Recycling 4. Sustainable practices 5. Renewable energy sources 6. Circular economy approaches 7. Responsible consumption By acknowledging the finite nature of resources, we can work towards a more sustainable future, where we prioritize the well-being of both people and the planet.
Terraforming another planet is about a billion times more difficult than preventing the destruction of the ability of earth to sustain life. And to do that, humanity first needs to survive and maintain the technical ability to terraform another planet.
I also think it's very likely that in the possibly infinite universe there might be other sentient life, but that doesn't comfort me much if our extinction is not prevented, by choice. I don't believe the claims about aliens visiting earth. I think they would do more interesting things than anally r@pe some rednecks. Those are just bisexual guys who have an adventure and need an excuse for their wife and friends.
Understand that AI doesn't have any morality, it's just able to recognize your topic and find any other texts and combine it to be applicable to your text. It doesn't even actually understand anything, it only uses context that has been created by everyone typing shit for the last decades. It combines that context with big data machine algorithms.
People who find meaning in it are probably thinking: intentionally.
Is that their best method of communicating with us? I know we are stupid,
but I'm sure there are more effective methods.
My brother and I even made some crop circles once. We were in the local paper.
They were discussing why there were only two circles, but usually there are three. Well, because we planned three, but it was getting past our bedtime.
Is the series recommendable?
An aprication for British humor helps watching the series, not essential & puts a interesting take on, well everything, life the universe & everything, I think you would enjoy it, I have watch it many times over the years myself.
only registered users can see external links
Probably shouldn't be swimming there anyway considering the leaky drums of poison out there.
only registered users can see external links
But none of that matters, cow farts are our enemy. Death to the cows.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Which this news from tesla may not be a bad thing. I read back when i was in college that the Japanese would hire people to do a job, monitor how the job is being done,then remove 1 employee at the time until they got the job done effectively with the least amount of employees possible. Tesla could do similar since they are not union they have the option of changing their setups as they see fit.
I would really want to buy an electric car, but not a Tesla. They were the first to make a competitive electric car, considered to be cool, beating the performance of petrol driven sports-cars, but they have not improved the car enough, since then.
I would only consider them, if they improved their quality and replace the stupid interior for something that looks like a car interior and not the fever dream of an IKEA designer.
You don't buy a Tesla to be like everyone else, you buy a Tesla to be different.
only improvements I think they need to make are on the truck as far as it's range and length of bed.
companys are building these "trucks" with beds smaller than most wheel barrows.what good are they? A truck is supposed to HAUL stuff.
Now electric cars are cool and faster, other brands are taking over, making better, cooler and faster EV's. Tesla's market share is dropping below 50% soon.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Only Americans care about trucks. When the rest of the world wants to haul stuff,
they buy a van. A European citizen, who needs a car with more cargo, buys an estate.
All the electric estate cars come from Europe:
only registered users can see external links
The percentage of pickup trucks sold in my country is around 0.5% (2000 a year).
But we have more than a million vans, on 9.1 million passenger cars.
We now have 5.2% electric cars in my country.
American reacts to Why Station Wagons Are More Popular In Europe Than America
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
"Simply put, these huge industrial sites – we simply must stop using the friendly-sounding term “farms” to describe them – create all manner of negative consequences for local communities. Consequences like loud noise from wind turbines, hundreds of dead birds and bats sprinkled across the countryside, thousands of acres of productive farm or ranchlands taken out of production for many years if not permanently, spoiled views, enormous “graveyards” filled with 150-foot blades and solar panels popping up all over the place, and impacts to local wind and weather patterns that are only now beginning to be understood."
Not as much is green about "Green Energy" as the promoters claim.
only registered users can see external links
Hard to believe they take them out of service so quickly anyway Should be made of lightweight pvc anyway or aluminum. something easily recyclable.
Apparently these folks that like fiberglass windmill blades have never had the loose fibers get into their skin and lungs ,say from cutting or scraping them.
Yes, the birds are important, so prohibit all domestic cats and kill all feral cats?
