Page #9
Pages: #1... #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 ...#26|
Started by #485312 [Ignore] 15,Dec,20 18:50
New Comment Rating: -1 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 Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
well let 1 scientist say something against the grain of the climate change mob and he gets canceled like a air line flight in snowy weather.
only registered users can see external links
If he doesn't understand that, than his physics degree should be revoked.
He said that he didn't 'believe' in climate change. He said:
“I don’t believe there is a climate crisis,” Clauser explained. “The world we live in today is filled with misinformation. It is up to each of you to serve as judges, distinguishing truth from falsehood based on accurate observations of phenomena.”
That means it isn't his scientific opinion, because a scientist would DEMONSTRATE
that the science isn't correct, by writing and publishing a paper on it. He didn't do that,
he just gave his ignorant opinion. That's not his JOB, his job is TO DO SCIENCE!
He hasn't done his own research, he's just referring to one article. It's one of those articles where cherry picked data is analyzed so they can muddy the waters. It's being demolished by real scientist. It took me only a few minutes to see the errors in that article and another few minutes to find scientists refuting it.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Still, it's true that not all extreme weather events can be linked to climate change (yet). However, the occurrence of heat waves, has been demonstrated to increase significantly. The increase of the CO2 concentration and global temperatures is irrefutably demonstrated. That's why studies like your article are referring to are ignoring that data.
You could inform yourself about these things, but your 'research' stops at one MSN story.
We are asked to believe the science by folks all the time. But as I said, let 1 scientist say anything out of line with the narrative and he is trashed. Why would I believe 1 over the other unless I can go to my lab and PROVE 1 way or the other is correct.
Atheist think it is crazy to have religious faith of any sort, but they, like you, have unbreakable unwavering faith in scientist.
And the next fly by night scientist will come along with something else and you will ditch 1 science God for the new 1.
Science doesn't operate on BELIEVES.
You investigate the EVIDENCE and accept or rejects it on it's merits.
Only math can PROVE anything. When you talk about proof, in the case of subjects like climate change, you are showing that you have no idea how science works.
Science provides PROBABILITIES. If the probability is 100%, then you have certainty. Unfortunately, in science, certainty is most often impossible. Still, science is the best method to obtain the most reliable information and knowledge.
Most importantly, science is not dishonestly claiming certainty, like religion does.
They just tell you, that all the evidence combined, provides a five sigma probability,
that man-made global warming is true. That's a 0.00003% likelihood of it being just a statistical error. That's a 1 in 3.3 million chance, of it not being true.
People who believe, for instance in a god, they THINK they have certainty, but they have also been completely wrong on many things, they used to belief were certain.
As an atheist, I think it's DELUSIONAL to have religious faith.
It doesn't provide any knowledge, it only provides the feeling of knowing.
To me that's useless. I'd rather be unsure, or not know, than know incorrectly.
The alternative is not to BELIEVE in science, the alternative is to study the evidence and either accept it, reject it, or be agnostic on it, BASED ON LOGICAL REASONING.
What YOU do, is listen to politicians and the media, while you simultaneously say they are all liars. Then you demonstrate full confidence on the answer to the question of climate change. THAT'S FAITH!
Scientists expect other scientists to NOT speak from ignorance. That's their job.
Dr. John Clauser spoke from ignorance, using ignorant argumentation, at primary school level insight. That's harming science and that's why scientists disapprove
of his irresponsibility.
only registered users can see external links
They are spending more and more on wildfire protection.
only registered users can see external links
Besides, there is tar sand under those trees. That's fuel for your V8's.
Let those trees burn, so there is no reason for lefties to cry about forests.
And the lumber prices will go up because instead of cutting and replanting our own trees we buy from up there.
Again,depending on others for what we have plenty of at home.
California learned it's forest practices from canada.
You have to keep fire lanes open, keep under brush cleaned up and so on or you loose millions of acres of trees.
Besides that, the smoke is making us sick way down here.
They claim they care about climate change but then smoke half the USA out.If they gave a damn,their inmates would be raking the forest clean, the power line right of ways would be clean an etc.
Oil companies don't want to replant, because that would make tar sands not economically interesting. It's just a thin layer of almost useless tar, that can only
be turned into a profit, by r@ping nature.
As you remember, the US has it's share of wildfires. The best way to prevent them is preventing climate change. 'Raking the forest clean' is just a dumb idea from your idiot, twice impeached, twice indicted, failed ex-president. In weeks of 100+ °F heat, that is now the new normal, forests will just start burning from almost nothing. It WILL require more preventative measures, to not let all the forest just burn away, but that is just symptom control. It will turn more and more expensive and it will do nothing about
the real CAUSE.
You are comparing billions of years to what's happening in a few DECADES.
