Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forests and carbon capture
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#76
No bob, I was intentionally disrespecting the former VP with the less disreputable. Moniker
Wolf wins every fight but the one where he dies, fangs locked around the throat of his opponent. 
Currently writing BROBd

Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#77
Rajvik.

You know about the guy that lived right under Mount St. Helens?  When it was still a beautiful place?

You're being him right now.

(02-26-2019, 08:25 PM)Matrix Dragon Wrote: ... modifying our energy sources and output won't reverse the changes of the past few centuries. It won't reverse the damage caused by global industrialisation and a population of over seven billion.

It's too late for that. The damage is done. The ice caps are melting, droughts are getting longer, weather at both ends of the temperature scale are getting worse. Hell, last month Australia had some of the worst flooding its ever had, while simultaneously fighting massive bushfires in the same damn state. It's no longer about reversing a documented downward spiral. It's about slowing it down and minimising the damage.

You defeat yourself with your own argument.

Yes.  It is about slowing things down as much as we can.  You DO realize the sort of project it would be to relocated everyone that's south of Georgia, pretty much the entirety of the Mississippi River Valley, half of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, and pretty much all of the Texas Gulf Coast Region?  And don't forget the Sacramento Valley.  That's about to turn into a small inland sea.  And this is to say nothing about the Atlantic Seaboard.

The costs of cutting absolutely everything that we can fucking PALE in comparison to the nightmare that's coming, and every red cent we spend to stave it off for even a minute is going to be time and money well spent.

(02-26-2019, 03:49 AM)Labster Wrote: At San Antonio in particular: enjoy all your concrete in the tunnels.

You're not paying any attention to the geography here.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that I live at an elevation that's twice as high as the one you're at right now.

You're conflating us with Houston and New Orleans.  Which are right at sea level.  And where they paved over massive areas that were once wetlands.

That's not our problem here.  We only need to worry about what Mother Nature can dump on us from above.  And you know what?  The more of that, the better.  The Edwards Aquifer is more like an underground river than an aquifer, collecting all the water from a massive range and piping it all out through a handful of springs.  Our water is literally on a use-or-lose basis.  We actually had to make an ARTIFICIAL aquifer in order to be able to stave off the worst droughts, and we were only able to do that because of some very fortunate geology and geography.

A good part of the emissions is from the manufacturing process.  These days we use natural gas because it's perfect for shooting a huge jet of flame up a 50-meter long rotating kiln to heat the klinker to the point that it starts to become hydrophobic.  It also has the benefit of being far less pollutinguting than fuel-oil.  But I doubt that electric can do the job as effectively.

And if you want to shut down cement plants just because of the carbon emissions?  Then you better be willing to do the same to all the mines here in America.  They may not be as prolific, but I'm pretty sure that, per capita, they dump just as much (if not more) carbon into the atmosphere than the cement plants.

In regards to conservation for both biological diversity and farm land, the author that wrote that article must have not been looking at the figures carefully enough.  We produce far more food than we actually need.  A good portion just winds up going to waste, and the issues with starvation here in America have more to do with the economy and our stubborn refusal to let go of the Objectivist-based economic system than the carrying capacity of the environment.  We have carrying capacity to spare for the moment, though vertical farms are gonna start looking attractive once entire states start slipping under the water.

Also, you think it's crowded here?  Have you been to Europe?  THAT'S crowded.  Meanwhile, Texas can eat all of Germany and have a bit of France for dessert, and we still have nowhere near the population density of those two countries.  And this despite having THREE of America's ten most-populous cities.  So that's an issue for the Europeans to worry about.  Us?  Not so much.  I'm all for conservation, but I'm also realistic about building for the demands of growth.  The only way you're gonna blunt that is if you follow China's example of population controls (the newer ones, that is, after they realized just how badly they fucked themselves with their one-child policy).  Good luck selling that one.