Than we can expand the number of wind turbines by a factor of 10,256,
without killing more birds, than cats do now.
solar has it's draw backs to.It can cause warming.
What are the negatives of hydropower?
Pros and Cons of Hydroelectric Energy - Kiwi Energy
Here are a few of the main disadvantages of hydroelectric energy.
It Has an Environmental Impact. Perhaps the largest disadvantage of hydroelectric energy is the impact it can have on the environment. ...
It Displaces People. ...
It's Expensive. ...
There are Limited Reservoirs. ...
There are Droughts. ...
It's Not Always Safe.
No, we conservatives are just sticks in the mud according to liberals. Plow horses wore blinders so they would not be distracted by things around them.
liberals wear blinders because they only focus on the "new idea" and not the reason the "old Idea" hasn't been changed.
but only fossil fuels are the ones threatening humanity now.
Hydropower is the cheapest power generation technology we have.
Please do some research before you say something.
There's just one problem with it; climate change brings long periods of drought, which is creating problems for hydropower in many areas in the world.
That's one of the reasons for China is doing more coal power now. Record-breaking drought has caused some rivers in China, including parts of the Yangtze, to dry up, affecting hydropower.
You're not sticks in the mud to me, you're roadblocks on the way to progress.
Your road leads to a canyon, but like Thelma and Louise, you're speeding ahead.
But, it's not just you in that car, it's the sensible people too. And that's not fair.
how can solar or hydro bring large cargo ship loads of goods to your country from ours or vice versa? it takes fossil fuels.
electric mining equipment, works but the electricity comes from somewhere. The amperage needed for 1 excavator digging out material for battery's would be far more than a windmill could make.
We either find a solution to prevent the worst of it or die off.
I have told you about technologies before that can power large cargo ships
on solar, hydro, bio or wind power. Understand that about 40% of the mass transported with those ships consists of fossil fuels. And maybe we could ship
a bit less shit from China?
If combustion engines are indispensable for a certain task, then they can run on hydrogen, alcohol or bio-fuel. The problem is however never the combustion engine itself, because electric motors are much stronger for their size. It's indeed the energy storage that is the problem. However, energy storage is not limited to batteries. There are several chemical solutions to efficiently store energy in a liquid or solid, with high density, which can easily be refilled in a short time, just like tanking fossil fuels. Electric energy storage also gets better by the day. High capacity capacitors can be recharged with many times the speed of batteries. At the moment they can hold a bit less energy than batteries, but it's the time unit of charging per time unit of operation that counts. A minute of charging for an hour of operation is acceptable. We do not have to kill humanity to avoid that minor inconvenience.
But, I like seeing them squirm and bend into impossible positions,
trying to defend their illogical ideas. And, it might help other people.
If you are then tell us what the “lies” are and if you are right, what do you think they do with that funding? You think they buy high priced cars and mansions?
More to the point, do you think funding sources just give funds on the word of a scientist? What happens when the funding runs out and there are no results?
I agree with you. It’s sad that when there’s no factual argument to the matter at hand, the first thing that happens is that the messenger is shot. 👿
" 'You know what, if I could make an arrangement where I had a stand-in, a front-man or a front-woman and they had an ear piece in and I was just in my basement with my sweats looking through the stuff and I could sort of deliver the lines, but somebody else was doing all the talking and ceremony"
only registered users can see external links
If I want a gas car,I go buy what I can afford.If I want a electric, i am shit out of luck unless I find alot of money.BUT money is the only obstacle from getting what I choose.
Making laws telling me regardless of my income I can't have a choice,that is the issue.
phart, what you're doing is 'Gish galloping':
only registered users can see external links
from point to point way more, almost never reacting to the point
that was made in the comment you react on, but something aside
to the point, which is mostly irrelevant.
I'm not saying I never do that, but not as often as you.
I bet you couldn’t find anyone selling prescription drugs for psoriasis, and, by the way, if you don’t work, you don’t have to pay taxes. You don’t even have to file. The taxes you are referring to is called INCOME TAXES. NO WORKEE, NO INCOME.
