Where have we seen that? Trains yes, trucks not so much.
General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
Where have we seen that? Trains yes, trucks not so much.
Noah and his combined family just couldn't shift that much dung.
Rarely have I read something that delusional. Scientists do not get rich from saying what they say about climate change, and they have no power on what the politicians decide in Paris or where ever they decide to meet to agree to disagree.
Maybe you should move your nose from the bible and start reading elsewhere. The scientists that do not agree that the current global warming is heavily influenced by human activity are becoming rarer and rarer. There is almost no other subject in science being more agreed upon than man made global warming. And let me repeat: Science does NOT get rich from saying it like it is. Even Fox News, as noted earlier, agree upon "current anthropogenic warming". You have absolutely no idea of the future awaiting you and the rest of us. I'm as certain as I can theoretically be, that it's you who need to wake up. Sorry.
It might come as a surprise to you that I agree that the money earned on medicine is immoral and wrong. However, that is changing the subject. The subject was man made climate change. You also have a strange idea about how science and technology works. The scientists that should be listened to are the giant consensus upon the problem. As this debate clearly shows, you have to realize the problem to change anything. Those scientist do not get rich like the ones working in the pharma industry, and you will not find one reliable scientist who would claim that science alone can " fix the planet".
The people getting rich are C-levels etc. The biologist creating a new GMO for production of an enzyme are not poor, but they are far from rich. Most scientists spend huge parts of their time running around begging for money, just so that they can do their research. Do you honestly think that 99% of those scientists have conspired to trick the global population into believing in a humanity threatening problem that you claim isn't there?!?
Replying to some of the previous posts: The problem with Climate Change focus is the planet's climate is so very complicated!
What we need to do is focus on Pollution.
Pollution is easy to understand, and virtually everyone can climb on-board with the idea of reducing pollution.
Look, you'll never get everyone on board - that's life. Literally, life succeeds because of diversity - if we were all identical a single decease could wipe us all out.
So let's not focus on a complicated climate, nor expect everyone to agree with us. Instead, let's focus on getting a majority of people to join us in an effort to reduce pollution.
You know, back when leaded gas was being discontinued, some people claimed it was a horrible idea. Forty years later I don't know anyone who misses leaded gas. Or lead in paint.
To me, the best way forward is to continue to slowly make high pollution products more expensive, and take that money to fund research into low or no pollution products.
And let's make products which can easily be recycled less expensive than hard to recycle products ;-)
What we need to do is focus on Pollution.
Pollution is easy to understand, and virtually everyone can climb on-board with the idea of reducing pollution.
Look, you'll never get everyone on board - that's life. Literally, life succeeds because of diversity - if we were all identical a single decease could wipe us all out.
So let's not focus on a complicated climate, nor expect everyone to agree with us. Instead, let's focus on getting a majority of people to join us in an effort to reduce pollution.
You know, back when leaded gas was being discontinued, some people claimed it was a horrible idea. Forty years later I don't know anyone who misses leaded gas. Or lead in paint.
To me, the best way forward is to continue to slowly make high pollution products more expensive, and take that money to fund research into low or no pollution products.
And let's make products which can easily be recycled less expensive than hard to recycle products ;-)
If I was God and I saw the sort of nonsensical blather 6xes was spouting in my name while, reveling in the abuse of the Earth, which I had presumably made his species custodians of, I'd do the same thing I did to the dinosaurs:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZExJ2AKrs3c
I mean, you give a person eyes, plus a frontal lobe capable of processing language, and they can't even figure out the definition of science that the rest of their species was able to formalize centuries ago. Then they use all the powers of imagination and creativity they are possessed of, for no greater purpose than to exacerbate an obvious math and logic fail; coming to the conclusion that it's scientists that are swindling them, rather than anti-competitive and corrupt business interests that would be disadvantaged by people realizing just how profitable it is to poison them!
I mean, you give a person eyes, plus a frontal lobe capable of processing language, and they can't even figure out the definition of science that the rest of their species was able to formalize centuries ago. Then they use all the powers of imagination and creativity they are possessed of, for no greater purpose than to exacerbate an obvious math and logic fail; coming to the conclusion that it's scientists that are swindling them, rather than anti-competitive and corrupt business interests that would be disadvantaged by people realizing just how profitable it is to poison them!