I'll admit that water is a big issue in regards to concrete.  Funny thing, though?  We're learning that, in truth, the less water you use, the stronger your concrete is.  Which is why we've started forming concrete the way the Romans used to - very little water, pound it into shape - or otherwise use super-plastifiers that make a tiny bit of water go a long long ways.

Be glad that we stick with reinforced concrete, though, instead of building massive arches and domes.  We use far less that way.

Like it or not, concrete is going to be here to stay.  There is no other building material that is as effective as it is.



Look guys.  I get where some of you are coming from.  Some of you are worried about the destruction of habitats.  Some of you are worried about how we're going to support ourselves.  Some of you are worried about the expenses involved.  And some of you think that we're all lying liars that lie just because you think there's some kind of conspiracy at work.

In the first case... That's a strictly case-by-case basis.  For here in America, Houston and New Orleans are great examples of how not to develop your city.  The issues they have in, say, Seattle are not the same issues they have in NYC, which are not the same issues at hand in San Antonio.  There are different topologies, geologies, and geographies at work in each city, and a blanket-solution will only make things worse.

The second case... I think it's not as big of an issue you're making it out to be.  Respectfully, compare our agricultural output with how much food we actually need.  There is no issue at stake here for the moment, and the issues we ARE having can be addressed through better governing our economy.  Maybe later on it may be more of an issue... but not right now.  The carbon emissions are a far bigger fish that we need to concern ourselves with.

The fourth case?  It MIGHT actually be helpful for our economy if we actually started spending the money to stave off climate change and laying in preparations for what is looking to be the inevitable.  These are going to be massive undertakings of civil engineering the likes of which no one has ever tackled before.  It will put the 'Raising of Chicago' to utter shame.  

(Seriously, look that shit up if you wanna see some serious Looney Toons level shit in public works.  Here's a taste in the spoiler below.)


And I won't even address the last case.  The outright dismissal of my arguments does not even dignify a response.
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#78
Ah, you forgot those of us who have simply accepted that the crash is inevitable and will cause a major dieback of the human race. (I've mentioned planning never to have kids, not subjecting them or their own sprogs to such is a major reason why.) Children only learn what "hot" means after they touch the pretty red flower and it burns them, so perhaps whatever civilisation emerges afterward will have learned to take fucking care of their habitat... and if not, we'll have proven we collectively aren't worthy of survival.
--
‎noli esse culus
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#79
(02-28-2019, 12:26 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: You defeat yourself with your own argument.

Yes.  It is about slowing things down as much as we can.  You DO realize the sort of project it would be to relocated everyone that's south of Georgia, pretty much the entirety of the Mississippi River Valley, half of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, and pretty much all of the Texas Gulf Coast Region?  And don't forget the Sacramento Valley.  That's about to turn into a small inland sea.  And this is to say nothing about the Atlantic Seaboard.

The costs of cutting absolutely everything that we can fucking PALE in comparison to the nightmare that's coming, and every red cent we spend to stave it off for even a minute is going to be time and money well spent.

Oh, sorry BA, I was a little irate when I typed that, and it wasn't as clear as it could be. I agree with you pretty much entirely. I was trying to say that this isn't some distant problem we can ignore for a few more decades. It''s a problem that's already here, and trying to ignore it is only getting more people killed. It's a threat that HAS to be faced. I don't know if the damage can be entirely repaired, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for it.
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#80
classicdrogn Wrote:Children only learn what "hot" means after they touch the pretty red flower and it burns them, so perhaps whatever civilisation emerges afterward will have learned to take fucking care of their habitat... and if not, we'll have proven we collectively aren't worthy of survival.

On learning from disasters: someone mentioned Mt. St. Helens earlier in the thread, and people not leaving.

