independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Climate change protests around the world
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 5 of 10 <123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #120 posted 09/29/19 5:53am

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

Explanation please?

did you see her speech?

Yes I saw it and that's why I don't get why you'd say stupid shit like that lol but then again, you're known to claim bullshit about people so I probably should've known better.

"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."


"Extra cheese, extra HAM, extra bullshit" -DiminutiveRocker
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #121 posted 09/29/19 5:53am

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

13cjk13 said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

Explanation please?

Evidently he watched her speak and hallucinated some batshit wacky thoughts about what she was saying. lol

lol lol

"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."


"Extra cheese, extra HAM, extra bullshit" -DiminutiveRocker
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #122 posted 09/29/19 6:23am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

ThatWhiteDude said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

did you see her speech?

Yes I saw it and that's why I don't get why you'd say stupid shit like that lol but then again, you're known to claim bullshit about people so I probably should've known better.

So let's break it down:


Seems Greta is just another rich racist white girl exploiting her white rich privilege at the expense of her lessors.

Do you deny that she is a a girl? that she is white? and that she (or her parents) are rich?

And do you not agree that white privilege is a thing?

And what is she asking for? For more than a 50% cut to CO2 emissions? What impact would that have on the poor? How much would doing that increase the cost of energy?

Do you not grasp that these acts will have a much larger impact on the poor people?

or did you mostly get triggered by the use of the word "racist"? She seemed very... Aryan to me...


Anyway she is a deeply privilege person from a wealthy family...

But I will giver her credit for admitting she should be in school... maybe taking a science class?

The Spike is Real Wear a Mask (this is not the 2nd Wave)
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #123 posted 09/29/19 6:39am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

Yes I saw it and that's why I don't get why you'd say stupid shit like that lol but then again, you're known to claim bullshit about people so I probably should've known better.

So let's break it down:


Seems Greta is just another rich racist white girl exploiting her white rich privilege at the expense of her lessors.

Do you deny that she is a a girl? that she is white? and that she (or her parents) are rich?

And do you not agree that white privilege is a thing?

And what is she asking for? For more than a 50% cut to CO2 emissions? What impact would that have on the poor? How much would doing that increase the cost of energy?

Do you not grasp that these acts will have a much larger impact on the poor people?

or did you mostly get triggered by the use of the word "racist"? She seemed very... Aryan to me...


Anyway she is a deeply privilege person from a wealthy family...

But I will giver her credit for admitting she should be in school... maybe taking a science class?

Just as we all knew....you got nothing (except a hangover). Reflect on yourself, you're better than your current posts make you look. Right now, you're looking like the village idiot.

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #124 posted 09/29/19 6:41am

maplenpg

avatar

JoeyC said:

maplenpg said:

Note to self: Check sound levels when watching youtube at 6am biggrin.

100% to the bold. You might like this:

https://www.theguardian.c...mate-demon



I'll definitely check it out.


Also, in my post, i meant uninhabitable. I'm always making mistakes in my sentences(missing letters in words, misplaced commas, and what not). My bad.

I doubt anyone noticed, I didn't anyway. Certainly no need to apologise.

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #125 posted 09/29/19 6:43am

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

Yes I saw it and that's why I don't get why you'd say stupid shit like that lol but then again, you're known to claim bullshit about people so I probably should've known better.

So let's break it down:


Seems Greta is just another rich racist white girl exploiting her white rich privilege at the expense of her lessors.

Do you deny that she is a a girl? that she is white? and that she (or her parents) are rich?

And do you not agree that white privilege is a thing?

And what is she asking for? For more than a 50% cut to CO2 emissions? What impact would that have on the poor? How much would doing that increase the cost of energy?

Do you not grasp that these acts will have a much larger impact on the poor people?

or did you mostly get triggered by the use of the word "racist"? She seemed very... Aryan to me...


Anyway she is a deeply privilege person from a wealthy family...

But I will giver her credit for admitting she should be in school... maybe taking a science class?

You know exactly what I meant by bullshit you only make yourself look incredibly stupid lol

"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."


