Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about methane, sox, nox, and Co2? How about the synthetic ones?
List for me some of these synthetic ones and their ppm's (or more likely ppb's) in the atmosphere. Please include their properties, how long they stay in the atmosphere, and how they influence the greenhouse effect. I would really love to know.
Everything else you listed was in the atmosphere before us, and will continue long after we're fossils. What's your point?
Nope. The solution is to massively investment in R&D via tax breaks for R&D, and higher spending in DARPA and related scientific discovery. A large investment in Fusion research for example.
When discussing tax holidays for example for overseas money....offer to allow them to increase R&D spending via offshore money that isn't taxed when brought in if the years R&D spending is increased compared to prior years by the matching amount. IE if you increase R&D by a billion, you can bring in a billion from overseas tax free.
Redistribution discussions revolve around wealth inequality, and the desire to avoid class warfare reaching points where political choices get more and more extreme until some idiot gets elected. ala Venezuela. And I am discussing folks far more left or right and extreme then Trump or Sanders. They are different topics.
Just my opinion though.
Yeah, because if we don`t fund all that research on behalf of international corporations, the Chinese will have to do it for themselves instead of reverse-engineering our crap.
How about we fix NAFTA and the 2000 China Trade Act first.
How about we get rid of illegals and H-1B visas first.
Hey sparky, you wanna explain to me and the rest of us how we go about being planet killers?
Be specific now, how do you kill a planet?
I mean, Hell, the asteroids couldn't do it, the super-volcanoes couldn't do it. How many other catastrophes has the earth undergone, and yet, it's still here?!?!
So, how do we do it?
Oh... I see. You were engaging in hyperbole... you were exaggerating the situation by using choice words to elicit a specific response (terror, fear, etc.,) by the morons who don't better. Gotcha.
Try again.
OK, argue semantics, that'll work.
When we succeed in killing off enough species by our continued slash and burn method of progress, and we pollute the oceans to the point that we kill most of what's living in it, when we pollute our water so much we can't drink it, and pollute our air and cut through enough rain forests to the point that our air is unbreathable, When we've sucked all of the natural resources the earth has in the name of the almighty dollar, when we RENDER THE EARTH UNINHABITABLE TO OUR SPECIES, we have no place else to go. Now, do you want to actually debate the OP, or do you want to yell squirrel at the top of your lungs and divert?
Creationists called evolution a religion. And now...
Deniers call climate change a religion.
Same BS, different day.
I really have to wonder if you are aware of the irony of choosing to call me a denier while you claim climate change isn't a religion. You might as well call me an apostate or a heretic
What you and your ilk fail to understand is that SKEPTICISM, which is what I am, a SKEPTIC, actually
makes for better science.
Calling the science settled, attempting to ridicule skeptics as non-believers or deniers and claiming consensus has nothing to do with science, it has everything to do with politics and dogma.
Now, scientists say, the Earth is on the brink of a sixth such “mass extinction event.” Only this time, the culprit isn’t a massive asteroid impact or volcanic explosions or the inexorable drifting of continents. It’s us.
“We are now moving into another one of these events that could easily, easily ruin the lives of everybody on the planet,” Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich said in a video created by the school.
In a study published Friday in the journal Science Advances, biologists found that the Earth is losing mammal species 20 to 100 times the rate of the past. Extinctions are happening so fast, they could rival the event that killed the dinosaurs in as little as 250 years. Given the timing, the unprecedented speed of the losses and decades of research on the effects of pollution, hunting and habitat loss, they assert that human activity is responsible.
I just wanted to follow up on my other post about CO2 levels. We are killing the planet yet many do not even care to face these facts. Ignorance is bliss.
At the current rate of reproduction (well below the level to maintain population) the Europeans will also become extinct.
I really have to wonder if you are aware of the irony of choosing to call me a denier while you claim climate change isn't a religion. You might as well call me an apostate or a heretic
What you and your ilk fail to understand is that SKEPTICISM, which is what I am, a SKEPTIC, actually
makes for better science.
Calling the science settled, attempting to ridicule skeptics as non-believers or deniers and claiming consensus has nothing to do with science, it has everything to do with politics and dogma.
The science is nowhere near settled. I'm no scientist, but IMHO, climate change is a natural phenomenon, mankind has made it worse. Our only alternative at this point is to recognize the possible impact, and try to engineer a solution to that impact.
Neither is a religion, but this all or nothing approach on both sides is getting us nowhere.
