So, it appears that the majority here does not think science can not advance to a point that the major factors affecting the earth can be solved. Yet think that a rogue nation or leader could not use nuclear weapons in a first strike scenario.
Well I'm facisinated by the idea of the majority of you not trusting science but trusting leaders of a country.
If so I think we are doomed.
A rogue nation might get off a bomb or two. That would be terrible for the people involved, but the Earth would feel little effect. AGW has the potential to be far worse and if we do not curb fossil fuel consumption it is going to be rather hard to control.
Do you realize that currently wind and solar are the two cheapest sources of energy. It is still easier to make fossil fuel powered plants but even that will not be the case for long. Dedicated taxes can have amazing outcome at times. Subsidizing "Green energy" and making people pay the full price for oil and coal is not a bad idea at all.
That's a politician trying to whip up fear in order
to maintain power in both Israel & USA, where
our politicians lap this **** up.
Obviously, Iran faces more threats than just Israel,
eg, Saudis, Iraq, USA. And given that 2 of Iran's
threats have nukes, (USA, Israel), they've given
Iran good reason to want nuclear insurance against
attack.
And Israel could just as easily nuke Iran.
If both are so armed, then MAD would reign.
I'm not sure we could rely on Israel sticking to conventional weapons if that happened. Just speculation of course. Incidentally, Israel is well aware of the threat and recently (?) raided an Iranian nuclear facility and set them back many years (he said).
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperature and weather patterns.
So n increase in unstable weather could be from climate change. More energy in the weather would mean more major storms that bring cold down from the north in the winter or heat up from the south in the summer. We have seen both.
A rogue nation might get off a bomb or two. That would be terrible for the people involved, but the Earth would feel little effect. AGW has the potential to be far worse and if we do not curb fossil fuel consumption it is going to be rather hard to control.
Do you realize that currently wind and solar are the two cheapest sources of energy. It is still easier to make fossil fuel powered plants but even that will not be the case for long. Dedicated taxes can have amazing outcome at times. Subsidizing "Green energy" and making people pay the full price for oil and coal is not a bad idea at all.
It's a shame solar is only feasible with adequate sunlight in ideal conditions. If they could somehow improve solar technology to work under low light or even nocturnal light without significant drops in production, that would be ideal. Couple that with improved energy storage systems and it might be a winner.
It's a shame solar is only feasible with adequate sunlight in ideal conditions. If they could somehow improve solar technology to work under low light or even nocturnal light without significant drops in production, that would be ideal. Couple that with improved energy storage systems and it might be a winner.
Solar is limited in that way. Ways around it are being developed. Making hydrogen would be one way. Break water down using electrolysis. Toss the oxygen, save the hydrogen. Ship where needed. It can then be burned with water as a byproduct. I am rather pro-nuclear. The problems of disposing of nuclear waste are more emotional than scientific Between nuclear and renewables we should be able to beat this
Also people that complain about the power grid not being able to handle the increase in power are ignoring the obvious. Our power grid has needed an update for quite some time. We might as well boost it to the point that it can handle the electricity needed for vehicles. One of Texas's main problems during the big freeze a few years ago was not that there was not enough power, but that the lines could not handle the demand. And that was without bunch of electric cars increasing consumption. They are WAY overdue when it comes to an upgrade.
And some things that we might not have considered fully. Like animal "pests" migrating north, and from a recent news item some kind of fungus disease being seen further north than before.
You probably mean literally a swamp with literal reptilian carnivores. Figuratively, that's not far from my present view of American life. About half its population seem sociopathic now, like the people who mock empathy by using the word "woke," or MAGA, or those that want to "own the libs," and those that don't care how much children are terrified of schools. The pandemic brought this rampant anti-social contingent to the forefront with people demanding jobs and access to venues where they were unwanted and began crying about tyranny in their indifference to the fears and needs of others. The religious right with its big extended middle finger for fertile women everywhere is more of that. The Karen phenomenon is more of it yet. Overt white supremacists are yet another manifestation of this poverty of spirit that washed over that culture now.
If you have some special insight here and turn out to be correct, you can make a killing in real estate. Just buy it up all along the gulf coast and the east coast, especially between the Carolinas and Florida, where worsening hurricanes and rising sea levels have the faint-hearted motivated to sell. There was a guy in Northern California whose house burned down twice in three years, and decided to leave what he considers to be a now no longer habitable region. His gullibility is your opportunity. I'll bet he was or is a motivated seller and would let you buy his lot for a song.