Historical periods of climate change took many thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. There is a factor of a hundreds to tens of thousands of difference there.
The CO2 concentration is higher than in the last 100,000 years.
And it changed from a normal concentration to that record in 50 years.
Because humans are burning oil that took millions of years to form, in only decades,
and because humans have destroyed 35% of all forest area in the world.
We are killing mother nature and we are killing humanity.
Nature is not purging itself, humanity is purging itself.
And how do you know that climate change has been happening for billions of years?
Because climate scientists are telling you.
The same ones you don't believe, when they tell you it's man-made now.
most of that has been in the industrial age, when the human population quadrupled in the last 100 years.
Well, maybe the Chicxulub meteorite, that killed off the dinosaurs, caused damage on a scale like ours, but then the climate of earth took several tens of thousands of years to recover. At least 75 percent of the species on our planet, both in the seas and on the continents, were extinguished forever. But, we can beat that...
China has 5 times the number of people.
Per capita, they are emitting half of Americans.
only registered users can see external links
to counter President Joe Biden's efforts to declare a climate emergency.
only registered users can see external links
That requires an area as big as the total American continent.
And it would still not be enough to keep using fossil fuels, and survive.
It's a smokescreen. But, if they even plant 100,000 trees, I'll like it.
A cycle that works.
It's them, and soon the rest of you, being on the way to excepting a science fact,
that the rest of us have accepted for decades. Accepting that the problem is real alone,
is not going to help save humanity, if you're not also understanding the reality of what's needed to even flatten the curve.
What's needed is not going back to the stone-age, but it's moving forward into the renewable-age. The energy coming in from the sun is more than enough than what we need to power everything to our heart's content. We will just need to switch from using that solar power that is fixed as fossil fuels in the ground over billions of years, to using what comes in more directly. That could be 100% energy from lumber, with a forest of a trillion trees, but we would need to return a lot of area, that we now use for living and food production. THEN, we would need to force everyone to be vegetarian, like right-wingers are always fearmongering about. Luckily, us lefties have invented better ways.
All the bullshit they are telling you, comes directly from the oil companies that are trying to protect their bottom line. Fuck them, before they completely fuck everyone.
Every single advancement of technology in history was involved with companies shutting their doors and employees needing to find new jobs.
It always created new opportunities, for new companies and new and better jobs. Renewable energy is already doing that. It's creating millions of good paying jobs
and massive profits for companies that are driving innovation.
If changes happen, just because of capitalism, you don't give a fuck.
If changes need to happen, for humanity to save itself, then you really care.
I really don't understand that warped thinking.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Solar panels, great eh?
only registered users can see external links
My concern is the mounting structures coatings and disposal.
Wind mills, great eh?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
On the right we have a large mountain that is saying, "hold my rocks" as it is set to demonstrate how viable ,life altering climate change actually happens.
only registered users can see external links
If these are the new tactics of climate activists, I endorse it. They have been a nuisance to average people too much. That's not helpful to the cause. They should be a nuisance to the wealthy, because the wealthy are the ones who are responsible for humanity not preventing its own demise. The wealthy are also responsible for you believing lies, by funding the right-wing grifters you call news.
Massive volcanoes do have the potential to change the climate. Just like a meteor can.
At the moment there is no way to prevent volcanoes from massively erupting. We could however predict and prevent a big meteor from crashing into the earth. However, there is no evidence of a volcano ever changing the climate in a long-term, destructive way.
The last time real climate disaster was caused by a meteor was 60 million years ago.
Those risks are therefore not a priority over preventing climate change from human carbon emissions. Humanity can either choose to act, to solve its own problems, or face catastrophe. If we don't, there is a 100% certainty for the destruction to become worse every decade. There is also a 0.000000001% that volcano eruption or a big meteor kills us all, in a year. If you worry about that, that's like worrying to be killed by lightning, while you're driving your motorcycle, without a helmet and motorcycle suit, at 150 mph, through New York traffic, at rush hour.
only registered users can see external links
How can you condone vandalism of property?
That is unlawful,and cost insurance companies millions a year.
I want them to be annoying and irritating as fuck, without breaking any laws.
And not to the general public, but to the people who are creating the problems.
Just because you found some examples of motorcyclists being struck by lightning, doesn't make it something to be worried about. Of course you shouldn't be out on your bike in a lightning storm, but that wasn't what I was talking about. Driving your motorcycle, without a helmet and motorcycle suit, at 150 mph, through New York traffic, at rush hour, is still much more dangerous. I would say it's about a 100% assurance that you're gonna get hurt or killed.