When we succeed in killing off enough species by our continued slash and burn method of progress, and we pollute the oceans to the point that kill most of what's living in it, when we pollute our water so much we can't drink it, and pollute our air and cut through enough rain forests to the point that our air is unbreathable, When we've sucked all of the natural resources the earth has in the name of the almighty dollar, when we RENDER THE EARTH UNINHABITABLE TO OUR SPECIES, we have no place else to go. Now, do you want to actually debate the OP, or do you want to yell squirrel at the top of your lungs and divert?
So, go ahead and argue semantics.
I asked you to show me how to kill a planet.
You failed.
You showed me how we could make it uncomfortable for us humans. But we aren't the only species on the planet now are we. As a matter of fact, there's probably multitudes of species that would flourish in such an environment.
Yes, genius, we all know we should do a better job at keeping our planet clean. There is not a single poster in here that is saying otherwise.
I'll say that again... There's not a single poster saying we SHOULDN'T keep our house clean. We all agree.
But when you engage in spewing forth the fear-mongering terminology like "catastrophic, devastating, Kill the planet, etc." then you are BS'ing everyone in here. You are intentionally using these words like a weapon against the less-informed. These are exaggerations. Period.
So, yes, I'll argue semantics, because when you engage in what you and others do, it is an attempt to blow things out of proportion - this is also called misleading them. IOW - lying.
The science is nowhere near settled. I'm no scientist, but IMHO, climate change is a natural phenomenon, mankind has made it worse. Our only alternative at this point is to recognize the possible impact, and try to engineer a solution to that impact.
Neither is a religion, but this all or nothing approach on both sides is getting us nowhere.
But it is a religion, or at least it's being treated as such. And yes, by both sides. And as we all know, religion is NOT debatable, as it's impossible to sway someone from what they want to believe.
But let's get this clear. I'm NOT a denier. That term is almost as offensive as calling someone the 'N' word. People who use these terms are also engaging in hyperbole and word-wars in order to denigrate their opponents with labels. "Attack the messenger, if you can't attack the message!"
I am a skeptic. And my scientific background gives me enough knowledge and experience to be able to read between the lines.
I will admit we pollute the earth - sometimes to uncomfortable levels.
I do admit we probably have some affect on the climate.
I do admit that the earth's climate is changing - just as it has numerous times, and w/o our help.
I do admit that there's evidence it's because of humanity.
But what I will question is the level of that influence.
I will question the direness of the situation.
I consider myself to be smarter than the average bear, and with my background I question the use of the media's scare tactics to generate sales, the politicians taking off with this and using it for their platforms, and science ever, ever using the words "settled".
I want a cleaner earth. I want us off the "oil" standard. I would dearly love an electric car that gets 400mpc. But I also know enough that what we are being fed by the media is - to a greater part -bilge. We all know that scare tactics sale .The human race, for some reason, is titillated by being afraid, and people will use this to their advantage.
This is what I am railing against. Not a cleaner earth.
This is what most skeptics are trying to proclaim, but are not being believed.
When we succeed in killing off enough species by our continued slash and burn method of progress, and we pollute the oceans to the point that we kill most of what's living in it, when we pollute our water so much we can't drink it, and pollute our air and cut through enough rain forests to the point that our air is unbreathable, When we've sucked all of the natural resources the earth has in the name of the almighty dollar, when we RENDER THE EARTH UNINHABITABLE TO OUR SPECIES, we have no place else to go. Now, do you want to actually debate the OP, or do you want to yell squirrel at the top of your lungs and divert?
So, go ahead and argue semantics...sparky
There is nothing to debate in the OP it is pure fear mongering propaganda just like the his last umpteen predictions.
Now, scientists say, the Earth is on the brink of a sixth such “mass extinction event.” Only this time, the culprit isn’t a massive asteroid impact or volcanic explosions or the inexorable drifting of continents. It’s us.
“We are now moving into another one of these events that could easily, easily ruin the lives of everybody on the planet,” Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich said in a video created by the school.
In a study published Friday in the journal Science Advances, biologists found that the Earth is losing mammal species 20 to 100 times the rate of the past. Extinctions are happening so fast, they could rival the event that killed the dinosaurs in as little as 250 years. Given the timing, the unprecedented speed of the losses and decades of research on the effects of pollution, hunting and habitat loss, they assert that human activity is responsible.
I just wanted to follow up on my other post about CO2 levels. We are killing the planet yet many do not even care to face these facts. Ignorance is bliss.
"Scientists"....... LMAO
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
