Heh, you wouldn't be able to recognise industry science from genuine science even if it hit you over the head with a wet cloth... And it has to do mostly with your "beliefs", your "intent", not IQ or anything, so it's pointless to debate with you... Yes, "green" has become big business but we are talking not seeing wood for the trees here... The "other business" is so much bigger than this one, ergo this "objection" IS laughable!
All right, I have not started it - yet again. And I have largely ignored the clowns, usual suspects... Enough! Lazy sods: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=climate change cscientific consensus&t=opera&ia=news https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full https://www.wolfcast.co.uk/all/2018/4/6/climate-change-97-percent https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm It's utterly unbecoming of allegedly (wo)men of spirit to take Trump on his word...
I think your just as bad as Trump when it comes to showing your bias. You seem to think the U.S. is some kinda evil because of it's energy consumption when in reality it is China that consumes more energy and resources than the U.S. Why don't you go to a Chinese web site and complain to the Chinese? ohhh. I know! it is because China is a communist country and your couldn't bitch to them about their energy, resources and massive pollution if you wanted too because they won't let you, and even if you managed to say something anyway....you would end up being a liver donor from their prison cell if they caught you
@gorski: I sincerely feel sorry for you. The world is not "black-and-white" as you portray it to be. There are so many factors involved when it comes to changing energy consumption and energy sources. There are many industries in the USA and in the world who rely on petrochemicals and on energy. Just switching without giving them time to make the necessary changes is not fair, and it could be detrimental to other parts of the -WORLD- economy. Not just the USA, but the world. To put it metaphorically, if you're cooking for 10 and you make a change to the recipe, only 10 people are affected. If you're cooking for 10,000 (10.000) then the adverse effect carries into 10000 people. Look at the demographs and the populations that have modulated their energy generation to be "clean". Did you notice that many of them rely on Geothermal for electricity? And their efforts are ancillary, or have minimal impact on their primary energy consumption? Science has no room for wild fantasies and / or strong emotions. It requires forethought and analysis. Look at the data carefully. Then and only then will you be all but immune to the hype and social engineering trickery that pervades our internet and our media streams today.
National Academies of Science final report on the matter. An article about an independent study meant to debunk global warming. Finally, an article about a study the validates another made decades ago concerning a future resource crunch. Note that it did not even consider global warming because major studies on that were not yet implemented.
Here is a pearl for all of you "believers": https://www.theguardian.com/technol...erm=281086&subid=20906735&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2 Cheers, dear "capitalists"...
Radiation from cell phones causes global warming??? although the whole cancer-cell phone sounds interesting, it needs it's own thread Now.... if you stated that mass producing cell phone materials was causing some kinda global warming it would be a better fit for this thread
I'm not lending any credence to it, but I will state that the HAARP project has been accused of doing just that. It helps to understand the technology so that a determination can be made as to the validity of such a claim. https://www.mat.ucsb.edu/g.legrady/academic/courses/03w200a/projects/wireless/cell_technology.htm N.B.: It took me looking through 3 links before I found a web page that didn't sound like something from the movie "Ideocracy".
More idiocy, Vicar? On the other hand, some grown-up stuff: "In the 2015-2016 election cycle, the fossil fuel industry in America received over $20 billionin federal subsidies. These subsidies are not only encouraging economic behavior that is decimating our environment but they are putting the welfare of a dying industry above the future of life as we know it. Yet, pundits and politicians defend these actions by spreading the myth that the fossil fuel industry, especially coal, should be saved for the future of American jobs and the benefit of the American economy. In this video, Sanders Institute Fellow Bill McKibben outlines some of the key facts about the solar and coal industries. He shows why the renewable energy industry is the clear path forward both for our planet and for American jobs."
It's been predicted that if all of the polar ice on the earth melted, sea levels would rise by about 216 feet. This would be catastrophic on both a social and economic scale, since about 40% of the world's population lives within 100km of it's oceans. But it would by no means be an extinction level event, since there would still be a significant portion of the earth's land mass unaffected by the rise in sea levels and available for human habitation. See here and look at all the illustrations: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/ On the other hand, during the Cryogenian Period, which occurred between 720-635 million years ago, the Earth was completely covered by ice, what scientists refer to as "Snowball Earth" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenian). Now that would qualify as an extinction level event in anyone's book. Note that during the 4.54 billion years the earth has been around, it has spent most of it's time without the existence of any polar ice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timel...iationsinEarthExistancelicenced_annotated.jpg). The current ice cap in Antarctica came into being about 35 million years ago, while ice cap covering the Arctic Sea and northern Greenland is only 3 million years old. Both are mere specks in the earth's overall timeline.
