Into the Night
Verified User
YALSA. Psychoquackery.
Climate change discussion
- Thread starter redfish
- Start date
YALSA. Psychoquackery.
Into the Night
Verified User
I'll say it again. Science is not a government agency.
Define 'global warming'.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
No shit dumbass.
Here' another one: Foreign assholes interfering in American politics are unregistered foreign agents.
Here's another one: It's dark at night. Do you understand this, dumbass?
Read this: https://climate.nasa.gov/ I'll quiz you later.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello redfish,
We don't think we need any 'unproven link.' Most pollution is not causing climate change. The only link came about when the EPA decided to classify excess CO2 as a pollutant in order to bring pollution laws to bear on the problem. Industrial activity and transportation which release tons of carbon into the atmosphere, more than can be absorbed by plants and photosynthesis, have caused a warming effect for the entire planet.
If there were simply far fewer humans on Earth, the planet would be able to absorb these emissions, no problem. The problem is there are too many humans to allow everyone to do this. If the entire world emitted as much carbon per individual as the USA does, climate change and habitat destruction would be far more advanced. Developing nations are racing toward trying to achieve what Americans have, and that is making the problem far worse.
Something has to be done.
We cannot continue on our current course.
We don't think we need any 'unproven link.' Most pollution is not causing climate change. The only link came about when the EPA decided to classify excess CO2 as a pollutant in order to bring pollution laws to bear on the problem. Industrial activity and transportation which release tons of carbon into the atmosphere, more than can be absorbed by plants and photosynthesis, have caused a warming effect for the entire planet.
If there were simply far fewer humans on Earth, the planet would be able to absorb these emissions, no problem. The problem is there are too many humans to allow everyone to do this. If the entire world emitted as much carbon per individual as the USA does, climate change and habitat destruction would be far more advanced. Developing nations are racing toward trying to achieve what Americans have, and that is making the problem far worse.
Something has to be done.
We cannot continue on our current course.
what exactly do you think should be done? mass extermination of humans? return to living in caves? stop reproducing? stop moving around? What????
moon
Satire for Sanity
Such exaggerations are foolishness . Better management of our life-styles is relatively easy. Ecocidal capitalism is a major obstacle though.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Into the Night is an untreated Paranoid Schizophrenic. All you kneed to know about him can be found by clicking the link to his faux forum and manifesto in the signature links of him and his socks IBDaMann and gfm7175...the "mods" on his fake forum. He's smart, just sick. Not Ted Kacynski smart, but smarter than average. I'm guessing in the 110-125 range.
https://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/19/debunking-signature
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello redfish,
No, we do not need: "mass extermination of humans? return to living in caves? stop reproducing? stop moving around? "
Basically we need fewer humans over a long period of time. Humans die naturally, so nobody has to be killed. What needs to be done is to greatly reduce the number of young replacement humans being reproduced. There must be far fewer births. A maximum of two children per family worldwide would do it, but I don't know if that would be quick enough. There may have to be further incentives to have even fewer children. Naturally, religion is going to be a big stumbling block there.
We also need to work very diligently at efficient use of resources and energy, look for ways to reduce waste and get the most out of our energy. And it is time for liberals to take a fresh look at nuclear energy. That is almost totally carbon neutral. What needs to be done there is develop safe nuclear energy.
If we produced most of our electricity with means other than fossil fuels, and we also converted from mostly ICE vehicles to electric, we could severely reduce our emissions.
I have often wondered why we don't use existing technology to do more. What if cars had easily interchangeable battery packs? What if there was a universal fixture and standardized battery packs that could be inserted from below the vehicle? Vehicles with depleted batteries could drive in to a swap station, pay a price, get their battery pack(s) swapped out for fresh ones, and drive on their way. The whole operation should take no longer than filling up a gasoline car. So what if they only go 80 or 100 miles on a charge? If we streamline the process the driver would not even have to get out of the vehicle.
Parking places at work and shopping centers could have vehicle recharging capability. Again, make it a standardized automatic operation. You pull up, push a button or two, get some more charge while you're there. Certainly there is a way to measure and bill individuals according to their usage. I don't really see an impediment to building a very sustainable system with current technology.
Sure, we should work on better systems, newer more efficient technology. Of course we should continue to to that. But in the meantime we need something to more readily and em masse, move away from gasoline.
No, we do not need: "mass extermination of humans? return to living in caves? stop reproducing? stop moving around? "
Basically we need fewer humans over a long period of time. Humans die naturally, so nobody has to be killed. What needs to be done is to greatly reduce the number of young replacement humans being reproduced. There must be far fewer births. A maximum of two children per family worldwide would do it, but I don't know if that would be quick enough. There may have to be further incentives to have even fewer children. Naturally, religion is going to be a big stumbling block there.
We also need to work very diligently at efficient use of resources and energy, look for ways to reduce waste and get the most out of our energy. And it is time for liberals to take a fresh look at nuclear energy. That is almost totally carbon neutral. What needs to be done there is develop safe nuclear energy.
If we produced most of our electricity with means other than fossil fuels, and we also converted from mostly ICE vehicles to electric, we could severely reduce our emissions.
