21 Jan 2020, 4:58 am
Pepe wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kiprobalhato wrote:
SoloSailor wrote:
Why must humanity cut emissions in half by 2030?
regardless of whether you believe all the doom and gloom predictions or not, reducing the amount of toxic s**t we pump into the air seems like a pretty obvious choice if you ask me. again i'm not getting why "less garbage" is so controversial
unless you like smelling exhaust all the time?
I believe it is the percieved chicken little 'the sky is falling' the world coming to an end is around the corner drastic measures need to be taken hypehype and hysteria that people are arguing against.
That and also that it seems to them that a lot of climate activism mainly has a political motivation.
Extinction Rebellion is doing so much damage to more rational man-made climate change proponents.
Their emotionalism is pushing me towards becoming more verbally militant,
Which is out of my comfort zone.
I detest sanctimony, self-righteousness, virtue-signalling and emotional blackmail.
Evolution,
What have you created?
And more importantly,
Why?
Personally I do not think it will actually amount to much. There is a likely agenda and a possible outcome that I comment on, but really I think it is mostly going nowhere. Al Gore was promoting this 20 years ago and I think 20 years from now it will probably be where it is today. The next democrat presidents probably will do as much or little about it as the last one despite whatever campaign promises they make.
21 Jan 2020, 1:44 pm
21 Jan 2020, 2:32 pm
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
21 Jan 2020, 2:38 pm
Pepe wrote:
Kiprobalhato wrote:
SoloSailor wrote:
Why must humanity cut emissions in half by 2030?
regardless of whether you believe all the doom and gloom predictions or not, reducing the amount of toxic s**t we pump into the air seems like a pretty obvious choice if you ask me. again i'm not getting why "less garbage" is so controversial
unless you like smelling exhaust all the time?
I believe the "emission reduction" is referring to CO2.
CO2 is odourless,
Non-carcinogenic,
Non-toxic, period.
And is vital in the photosynthesis process, producing oxygen via plants,
I.E. It is plant food.
Quote:
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants, some bacteria and some protistans use the energy from sunlight to produce glucose from carbon dioxide and water. This glucose can be converted into pyruvate which releases adenosine triphosphate (ATP) by cellular respiration. Oxygen is also formed. https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/ ... thesis.htm
Also,
CO2 is invisible.
The pollution you *see* is pollution, not CO2.
At high enough concentration CO2 is toxic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazuku
Deadly concentration is way beyond the normal concentration in atmosphere, of course, but there is some concern that rising level of CO2 may bring cognitive decline in inside environments; inside environments with lot of peoples in it have higher level of CO2 that outside, of course, but it could rise further as general concentration in the atmosphere itself rise.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Below_1%]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Below_1%[/url]
There is not much studies on it yet though.
Of course the may concern are the effects on climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_Earth's_atmosphere
21 Jan 2020, 2:47 pm
Pepe wrote:
Also,
CO2 is invisible.
CO2 is invisible.
Dost thou not believeth in miracles?
21 Jan 2020, 4:36 pm
21 Jan 2020, 6:21 pm
Tollorin wrote:
At high enough concentration CO2 is toxic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazuku
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazuku
I didn't know that.
Thank you for enlightening me.
But as you said,
It would have to be in high concentrations.
Do you know why it can be lethal?
Suffocation?
Tollorin wrote:
Deadly concentration is way beyond the normal concentration in atmosphere, of course, but there is some concern that rising level of CO2 may bring cognitive decline in inside environments; inside environments with lot of peoples in it have higher level of CO2 that outside, of course, but it could rise further as general concentration in the atmosphere itself rise.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Below_1%]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Below_1%[/url]
There is not much studies on it yet though.
Of course the may concern are the effects on climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_Earth's_atmosphere
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Below_1%]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Below_1%[/url]
There is not much studies on it yet though.
Of course the may concern are the effects on climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_Earth's_atmosphere
There are forms of toxicity in the home, other than through CO2, so I have heard over the media many years ago.