The Matrix - Smith Interrogates Morpheus Transcript "Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure." Agreed!
Wisdom from movies... swell... We do not HAVE to be like this, we are not animals - we have the capacity to reason, so we could arrange our relationship with Mutty Natur in a rational manner, not to use fossil fuels, not to pollute idiotically and cut the branch we sit on, not to pursue profit under any and all circumstances, not to allow soil erosion, not to commit ecocide every so often and so on and on... We could create conditions which would foster a rational, non-domineering relationship with "the other", i.e. an inter-subjective relationship, not Subject-Object relationship. But for that to happen I fear that not only would Capitalism have to go but also our current way of viewing ourselves, what we perceive as "our nature", as Human Beings... And that will be one helluva long road, where force must not be in front and more-or-less the only way we are pursuing this goal...
And here is the illustration, dear uncritically minded "capitalists": https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-consumed-in-ever-greater-destructive-volumes To maintain our current appetite for resources, we would need the equivalent of 1.7 Earths, according to Global Footprint Network, an international research organisation that makes an annual assessment of how far humankind is falling into ecological debt. Earth Overshoot Day falls on 1 August this year - marking the point at which consumption exceeds the capacity of nature to regenerate Past Earth Overshoot Days https://www.overshootday.org/ The overshoot began in the 1970s, when rising populations and increasing average demands pushed consumption beyond a sustainable level. Since then, the day at which humanity has busted its annual planetary budget has moved forward. Thirty years ago, the overshoot was on 15 October. Twenty years ago, 30 September. Ten years ago, 15 August. There was a brief slowdown, but the pace has picked back up in the past two years. On current trends, next year could mark the first time, the planet’s budget is busted in July. While ever greater food production, mineral extraction, forest clearance and fossil-fuel burning bring short-term (and unequally distributed) lifestyle gains, the long-term consequences are increasingly apparent in terms of soil erosion, water shortages and climate disruption.
So......are you saying that we need to exterminate more people in order to use fewer resources gorski? I know! Lets start a major war and that'll fix most problems!.... we could wipe out billions today with only a single push of a button, that way all them nasty humans won't be polluting and gobbling up all the earth's resources!
I take offence at your unintelligent "question" and "carefully considered inference", actually!!! This really is aggressive strawman making in progress of the worst kind - the kind one could see from space, without a telescope, such is the scale of this vulgarity and nastiness... So, this has very little with intelligence, Humanity or anything anyone with any brains would argue as a rational solution for our survival and survival of most species on this planet - but I am used to this kind of "comment/question" from many users like yourself on this forum... I no longer bother with questions of the "How on Earth can anyone with minimal IQ come to such a 'conclusion' and attack me for something I never advocated, how can anyone allow themselves such freedom to accuse me of Nazi-style politics, FCOL, when they know I am on the progressive Social Democratic part of the political spectrum"?!? Anyone with even a teeny-weeny bit of brains understands that we are finite beings and that replenishing of Humanity is manageable - but not on a forceful basis. Family planning based on understanding the issues is not something that is beyond us, not something we have no experience in... What will be a huge problem is the Capitalist "mantra" of "3% annual growth as a 'must' or we will all go bust"! But go on, make an even more twatish accusation of my stance based on your "understanding" of the issues... Anything less and I would be worried that even you can learn something minimal about logics, ethics, politics etc. etc.
@Joe C: That's what places like McDonalds,Burger King and Taco Bell are for. Kill 'em with obesity, hypertension and heart disease. Eugenics at its best.
+1 And @gorski eating green leaves and carrots only, for him to live longer and healthier they say. Argh! Pitty. Spoiler j/k gorski
Dam.... Canada may be starting to get smart!! Provinces unite against Trudeau's carbon tax | Brad Trost