But lets move a bit backwards, to Vesuvius' eruption in 79.  It erupted for three days straight, covering the town in a rain of pumice rock.  It turns out that this is not so harmful to human because the rocks are mostly air, and can be defeated with technologies like a basic pillow.  But, it piles up.  If you have a flat-top roof, then if enough of it piles up, it can collapse a building like snow does.  About one-third of the Pompeii dead were killed by this.  The remainder were killed 3 days later, when hydrostatic balance in the volcanic cloud collapsed when the eruption subsided -- and everyone was suffocated by ash if indoors, or flash-cooked outdoors if running.  A lot of people had plenty of chance to evacuate, but chose to ride it out and protect their homes.  These people all died.

So what did we learn from this, as a people?  Well, some people still try to live near an volcanic eruption, and almost all of the roofs in modern Naples are flat.

King Edward I passed a law banning the burning of coal in London, way back in 1272, because of the harm to people.  Eventually, people started burning more and more coal for the factories and power plants in England.  In 1952, the pollution got so bad that the Great Smog killed over ten thousand people around London.  And here we have people arguing that there's no reason to stop burning coal, because climate science is made up.  But even if it is, coal pollution kills humans.

I don't know that any people "after the disaster" will do any better than we do.  Humans have serious reasoning defects.  We have trouble understanding time scales longer than a year, and why we'd need to plan around that. Any event we did not personally witness, we tend to not know about, or think it was irrelevant to our lives.  It can't be coincidence that we've had an era of massive deregulation and financial industry excess, followed by a long economic downturn, followed by a rise in populism.  The people who actually remember what happened last time are too few, so we're repeating the mistakes of three generations ago.

G. K. Chesterton Wrote:Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#81
(02-27-2019, 06:51 PM)Rajvik Wrote: Edit:Sorry Epsilon, I forgot to answer your question. Yes, I believe in the laws of Thermodynamics.  I also believe in this little thing called solar output. Want to go for another round?

Yes, actually. Thanks for anticipating my next question!

Do you acknowledge that an object which absorbs more energy than it radiates will increase in temperature, yes or no?
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#82
(02-27-2019, 09:05 PM)Rajvik Wrote: No bob, I was intentionally disrespecting the former VP with the less disreputable. Moniker

So, basically avoiding the point by flinging a random insult out into the ether instead.  Noted.
-- Bob

I have been Roland, Beowulf, Achilles, Gilgamesh, Clark Kent, Mary Sue, DJ Croft, Skysaber.  I have been 
called a hundred names and will be called a thousand more before the sun grows dim and cold....
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#83
(02-28-2019, 08:26 AM)Bob Schroeck Wrote:
(02-27-2019, 09:05 PM)Rajvik Wrote: No bob, I was intentionally disrespecting the former VP with the less disreputable. Moniker

So, basically avoiding the point by flinging a random insult out into the ether instead.  Noted.

no bob, i was flinging an insult at the biggest proponent and liar on the subject, but since i can't find a link to prove my reason for thinking him a scumbag easily, i'm not going to argue the point.

@Epsilon: Yes, now do you believe that the output of the solar body that provides said radiating warmth can vary massively in its output level?

Labster Wrote:King Edward I passed a law banning the burning of coal in London, way back in 1272, because of the harm to people.  Eventually, people started burning more and more coal for the factories and power plants in England.  In 1952, the pollution got so bad that the Great Smog killed over ten thousand people around London.  And here we have people arguing that there's no reason to stop burning coal, because climate science is made up.  But even if it is, coal pollution kills humans.

yes Labster, and we see how marvelously that worked for London, and really for all of Britain. By banning the burning of Coal, their most prolific energy source, they systematically deforested the entire damn island for a heat source. Also note that the problem in the "Great Smog" was limited to where, LONDON, a CITY where they had people crammed into a space designed for probably a third of the people living there. It didn't migrate across the channel and lay claim to a coastal french town, it wasn't carried by the winds to block the channel itself, it was limited to London. Ergo, microcosm climate.

Black Aeronaut Wrote:Rajvik.


You know about the guy that lived right under Mount St. Helens?  When it was still a beautiful place?

