|
|
Post by MMAJim on Jul 7, 2017 8:07:10 GMT -5
or you could just ask him to click it and see what his opinion is on it and how it changes his view of his youtube video... no need for the hostility when trying to educate. Oh, and fuck you with trying to educate, lol. The YouTube videos were mainstream media and the link is fucking Breitbart which references a fucking blog so who gives a fuck. You can parrot what Breitbart says or you can look it up for yourself but nobody wants to do the latter because they are last and unwilling to change their view. I don't care about the politics, it is the science. No one will believe this isn't a shot at anyone on here, but it really isn't. Just in the general population, there are a hell of a lot of people that don't really know how to read (or find) peer reviewed scientific studies. They don't really appreciate the difference between scientific research, what is considered a 'news article', and even what blogs are. I actually think most people in this forum are above average in this department. Unfortunately there are a lot of people that I interact with daily that would reference a GQ article in the same manner someone would reference a scientific journal. Sidebar, it is illuminating to go back to older studies as well (like you have referenced). Double sidebar, by books about a topic that predate when that event became current news. Read books about Iraq, published before they invaded Kuwait, or before the Iran/Iraq war. I'm not saying older writing always gets the story right either, but it is a great way to expand your perspective on current affairs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 8:08:40 GMT -5
People who do these studies are funded by grants. Grants are selected from the government. There's a deeply-embedded narrative here that, even subconsciously, can tilt funding, research, and interests in the field toward pro-warming models. If your thesis is that warming is inconclusive, a result of solar flares, orbital fluctuations, magnetic pole activity, or changes in temperature measurement standards, you're very unlikely to receive funding for your work. If you toe the party line, however . . . Personally, I think the CFC science looks compelling and the sheer volume of human population and industry is likely having some impact. The extent to which that is driving warming is not completely clear to me, nor that warming is in an of itself a bad thing. The last time the Earth went through a warming phase the entire planet looked like a Jurassic Eden with an explosion of diverse and enormous life forms, jungle, and vegetation. That said, a billion Chinese and a billion Indiana driving shitty cars and pumping smog into the atmosphere can't be good. It just can't. The first part of your post needs to be recognized. There is a problem with scientific bias following the money. In this case though, we are seeing predictions from as early as the 50s coming to fruition. As a loose analogy, should we pump millions of dollars into studies looking at intelligent design or keep funneling money into learning more about evolution? We don't give dead ends more money. Saying that, I don't think climate change is as well understood as evolution but it was the easiest analogy I can think of right now. Plus, while It is possible, I find it unlikely that this is an international cover-up to take our tax dollars. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 7, 2017 10:10:02 GMT -5
or you could just ask him to click it and see what his opinion is on it and how it changes his view of his youtube video... no need for the hostility when trying to educate. Oh, and fuck you with trying to educate, lol. The YouTube videos were mainstream media and the link is fucking Breitbart which references a fucking blog so who gives a fuck. You can parrot what Breitbart says or you can look it up for yourself but nobody wants to do the latter because they are lazy and unwilling to change their view. I don't care about the politics, it is the science. Lol. I love your hypocrisy...you refuse to read my article yet you are screaming for me to go and read. News flash, Greg, I read way more than you do. I didn't parrot anything, as I've barely said anything... Are you implying that factual information can't be found in a blog, and then checked for validity form other sources? I simply posted skme videos from the 70's that mirrored the global warming fear mongering we see from today's news media. I guess that point was lost on you. Also, if the media is reporting it, who's telling them this? Name 1 incorrect article breitbart has published...how many recent retractions do they have??? So you wanna disregard opposing viewpoints I suppose, or maybe not even read them at all. Just like your fellow global warming pals. How can you cross reference conflicting scientific articles when one side of the scientific research is deleting the opposition's research from existence? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 7, 2017 10:14:16 GMT -5
I don't give two shits about what Breitbart says which is why I pointed out Potholer has a less biased view. He us focused on the science and in the 70s there were many more scientists calling for a warming rather than a cooling. The cool thing is this, you can still go back and look at the papers dickface. You cant fake it and you could look it up yourself if you wanted but you will let Breitbart be your mouthpiece instead. Do it yourself. Go to a search engine that looks specifically at peer-reviewed papers, put in your keywords, and the time frame. Potholer does it and he shows all the articles but keep believing Breitbart, the site that provided ZERO evidence for their claim. Why are the lead data producers for global warming deleting articles by opposing scientific viewpoints? |