I have often wondered why we don't use existing technology to do more. What if cars had easily interchangeable battery packs? What if there was a universal fixture and standardized battery packs that could be inserted from below the vehicle? Vehicles with depleted batteries could drive in to a swap station, pay a price, get their battery pack(s) swapped out for fresh ones, and drive on their way. The whole operation should take no longer than filling up a gasoline car. So what if they only go 80 or 100 miles on a charge? If we streamline the process the driver would not even have to get out of the vehicle.
Parking places at work and shopping centers could have vehicle recharging capability. Again, make it a standardized automatic operation. You pull up, push a button or two, get some more charge while you're there. Certainly there is a way to measure and bill individuals according to their usage. I don't really see an impediment to building a very sustainable system with current technology.
Sure, we should work on better systems, newer more efficient technology. Of course we should continue to to that. But in the meantime we need something to more readily and em masse, move away from gasoline.
always pretending to be the psychologist. by what criteria in the DSM-V did you make your diagnosis "doctor"?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I asked for specifics and you give me meaningless generalities, why am I not surprised?
Last edited:
to summarize your ideas. reduce reproduction, the USA is not the problem in that regard, how do you plan to get China, India, Indonesia, and Africa to stop reproducing?
electric cars and charging stations-----------where does the electricity come from to power the charging stations? Not wind and solar, those make up only around 5% of our electric production, then there is the problem of the toxic batteries and the child labor used to mine the rare earth elements required to build them.
No, the only real answer is to find ways to use hydrocarbons more efficiently and with zero emissions. Maybe some future day some aliens will visit and give us the key to anti gravity propulsion, until then, we have to rely on hydrocarbons. anything else ignores the laws of energy and physics.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
co2 is not a pollutant. the envirohoax is just an excuse for culling humanity dreamt up by internationalist fascist psychotics.
100% correct. interesting that it took 194 posts to get to the truth.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
lol. I'll check in sooner next time.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello redfish,
Every country is the problem. The USA is the home of octo mom. Plenty of people have more than one child. (which would be two per couple.) Every country has to reduce births. I don't 'plan' to do anything except state my opinion on this. Just because I am looking at the science and drawing logical conclusions does not obligate me to contrive a plan. That would be up to the leaders of the many nations, however they deem best to do it. Whatever they come up with, it must be done to save humanity from itself.
I believe the most logical place to get lots of clean energy with existing technology would be nuclear.
Agreed, so why not simply use tried and true lead-acid batteries, which are completely recyclable?
No, that is not the only answer. That is the answer which protects the profits of the rich executives and owners of the fossil fuel mega-corporations.
Would be nice, but I seriously doubt any benevolent visitors with advanced technology are showing up any time soon. And I refuse to believe there is no other answer. We should use what we have.
There are numerous R&D projects to produce safe nuclear. Many of them do not even require intricate cooling systems, and if left unattended simply shut down automatically. This would prevent anything like 3-mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukishima. The main impediment appears to be the regulatory system which was designed for 1950's style nuclear technology.
I wonder why we don't have this:
Electric cars which use quickly replaceable standardized lead-acid battery packs, recharged by electricity from Traveling Wave Reactors. Clean virtually unlimited motive energy.
Or
Hydrogen fuel cell cars where the hydrogen is generated from power derived from electricity from Traveling Wave Reactors.
It seems like we've had so many promising ideas I am perplexed as to why we have not scaled some of them up.
Every country is the problem. The USA is the home of octo mom. Plenty of people have more than one child. (which would be two per couple.) Every country has to reduce births. I don't 'plan' to do anything except state my opinion on this. Just because I am looking at the science and drawing logical conclusions does not obligate me to contrive a plan. That would be up to the leaders of the many nations, however they deem best to do it. Whatever they come up with, it must be done to save humanity from itself.
I believe the most logical place to get lots of clean energy with existing technology would be nuclear.
Agreed, so why not simply use tried and true lead-acid batteries, which are completely recyclable?
No, that is not the only answer. That is the answer which protects the profits of the rich executives and owners of the fossil fuel mega-corporations.
Would be nice, but I seriously doubt any benevolent visitors with advanced technology are showing up any time soon. And I refuse to believe there is no other answer. We should use what we have.
There are numerous R&D projects to produce safe nuclear. Many of them do not even require intricate cooling systems, and if left unattended simply shut down automatically. This would prevent anything like 3-mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukishima. The main impediment appears to be the regulatory system which was designed for 1950's style nuclear technology.
I wonder why we don't have this:
Electric cars which use quickly replaceable standardized lead-acid battery packs, recharged by electricity from Traveling Wave Reactors. Clean virtually unlimited motive energy.
Or
Hydrogen fuel cell cars where the hydrogen is generated from power derived from electricity from Traveling Wave Reactors.
It seems like we've had so many promising ideas I am perplexed as to why we have not scaled some of them up.
I agree with you on nuclear, but the AGW crowd does not. Sooooooooooooooooooooooo
the way to find alternate sources of energy is to let the free market work it, not the government. The profit motive has created all of our technological advances, government has created nothing but waste and fraud.
moon
Satire for Sanity
You presented foolishness dressed as enquiry.
Vera likes you
Haw, haw..............................haw.