You are partially correct
as for getting rid of the water, well I can see science / logic is not your area of expertise
Greta Thunberg to Congress: ‘You’re not trying hard enough. Sorry’
- Thread starter Knuckle Ball
- Start date
as for getting rid of the water, well I can see science / logic is not your area of expertise
Thats is just for starters
Tires are made from natural rubber & synthetic rubber & a whole host of compounds derived from oil
Of course the interior of future cars will contain lots of plastics
The miles of copper required for each vehicle needs to be mined, smelted & refined. Very energy intensive -Oh yeah the same loons who want to shit down he oild industry want to shut down the mines. No matter, I doubt there is enough copper in the planet to facilitate the switch
then there is the aluminum & steel . again very energy intensive. I know nobody has invented or ever will invent a solar powered steel or aluminum mill
Then there is the asphalt (Oil) which is required to maintain the roads
Concrete is also extremely energy intensive
Heat your home in Manitoba with solar?? Not a snowball's chance in hell
An electric pick up truck for the farms of Saskatchewan????. May through Oct maybe, but the rest of the year forget
Have they developed a wind powered combine yet?
Just about every item you own and every scrap of food you consume was brought to you by a truck , train or ship.
Shutting down or even curtailing the oil industry is such a fools dream
I fear we will go down this road despite the idiocy and many people will die because of it
I can not describe how incredibly wrong (decitful) you are
Both water Vapour and CO2 are greenhouse gases. They both absorb infrared radiation
https://www.google.com/search?q=the...e..69i57j0.23312j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
You do not understand this theory at all
Yet you portray yourself as an expert
Ok, larue.
Name a science reference source you support that's legit and we'll show that your claims are incredibly ill informed.
NASA?
Wiki?
AAAS?
Give me the name of a legit scientific organization that you respect, or a legit source of info and I'll show how incredibly ignorant those statements are.
More will die from climate change disasters, including extreme weather and crop failures.
Scientists showed us how to fix acid rain, industry listened and its not a problem.
Scientists showed us how to fix the hole in the ozone layer, change some coolants and now we're ok.
and now?
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry...e-halve-scientists_n_5d837aa9e4b0957256b2465d
You once said that if you were wrong and climate change were real it would be the greatest sin ever not to fix it.
Yet here you are trying to stop us from fixing it, based on incredibly ignorant claims about climate change, like your feedback claims and attempts to ignore surface temp changes.
It's good for teenagers to take an interest in social policy issues. Taking an interest in something is the first step towards learning. It's important and helpful for everyone, at least by the time they can vote, to have some understanding of these issues.
But teenagers as leaders? To be blunt, teenagers are inexperienced and their brains aren't even fully developed. They routinely make terrible errors of judgement and most have not mastered basic reasoning skills.
Please, activists of all stripes, spare us the immature moralizing and logic of teenage spokespersons for your cause! It looks like a superficial attempt to manipulate people out of criticizing your spokesperson/position, because that's exactly what it is. Reasonable people stop listening when they realize a speaker/cause is trying to manipulate them.
Good for Thunberg for taking an interest in environmental issues. Delusional of her to think that with her limited experience, knowledge and insight that she is in a position to make a real difference as a leader. Shameful for activists pushing their position by using Thunberg like a human testudo. Shameful for politicians who encourage this nonsense.
But teenagers as leaders? To be blunt, teenagers are inexperienced and their brains aren't even fully developed. They routinely make terrible errors of judgement and most have not mastered basic reasoning skills.
Please, activists of all stripes, spare us the immature moralizing and logic of teenage spokespersons for your cause! It looks like a superficial attempt to manipulate people out of criticizing your spokesperson/position, because that's exactly what it is. Reasonable people stop listening when they realize a speaker/cause is trying to manipulate them.
Good for Thunberg for taking an interest in environmental issues. Delusional of her to think that with her limited experience, knowledge and insight that she is in a position to make a real difference as a leader. Shameful for activists pushing their position by using Thunberg like a human testudo. Shameful for politicians who encourage this nonsense.
When people ask her what she wants them to do, she always replies: “I’m a kid. I don’t have all the answers. I don’t want you to listen to me; I want you to listen to the science.” I support that.
That was nicely scripted for her. However, what she is really saying is "listen to the science that I believe", which is also really the same as saying "accept my logic". That has to be taken as her message, given she is saying that "not enough" has been done.
I don't believe she has been elevated to the position of spokesperson because politicians are somehow unaware of a field of study called climate science. The reasons more legislative action hasn't been taken to curb emissions are quite clear and obvious: a) there is not enough agreement on what science tells us about these issues, and/or doubt about how much reliability should be attributed to conclusions being reached in a relatively new area of study, and/or b) there are other extremely important (and far less disputable) counter interests that have to be weighed in the political balance.
If Thunberg were more experienced she would understand why legislative consideration of these issues takes so long - as long as she is exposed to the whole picture, and not just information that handlers want her to have.
Pretty much a line of truisms, as I read you:
Everyone with a message is really saying: Listen to what I believe. So what, she's human, that's what humans do.
Politics, especially the democratic sort is always slow, for the reasons you cite and others. But that in no way makes the need for action any less real or less urgent, and she's just another voice with an opinion and a part of that process.
The only serious argument here: To do nothing and keep talking; 'Greta just doesn't understand how long that takes' was answered by Dr. Johnson centuries back. “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” All Greta is doing is pointing at the calendar. If "… consideration of these issue takes so long" that the damage can't be undone, why bother considering the issues at all? We'll be coping with the damage unprepared.
Or in the Johnson simile, "To hell with all the appeal arguments, it's hacksaw time!"
She gets it. Congress doesn't.
That's not true at all.
With 99% of climatologists backing the summaries of the IPCC and its projections (which are likely too conservative), there is massive agreement.
The physics does not support it
What you truly understand about the science would not fill a dixie cup.
You still can't define the difference between a feedback and forcing effect on the climate, larue.
You really shouldn't even post on this subject.
there is no comparison between cyanide and CO2 you making this comparison only shows your scientific illiteracy. CO2 is needed by plants
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway underwater by 2019