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Jul 7, 2017 10:16:51 GMT -5
People who do these studies are funded by grants. Grants are selected from the government. There's a deeply-embedded narrative here that, even subconsciously, can tilt funding, research, and interests in the field toward pro-warming models. If your thesis is that warming is inconclusive, a result of solar flares, orbital fluctuations, magnetic pole activity, or changes in temperature measurement standards, you're very unlikely to receive funding for your work. If you toe the party line, however . . . Personally, I think the CFC science looks compelling and the sheer volume of human population and industry is likely having some impact. The extent to which that is driving warming is not completely clear to me, nor that warming is in an of itself a bad thing. The last time the Earth went through a warming phase the entire planet looked like a Jurassic Eden with an explosion of diverse and enormous life forms, jungle, and vegetation. That said, a billion Chinese and a billion Indiana driving shitty cars and pumping smog into the atmosphere can't be good. It just can't. The first part of your post needs to be recognized. There is a problem with scientific bias following the money. In this case though, we are seeing predictions from as early as the 50s coming to fruition. As a loose analogy, should we pump millions of dollars into studies looking at intelligent design or keep funneling money into learning more about evolution? We don't give dead ends more money. Saying that, I don't think climate change is as well understood as evolution but it was the easiest analogy I can think of right now. Plus, while It is possible, I find it unlikely that this is an international cover-up to take our tax dollars. Even though over the last 40+ years there have been hundreds of accounts and even records of communists and globalists nakedly declaring that this was what they were going to do? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 7, 2017 10:38:49 GMT -5
People who do these studies are funded by grants. Grants are selected from the government. There's a deeply-embedded narrative here that, even subconsciously, can tilt funding, research, and interests in the field toward pro-warming models. If your thesis is that warming is inconclusive, a result of solar flares, orbital fluctuations, magnetic pole activity, or changes in temperature measurement standards, you're very unlikely to receive funding for your work. If you toe the party line, however . . . Personally, I think the CFC science looks compelling and the sheer volume of human population and industry is likely having some impact. The extent to which that is driving warming is not completely clear to me, nor that warming is in an of itself a bad thing. The last time the Earth went through a warming phase the entire planet looked like a Jurassic Eden with an explosion of diverse and enormous life forms, jungle, and vegetation. That said, a billion Chinese and a billion Indiana driving shitty cars and pumping smog into the atmosphere can't be good. It just can't. Plus, while It is possible, I find it unlikely that this is an international cover-up to take our tax dollars. The Paris accord just called me...it says that you're more dense than the side of a barn. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 12:34:23 GMT -5
The first part of your post needs to be recognized. There is a problem with scientific bias following the money. In this case though, we are seeing predictions from as early as the 50s coming to fruition. As a loose analogy, should we pump millions of dollars into studies looking at intelligent design or keep funneling money into learning more about evolution? We don't give dead ends more money. Saying that, I don't think climate change is as well understood as evolution but it was the easiest analogy I can think of right now. Plus, while It is possible, I find it unlikely that this is an international cover-up to take our tax dollars. Even though over the last 40+ years there have been hundreds of accounts and even records of communists and globalists nakedly declaring that this was what they were going to do? I'm talking specifically in this case. What would the end game be for global warming? To tax people? I am also talking about the scientific community, not government bodies. I separate the politics of climate change with the actual science and I question the ability of a group of people being able to set up a multinational cover-up when anybody that can read can check the science for themselves. That is what I find implausible. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 12:41:56 GMT -5
