Total posts: 28,020
-->
@HistoryBuff
The bank bailouts was the absolute worst.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
most voters don't care about hunter biden.
True. Only 10-17% (depending on the poll) would have switched their votes. But would that have decided the election?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm sorry, I meant to say the Trump appointees were right.
the Treasury Department received a nearly 30 percent equity stake in the company in return for the 700 million dollar loan.
The government should never be in the business of purchasing equity of private businesses with tax payer funds. But we live in a world of crony capitalism, and corporate welfare.
Created:
Posted in:
And continual increase of temperatures will kill many humans for sure.
No, that prediction is nowhere near "for sure"
What we do know is that we will lose 60,000 EU people THIS YEAR due to climate change policies in the summer and 100K people in Europe during this winter. That's because cold kills people much faster than heat in a world with seasonal changes. That's one thing that is sure.
Your theory is about plant life that might be reduced if temperatures are reduced.
No, I was talking about animal life. I was talking about browning the planet by reducing CO2 ppm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
fine, I should have said one possible cause.
Tis a silly idea
I wouldn't be surprised to see massive industrial greenhouses with huge DAC machines keeping CO2 ppm around 1500. Just to provide enough plant life to support more humans.
But I would say the same thing to you:
Just because we can do something does not mean we should. There are some extremely nasty consequences for a lot of current Earth life if we suddenly lowered temperatures. Much of the remaining life has adjusted for the higher temperatures. Playing with global temperatures by lowering it back down one degree could cause even more extinctions of the remaining Earth life. Lowering CO2 PPM would cause the browning of all the present Earth greening NASA observed. For what reason?
If there's a way to cool the planet (for whatever reason you think it's important) surely doing it in a way that doesn't destroy green life should be considered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Just because we can do something does not mean we should. There are some extremely nasty consequences for a lot of current Earth life if we suddenly lowered temperatures. Much of the remaining life has adjusted for the higher temperatures. Playing with global temperatures by lowering it back down one degree could cause even more extinctions of the remaining Earth life. Lowering CO2 PPM would cause the browning of all the greening NASA observed. For what reason?
They would be done if they did.
None of the options including CO2 reduction are happening. We haven't even answered the question if we should.
Created:
Posted in:
Pakman: "is there any way to interpret that
Donald Trump actually won the 2020
election or did he lose the 2020
election"
Vivek: I'm a data driven guy, I'm a data
driven guy, and I think you
probably are too. Based on
what little I know.. so look at the
polling data, yeah. On the
aftermath and before and after there are
more than enough people... it's not even by
a super small margin, that say they would
have changed their vote had they been
exposed to that information before that
election. The fact is that was systematically
suppressed in what was probably the
single greatest form of election
interference in American history. And
there's a lot of discussions if I may
just finish just to just simply get the
full Freight of my view here yeah there
was a lot of discussion about the
legitimacy of the 2016 election on the
back of Russian election interference
that actually, as it turns out, was actually
a much smaller scale than surmised. But
on the day of Trump's inauguration there
was a lot of discussion Hillary Clinton
called the election result illegitimate
and said that it was partly the product
of Russian election interference
whatever that was. That pales in
comparison pales to the effect of the
systematic suppression on domestic soil
of a story that two years later every
news Outlet in this country has
absolutely admitted was indeed true. When
it was systematically suppressed at the
time so you ask the question
is there any basis?
there's your basis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If Co2 doesnt cause global warming, what does?
It is one cause.
Co2 is under our influence. We can reduce it.
Sure. But there are unintended consequences for doing that.
The temperatures are rising. Co2 is rising.
yes.
Co2 might or might not affect temperatures.
sure.
Co2 is our only option to reduce temperatures.
actually no,
There are several methods and strategies proposed for cooling the Earth besides reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. These approaches aim to counteract global warming and its effects by either reflecting sunlight away from the Earth's surface or removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Some of these methods include:
- Solar Radiation Management (SRM): SRM involves reflecting a portion of sunlight back into space to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface. One proposed method is to inject aerosols into the stratosphere, which would scatter sunlight and create a cooling effect. However, SRM techniques are controversial due to potential side effects and ethical concerns.
- Cloud Brightening: This technique involves enhancing the reflectivity of marine clouds by spraying saltwater droplets into the air. The idea is to increase cloud droplet concentration, making clouds more reflective and thus reflecting more sunlight away from the Earth's surface.