You're being him right now

which one, there were many, some that even survived because they were on the opposite side of the mountain from the blowout?
sorry, sometimes the sarcasm has to be released that said, yes, i realize that in your eyes i'm being deliberately obtuse and willfully blind to a problem that "THE WORLD SEES" my problems are that all i see is a combination of doom and gloom predictions, none of which have come to pass, the so called experts either disagreeing (almost to the point of coming to blows) or being caught red handed in scandal of cooking their books, and a cure that is arguably worse than the disease. So pardon me while i sit here and enjoy the view. That said, i don't think you are lying, at least not knowingly. I just think that you have been duped into believing a lie that was sold so that some scientists could get funding and so that a politician could make a mint.

@Mamorian: Those were things we BUILT, and were arguably on a small scale comparatively. What you are arguing is that a bunch of small outputs were enough to change the entire weather system of the planet, one is a grape, the other is a grapefruit. 

Now to all of you, a slight tangent brought on by comments as i was getting my breakfast. How many of you realized and at what point did you realize that the TV cartoon Captain Planet was nothing more than Green Propaganda. If you never watched it, or haven't realized that, i understand, it was something that honestly i had not thought of before this morning because i haven't watched it since it originally aired. When it did, i found that it irritated me because of a combination of how much i liked the show in my youth, and how much it IS propaganda.

 
Wolf wins every fight but the one where he dies, fangs locked around the throat of his opponent. 
Currently writing BROBd

Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#84
I think only small children didn't see CP for blatant propaganda, or at least a cynical cash grab based on the super-green-earth-day-neo-hippie trends of the early 90's. Basically all of the villains had literally no motive for their activities besides "Fuck the earth!" and used schemes that if they produced any profit at all would be far less efficient than not deliberately being as destructive as possible. Greed and ignorance with a garnish of shortsightedness are entirely sufficient to explain real world environmental destruction, for the most part. As I've said before, if it's further off than half a term it doesn't exist in politics, and five years is a long-range prediction in business.

And because it can hardly get more off-topic, an overdone joke!

Puns!
Flames!
Sarcasm!
Salt!
Cats!

By your powers combined, I am Captain Shitpost!

Captain Shitpost, he's a weirdo
Gonna cut relevance down to zero!
--
‎noli esse culus
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#85
Britain deforested its island to keep its Navy afloat. And to provide food to London. And to fuel its industry before they figured out they could dig coal out of the ground and use it to make both coke and town-gas, because charcoal had far less shit in it than cheap coal did. Coal impurities like sulphur could contaminate iron and make it brittle.

Anyway.

5 Sigma is 5 standard devitions. Or a 1 in a Million chance they could be wrong. It's the level of consensus you need to announce shit like the Higgs Boson and stuff as 'discovered' and not just a sort of vague, well we know it's there but we're just not certain, certain.

It's as certain as the general roundness of the world. And while we've since discovered that the world isn't technically round - more like a squashed ball than truly spherical - that's about the level of certainty we're at. the next level is refining the understanding and the details behind it, rather than completely inverting.

The only people who deny it are the people who have to make their money by denying it. The lobbyist. The company with it's business model it does not want to change. Exxon doesn't want to go full Kodak (Then again, lookl how Fujifilm's doing....) And while I can be cynical of the sheer churn of goods the New Green Thing is creating, replacing dead or life-expired infrastructure for more efficient versions is not stupid.

Closing innefficient, but still broadly functional, services may be. Sometimes it's better to make upstream or configuration changes.

Sure. We managed to get oil consumption down by nearly 50% in the holiday home, by modifying the configuration of the system to run the 2-decade old oil boiler hotter, for longer. It cost less that fitting a new condensing boiler, and had a far bigger effect. And the old burner is robust and reliable, and runs better if it's running hot and long, rather than short-cycling. We changed the thermostat controls too.

The system also performs a lot better, with much faster heat up times.

And can make use of Solar thermal energy in the summer.

The real killer. We used half as much oil. While the house was occupied for twice as many days.