Oh, and fuck you with trying to educate, lol. The YouTube videos were mainstream media and the link is fucking Breitbart which references a fucking blog so who gives a fuck. You can parrot what Breitbart says or you can look it up for yourself but nobody wants to do the latter because they are lazy and unwilling to change their view. I don't care about the politics, it is the science. Lol. I love your hypocrisy...you refuse to read my article yet you are screaming for me to go and read. News flash, Greg, I read way more than you do. I didn't parrot anything, as I've barely said anything... Are you implying that factual information can't be found in a blog, and then checked for validity form other sources? I simply posted skme videos from the 70's that mirrored the global warming fear mongering we see from today's news media. I guess that point was lost on you. Also, if the media is reporting it, who's telling them this? Name 1 incorrect article breitbart has published...how many recent retractions do they have??? So you wanna disregard opposing viewpoints I suppose, or maybe not even read them at all. Just like your fellow global warming pals. How can you cross reference conflicting scientific articles when one side of the scientific research is deleting the opposition's research from existence? I read the article dumbass. That is why I know the reference was a fucking blog. Blogs aren't peer-reviewed and can say whatever they want without any accountability so that is why they aren't referenced in any academic setting (insert academia conspiracy so you don't have to be held to a higher standard). Let me say this for the 50th time on this board. I could care less about the politics of climate change. I am interested in the science. Are you trying to insinuate that Breitbart is a more reliable source than scientific studies and journal articles? Do you think Breitbart is being unbiased in their journalism surrounding climate change? Lol. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 12:43:23 GMT -5
I don't give two shits about what Breitbart says which is why I pointed out Potholer has a less biased view. He us focused on the science and in the 70s there were many more scientists calling for a warming rather than a cooling. The cool thing is this, you can still go back and look at the papers dickface. You cant fake it and you could look it up yourself if you wanted but you will let Breitbart be your mouthpiece instead. Do it yourself. Go to a search engine that looks specifically at peer-reviewed papers, put in your keywords, and the time frame. Potholer does it and he shows all the articles but keep believing Breitbart, the site that provided ZERO evidence for their claim. Why are the lead data producers for global warming deleting articles by opposing scientific viewpoints? Do you have any proof that articles are being deleted from publication and/or academic journals that are accessible to millions of people? I mean, outside of Breitbart claiming it is true? Sounds like a CNN "anonymous source To me. |
|
|
|
Post by MMAJim on Jul 7, 2017 12:47:04 GMT -5
I'm not one to believe in one small overlording controlling entity or group. However, global warming overhyping would clearly lead to massive shifts in energy production, storage and distribution across the globe. Any amount of change could be hugely beneficial to those who control the new sources of energy production, storage, and distribution. I don't think it takes a formal globe controlling entity to pull this off. Individuals or groups with $1B to spend could easily use it to steer global energy down a path that makes them hundreds of Billions of dollars, give or take a hundred Billion. They may not have even 'invented' global warming, but the concept could easily be managed to one's potential gain.
Back in the BC era, we called this religion. Use religion to justify global power plays, when really it has nothing to do with religion. People are still trotting out that old gem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jul 7, 2017 13:18:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CaveBearOG on Jul 7, 2017 15:08:40 GMT -5
Being only a lowly high school graduate drunk druggie I'm not learned as much as some folk, however, doesn't it seem odd that we have all these experts spouting off about global warming when there is actually less than 100 years of reliable data to compare ?? I'm pretty sure there is about 5 billion years of data we know nothing about?? If I member right the temperature of the earth fluctuates constantly??
|
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Jul 8, 2017 3:39:59 GMT -5
Check my link, dick breath. And the irony will be so awesome! or you could just ask him to click it and see what his opinion is on it and how it changes his view of his youtube video... no need for the hostility when trying to educate. Shut up fuckrod |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 8, 2017 15:42:57 GMT -5
or you could just ask him to click it and see what his opinion is on it and how it changes his view of his youtube video... no need for the hostility when trying to educate. Shut up fuckrod I don't really feel that insulted. Almost seems like a term of badass endearment. |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jul 10, 2017 10:24:12 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 11:12:46 GMT -5
As a white guy who also graduated from college I can tell you one funny thing that my astronomy Professor told his class about ice ages.
Prior to any Ice Age there is a massive warming trend. This is rudimentary basic science that seems to have been pushed into the basements and stuffed inside a locker and had a padlock put on it.
Carbon levels did increase prior to each Ice Age. There is no accepted explanation as to why carbon levels increased. But you can bet your ass it didn't have anything to do with internal combustion engines.
Okay so follow along because this is really fucking simple.