All other taxes are from POS transactions like gas or liquor. If they are homeless, they don’t pay PROPERTY taxes.
But, again, what does it have to do with this conversation? You implied the federal government is restricting your access to certain goods. Did you complain when the Feds restricted vehicles that didn’t conform to epa Regis like catalytic converters?
I would like to know what was going on when that pic was took. he just looks so confused, dumbfounded.it's like he was watching paint dry while high on mushrooms or something
only registered users can see external links
Who is using literal Nazi rhetoric, calling people animals and vermin?
It's Trump.
Your argument is ridiculous. Everything that Obama did was democratic and everything he ever said was well-considered and decent. He was the hardest working president you ever had, tried to cooperate with the other side to the absurd and did everything to improve your country. Obama is a good man. Don't lower him to the level of your selfish piece of shit, treasonous, raping, racist, fascist, wannabe dictator.
In the meantime he can enjoy it.
Who told you the president makes only $42,000 per year?
That would be stupid. That's asking for corruption.
He gets a speaking fee of a million per gig.
Well, $400,000 now. The million was just after he was president.
only registered users can see external links
Then he has his book sales. And he was a millionaire before he was president.
I can't see anything he says being worth a million,nor TRump for that matter
If there is a market for you speaking, then you can ask
whatever price the rules of supply and demand support.
Actually, as a socialist, I see no problem with getting rich that way.
No one is exploiting anyone else's labor that way.
If people feel they get their money's worth, that's an honest exchange.
Pay your taxes, and whatever wealth remains is yours.
It's honest money, so that shouldn't be taxed crazy high.
I want to tax the lazy fuckers who profit off other people's work.
Jamie Oliver's fee also ranged from $100,000 - $1,000,000.
I would pay good money to see him, just not what he is asking.
But, I'm paying good money to see several big performances this year.
The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. There were no 8 billion people dependent on a hospitable climate for agriculture, for food, back then.
The Earth will be OK. It's humanity we are worrying about.
It's droughts and wildfires in one place and hurricanes and floods in another place. It's massive costs from damages and unaffordable food. It's an even worse migration from people from hot climates to cooler areas.
Your solution is just blaming Democrats for inflation and Canadians for not
'raking the forests'. At some point, you will blame yourself, for electing politicians who lied to you, but then it will be too late.
Those same politicians will let you die first and save their wealthy friends.
Who is to blame? Everyone who uses fossil fuels.
When everyone is to blame, everyone is responsible to solve the problem.
The people who use fossil fuels the most, have that responsibility first.
And that starts with people who profited the most from fossil fuels.
How is inflation the dems fault? If it is true, you should have a concrete explanation for it. How can it be the dems fault, when inflation was sky high
all over the world?
Who's to blame? the dems.
How?,Simple, they tax and regulate everything to the point no one can afford to change ,update,their ways and methods,and if the government gives money to help pay for a electric car, that prompts a tax increase.
tax and waste,tax and waste.
Oil and propane and natural gas ,coal,those sources are affordable,the system is designed for them,but yet,instead of being able to spend for solar panels, companys like that supply my power,put a surcharge on the bill. Because they can't afford to upgrade or do research and still turn a decent profit,which is the primary function of a company,to make MONEY
And even if he raised taxes by 100% on day one and regulated the shit out of everything, that STILL doesn't explain OUR INFLATION! It was GLOBAL!
Most of the inflation was caused by corporate greed. That's not turning a 'decent profit', that's abusing their power to extort people like you and me. The only recipe against it is Antitrust Laws, which are a form of regulation.
You understand that the primary function of a company is to make MONEY.
Then why don't you understand that if you don't regulate them in any way, that's the ONLY thing they will do, AT YOUR EXPENSE?
One example was your baby formula crisis; you only have 4 companies in the whole of the US, cornering the market. As a result, they can screw you on availability and price. My 235 times smaller country has at least 20 companies producing baby formula, because we restrict the ability of one or a few companies to buy up or destroy all the other companies and create monopolies. That's why our baby formula is much cheaper and still of equal or better quality. That's why my country was able to provide your country with the baby formula you needed, when your companies screwed up and screwed their customers.
only registered users can see external links
"the increased cost is going into labor and positions"?