Meanwhile, humanity is already taking lots of damage from climate change. There are heatwaves killing people, more droughts killing crops and livestock, food shortages, more hurricanes, more wildfires, more floods. And that will result in higher damages, higher insurance rates, costs to the taxpayer, damages to the global economy, higher food prices, lots of people in hot climates fleeing to countries with milder climates and just life being fucking miserable in the summer. That will get worse and worse and worse, every year, for the rest of our lives. You have expressed worries about inflation, but this is just the start. Unless humanity stops or greatly reduces emitting CO2, climate change will get worse. And every year of delay will make the necessary changes only more difficult.
only registered users can see external links
This kind of thing is why climate activist don't get any respect and don't deserve any.
I can't imagine what it will cost to make repairs that meet code for aircraft because of these punks. They should be held accountable and forced to pay for the damages.
As for the droughts, may I direct you to this for your consideration. This is before the politicans started trying to make us think we can clean the air by paying more taxes,'
only registered users can see external links
that it requires some cleaning.
It doesn't deserve any respect to vandalize the capital over Trump's lies that the election was stolen. Climate activists are trying to save humanity from destroying itself. That's much more respectful than trying to keep a lying selfish president in office, against the will of the people.
"clean the air by paying more taxes"? What are you on about?
First of all, clean air or polluted air are something different than climate change. Even if you don't believe in climate change, do you want to get cancer from a factory near you polluting the air? Second; why do you think that is solved by tax dollars? That's just solved with regulation that prevents companies from polluting the air.
Third; sure, the energy transition costs money. Oil and natural gas also costs money, but that's a dwindling resource. All the easy sources are already depleted. It requires more effort, energy and harmful chemicals to get the oil and natural gas out of the ground. It's polluting many of your drinking water sources. It's costing people dearly and at some point it costs more to get the oil and natural gas out of the ground than it's worth. Renewable energy is endless. It's now cheaper than oil and natural gas and it just requires to stop spending money on fossil fuels and start investing in renewables, to make your energy cheaper and stop killing nature and humanity.
The only reason to not do it, is because oligarchs don't want you to.
Without the factorys, there would be no products, there is no free ride,the by products have to go somewhere.
We would have to back track to the stone age before FIRE to live clean.
Are you willing to go back to living in a cave?
If it takes some jetting around, to convince world leaders to do something to ameliorate climate change, than that has an advantageous effect.
He's not telling people to walk, he's asking for the ENERGY TRANSITION.
But, if dumb-asses like you keep delaying, at some point walking will be our only recourse to save humanity. You're just making the necessary changes harder.
Factories don't need to exhaust harmful chemicals giving you cancer to make stuff. They only do that, to make more profit. There are always clean(er) methods to produce. You know that, because it's being done all over the world.
If backwards people like you keep fighting progress, you're only hurting your own innovation strength and you'll lose to the competition. You'd better 'buy American', because no one else will want your shit. You'll be living in a ramshackle shed, unless there is a cave near you, but the smart people will have progressed to a sustainable, comfortable life.
But, I am indeed willing to sacrifice some luxuries, to assure humanity has a future.
Just yesterday dgraff said: "Well congratulations my friend you just learned that government of any kind doesn’t work it should be every man and woman for them selves only the strong survive living off the land".
So, who's asking for the stone age again???
There are no free rides. There are by products of any process. You eat beans, you leave a pile of shit. You make a tire, you leave some by products,it is normal.
but the stone age is not on the table. It's a stupid idea that we are not able
to make anything, without destroying nature and humanity.
Also, it doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better.
But, that's the problem; people like you can only think in absolutes.
YOU sacrifice a lot in your life, for the stupid ideas that you hold.
Your capitalism sacrificed your health, for the profit of your employer.
All over the world, better employers show that they can make stuff, safely,
without exploiting their employees and without pollution.
Your ideas just keep them choosing maximum profits over humanity.
That can be changed, but not with dumb-asses like you, who sacrifice
their humanity, to make a few already wealthy people even more wealthy.
Another sacrifice you make is because of your fear that people might hurt you.
It keeps you locked away from people who could improve or enrich your life.
But then I think people and relations with them are more important than stuff.
I don't go to crowded malls, perhaps if I do go to the mall I go during the early hours when the criminal types are in the bed.
People can be of a benefit of course. But I would not benefit from being around people who carry signs blocking traffic, or people that believe my very breathing is a hazard to the earth worms. ,stretch but you get my point ,enviro types.
If not, that's the sacrifice you make, for your 2nd amendment rights.
Still, even in America, life is not that dangerous, that you need to hide away.
I understand being careful, but unless you live in a very rough neighborhood, or you walk around with pounds of gold around your neck and a Rolex around your wrist, the change of getting mugged is very low. And even though the number of random shootings is way higher in the US than in the whole rest of modern society, you still need to be very unlucky to get murdered.