Carbon levels increasing equals an increase in cloud cover.
An increase in cloud cover can originally lead to an increase in temperature. However eventually a lack of sun leads to a cooling trend. This cooling trend will continue for hundreds of years. The ice caps will stop shrinking and they will start growing again. And they will expand. They will chop through mountains. They will form new mountains. They will gouge the Earth and create entirely new places for water to rest. Water will leave a lot of the places that it exists inland and settle in new places. Evidence of this exact occurrence can be found on the continent of North America.
Climate change is a real thing. It always has been a real thing. I don't think that mankind has anything to do with it. Maybe our presents exacerbates it a bit, and maybe we play a role this time in increasing carbon levels. However if ice ages occurred prior to the great technological Awakening of mankind, it is illogical to say that mankind causes ice ages.
As such I will never own a fucking Prius. And will continue to support the internal combustion engine for as long as I possibly can. Vroom vroom bitches.
|
|
|
|
Post by CaveBearOG on Jul 10, 2017 11:58:16 GMT -5
As a white guy who also graduated from college I can tell you one funny thing that my astronomy Professor told his class about ice ages. Prior to any Ice Age there is a massive warming trend. This is rudimentary basic science that seems to have been pushed into the basements and stuffed inside a locker and had a padlock put on it. Carbon levels did increase prior to each Ice Age. There is no accepted explanation as to why carbon levels increased. But you can bet your ass it didn't have anything to do with internal combustion engines. Okay so follow along because this is really fucking simple. Carbon levels increasing equals an increase in cloud cover. An increase in cloud cover can originally lead to an increase in temperature. However eventually a lack of sun leads to a cooling trend. This cooling trend will continue for hundreds of years. The ice caps will stop shrinking and they will start growing again. And they will expand. They will chop through mountains. They will form new mountains. They will gouge the Earth and create entirely new places for water to rest. Water will leave a lot of the places that it exists inland and settle in new places. Evidence of this exact occurrence can be found on the continent of North America. Climate change is a real thing. It always has been a real thing. I don't think that mankind has anything to do with it. Maybe our presents exacerbates it a bit, and maybe we play a role this time in increasing carbon levels. However if ice ages occurred prior to the great technological Awakening of mankind, it is illogical to say that mankind causes ice ages. As such I will never own a fucking Prius. And will continue to support the internal combustion engine for as long as I possibly can. Vroom vroom bitches. ^^^^The educated version of what I posted....lol |
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Jul 10, 2017 12:04:11 GMT -5
As a white guy who also graduated from college I can tell you one funny thing that my astronomy Professor told his class about ice ages. Prior to any Ice Age there is a massive warming trend. This is rudimentary basic science that seems to have been pushed into the basements and stuffed inside a locker and had a padlock put on it. Carbon levels did increase prior to each Ice Age. There is no accepted explanation as to why carbon levels increased. But you can bet your ass it didn't have anything to do with internal combustion engines. Okay so follow along because this is really fucking simple. Carbon levels increasing equals an increase in cloud cover. An increase in cloud cover can originally lead to an increase in temperature. However eventually a lack of sun leads to a cooling trend. This cooling trend will continue for hundreds of years. The ice caps will stop shrinking and they will start growing again. And they will expand. They will chop through mountains. They will form new mountains. They will gouge the Earth and create entirely new places for water to rest. Water will leave a lot of the places that it exists inland and settle in new places. Evidence of this exact occurrence can be found on the continent of North America. Climate change is a real thing. It always has been a real thing. I don't think that mankind has anything to do with it. Maybe our presents exacerbates it a bit, and maybe we play a role this time in increasing carbon levels. However if ice ages occurred prior to the great technological Awakening of mankind, it is illogical to say that mankind causes ice ages. As such I will never own a fucking Prius. And will continue to support the internal combustion engine for as long as I possibly can. Vroom vroom bitches. I'm not totally against the idea of less carbon, less tiny polluted breathable particles floating around. If not for it's effect, if any on climate change. Because that is super long term, I will be long dead. For selfish reasons, I'm more looking at the short term, that all this shit we put in the air, HAS to be contributing to the rising number of cancer afflictions in the world. As someone who's family has lost too many already to cancer, and someone who, admittedly, never really recovered from watching my mother breath her last breaths, in anguish, thanks to cancer, I fucking want that blight gone from the world. But I know that's expecting too much. At least curb it, slow it down. And the air quality has to be a factor in that |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 12:30:34 GMT -5
Don't see how all of these cars, refineries, etc doesn't have any ill effect on the climate, the quality of the air or our health. Seems pretty obvious we are contributing to the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by CaveBearOG on Jul 10, 2017 12:42:35 GMT -5
Rumor is Mt Etna put 50000 times more bullshit into our atmosphere than we ever have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jul 10, 2017 12:51:15 GMT -5
For me, this is nearly identical to EVERY major national debate we have in the US anymore.
