Reply With Quote
I thought the economy was great. What gives?
That doesn't add up to 100%
I thought the economy was great. What gives?
lol immigration nowhere near the top
would probably seem that way to somebody who learns about climate change through tweets
al gore didn't start anything. the carbon dioxide theory of climate change has been around since the 1800's
fossil fuels have undeniably been helpful for us. but it turns out its incredibly harmful in the big picture, and if we have the ability to transition away from fossil fuel as our energy source to other methods that aren't as harmful, it only makes sense to do so. the technology for renewables are ever-improving and they are becoming more and more cost effective with time. no reason to expect that trend wont continue, particularly if we invest in them more heavily
yup, the climate has always changed and will continue to change after we die. but they're not randomness. we have come to better understand the mechanics of what, specifically, has caused those historical fluctuations in temperature. of course, we know the sun itself plays a huge role. while there are short "solar cycles" that typically span about 11 years (we are currently at the "low" point of the current cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_24). we also know that on a larger scale, the sun has gotten warmer with time as the composition changes from the lighter hydrogen to heavier helium...
we also know that the atmospheric makeup has a lot to do with planetary temperature. CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane contribute to warming. this is why venus is much hotter than mercury despite being farther from the sun.
of course, there are other factors. another example is albedo... the reflective state of the earth. when we have more ice, sunlight tends to be reflected instead of absorbed, which leads to a further cooling effect. and vice versa when ice melts, revealing a darker, more absorbing surface.
none of these factors can on their own explain the history of the earth's climate. if the ~11 year solar cycle dominated, we wouldn't be able to explain the warming trend we're currently seeing. if the sun's lifetime temperature was the only factor, that wouldn't explain why we get in and out of ice ages. the milankovitch cycle takes place over hundreds of thousands of years, and cannot account for changes that occur in the timespan we are looking at. even greenhouse gases alone cannot paint the whole picture.
liberals havent been pushing evolution. biologists have. evolution doesnt say that all species will adapt. it says that those which are best able to adapt will survive and pass on those traits. but our goal shouldn't be do simply avoid extinction. if we can mitigate climate change which can impact the quality of life of billions of people, it would be really dumb to say "we shouldnt do that, because our species will adapt and avoid extinction."
btw fully expecting this response
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#4b227cc3f9ff
Alex Epstein is the author of the New York Times best-selling book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and an expert on energy and industrial policy.
Hold up, let's see if Alex Epstein is a climate scientist...
Nope. A computer science major
They also don't understand the core concern. No one believes the Earth's temp is going to rise to the point where we all die of heat stroke, so when "deniers" try to frame the issue by saying there's no "evidence" the Earth is heading toward "catastrophic warming," they're right. The Earth will still be more than livable.btw fully expecting this response
The concern is that the projected rising temps aren't fully compatible with how our society is set up. A country's coastal regions will often be its biggest and most important economic contributors. Climate change will have a profound effect on those regions. Climate change does increase natural disaster frequency, so expect costs to rise on that front. Large areas of China and India are trending toward being uninhabitable due to pollution.
“Our planet is going to face disaster if we don’t turn this ship around,” she said, as she chopped sweet potatoes. “And so it’s basically like, there is a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult and it does lead, I think young people, to have a legitimate question. Ya know, should—is it okay to still have children?”
exactly, it was out of context. this was your original post
nowhere did she encourage people not to have kids
you guys are ing watching her cook
Unless coming from a federal funded climate scientist, information is irrelevant - got it
Hold up, let's see if Alex Epstein is a climate scientist...
Nope. A computer science major
no need to be federally funded. just be somebody who actually conducts scientific research on the topicUnless coming from a federal funded climate scientist, information is irrelevant - got it
IT JUST BLOOPS UP. NOTHING TO BE DONE ABOUT IT.
Hannity and Tucker are really triggered by AOC
Both spent half their show calling her -
"the new leader of the democrats" "the boss"
poor fellers
they are attacking her
She is the democracts biggest weakness along with Nancy
Like the federally funded scientists that approve pharmaceuticals, food products, and agricultural chemicals?Unless coming from a federal funded climate scientist, information is irrelevant - got it
The AOC obsession gets weird by the day.
I'm glad we have AOC. She is a constant source of entertainment like Trump. What stupid will they say next?
She's the best
So you're posting videos of not her cooking because you ran out of videos of her cooking to watch?
you were too dumb to notice but claim others don't read, watch, etc... dip !So you're posting videos of not her cooking because you ran out of videos of her cooking to watch?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