- Afforestation and Reforestation: Planting trees and restoring forests can help absorb CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, thereby reducing the greenhouse gas concentration. Forests also have a cooling effect as they release moisture into the air through a process called transpiration, which can lead to local cooling.
- Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): BECCS involves growing plants that absorb CO2, then burning the plants for energy while capturing and storing the CO2 emissions. This process effectively removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
- Ocean Fertilization: Adding nutrients to the ocean in specific areas can stimulate phytoplankton growth, which absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. However, this method is debated due to potential ecological and environmental risks.
- Enhanced Weathering: Certain rocks naturally react with CO2 and weathering processes, which can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Enhancing these processes by grinding up rocks and spreading them over large areas could potentially help reduce CO2 levels.
- Direct Air Capture (DAC): DAC involves building large machines that capture CO2 directly from the atmosphere. The captured CO2 can then be stored underground or used for various purposes.
- White Roofing and Pavements: Urban areas can be cooled by using reflective materials for roofing and pavement surfaces. This helps reduce the urban heat island effect, where cities are significantly warmer than their surrounding rural areas.
- Reflective Land Cover: Modifying land cover, such as using reflective materials or covering desert areas with lighter-colored materials, can increase surface albedo and reflect more sunlight.
- Carbon Mineralization: Certain types of rocks react with CO2 to form stable carbonate minerals. By exposing CO2 to these rocks, carbon mineralization can permanently sequester CO2 in solid form.
We have no other hope to reduce temperatures.
We do. But just because we can do something does not mean we should. There are some extremely nasty consequences for a lot of current Earth life if we suddenly lowered temperatures. Much of the remaining life has adjusted for the higher temperatures. Playing with global temperatures by lowering it back down one degree could cause even more extinctions of the remaining Earth life. For what reason?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Good point. I guess Trump was accidentally right about not subsidizing this corporation with welfare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I read ACTUAL science
The bible is a book too. But trust the paper. It says on paper to trust god anyway.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They had to declare bankruptcy because a judge wouldn't allow them to hire scabs to replace the union workers. Now every union worker is permanently out of a job. Go unions!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Everyone knows youtube is the best source for science . Lol
Then don't ever watch any videos. Ever. I don't judge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Correct. Also, I posted that video as an example of why consensus is often wrong. Any scientist that thinks CO2 works on a planetary scale as it does in a greenhouse both never watched that video and also has no idea that they are wrong. And this discrepancy is absolutely important for accurate climate modelling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Yes, I posted a video instead of Bible shakeing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Better than shakeing a bible in a church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
As they should
Not according to my posted video.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The mere fact of the title of the OP proves the ridiculousness. It's "climate change" now, not "global warming"
Wonder why the OP used that term?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Interestingly, the "science cartel" still uses the term "greenhouse effect" even though the warming correlation is nothing like an actual greenhouse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, because the cartel of nuclear nations won't allow proliferation. So no nuclear for Africa to replace coal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
rejecting coal won't change global warming
Would it surprise you to know people in Africa that are denied coal will resort to burning manure?
While those silly Europeans will accept killing 100k people in the winter and 60k in the summer due to energy shortages, the same energy shortages in Africa would mean millions of seasonal deaths. Pretty sure Africa isn't going to bow down to the green energy cult when that much death is at the immediate door.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Everyone needs that religion itch scratched. Doesn't matter the name of the flower. Herd mentality is an inherited and increasingly vestigial trait.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Then it was over reach and patently absurd when Greyparrot was forbidden from responding to insults in kind. Inequitable application of rules or interpretations of rules is intolerable.A debate site is by definition a place where cultural opposition to fallacies is of the greatest utility and no fallacy is easier to identify than ad hominems, so I'll accept no rule and I'll except a uniform ban of ad hominems but I won't accept double standards.If nothing else there will be a nice long list of all the times this 'interpretation' failed to be enforced if it is called upon again to silence someone.
Yep. Don't hate the player. Hate the game. I didn't make the rules.
Created:
Posted in:
Should we risk disaster? The disaster is heading our way. The entire scientific community agrees. The temperatures are rising.
1) All progress involves some risk.
2) The "disaster" has been "heading our way" ever since the first prophet was able to predict doom thousands of years ago.
3) The "scientific community" first off is irrelevant as science is proven by experimentation, not esoteric consensus. The greatest scientific advancements happened outside of popular opinions, so it's more accurate to say popular consensus is more anti-science than science. Especially as it applies to the advancement of science. The loudest voices don't matter to the process of the scientific method.