There's a ridiculous position over on the left, and an equal-and-opposite ridiculous position on the right, and that's how the whole thing is framed, vitriol ensues, someone is literally Hitler.
Cops are racist killers or blacks are violent thugs.
Immigrants are a protected class or they are sneaky, parasitic stow-aways.
Tax cuts are evil favors for the uber rich or they are for ordinary people to keep more of their own money.
Global warming is the single greatest calamity in human history and we're all fucked or else it's completely made-up.
It's always somewhere in the middle. Always. The "or" ought to be an "and". But we're too juvenile and rabid for that sort of nuance.
This is child-like bickering. It's embarrassing. Politics really does bring out the worst in us.
Of course global warming is real, some of it may even be extenuated by cars and factories and farming, particularly in China and India. The CFC science makes sense. And we ought to be better stewards of the planet and think more long term with our activity and its impact. AND, of course these huckster fucks in globalist Euro councils and phony green industry start-ups are scheming to loot the planet, corporations, whole nations of their wealth and autonomy in order to consolidate power and tell everyone else how to live. Of course scientists who are funded by government gravitate toward fields and findings that keep that grant money rolling in, and don't get me started on the media's role in this.
So, just like with cops and blacks, there's a big, BIG "AND" that's missing from the argument.
Climate change is constant and complex, always has been, always will be: volcanic, sea algae, solar flares, orbit anomalies, magnetic polls shift, Chinese omnismog, cow farts -- it's a big pie chart with a lot of slivers. And to the extent we can, we ought to seek to mitigate our role in altering these cycles or degrading the environment in any way. But if you think the political/media/science conglomerate is some sort of benevolent dictator who only wants what's best for you, then I've got a bridge in North Korea to sell you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 13:16:12 GMT -5
Glad we still have a voice of reason in this country. You took the words outta my mouth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 13:50:49 GMT -5
Don't see how all of these cars, refineries, etc doesn't have any ill effect on the climate, the quality of the air or our health. Seems pretty obvious we are contributing to the problem. It just doesn't seem that obvious to me. Does Arizona have a smog problem? What about Nevada? The overwhelming majority of oil refineries are nowhere near Southern California. In fact every single one of them are on the other side of the jet stream meaning the carbon they dump gets pushed out to sea. I live in a state that is literally the asshole end of the jet stream. All the bullshit you guys push out from your cow farts to your turbo diesel trucks to your oil refineries and coal mines passes right overhead on its way out to the ocean. And I have never breathed cleaner air then the air I breathe when I am at the beach right next to the ocean. None of the smog from Southern California makes it here. I hear it doesn't even make it past the Sierra Nevadas. If you'd like an idea of how tiny our impact on global temperatures actually is- do a little reading about the methane pits in Siberia that are currently rising to the surface. There are seven thousand of them. Methane is 84 times more dense than carbon and will contribute to global warming in a far more meaningful and exponential way. Just one volcanic eruption in Hawaii dumps more methane into our atmosphere then all of the cars in India and China can contribute to carbon levels in 5 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jul 10, 2017 13:54:38 GMT -5
I'm not taking sides, because I see the sound reasoning in creating an argument to get us off fossil fuels, which are economically, socially and politically problematic. However, climate change is very clearly related to Solar changes. It is, after all, the one thing responsible for heating our planet. Sun activity weather forecasting is accurate back all the way past the Mini Ice Age during the Medieval times. An analogy of CO2 based science... "My car's not running very well so I'm going to ignore the engine, which is the sun, and the transmission, which is the water vapor (clouds), and I'm gonna look at the one nut on the right rear wheel, which is the human produced CO2." -Prof Tim Ball, University of Winnepeg www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJBDI7jVMqMOne might be tempted (as Wikipedia does) to label Ball and many other scientists as "climate change deniers", or "climate deniers". Yet this is a flawed qualifier for these people. They would be more accurately be defined as "CO2-climate change deniers". They don't deny that the climate is changing, as that would be ridiculous to do. They simply state it to be a product of our highly volatile Sun. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 13:57:24 GMT -5