"Extra cheese, extra HAM, extra bullshit" -DiminutiveRocker
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #126 posted 09/29/19 8:46am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

notice no one refuted what I said. WINNING


but really.. if we get what the global climate change zealots are calling for all of our lives will take a huge drop in quality and comfort and length.

The Spike is Real Wear a Mask (this is not the 2nd Wave)
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #127 posted 09/29/19 8:57am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

notice no one refuted what I said. WINNING


but really.. if we get what the global climate change zealots are calling for all of our lives will take a huge drop in quality and comfort and length.

If you give me more detail about exactly what you mean, I'll happily debate this with you.

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #128 posted 09/29/19 9:12am

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

notice no one refuted what I said. WINNING


but really.. if we get what the global climate change zealots are calling for all of our lives will take a huge drop in quality and comfort and length.

Because saving the climate isn't a comfortable matter, never was and never will be. Infact, our greed for comfort is a huge factor in climate change. Some people in my area complain and complain about Greta and the other protestors, some of these people have more than one car when they wouldn't even need one car. And then they say: Oh I pay 300/400 for taxes for these cars, but complain when gas costs 3 more cents. Ridiculous, if you can have up to 3 cars, you should have the money for gas. Stop complaining about.

I live in an area where you can walk to the grocery store, it takes you 5 minutes maximum if you're a slow walker. But most people fucking drive there, if they'd atleast take a bike but no, it's got to be the car. And that's the people who complain about higher taxes, get the f*ck outta here! There's almost more cars than people cause they're like: Yeah we actually don't need two or three cars, but we don't want to share one car. I'm not making this up, people were asked about the cars they owned and why they have them. My aunts husband bought a caprio just to drive with it in summer and he complains about higher taxes, the guy bought a car because he just wants to drive around in a caprio during summer.

I could go on with the hypocrisy I see on a daily basis.

We've been comfortable for too long now and it took it's toll on our climate.

"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."


"Extra cheese, extra HAM, extra bullshit" -DiminutiveRocker
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #129 posted 09/29/19 9:36am

maplenpg

avatar

ThatWhiteDude said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

notice no one refuted what I said. WINNING


but really.. if we get what the global climate change zealots are calling for all of our lives will take a huge drop in quality and comfort and length.

Because saving the climate isn't a comfortable matter, never was and never will be. Infact, our greed for comfort is a huge factor in climate change. Some people in my area complain and complain about Greta and the other protestors, some of these people have more than one car when they wouldn't even need one car. And then they say: Oh I pay 300/400 for taxes for these cars, but complain when gas costs 3 more cents. Ridiculous, if you can have up to 3 cars, you should have the money for gas. Stop complaining about.

I live in an area where you can walk to the grocery store, it takes you 5 minutes maximum if you're a slow walker. But most people fucking drive there, if they'd atleast take a bike but no, it's got to be the car. And that's the people who complain about higher taxes, get the f*ck outta here! There's almost more cars than people cause they're like: Yeah we actually don't need two or three cars, but we don't want to share one car. I'm not making this up, people were asked about the cars they owned and why they have them. My aunts husband bought a caprio just to drive with it in summer and he complains about higher taxes, the guy bought a car because he just wants to drive around in a caprio during summer.

I could go on with the hypocrisy I see on a daily basis.

We've been comfortable for too long now and it took it's toll on our climate.

Yup. And those people also turn a blind eye to the loss of habitat quality, comfort, and shortened lives of animals such as orang-utan and polar bears etc...

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #130 posted 09/29/19 9:53am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

ThatWhiteDude said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

notice no one refuted what I said. WINNING


but really.. if we get what the global climate change zealots are calling for all of our lives will take a huge drop in quality and comfort and length.

Because saving the climate isn't a comfortable matter, never was and never will be. Infact, our greed for comfort is a huge factor in climate change. Some people in my area complain and complain about Greta and the other protestors, some of these people have more than one car when they wouldn't even need one car. And then they say: Oh I pay 300/400 for taxes for these cars, but complain when gas costs 3 more cents. Ridiculous, if you can have up to 3 cars, you should have the money for gas. Stop complaining about.

I live in an area where you can walk to the grocery store, it takes you 5 minutes maximum if you're a slow walker. But most people fucking drive there, if they'd atleast take a bike but no, it's got to be the car. And that's the people who complain about higher taxes, get the f*ck outta here! There's almost more cars than people cause they're like: Yeah we actually don't need two or three cars, but we don't want to share one car. I'm not making this up, people were asked about the cars they owned and why they have them. My aunts husband bought a caprio just to drive with it in summer and he complains about higher taxes, the guy bought a car because he just wants to drive around in a caprio during summer.

I could go on with the hypocrisy I see on a daily basis.

We've been comfortable for too long now and it took it's toll on our climate.

whart is gas when up $2 a gallon? or $5? or $10? And if you could only run an AC or Heater on odd or even days? Or if the cost of electicty or heating oil or natural gas was 2...3....5 times as much?

that is a conservstive estimate...

you all have no idea what a 50% reduction even means...

The Spike is Real Wear a Mask (this is not the 2nd Wave)
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #131 posted 09/29/19 9:57am

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

maplenpg said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

Because saving the climate isn't a comfortable matter, never was and never will be. Infact, our greed for comfort is a huge factor in climate change. Some people in my area complain and complain about Greta and the other protestors, some of these people have more than one car when they wouldn't even need one car. And then they say: Oh I pay 300/400 for taxes for these cars, but complain when gas costs 3 more cents. Ridiculous, if you can have up to 3 cars, you should have the money for gas. Stop complaining about.

I live in an area where you can walk to the grocery store, it takes you 5 minutes maximum if you're a slow walker. But most people fucking drive there, if they'd atleast take a bike but no, it's got to be the car. And that's the people who complain about higher taxes, get the f*ck outta here! There's almost more cars than people cause they're like: Yeah we actually don't need two or three cars, but we don't want to share one car. I'm not making this up, people were asked about the cars they owned and why they have them. My aunts husband bought a caprio just to drive with it in summer and he complains about higher taxes, the guy bought a car because he just wants to drive around in a caprio during summer.

I could go on with the hypocrisy I see on a daily basis.

We've been comfortable for too long now and it took it's toll on our climate.

Yup. And those people also turn a blind eye to the loss of habitat quality, comfort, and shortened lives of animals such as orang-utan and polar bears etc...

Yeah, they just care about themselves and their level of comfort.

"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."


"Extra cheese, extra HAM, extra bullshit" -DiminutiveRocker
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #132 posted 09/29/19 9:58am

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

Because saving the climate isn't a comfortable matter, never was and never will be. Infact, our greed for comfort is a huge factor in climate change. Some people in my area complain and complain about Greta and the other protestors, some of these people have more than one car when they wouldn't even need one car. And then they say: Oh I pay 300/400 for taxes for these cars, but complain when gas costs 3 more cents. Ridiculous, if you can have up to 3 cars, you should have the money for gas. Stop complaining about.

I live in an area where you can walk to the grocery store, it takes you 5 minutes maximum if you're a slow walker. But most people fucking drive there, if they'd atleast take a bike but no, it's got to be the car. And that's the people who complain about higher taxes, get the f*ck outta here! There's almost more cars than people cause they're like: Yeah we actually don't need two or three cars, but we don't want to share one car. I'm not making this up, people were asked about the cars they owned and why they have them. My aunts husband bought a caprio just to drive with it in summer and he complains about higher taxes, the guy bought a car because he just wants to drive around in a caprio during summer.

I could go on with the hypocrisy I see on a daily basis.

We've been comfortable for too long now and it took it's toll on our climate.

whart is gas when up $2 a gallon? or $5? or $10? And if you could only run an AC or Heater on odd or even days? Or if the cost of electicty or heating oil or natural gas was 2...3....5 times as much?

that is a conservstive estimate...

you all have no idea what a 50% reduction even means...

"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."


"Extra cheese, extra HAM, extra bullshit" -DiminutiveRocker
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #133 posted 09/29/19 10:11am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

ThatWhiteDude said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

whart is gas when up $2 a gallon? or $5? or $10? And if you could only run an AC or Heater on odd or even days? Or if the cost of electicty or heating oil or natural gas was 2...3....5 times as much?

that is a conservstive estimate...

you all have no idea what a 50% reduction even means...

it will be playing for you if these hucksters get their wish...

The Spike is Real Wear a Mask (this is not the 2nd Wave)
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #134 posted 09/29/19 10:40am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Only, do you like dirty water, dirty air? Do you like climate refugees? Get it together dude.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #135 posted 09/29/19 10:40am

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



ThatWhiteDude said:




OnlyNDaUsa said:





whart is gas when up $2 a gallon? or $5? or $10? And if you could only run an AC or Heater on odd or even days? Or if the cost of electicty or heating oil or natural gas was 2...3....5 times as much?

that is a conservstive estimate...

you all have no idea what a 50% reduction even means...







it will be playing for you if these hucksters get their wish...


ohgoon ohgoon ohgoon
"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."


"Extra cheese, extra HAM, extra bullshit" -DiminutiveRocker
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #136 posted 09/29/19 11:34am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Only, do you like dirty water, dirty air? Do you like climate refugees? Get it together dude.

air and water is cleaner now that 100 years ago... and watch out BombSquad declared we can only talk about CO2 in this topic! LOL

[Edited 9/29/19 12:05pm]

The Spike is Real Wear a Mask (this is not the 2nd Wave)
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #137 posted 09/29/19 11:57am

poppys

What is declaied???

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #138 posted 09/29/19 10:52pm

TweetyV6

avatar

ThatWhiteDude said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

notice no one refuted what I said. WINNING


but really.. if we get what the global climate change zealots are calling for all of our lives will take a huge drop in quality and comfort and length.

Because saving the climate isn't a comfortable matter, never was and never will be.

Saving the climate... please explain what you mean with that

Infact, our greed for comfort is a huge factor in climate change.

How so?

Some people in my area complain and complain about Greta and the other protestors, some of these people have more than one car when they wouldn't even need one car.

And then they say: Oh I pay 300/400 for taxes for these cars, but complain when gas costs 3 more cents. Ridiculous, if you can have up to 3 cars, you should have the money for gas. Stop complaining about.

I have 7 cars. My wife & I drive one each.
Together we travel about 300 km/week from home to work.

It's not about how many cars you own, it's about how many km's you drive (if you asume that driving a car realy influences the climate)

I live in an area where you can walk to the grocery store, it takes you 5 minutes maximum if you're a slow walker. But most people fucking drive there, if they'd atleast take a bike but no, it's got to be the car. And that's the people who complain about higher taxes, get the f*ck outta here! There's almost more cars than people cause they're like: Yeah we actually don't need two or three cars, but we don't want to share one car. I'm not making this up, people were asked about the cars they owned and why they have them. My aunts husband bought a caprio just to drive with it in summer and he complains about higher taxes, the guy bought a car because he just wants to drive around in a caprio during summer.

I could go on with the hypocrisy I see on a daily basis.

We've been comfortable for too long now and it took it's toll on our climate.

Yes THAT's is what is influencing the climate. rolleyes rolleyes
Get your facts straight.

And oh... it's cabrio. From the French word Cabriolet.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #139 posted 09/29/19 10:56pm

TweetyV6

avatar

Look like we've been there before


https://twitter.com/Caleb...0999124992

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #140 posted 09/29/19 11:25pm

maplenpg

avatar

Tweety - Imagine for a minute you're in charge of the planet and its environment. What would you do?

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #141 posted 09/29/19 11:30pm

TweetyV6

avatar

Exactly why this topic belongs in this forum section.

It's the climate religion fucking up polictics.



Climate activist Greta Thunberg proclaimed “Successor of Christ” by The Church of Sweden



https://www.bibliatodo.co...of-sweden/

RETARDS!

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #142 posted 09/29/19 11:49pm

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:

Tweety - Imagine for a minute you're in charge of the planet and its environment. What would you do?


Erase humanity biggrin

You and I, we don't disagree that much.
When it comes to actual pollution, I do see the need to act.

When it comes to 'climate change' or 'warming the planet', I'm arrogant enough to say that my knowledge about Physics and Chemistry combined with my scientific education (I could have become a researcher, but I choose not to) convinces me, and several others, not to just 'believe' in man made climate change.

That's plain and utter bullshit, if you understand what other facors, which are far more significant then the little bit of CO2 we 'revive from the past', play a role in how our climate works.
And it's not like I'm pulling these other factors out of my ass. They are well documented, scientific sound but are categorically neglected by the climate alarmists church.

And please, don't misunderstand me.
Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas (as is every gas with a polarity, like NH4, O3, H20 [yes... H2O ... water] etc.) so a change in the concentration of CO2 means that there is a change in the GH effect.
But CO2 is NOT, absolutely NOT, the sole player, let alone the KEY player in the GH effect.

Looking at it from a physics point of view, it's more or less irrelevant, since the Infrared absorbtion rate is very limited compared to H20 AND the concentration of CO2 (only 0,036% of the atmosphere) is very low, again compared to H20 which is about 10% of the atmosphere) AND taking into consideration that the majority of those 0,036% CO2 comes from natural sources, I am sure thatthe CO2 we produce is completely irrelevant when it comes to the GH effect.

CO2 only becomes relevant to politicians as you can use it to introduce taxes based on your CO2 'production'

Ever wondered why politicians make such a fuzz about CO2 (non-toxic, colorless & odorless gass) and not about real pollutants?


So to come back to your original question; regarding CO2 I would do nothing.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #143 posted 09/30/19 12:01am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

maplenpg said:

Tweety - Imagine for a minute you're in charge of the planet and its environment. What would you do?


Erase humanity biggrin

You and I, we don't disagree that much.
When it comes to actual pollution, I do see the need to act.

When it comes to 'climate change' or 'warming the planet', I'm arrogant enough to say that my knowledge about Physics and Chemistry combined with my scientific education (I could have become a researcher, but I choose not to) convinces me, and several others, not to just 'believe' in man made climate change.

That's plain and utter bullshit, if you understand what other facors, which are far more significant then the little bit of CO2 we 'revive from the past', play a role in how our climate works.
And it's not like I'm pulling these other factors out of my ass. They are well documented, scientific sound but are categorically neglected by the climate alarmists church.

And please, don't misunderstand me.
Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas (as is every gas with a polarity, like NH4, O3, H20 [yes... H2O ... water] etc.) so a change in the concentration of CO2 means that there is a change in the GH effect.
But CO2 is NOT, absolutely NOT, the sole player, let alone the KEY player in the GH effect.

Looking at it from a physics point of view, it's more or less irrelevant, since the Infrared absorbtion rate is very limited compared to H20 AND the concentration of CO2 (only 0,036% of the atmosphere) is very low, again compared to H20 which is about 10% of the atmosphere) AND taking into consideration that the majority of those 0,036% CO2 comes from natural sources, I am sure thatthe CO2 we produce is completely irrelevant when it comes to the GH effect.

CO2 only becomes relevant to politicians as you can use it to introduce taxes based on your CO2 'production'

Ever wondered why politicians make such a fuzz about CO2 (non-toxic, colorless & odorless gass) and not about real pollutants?


So to come back to your original question; regarding CO2 I would do nothing.

Thank you. Can I ask what you see as 'actual pollution' and what you would do about it?

Edit to add: I'm not trying to catch you out. I'm genuinely interested. I'll post my responses of what I would do later when I have more time. Of course, anyone else is welcome to chip in with what they would do as well.

[Edited 9/30/19 0:35am]

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #144 posted 09/30/19 12:58am

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:

Thank you. Can I ask what you see as 'actual pollution' and what you would do about it?

Edit to add: I'm not trying to catch you out. I'm genuinely interested. I'll post my responses of what I would do later when I have more time. Of course, anyone else is welcome to chip in with what they would do as well.

[Edited 9/30/19 0:35am]

I do have the feeling that you're genuine, that's why I try to give you extensive answers so you can understand my reasoning.

What do I regard as pollution?
To put it simple: any substance, synthetical or natural, which can cause harm to organisms.

What do I do about it?
More then many people here in this forum, I guess.
Since August 1st, have a new job; I’m the head of the Quality dept. of a (chemical) manufacturing company. In that role, I’m responsible for QESH; Quality, Environment, Safety and Health.

For environment, this means that I’m responsible for the risk analysis of all our materials regarding the environment. That’s part of a standard called ISO14001 and is audited by both the local government and the company which certifies us.
This risk analysis means that for each material we use or produce, we have to evaluate what the risk is of it getting ‘into the environment’ (occurrence), that the severity of such an escape is and what ways we have to control that. These 3 aspects are scored, the scores are multiplied. The product of that multiplication is called the RPN, Risk Priority Number.
If the RPN is above a certain threshold, we are obliged to take action, either to reduce the chance of occurrence or increase the level of control.

Some of the chemicals we use are harmful. Either to the people working with it, the environment or both.
My responsibility is to take adequate measures to make sure no escapes to the environment happen and that no harm to my fellow workers can be done.

Having this ISO14001 certification is prerequisite for our environmental permit.

On a personal basis…
I go to work by bike 2-3 times a week 😊
We deliberately did choose not to have any children.

For the rest… I do not care that much. It’s up to the industry to really have impact and do something.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #145 posted 09/30/19 5:53am

13cjk13

avatar

poppys said:

What is declaied???

A better word for "declared" than they had 100 years ago, I'm guessing. lol

"hey if you found out someone gave you a fake $20 would you be mad?"It is in fact #TRUTH.Mocha ObsidianˈN(y)o͞obēən Cocoa Noir...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #146 posted 09/30/19 7:06am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

maplenpg said:

Tweety - Imagine for a minute you're in charge of the planet and its environment. What would you do?


Erase humanity biggrin

You and I, we don't disagree that much.
When it comes to actual pollution, I do see the need to act.

When it comes to 'climate change' or 'warming the planet', I'm arrogant enough to say that my knowledge about Physics and Chemistry combined with my scientific education (I could have become a researcher, but I choose not to) convinces me, and several others, not to just 'believe' in man made climate change.

That's plain and utter bullshit, if you understand what other facors, which are far more significant then the little bit of CO2 we 'revive from the past', play a role in how our climate works.
And it's not like I'm pulling these other factors out of my ass. They are well documented, scientific sound but are categorically neglected by the climate alarmists church.

And please, don't misunderstand me.
Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas (as is every gas with a polarity, like NH4, O3, H20 [yes... H2O ... water] etc.) so a change in the concentration of CO2 means that there is a change in the GH effect.
But CO2 is NOT, absolutely NOT, the sole player, let alone the KEY player in the GH effect.

Looking at it from a physics point of view, it's more or less irrelevant, since the Infrared absorbtion rate is very limited compared to H20 AND the concentration of CO2 (only 0,036% of the atmosphere) is very low, again compared to H20 which is about 10% of the atmosphere) AND taking into consideration that the majority of those 0,036% CO2 comes from natural sources, I am sure thatthe CO2 we produce is completely irrelevant when it comes to the GH effect.

CO2 only becomes relevant to politicians as you can use it to introduce taxes based on your CO2 'production'

Ever wondered why politicians make such a fuzz about CO2 (non-toxic, colorless & odorless gass) and not about real pollutants?


So to come back to your original question; regarding CO2 I would do nothing.

I'm not sure I agree with some of this. I agree that CO2 is not the sole player, but I do see it as being important. I know that there is probably plenty of science that sides with your post, but there is also plenty of science that suggests the opposite, that CO2 is a major cause for concern. Given how industry has grown exponentially in the past 150ish years, it is not difficult to observe that the fuel consumed by this earth is far higher than ever, and that our emissions are also higher. As always I side with NASA who say:


Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.

Today, we stand on the threshold of a new geologic era, which some term the "Anthropocene", one where the climate is very different to the one our ancestors knew.

If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order of 1500 ppm. The atmosphere would then not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future.

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #147 posted 09/30/19 7:28am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

maplenpg said:

Thank you. Can I ask what you see as 'actual pollution' and what you would do about it?

Edit to add: I'm not trying to catch you out. I'm genuinely interested. I'll post my responses of what I would do later when I have more time. Of course, anyone else is welcome to chip in with what they would do as well.

[Edited 9/30/19 0:35am]

I do have the feeling that you're genuine, that's why I try to give you extensive answers so you can understand my reasoning.

What do I regard as pollution?
To put it simple: any substance, synthetical or natural, which can cause harm to organisms.

What do I do about it?
More then many people here in this forum, I guess.
Since August 1st, have a new job; I’m the head of the Quality dept. of a (chemical) manufacturing company. In that role, I’m responsible for QESH; Quality, Environment, Safety and Health.

For environment, this means that I’m responsible for the risk analysis of all our materials regarding the environment. That’s part of a standard called ISO14001 and is audited by both the local government and the company which certifies us.
This risk analysis means that for each material we use or produce, we have to evaluate what the risk is of it getting ‘into the environment’ (occurrence), that the severity of such an escape is and what ways we have to control that. These 3 aspects are scored, the scores are multiplied. The product of that multiplication is called the RPN, Risk Priority Number.
If the RPN is above a certain threshold, we are obliged to take action, either to reduce the chance of occurrence or increase the level of control.

Some of the chemicals we use are harmful. Either to the people working with it, the environment or both.
My responsibility is to take adequate measures to make sure no escapes to the environment happen and that no harm to my fellow workers can be done.

Having this ISO14001 certification is prerequisite for our environmental permit.

On a personal basis…
I go to work by bike 2-3 times a week 😊
We deliberately did choose not to have any children.

For the rest… I do not care that much. It’s up to the industry to really have impact and do something.

Congrats on the new job. It's good to know environmental restraints on chemical usage are being followed. Personally I'd love to see a lot less chemicals used in all sorts of places and for us to go back to nature a lot more.

If I were in charge, I'd continue with the pursuit of electric vehicles. I think we rely far too much on the Middle East for oil, so regardless of any environmental aspect, I think it'd be a great thing to do.

I agree that it is up to the industry to have impact, but sometimes the industry needs a big fat boot up their arse to make them take action, and tax is as big a boot as it gets. Sugar tax is a good example of where industry did nothing until it was forced to. I'm slightly on the fence as to whether I agree with sugar tax, but I'd absolutely favour a palm oil tax, and a plastic tax (especially on single use plastics). As Greta says, and it seems that you agree with (obviously in a different way), is that it is all about the money. Profit (almost) always comes before morals in business.

I'm not an activist. I just carry on the best I can. I avoid plastic as much as possible (impossible to totally avoid), I avoid palm oil as much as possible, I don't eat meat and am ever striving towards my goal of veganism, I cook simply and live a very simple life. I have had your share of kids though!


The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #148 posted 09/30/19 11:07pm

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:

I'm not sure I agree with some of this. I agree that CO2 is not the sole player, but I do see it as being important. I know that there is probably plenty of science that sides with your post, but there is also plenty of science that suggests the opposite, that CO2 is a major cause for concern. Given how industry has grown exponentially in the past 150ish years, it is not difficult to observe that the fuel consumed by this earth is far higher than ever, and that our emissions are also higher.

There is factual science and there is 'model' science.
That's the whole issue.

The predictions made about temperature rising and what terrible consequences it may have are ALL coming from scientists that use models in order to predict the future. These models, as pointed out earlier, are far from perfect.
There are hundreds of variables in these models of which we know only a few. The rest are, to say it nicely, educated guesses.
Consequence of this is that the error progression [uncertainty] of these models, when predicting further into the future, becomes so big that the prediction about a possible temperature rise falls multiple times within the uncertainty.
Which means that the predicted 3 degrees warming by the end of the century could be 5 degrees cooling but also 11 degrees warming. In other words: THEY DO'T KNOW EXACTLY.

IPCC uses the CMIP5 predictions which is an array of over 50 (!!!) climate models, takes the average of those models, doesn't mention the range of error, and communicates that as 'the truth'.

The FACTS tell a completely different story then what the models have predicted.


That's one issue I have with 'climate science'
The other is that some kind of political corectness has gotten hold of the editors of [scientific] magazines such as Nature. Doomsday predictions sell, factual science is rather boring.
This means that research contradicting the 'the world is near the end, we're all gonna die!!!'-mindset, does simply get not published.
The mainstream media, pick up on those doomsday headlines (because they help selling their product) and, without any sanity check whatsoever, publish the big headlines.

But when an apocalyptic research gets pulled (because of junk science) you won't hear anything about it.
Just recently a research paper, cited by the IPCC, got pulled because of junk science. The statistics in the paper were... crap, to put it mildly.

https://retractionwatch.c...retracted/

Did you hear anything about it?

But I'm sure you heard about it when it was published for example in the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2...hange.html or the Guardian https://www.theguardian.c...tury-study

2 well known alarmist outlets.

But now it has been retracted... silence.... You don't need to know the facts... you just need to stay alarmed and feel guilty.

As always I side with NASA who say:


Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.

Today, we stand on the threshold of a new geologic era, which some term the "Anthropocene", one where the climate is very different to the one our ancestors knew.

If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order of 1500 ppm. The atmosphere would then not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future.


This is a great example of how you are being manipulated.
What should trigger your questionmarks is that they only look at the past 400.000 years, as where earth is much, much older then that.

The reason is simple.... if you go further back in history, CO2 levels were significantly higher then they are now.
If you look on a paleoclimatic scale, going back millions of years, levels of 7000 ppm have been reached.
The GEOCARB III research shows that the current value of 400ppm is the close to lowest value.


And yes, GEOCARB III is a model (combining several researches on proxy data for atmospheric CO2) but in this picture, the estimate of uncertainty is also indicated and if you look at the lowest value of that, you still have way much more CO2 then we have now.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #149 posted 09/30/19 11:24pm

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:

Congrats on the new job. It's good to know environmental restraints on chemical usage are being followed. Personally I'd love to see a lot less chemicals used in all sorts of places and for us to go back to nature a lot more.

Thank you

Everything is chemical wink

If I were in charge, I'd continue with the pursuit of electric vehicles. I think we rely far too much on the Middle East for oil, so regardless of any environmental aspect, I think it'd be a great thing to do.

Nah... Electrical vehicles are way more inefficient than vehicles with a 'normal' engine.
The emission of CO2 takes place not at the vehicle, but at the powerplant where the electricity has been produced.

Regarding oil; oil is used for much, much more then just powering engines.
If we would quit oil, we'd be bare naked and dying quickly.
A very large part of the prosperity we have now is due to oil/gas. Many pharmaceuticals, which have increased our life expectancy significantly, are derivates of oil.
And plastics. And clothing. And electricity. Just to name a few.


I agree that it is up to the industry to have impact, but sometimes the industry needs a big fat boot up their arse to make them take action, and tax is as big a boot as it gets. Sugar tax is a good example of where industry did nothing until it was forced to. I'm slightly on the fence as to whether I agree with sugar tax, but I'd absolutely favour a palm oil tax, and a plastic tax (especially on single use plastics). As Greta says, and it seems that you agree with (obviously in a different way), is that it is all about the money. Profit (almost) always comes before morals in business.


Taxes are ridiculous. The consumer is penalised for something the industry should change.
There should be clear restrictive legislation, limiting the use of plastics. Why do cucumbers have to be wrapped in plastic? Why is my plastic bag of crisps only filled for 50%?

Making money is no bad idea, we all live from it. If my company wouldn't make profit, I wouldn't have an income and I wouldn't pay income taxes which are used for paying people in public office etc.
I'm certainly not against that, and I surely don't agree with Greta.


I'm not an activist. I just carry on the best I can. I avoid plastic as much as possible (impossible to totally avoid), I avoid palm oil as much as possible, I don't eat meat and am ever striving towards my goal of veganism, I cook simply and live a very simple life. I have had your share of kids though!


I do respect everybodys way of living. Do whatever you like.
Just as long as you (not you personally) don't try to impose your way of living on me.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 5 of 10 <123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Climate change protests around the world