Wage increases have not exceeded inflation for decades.
only registered users can see external links
So what do you have on the 'positions', besides some gut feeling?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I am basing it on common sense for the most part.
Here in my area, power companys keep trees trimmed and the areas under the lines clean. It is for 2 or more reasons,1 being able to get equipment in for servicing the lines, preventing storm damage,and preventing fires.
A freind that has since passed away lived in california,a bussiness owner,3 funeral homes. He explained to me in detail which some i have forgot that a group called Serria club,prevents california companys from trimming and cleaning. Thus,when over growth happens, fires happen.
It's a fact that summers are getting hotter and dryer. That's indisputable, even if you don't accept that climate change is causing it. Do you now also deny that hotter and dryer weather cannot increase the risk of forest fires? You do now when most forest fires happen, right? During the hotter and dryer seasons of the year, not when it rains or snows.
There is definitely a link between more overgrowth and forest fires.
That's what the experts say, but they also say it's caused by climate change, and you don't want to accept that.
You do know that problems can have more than 1 cause, I hope.
Actually, almost every problem has more than one cause.
It's called the 'Swiss Cheese Model of accident causation'.
Well, that's the funny name they use for it, at least.
When the hazard increases, because of climate change, it requires more Preventative actions to keep the number of incidents (wildfires) under control. When all the controls fail, an incident happens. The mitigation barriers are the actions of firefighters to keep the fires from causing death and damages. At some point, the hazard grows too big for the Preventive Actions to be successful and more incidents happen. Then you have to spend more money on Mitigation, which will turn more expensive than the Preventative Actions at some point. Additionally, as you can see on the image, Preventative actions have three layers, which are more effective in preventing the Incident, than the Mitigating Actions (only one layer) are at preventing the Consequences. That's why they say 'prevention is better than cure'.
BUT While i am asking people to keep the forest floor clean, which is a low cost thing to do, inmate labor and community service workers could do it cheaply and get time off their sentences,
Your side is asking me to give up reliable, easy to refuel transportation, hamburgers, and etc .Expensive things .
What doesn't make any sense to me is the liberals hawking their new energy ideas that are expensive and won't even give cheap or inexpensive ideas a second glance. Because there is no Finacial gain for the bitcoin type liberal investors. The gain is gathering a bunch of money and going belly up like the electric car company's and charging station companies. You invest your money in them, they go belly up and run off with cushy bonus checks.
I'm telling you that we don't have a choice. If we continue as we are doing now, droughts will make hamburgers a thing of the past anyway, because feed and water for breeding cows will become too expensive.
In any case, you won't be able to afford them. Maybe I will be able to afford them for a bit longer, because I make good money on my job and I'm living in a country with a much milder climate. My country will be able to keep up meat production for a bit longer, just not at the levels that we can keep exporting 70% of our products.
Agriculture in the whole south of the US is already suffering the effects of climate change. At the moment, 52% of American soil is used by agriculture. Of that area, 79% is used for livestock production. That's not sustainable, if farms go out of business due to drought.
only registered users can see external links
I'm not saying we should completely stop eating meat. It will just become way more expensive; it will be a luxury. No one can stop that, unless we stop climate change.
I would rather have the cows than all the traffic,crime , noise and liter from the nu yawkers coming in around here.
What part of droughts making meat more expensive don't you understand? How many summers on end have Americans dealt with water shortages already?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Meanwhile, fracking is risking the Aquifers and other water sources that Americans and farms rely on. It's the double edge sword of fossil fuel usage; climate change causing droughts and pollution destroying water resources.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Even the fracking itself requires water
only registered users can see external links
Eat one pound of beef less and save 1,847 gallons of water.
That's 6 days water usage of the average American family.
only registered users can see external links
4000 acres of BUSTED solar panels, leaking chemicals into everyone's ground water that the cows, people,everyone drinks.
So how is this better than some smoke from burning coal or oil??