Don't see how all of these cars, refineries, etc doesn't have any ill effect on the climate, the quality of the air or our health. Seems pretty obvious we are contributing to the problem. It just doesn't seem that obvious to me. Does Arizona have a smog problem? What about Nevada? The overwhelming majority of oil refineries are nowhere near Southern California. In fact every single one of them are on the other side of the jet stream meaning the carbon they dump gets pushed out to sea. I live in a state that is literally the asshole end of the jet stream. All the bullshit you guys push out from your cow farts to your turbo diesel trucks to your oil refineries and coal mines passes right overhead on its way out to the ocean. And I have never breathed cleaner air then the air I breathe when I am at the beach right next to the ocean. None of the smog from Southern California makes it here. I hear it doesn't even make it past the Sierra Nevadas. If you'd like an idea of how tiny our impact on global temperatures actually is- do a little reading about the methane pits in Siberia that are currently rising to the surface. There are seven thousand of them. Methane is 84 times more dense than carbon and will contribute to global warming in a far more meaningful and exponential way. Just one volcanic eruption in Hawaii dumps more methane into our atmosphere then all of the cars in India and China can contribute to carbon levels in 5 years. Come see LA the day after it rains and look again about 12 hours later. The difference is insane. I don't know if nevada or AZ have pollution problems, AZ seems clean as fuck to me but I am mostly in very scarsely populated areas. I rarely venture into NV. Im sure you do breath clean air, don't you live in a rater rural area? How do you know you have never breathed cleaner air? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 14:10:26 GMT -5
As a white guy who also graduated from college I can tell you one funny thing that my astronomy Professor told his class about ice ages. Prior to any Ice Age there is a massive warming trend. This is rudimentary basic science that seems to have been pushed into the basements and stuffed inside a locker and had a padlock put on it. Carbon levels did increase prior to each Ice Age. There is no accepted explanation as to why carbon levels increased. But you can bet your ass it didn't have anything to do with internal combustion engines. Okay so follow along because this is really fucking simple. Carbon levels increasing equals an increase in cloud cover. An increase in cloud cover can originally lead to an increase in temperature. However eventually a lack of sun leads to a cooling trend. This cooling trend will continue for hundreds of years. The ice caps will stop shrinking and they will start growing again. And they will expand. They will chop through mountains. They will form new mountains. They will gouge the Earth and create entirely new places for water to rest. Water will leave a lot of the places that it exists inland and settle in new places. Evidence of this exact occurrence can be found on the continent of North America. Climate change is a real thing. It always has been a real thing. I don't think that mankind has anything to do with it. Maybe our presents exacerbates it a bit, and maybe we play a role this time in increasing carbon levels. However if ice ages occurred prior to the great technological Awakening of mankind, it is illogical to say that mankind causes ice ages. As such I will never own a fucking Prius. And will continue to support the internal combustion engine for as long as I possibly can. Vroom vroom bitches. I'm not totally against the idea of less carbon, less tiny polluted breathable particles floating around. If not for it's effect, if any on climate change. Because that is super long term, I will be long dead. For selfish reasons, I'm more looking at the short term, that all this shit we put in the air, HAS to be contributing to the rising number of cancer afflictions in the world. As someone who's family has lost too many already to cancer, and someone who, admittedly, never really recovered from watching my mother breath her last breaths, in anguish, thanks to cancer, I fucking want that blight gone from the world. But I know that's expecting too much. At least curb it, slow it down. And the air quality has to be a factor in that So you think it's tiny carbon particles and not chemicals in our food supply, Fukushima radiation, excessive carnivore tendencies, alcohol consumption, elevated stress levels, and general sedentary lifestyle? Carbon dioxide is not bad for humans. It's not good for us but it's also not bad for us. It's the byproduct of Every Breath You Take. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 14:26:18 GMT -5