Secondly, in the last 20 years, the "scientific community" has made wildly divergent climate doom claims of which more than half are already disproven. There is no reason to believe the remaining "disaster" claims outside of experimentation. And popular consensus errors are not just limited to climate prediction errors as popular consensus was also wildly wrong about Covid predictions and the predictions for the vaccine.
What this means is that the greatest risk for society is to continue to listen and give blind credence to consensus instead of science, which is always right or wrong no matter how many people choose to agree.
- All progress comes with some level of risk, right?
- People have been talking about these disasters forever, even back in the day when the first predictors were doing their thing. It's kind of crazy how long this idea has been around.
- So, like, the "scientific community" might not be the main deal here. Science is more about experimenting and proving stuff, not just a bunch of people agreeing. Some of the most awesome scientific discoveries happened when everyone was against the idea. So, saying that what everyone thinks is more anti-science than science might be true. And you know what? In the last couple of decades, scientists have been all over the place with their predictions about climate disasters. Half of those have already been proven wrong. So, it's totally fair to be skeptical about the remaining disaster claims and just look at the facts. Plus, it's not only about climate stuff; they were way off with Covid predictions and vaccine stuff too.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the biggest risk we've got is sticking blindly to what everyone agrees on instead of looking at the actual science, which can be right or wrong, no matter how many people buy into it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
high number of respiratory diseases.
you are probably confusing CO with CO2
Countries with high Co2
There's no country with anywhere near 20,000 ppm co2.
Should we risk disaster...
Like I said, most Earth life went extinct when the planet got colder and there was less co2. That's the real risk backed by history. There was more life when it was warmer with more co2. Both plant and animal. There's no risk if we know the conditions for life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
More plants also mean more oxygen. 2000 ppm is a rather relative tiny amount. CO2 isn't poisonous at such low levels. You would need it to be around 20000 ppm to see any effect. There was much more oxygen when the planet had 2000 ppm CO2, which created all sorts of gigantic animal life forms dependent on high oxygen concentrations.
Oxygen good for brain. Great for mammals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
We are not reducing it.
I said purportedly, we are trying to decrease it.
We have too much of it,
Life on earth when it was 2000 ppm (now extinct because of the "too low" ppm) would disagree with you. Those giant megaflora would have been wonderous to walk among.
I would have also liked to see a hell pig (at a distance)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Especially the politicians that censor science because they care about you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Purportedly we are trying to decrease Co2. If we reduce it too low, most life on Earth will die.
Earth has had Co2 as high as 2000 ppm, with abundant plant life. Pretty sure Humans won't be able to replicate those conditions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Co2 isn't a pollutant. We would all die if we lowered co2 below sustainable levels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
the scientific community
You mean the uncensored and paid scientists?
Sure, they really do care about you.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Pence is known for the famous phrase "Not my concern"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Imagine an electric tank....
Military will always get fossil fuel priority. Destroying the planet with bombs is a priority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
They should invest in nuclear energy.
Well that would mean the ultra rich would have to let poor people live instead of freezing to death. We can't have any of that.
Created:
Created:
-->
@Barney
He could get away with murder...
or, wait for it... He could get away with.... INSURRECTION!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Warming doesnt accurately describe whats happening to nature.
Greening is a better term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Europe, USA... not so much.
USA politicians make a lot of money off of green energy stock returns inflated with corporate tax subsidies and also campaign donations.
This is about getting the rich richer. it was never about "the planet" or the people. A massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the elites based on a manufactured crisis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The human race has shown itself much more adept at adaptation rather than prevention.
I read somewhere that 61,000 people died in Europe last Summer.
You have to wonder with all those efforts at "fixing the planet" why they couldn't set aside a few Euros for 61,000 air conditioners....
And as bad as Summer is for killing people, the Cold is far worse.
Again, how hard is it to set aside a few Euros for some heating?
While climate change may or may not cause deaths down the road, in the short term, energy shortages cause immediate deaths, which you would think should be preventable considering our advanced energy producing technologies.....
The smarter path would be to generate a surplus of energy before experimenting with a retooling of the production of energy so those people don't die every year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
And fanfiction about the end of the world can go in the Artistic section.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You shouldn't do callouts.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Easy with the ad-homs.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
don't push it. I actually like you as a person.
Created:
I never addressed you. I addressed the topic. You guys need to learn the difference, even if it means Moderation action.
Created:
You are the closet
Personal attack. Reported.
Created: