04 May 2019, 10:10 am
04 May 2019, 10:29 am
domineekee wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
She's being manipulated and used, by her rich and famous parents and global NGO's. People don't get a global platform unless the world powers want it. Well in fact people get deleted from YouTube, Facebook and lots of other sites if they speak out against wars and stuff like that.
You've been manipulated by conspiracy theorists. Come on, credit where credit is due.
Yeah, some child of the rich and famous being used and promoted by the rich and powerful to say "12 years and the world ends" so we pay more taxes for 'green energy' projects, and I'm the one being manipulated
Dear_one
Veteran
Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,721
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines
04 May 2019, 10:45 am
JohnPowell wrote:
Yeah, some child of the rich and famous being used and promoted by the rich and powerful to say "12 years and the world ends" so we pay more taxes for 'green energy' projects, and I'm the one being manipulated
So, which is more likely - the richest organizations in earth's history are fighting to preserve their profits and escape responsibility for destructive storms and coastal flooding, or thousands of poor people are voluntering to wreck the economy?
04 May 2019, 10:54 am
Dear_one wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Yeah, some child of the rich and famous being used and promoted by the rich and powerful to say "12 years and the world ends" so we pay more taxes for 'green energy' projects, and I'm the one being manipulated
So, which is more likely - the richest organizations in earth's history are fighting to preserve their profits and escape responsibility for destructive storms and coastal flooding, or thousands of poor people are voluntering to wreck the economy?
It's about starting a new market. Nature used to represented by a tree, now it's represented by a wind turbine. The policies being presented by these phonies just punish working class people.
04 May 2019, 10:55 am
04 May 2019, 12:32 pm
04 May 2019, 12:47 pm
Dear_one wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Yeah, some child of the rich and famous being used and promoted by the rich and powerful to say "12 years and the world ends" so we pay more taxes for 'green energy' projects, and I'm the one being manipulated
So, which is more likely - the richest organizations in earth's history are fighting to preserve their profits and escape responsibility for destructive storms and coastal flooding, or thousands of poor people are voluntering to wreck the economy?
Virtue signalling is part of Apple's playbook of protecting its profits yes. I assume you were referencing oil, but they are dwarfed by tech nowadays. (Apple is worth more than the top 3 oil companies combined, and Apple plus Amazon are combined worth more than the top 10 oil companies combined).
Here's the question no one asks though. Carbon emissions are the current price of affordable manufacturing, energy, and food production. Would more people suffer from climate change or from not using carbon based technology? As it currently stands the answer is unequivocally not using carbon based technology. Unless you're a fan of hundreds of millions people dying from starvation.
We should improve our technology and a lot of investment is going into that, but drastic action to avoid climate change (which according to the models is what is necessary) is likely to cause more harm than good.
04 May 2019, 1:18 pm
04 May 2019, 4:07 pm
04 May 2019, 8:54 pm
04 May 2019, 9:04 pm
Dear_one
Veteran
Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,721
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines
06 May 2019, 3:54 am
08 May 2019, 12:42 am
Dear_one wrote:
Antrax wrote:
<snip>
Here's the question no one asks though. Carbon emissions are the current price of affordable manufacturing, energy, and food production. Would more people suffer from climate change or from not using carbon based technology? As it currently stands the answer is unequivocally not using carbon based technology. Unless you're a fan of hundreds of millions people dying from starvation.
We should improve our technology and a lot of investment is going into that, but drastic action to avoid climate change (which according to the models is what is necessary) is likely to cause more harm than good.
Here's the question no one asks though. Carbon emissions are the current price of affordable manufacturing, energy, and food production. Would more people suffer from climate change or from not using carbon based technology? As it currently stands the answer is unequivocally not using carbon based technology. Unless you're a fan of hundreds of millions people dying from starvation.
We should improve our technology and a lot of investment is going into that, but drastic action to avoid climate change (which according to the models is what is necessary) is likely to cause more harm than good.
Maybe you don't get the farm news there, but large portions of the US soybean crop from '18 was lost in the floods this spring. Now, many fields are covered in sand, years from regaining productivity. We ARE in a period of drastic action, and are headed right off a cliff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVnsxUt1EHY David Attenborough notes that things are changing faster than expected, but that is because the original estimates were always massaged by industry influence. I was watching. When I was 12, I saw Lake Louise reflecting the Banff glacier, and a fine old hotel with a view of them. Now, the ice is gone. I have snow in my yard 3 weeks past the usual first sunbath this year, and had to take measures to avoid wildfire smoke two of the last three summers.
We are supposed to be the logical ones - can't you separate out all the propaganda? I do have the advantage of not watching TV.
I don't watch TV either, but I do know some things. Like for example we chemically fix nitrogen using methane steam reformation to generate H2 gas. CO2 is produced as a byproduct. About 3 billion people get food on the table because of this.
Smelting iron from iron ore requires temperatures in excess of 1000C and produces CO2 in the process. To get to that temperature using electricity is much less efficient than using natural gas burning. Wind turbines are 85% steel and iron. Solar panels have a lot of silicon, but the frames are aluminum. Industry accounts for 22% of carbon emissions according to the EPA, and "renewable" industries tend to rely on fossil fuels at their source.
I doubt I'll change anyone's mind. They prefer to believe I'm mis-informed or ignorant than that maybe getting rid of carbon emissions is a lot harder than the general public thinks it is.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,887
Location: Long Island, New York
08 May 2019, 11:28 am
08 May 2019, 2:19 pm
Dear_one
Veteran
Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,721
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines
10 Jun 2019, 3:11 pm
Antrax wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
Antrax wrote:
<snip>
Here's the question no one asks though. Carbon emissions are the current price of affordable manufacturing, energy, and food production. Would more people suffer from climate change or from not using carbon based technology? As it currently stands the answer is unequivocally not using carbon based technology. Unless you're a fan of hundreds of millions people dying from starvation.
We should improve our technology and a lot of investment is going into that, but drastic action to avoid climate change (which according to the models is what is necessary) is likely to cause more harm than good.
Here's the question no one asks though. Carbon emissions are the current price of affordable manufacturing, energy, and food production. Would more people suffer from climate change or from not using carbon based technology? As it currently stands the answer is unequivocally not using carbon based technology. Unless you're a fan of hundreds of millions people dying from starvation.
We should improve our technology and a lot of investment is going into that, but drastic action to avoid climate change (which according to the models is what is necessary) is likely to cause more harm than good.
Maybe you don't get the farm news there, but large portions of the US soybean crop from '18 was lost in the floods this spring. Now, many fields are covered in sand, years from regaining productivity. We ARE in a period of drastic action, and are headed right off a cliff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVnsxUt1EHY David Attenborough notes that things are changing faster than expected, but that is because the original estimates were always massaged by industry influence. I was watching. When I was 12, I saw Lake Louise reflecting the Banff glacier, and a fine old hotel with a view of them. Now, the ice is gone. I have snow in my yard 3 weeks past the usual first sunbath this year, and had to take measures to avoid wildfire smoke two of the last three summers.
We are supposed to be the logical ones - can't you separate out all the propaganda? I do have the advantage of not watching TV.
I don't watch TV either, but I do know some things. Like for example we chemically fix nitrogen using methane steam reformation to generate H2 gas. CO2 is produced as a byproduct. About 3 billion people get food on the table because of this.
Smelting iron from iron ore requires temperatures in excess of 1000C and produces CO2 in the process. To get to that temperature using electricity is much less efficient than using natural gas burning. Wind turbines are 85% steel and iron. Solar panels have a lot of silicon, but the frames are aluminum. Industry accounts for 22% of carbon emissions according to the EPA, and "renewable" industries tend to rely on fossil fuels at their source.
I doubt I'll change anyone's mind. They prefer to believe I'm mis-informed or ignorant than that maybe getting rid of carbon emissions is a lot harder than the general public thinks it is.
Sorry for the delay. I was busy when this turned up, but it deserves an answer.
The "Green Revolution," starting with Fritz Haber's nitrogen process, is indeed currently feeding billions of people. It is also the darling of the corporations, who don't care that their false advertising has driven thousands of Indian farmers to bankruptcy and suicide - most often by drinking the last of the poison. Our food has become a soup of hazardous chemicals in sub-lethal doses. We are being fed by companies that ignore health, and medicated by companies that ignore nutrition. It is a profitable cycle, but it is only good for stockholders, not consumers.
This is not the only way to grow food. I live among chemical farmers, and their own gardens are mostly organic. A century ago, we knew next to nothing about soil biology. Farmers knew that it was good to alternate corn and beans, but not that it was because of symbiotic activity on the roots of beans fixing nitrogen. Now, we know many thousands of times more, and have seen organic permaculture plots that easily out-produce a chemical field. Gardening is labour intensive, and not very popular, but now, roomba size robots could keep track of every plant from seed to harvest, while running down in the shade. With every seed getting compared to a worldwide database, there will be an exponential leap in plant breeding with no dangers from GMOs.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Hello World |
31 Dec 1969, 7:00 pm Guest
|
| Hello world |
31 Dec 1969, 7:00 pm Guest
|
| This is the way the World shall end.., |
02 Nov 2024, 6:30 am |
|
hello world
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
03 Sep 2024, 4:03 am |