It just doesn't seem that obvious to me. Does Arizona have a smog problem? What about Nevada? The overwhelming majority of oil refineries are nowhere near Southern California. In fact every single one of them are on the other side of the jet stream meaning the carbon they dump gets pushed out to sea. I live in a state that is literally the asshole end of the jet stream. All the bullshit you guys push out from your cow farts to your turbo diesel trucks to your oil refineries and coal mines passes right overhead on its way out to the ocean. And I have never breathed cleaner air then the air I breathe when I am at the beach right next to the ocean. None of the smog from Southern California makes it here. I hear it doesn't even make it past the Sierra Nevadas. If you'd like an idea of how tiny our impact on global temperatures actually is- do a little reading about the methane pits in Siberia that are currently rising to the surface. There are seven thousand of them. Methane is 84 times more dense than carbon and will contribute to global warming in a far more meaningful and exponential way. Just one volcanic eruption in Hawaii dumps more methane into our atmosphere then all of the cars in India and China can contribute to carbon levels in 5 years. Come see LA the day after it rains and look again about 12 hours later. The difference is insane. I don't know if nevada or AZ have pollution problems, AZ seems clean as fuck to me but I am mostly in very scarsely populated areas. I rarely venture into NV. Im sure you do breath clean air, don't you live in a rater rural area? How do you know you have never breathed cleaner air? I've breathed the air on four continents and I've been to LA three times so far. Nothing touches the salt air of the cold Atlantic by my estimation. This despite the fact that just about all of the pollution from CA to NH passes through here on it's way out to sea, where it gets scrubbed. I'm not denying climate change. I just don't buy that humanity is ramping the process up in any meaningful way. Especially now that they are releasing data that contradicts the narrative. But I'll still do my part by planting more carbon scrubbing and oxygen producing vegetable matter than just about anyone.  Also- Anyone here who has a lawn should give the grass the finger and plant over it with clover. Saving the bees from neo nicotinoids is far more crucial to our immediate survival than 1 or 2 degrees Celcius is. I replaced my front lawn with white Dutch (racist!) and crimson clover. Will be doing the back next. Never seen a honey bee outside an apiary in my entire life, but now I've seen three in my front yard. Plus: drought resistant and no chems needed to allow it to compete. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 14:31:24 GMT -5
I think its all of that and then some. Look above la and tell me that mix of greys and browns is healthy. You are how many thousands of miles away? You really think you get the concentrated dose of this smog like we get it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 14:49:54 GMT -5
I think its all of that and then some. Look above la and tell me that mix of greys and browns is healthy. You are how many thousands of miles away? You really think you get the concentrated dose of this smog like we get it? That's my point. We don't get smog here. Next time you watch a national weather forecast, look at the jet stream. It flows west to east and almost always right over the state of Maine. But we get the carbon pollution from everyone because of the jet stream. Fortunately for us, we've got more forest than any other state which really cleans up everyone else's carbon before it's ejected to the ocean to help kelp grow. And you personally might want to look into clover seeds. I visited an outdoor grow this weekend and they had clover planted between the rows. Explained that it draws nitrogen from the air and deposits it in the soil which keeps the leaves from yellowing and promotes bigger buds. It doesn't require much water. And it's way better than spray painting the dead dry grass green. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 14:55:56 GMT -5
I'm a fan of the clover, it's not as popular out here, many do the "desert lawn" thing. I have too many kids running around here for clover for my lawn. If I had a nice front area that was raised up I'd be more into it.
I'll definitely look into the growroom thing.
Speaking of plants that suck carbon, doing a nice out door scrub myself this year.
You know, I never noticed people spray painting dead grass green until about 2 years ago. The city does it along the side of the freeway as well. Makes me laugh, I'd rather see plain dirt.
And regarding the smog, I'm with the "can't help any" side. I'm much more concerned with the quality of life directly under and in the smog. As I have been posting about for years now, I want to live elsewhere while somehow keeping my foothold here. I feel it will literally add years to my life by helping eliminate some of the factors we've already brought up.
|
|
