Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Crni Vuk, Jul 26, 2019.
Donkeys you mean. Someone offered Greta a donkey - no joke - to move around.
Subatomic Pony Particle Power is the new wave of the old school.
I don't know if Crni would be okay with a Federal Pony Identification Program. You will need your pony with you at all times.
Really this thread is about climate change. We should really talk about alternative energy sources. We need to harness the awesome power of zombies. Put them on giant turbines and hang brains in front of them and they will turn the giant turbine. This would lessen our dependency on foreign oil.
Guys guys, clearly we should just get rid of all cars! Then, when people can't commute to work, they'll peacefully understand that what was done is for the good of Mother Gaia, jobs and people be damned
/s in case it's needed
I'll be rolling coal in my Tesla pick-up. Just wait.
Crash it into a tree and it will get smokey really good.
It get's serious.
Oceans lose oxygen
Oxygen is essential to most life in the ocean. An analysis shows that oxygen levels have declined by 2% in the global ocean over the past five decades, probably causing habitat loss for many fish and invertebrate species. See Letter p.335
Most marine organisms require oxygen to survive. A 2% decrease of ocean oxygen content may not sound like much, but the implications of this for marine ecosystems could be severe in parts of the ocean where oxygen is already low, such as oxygen minimum zones9, because critical survival thresholds may be crossed. Moreover, when other stress factors associated with global warming — such as increased CO2 and warmer waters — combine with lower oxygen levels, the cumulative effects on marine life can be even worse10. Schmidtko and colleagues' findings should ring yet more alarm bells about the consequences of global warming.Footnote 1
If marine life starts to decline or even collapse we will have a serious issue on our hands.
Carlson is considered a fringe theorist and proponent of the refuted science of Catastrophism, holding antiquated views along the lines of Siegfried Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, who oppose factual evidence of "Anthropogenic Global Warming" with a belief in metaphysical cycles.
Charles Darwin was also a fringe theorist. Look where we are now.
You don't know a fucking thing about Randal Carlson so shut the fuck up Wikipedia.
Yeah, comparing Carlson to either one of those clowns means you don't know what his research is about.
Guys you seem to be missing the point. this isn't about the ice ages or how chemicals in the water are turning children into sterile trannies. the true problem we face is the fact White People are still driving cars. Everyday a White person drives a car is one day driven closer to total intrinsic reversal on a planetary level.
What is his research about then and what what theory has he come forth with?
There is a big difference between stepping in uncharted territory creating a completely new scientific field and questioning actual established scientific facts.
That would be like comparing a crazy person claiming the theory of relativity to be wrong with the resistance someone like Heisenberg or Planck experienced from the scientific community when they released their theories.
Imagine if we would be talking about flat earthers for a moment. Also a "fringe theory".
Yes new ideas have often to overcome obstacles. But that's not the case here.
Not trying to piss you off Crni, but the scientists supporting climate change are the ones on activist payrolls. You can bribe a scientist to put out all sorts of gloom and doom shit.
I don't think they're paid, but there is a lot of peer pressure.
Climate change is likely real, but I still doubt the predictive power of climate science and the simulations they're doing right now.
If you really have to brake it down all they are saying is that our current behaviour is very risky because we're changing the environment and temperature in a relatively short time period - in geological terms. It doesn't take a genius to understand that this kind of destruction, with Co2 pollution, environment damage from fossil fuel, deforestation, overfishing, overconsumption, habitat los, disappearing species and turning the planet in to a landfill isn't going to end well. Will it happen in 20 years? or 50? Doesn't actually matter. Because we have to do something now to prevent a potential collapse. If the global temperature is growing the civilisation as we know it, will be over. It's that simple and not some kind of "doomsay". Civilisations disappeared already in the past as well because of their own actions. If the global food production for example is endangered millions if not billions of people will suffer. And we're doing nothing to prevent it.
It's like cancer, you try to prevent it before it happens and not when it happens. Once you have cancer it's to late and you can only deal with the consequences. Right now this is where we're heading. In a situation where we can only deal with the consequences.
Which means that the opposite is also true. A whole industry, like the fossil fuel industry, depending on the fact that people don't believe in climate change bribing some scientists to spread misinformation.
But of course. Only the other side is doing it for the money or what ever.
When did I say that? All I said is that the guys advocating it are often paid. The ones skeptical are also probably paid, I never said this wasn't the case. Sorry to upset you
So is your doctor who's treating you when you're sick.
And the fireman that rescues you from a fire.
And the police officer doing his job out there.
Hell even Hassknecht with his Phd in physics is getting paid. Imagine that.
Your point is? Here is a small hint. ALL scientists are usually paid. I know what you're trying to say here but it simply doesn't make sense.
I mean you couldn't be more generic in your statement I guess. Uhuuu some, but I am not telling who exactly, is getting paid for advocating it. Eventually. Maybe.
Sorry if that comes of as aggressive. But seriously. Either be specific or just don't say anything all seriously. What is someone supposed to do with that comment?
On the other side, with just a 10 sec. google search "scientists paid by oil company" you can find relatively easy a dozen of individuals which got paid by one of the largest lobby groups on earth (the fossil fuel industry) to spread misinformation. So there is that.
Sargon-I-can't-even-read-my-own-sources-properly-Akkad? Is any Youtuber out there more often corrected than him? I do not know.