No, it wasn't humor. Humor makes people laugh (see video below). It was trolling. And now you're gaslighting. "I was just kidding," "Where's your sense of humor," and "Can't you take a joke are all red flags for that behavior. None of them are things actual comedians say. They don't need to. Nobody confuses a joke with anything else.
No, the consensus of experts are in agreement about climate change and have been for decades, and obviously those who argued against them then or now are wrong.
And you get an F for not recognizing that both are byproducts of a technological civilization. Anthropogenic climate change is a result of technology, and any mitigation not due to widespread decimation of these societies will come from additional technology.
It's a shame solar is only feasible with adequate sunlight in ideal conditions. If they could somehow improve solar technology to work under low light or even nocturnal light without significant drops in production, that would be ideal.
Or you could move to where the sun is. Sam Kinnison (link hidden in the spoiler) had similar advice for starving people, which might offend some, but it's essentially the same message. And nobody will need to tell you that he is joking. Video 59 seconds.
Except that's not what happening. Those agreeing with Joe aren't agreeing because Joe said it.
You probably mean literally a swamp with literal reptilian carnivores. Figuratively, that's not far from my present view of American life. About half its population seem sociopathic now, like the people who mock empathy by using the word "woke," or MAGA, or those that want to "own the libs," and those that don't care how much children are terrified of schools. The pandemic brought this rampant anti-social contingent to the forefront with people demanding jobs and access to venues where they were unwanted and began crying about tyranny in their indifference to the fears and needs of others. The religious right with its big extended middle finger for fertile women everywhere is more of that. The Karen phenomenon is more of it yet. Overt white supremacists are yet another manifestation of this poverty of spirit that washed over that culture now.
If you have some special insight here and turn out to be correct, you can make a killing in real estate. Just buy it up all along the gulf coast and the east coast, especially between the Carolinas and Florida, where worsening hurricanes and rising sea levels have the faint-hearted motivated to sell. There was a guy in Northern California whose house burned down twice in three years, and decided to leave what he considers to be a now no longer habitable region. His gullibility is your opportunity. I'll bet he was or is a motivated seller and would let you buy his lot for a song.
No, it wasn't humor. Humor makes people laugh (see video below). It was trolling. And now you're gaslighting. "I was just kidding," "Where's your sense of humor," and "Can't you take a joke are all red flags for that behavior. None of them are things actual comedians say. They don't need to. Nobody confuses a joke with anything else.
No, the consensus of experts are in agreement about climate change and have been for decades, and obviously those who argued against them then or now are wrong.
And you get an F for not recognizing that both are byproducts of a technological civilization. Anthropogenic climate change is a result of technology, and any mitigation not due to widespread decimation of these societies will come from additional technology.
Or you could move to where the sun is. Sam Kinnison (link hidden in the spoiler) had similar advice for starving people, which might offend some, but it's essentially the same message. And nobody will need to tell you that he is joking. Video 59 seconds.
Technically you are somewhat right. We do not want the climate to change as it has been. But it is due to man's activities. If someone kept putting blankets on you when you were in bed who would you say is the cause of you waking up because you got too warm?
Technically you are somewhat right. We do not want the climate to change as it has been. But it is due to man's activities. If someone kept putting blankets on you when you were in bed who would you say is the cause of you waking up because you got too warm?
No, we know it is not that. What makes you think that it is a cycle? And a couple of degrees Celsius is quite bit. I need to check to see what it has been lately.
Yea. That's why I wasn't convinced it was exclusively man made/caused.
What was interesting that had skewed my view and caused me to adjust my position somewhat was from a poster from the past who was rather well educated, and explained to me there was a type of synthetic carbon that dosent occur in nature but was emitted by human technology that is detectable in the atmosphere.
He's right: nuclear war has a risk of occurring, but mutual determent makes it very unlikely. On the other hand, climate change is already happening and affecting weather patterns and occurrence of natural disasters (e.g., wildfires and floods) in multiple regions around the world.
Tell that to Texans who have never seen deep-freezes like have happened in the past few years. Or hell, even other areas of the Great Plains. This winter my area got down to -20 without windchill. Negative Twenty. It has never been that cold.
Alright. A nuclear holocaust is not a certainty. But do you believe that climate change and global devastation is less certain than that? Most people accept that it's already happening. It make take a few decades longer than a weekend of all out nuclear war, but do you think it is uncertain if it will actually happen - if we don't drastically change what we are doing right now?
In other words, do accept there is a real problem that will overwhelm the planet which is already happening unless stopped? Or do you deny there's actually a real danger? On a scale of acceptance as 10, to denial as 1, are you closer to denialism or to acceptance? What number would you put yourself at?