This is not something I have to worry about here. I've been all over Europe, walking around clearly as a tourist and never have to think about being in danger. I've also joined in with protests and ringing peoples doorbell for the Socialist Party. Because the group has been peaceful and polite, we only encountered civilized reactions. The worst we got was a 'sorry, not interested', which we reply with a 'no problem, have a nice day'.
I follow an American couple, Eric and Tammy, on YouTube, who has been living as expats in The Netherlands, for the past 2 years.
only registered users can see external links
They just talked about what they have gotten used to, since living in The Netherlands. One thing was that unknown people can just start talking to you on the street, without them out to get you, scam you, shoot you or mug you. They are just being nice.
Starting @ 7:34: only registered users can see external links
You are not dumb, and since you think a product can be made without pollution, let's set a example.
Lets make a pair of shoes without polution.
Ok first,we decide do we want leather? Yes, ok we go get a cow,we have to haul that cow in a truck and or trailer to a slaughter house. We have to kill the cow, drain it's fliuds and etc. we then have to remove the hide, and tan it, all the while these items have to be transported from 1 faciltiy to another.
We get a good piece of leather, then we have to sew the leather or otherwise attach it to other parts. Gee ,we have to make those other parts don't we? We have to transport those other parts.
So let's skip a few steps and say we have the pair of shoes finished. Ok, then we have to get them from the factory to the store, then get them to YOU on your feet. again, that requires transport.
And then,you have to have MONEY to buy the shoes. So we have to make the money out of something, even making the money from raw materials creates by products such as smoke.
Now you look at each process that is required to put a pair of shoes on your feet and tell me how that can be done without Any harm to the environment. You might reduce it here and there,but you will never make any similar process perfectly emissions free.
IT'S NOT ALL OR NOTHING!
There are lots of solutions to clean waste water with bacteria. Most of our chemical plants have that. But biological waste like those fluids are easy to break down. It can even be used as raw material for biological processes like making bio-ethanol or bio-gas. There are much more environmentally friendly methods to do leather tanning too.
only registered users can see external links
But mostly it's just a process of recycling.
Just reprocessing the waste to new raw materials.
Then there are ways to design a whole process of production, where every step considers the end life of the product, the materials and the waste stream. That's called end-to-end supply chain sustainability. Often it even creates cost benefits.
It's just a way of thinking, while you are engineering a process.
In my company, we use a lot of plastic. But, we have eliminated lots of waste that needs to be burned and maximized the waste that can be recycled, by choosing the right products and even cooperating with suppliers to make our disposables much easier to recycle. We are not yet at 100% recyclability, but we are working to approach it. We also use a lot of electricity. There are solar panels on all the roofs, but of course that's not enough, so we just have a contract for green energy. That's all renewable without any trouble.
I've been in several projects to improve things like that.
Don't tell me it's all impossible, because we're doing it.
It is my understanding they do very little in canada to prevent forest fires and now it has sadly caught up with them.
20 million acres it is now that is lost? 1 acre is to much.
OF course liberals blame this or that or "climate change" for the issue but the simple fact is if you clean the undergrowth from the forest and keep fire lines clear so equipment can get into remote areas, you can gain control of the situation.
only registered users can see external links
Scientists say there has been 3 or 4 mass extinctions, and the earth has been a ball of ice at least once.
In the American/Canadian plains, 20,000 years ago we were covered with a huge sheet of ice.
Who the hell knows our future.
Her predictions were kinda like the Myan calender
Well, find some scrap magnesium and carbon rods and charge your electric car from the earth!
Here is an article that talks about the same problems, but also addresses solutions:
only registered users can see external links
This site doesn't describe chemical hydrogen storage. It's fixing hydrogen into a powder, that can easily be transported and stored for large periods of solar and wind shortages.
That also makes it feasible to transport solar power from an area of abundance to an area of shortage.
Those German nuclear power plants are 50 years old. Their lifetime had already been stretched. If one of those power plants goes Chernobyl in Germany, that would be devastating to Germany, with ramifications to the whole world economy.
Building new nuclear power plants takes 10 years and is the most expensive investment for the power output it provides. Therefore Germany is investing in wind and solar, which provides a much quicker and higher return on investment.
Makes perfect sense.
And another thing, when you put ice in a tea glass,and then add tea, when the ice melts,does it overflow the glass?
Icebergs, MOST of a iceberg is already under the surface of the water.
--------------------------------------- added after 5 minutes
One last thing. Take a glass and fill it with ice and water. Bring the water level to the rim. As you've said, one third of the ice is on top of the water. In this case, higher than the rim of the glass. Now push down on this ice and push it down (same as if it melts). Notice what happens to the water in reference to the glass rim.
New Comment Go to top