Ok Thanks TJ, and sorry for the 'tone' of the new thread i posted to carry this topic on with. I was a little miffed, but also i fully understand since the 'no politics' attitude took over in the forums here that a thread like this was on shakey ground (as you can't 'really' get into the Climate Change topic without sometimes brushing up against something political in nature) and fully appriciate you mods allowing it to continue, even after the 'no politics' shift.
I had assumed Yaffle perhaps was indicating a change in that policy for this thread (which would be a shame imho) and have no issue with a mod (Yaffle or other) to report about, but just would appriciate a little warning if policy towards this thread is likely to change.
As for the posters that contributed to it's temporary closure, you know the rules, and i KNOW there are a few of you that perhaps would like to see this thread closed for good (and have no doubt tried to get it done in the past), but please respect the wishes of this forum and it would not hurt to respect the effort that most of the posters in this thread have gone to to create a rich and informative source on the topic of Climate Change and environmental issues. Thank you.
I had assumed Yaffle perhaps was indicating a change in that policy for this thread (which would be a shame imho) and have no issue with a mod (Yaffle or other) to report about, but just would appriciate a little warning if policy towards this thread is likely to change.
As for the posters that contributed to it's temporary closure, you know the rules, and i KNOW there are a few of you that perhaps would like to see this thread closed for good (and have no doubt tried to get it done in the past), but please respect the wishes of this forum and it would not hurt to respect the effort that most of the posters in this thread have gone to to create a rich and informative source on the topic of Climate Change and environmental issues. Thank you.
Sorry for nearly missing that in the 'confusion'. Well i have read about them over the last few years or so, Tesla famously made a big announcement about their own, and they covered some other manufacturers on that EV vehicle website i've linked recently (FullyCharged) and simply doing a search found some news from BMW etc:
They do seem to be possible, so it is an interesting development to keep an eye on.
Yes the Tesla truck is 100% electric, with an excellent acceleration and 800 Kms of autonomy.
Seeing as how the scientists of the world know so much about the Earth and all of its many systems, isn't it kind of funny that there is no convincing data on where the planet's water comes from? It's often bandied about that these guys more or less "know everything and are never wrong" but at this point, scientifically speaking, all we seem to have is "Uh....well....comets maybe?" Before I'm going to turn my rational brain over to the scientific community as the solver of all our problems, I'm going to need to see some realistic progress on this question, otherwise I'm just not buying the expertise of all these reports to purport to have ultimate knowledge on a topic infinitely more complicated than the question I raised.
Well, if you think it's a simple answer then go for it, just be sure to publish your results on a peer-reviewed journal also, you can talk about X without knowing where it came from and I'm really not sure why you think otherwise.
Also, relatively simple questions may go unanswered for a long time not because they are hard but because few (if anybody) care to do such research, perhaps because they are simply irrelevant/impractical such as the reason why we have butt hair.
How was that even possibly your take away that I thought it had an "easy" answer? I'm no scientist. Heck, I barely have two brain cells to rub together. I'm just a guy who consumes resources and excretes waste. The answer is so decidedly NOT easy that literally no scientist ever has been able to answer it with anything other than mumbling conjecture. But that's the point, isn't it? If they don't know that one, why should we believe that they have the tougher questions all dialed in?
Edit: really, Greg? Really? The origins of water on this planet are roughly the equivalent import of where our "butt hair" come from?
Easy and hard aren't universal context, I already told you that difficulty isn't the only thing dictaminating the time it takes to reasearch something, at last you are essentially brewing an ad hominem fallacy here.
Please read my edit above. And people wonder why there is skepticism.
Sadly, you confuse skepticism with believing whatever suits you without doing the relevant research. Regarding the edit, I didn't say that, I offered it as an example of a question that is not answered not because it is difficult (perhaps it is) but because very little (albeit not none) research is done about it.
The origin of water is simply not relevant to climate research.
Yes, you did say that. I'm happy to see you distance yourself from it now, though. And it is relevant in the sense that it goes to demonstrating the scientific community's expertise when it comes to figuring out the Earth's systems; the planet's water supply is a pretty important thing to not know much about.
No I didn't say that, it's only in your mind. You are also shifting goalposts* here since water supply and the Earth's water origin are completely different things, we understand very well the former but not the latter or did you never learn about the water cycle?
*Unless you meant water supply from the beginning in which case you were wrong on saying we know nothing about it.
- Status