Hence the suggestion of periodically airing out the house.
Also:
Could you tell me the other main greenhouse gases involved in global warming,
And how they compare to CO2?
21 Jan 2020, 6:23 pm
SoloSailor wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Also,
CO2 is invisible.
CO2 is invisible.
Dost thou not believeth in miracles?
Now, now.
You will get us into trouble,
Again.
21 Jan 2020, 6:25 pm
21 Jan 2020, 7:12 pm
SoloSailor wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
This might go some way to answer your question
https://theconversation.com/climate-exp ... ves-123549
https://theconversation.com/climate-exp ... ves-123549
Considering the source, I suppose it's no coincidence that the very first sentence of that op-ed is a lie.
Credibility score: -10
Conclusion: No need to read any further.
Perhaps I am a little unfair, in regards to "The Conversation.com",
But consider this.
The last I heard, they refuse to allow any discussion which contradicts/is-skeptical-about man-made climate change.
This speaks volumes in terms of bias, and as such, shreds their credibility.
This/mine is a rational consideration that can't be refuted from an impartial/rational platform, period.
If one is not willing to discuss differing views,
It is hardly a venue which embraces scientific methodology.
Hence the well earned "partisanship groupthink" designation.
Tell me if their policy has changed.
21 Jan 2020, 8:17 pm
Pepe wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I feel like it's implausible that the Earth have been "created" by some "supreme being."
That's the way I feel. It's based on "faith." My faith that the Earth is billions of years old.
There's, obviously, overwhelming scientifically-derived evidence as well.
I doubt that you believe in such a precise date for the earth's "creation."
That's the way I feel. It's based on "faith." My faith that the Earth is billions of years old.
There's, obviously, overwhelming scientifically-derived evidence as well.
I doubt that you believe in such a precise date for the earth's "creation."
It is axiomatic that the earth couldn't possibly be 6024 years old.
It's not my "faith" which tells me this.
It's my reasoning ability.
I see no political gain in faking the scientific data in regard to carbon dating, for one thing.
And consider:
The last "Angel" was spotted around 2,000 years ago, with the species presumably now extinct,
Probably caught in a bushfire.
And god hast not himself enlightened us in how to fight the climate change phenomenon.
I think it safe to say god has lost interest, through embarrassment, in his creation which he designed so badly.
I think it safe to say god has re-written the laws of all creation, before he choofed off, to bring common sense into the world in his stead.
And I think it safe to say that god definitely had no interest in playing politics before he left,
Unlike the far right.
I believe my post here has been "unlawfully" modified.
envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,225
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria
22 Jan 2020, 6:24 am
22 Jan 2020, 7:19 am
13 Jun 2022, 8:49 am
Pepe wrote:
The first thing that should be done is to take away China's "developing nation" status
Do you have the same interest in Argentina/Chile/Malaysia/Romania...?
Per capita income:
Pepe wrote:
I have already speculated that Greta didn't sail off to Shanghai *because* it was a communist country.
And I am staggered that Australia has become a focus of outrage, with its 1.5% of global CO2 emissions,
Whereas China, with its 27% gets off scot-free.
And I am staggered that Australia has become a focus of outrage, with its 1.5% of global CO2 emissions,
Whereas China, with its 27% gets off scot-free.
China, population, 1.402 billion. Australia, population, 25.69 million. About 54.5 times.
At the same time, China is still in the period of industrialization. Carbon emitting industries mean we can feed ourselves. Unlike "developed countries", which can move many heavily polluting industrial chains out of their own countries.
We Chinese are not people, right?
Pepe wrote:
China has admitted that their economy is more important than plant food emissions reduction.
In 2020, Chinese consumed on average 44.4kg of meat per person.
Australia continues to be one of the world's top meat-eating countries, with an annual consumption of 89.6kg per capita in 2019.
We Chinese are not people, right?
13 Jun 2022, 5:43 pm
13 Jun 2022, 6:01 pm