I love the smell of rotaries in the morning. You know one time, I got to work early, before the rush hour. I walked through the empty carpark, I didn't see one bloody Prius or Golf. And that smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole carpark, smelled like.... ....speed.

One day they're going to ban them.
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#86
(02-28-2019, 04:45 PM)Dartz Wrote: Exxon doesn't want to go full Kodak (Then again, lookl how Fujifilm's doing....)

Sort of off-topic, but here's a history of Kodak and Fujifilm in transition, if anyone wants to know.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#87
(02-28-2019, 01:48 PM)Rajvik Wrote:
Black Aeronaut Wrote:Rajvik.

You know about the guy that lived right under Mount St. Helens?  When it was still a beautiful place?

You're being him right now

which one, there were many, some that even survived because they were on the opposite side of the mountain from the blowout?

sorry, sometimes the sarcasm has to be released that said, yes, i realize that in your eyes i'm being deliberately obtuse and willfully blind to a problem that "THE WORLD SEES" my problems are that all i see is a combination of doom and gloom predictions, none of which have come to pass, the so called experts either disagreeing (almost to the point of coming to blows) or being caught red handed in scandal of cooking their books, and a cure that is arguably worse than the disease. So pardon me while i sit here and enjoy the view. That said, i don't think you are lying, at least not knowingly. I just think that you have been duped into believing a lie that was sold so that some scientists could get funding and so that a politician could make a mint.

For one, I was referring to the one most recorded example, the man that lived on a small island in the middle of the lake at the base of the mountain.  He absolutely refused to believe that anything was wrong.

He got buried by what's left of the original summit.

And as for the people on the opposite side?  You say that like as if they were just fine.  Just because you live on the other side of the mountain doesn't mean you don't feel the effects when it blows it's entire summit off.  They still lost their homes and legitimately thought they were going to die.  The survivor stories are quite harrowing and one scientist has even compiled a book of these stories.  (He was originally after scientific data regarding the eruption and was interview people that saw it up close and lived to tell the tale.  The stories just happened to come with that data, and he was smart enough to record their stories as well.)

Doom and gloom would be if I thought there was nothing that can be done about it.  And it hasn't come to pass because it hasn't quite happened YET.  That still means we can do SOMETHING about it.  I know there's going to be a future afterwards.

My main issue is that you and yours are intentionally keeping us from taking measures to do anything about it.  We can hardly care less about what you personally do.  What the rest of us do will probably have little effect on your lifestyle in the long run.  No one is going to mandate that you have to buy a new car, or that you have to put solar panels on your roof, or that you have to 'Go Green'.

What they DO want to do is mandate that newer cars meet certain requirements - not that everyone has to buy new ones.  The automotive industry actually LIKES THIS because it gives them a much more legitimate excuse to outmode everything.  They just don't do it because people like you keep spewing this idiocracy.

No one will force you to put solar panels or wind turbines up because they don't need you to.  Instead, they're just gonna build solar and wind farms to generate power and decommission the old coal and oil burners.  Which, by the way, means jobs.

They don't need to you 'Go Green' because they won't need you to do that yourself.  Recycled materials are inexpensive and effective, and garbage sorting is getting better automation.  Pretty soon, you won't even need to bother with a separate recycle bin, except that you seem to be under the impression that it's a waste of money and a cash grab.

And the few restrictions that DO get mandated are done so with very good reason, such as plastic bag bans.  Yes, it's annoying, but the effects are obvious and incontrovertible.

All we ask is that the vocal minority that is you quit trying to hobble us over shit that you don't think matters anyways!  The money that is being spent is generating jobs.

And on the subject of money and the research that it's going into?  I'm gonna have to request that you actually back that up with a reputable source.  I'm pretty sure that, yes, some scientists do carry on, quite viciously, over some minor points.  This is academic politics, and it makes what goes on up on Capitol Hill look like a koi pond rather than a shark tank.  These people stake their careers on this shit, so yeah, it's gonna get a bit nasty.

But the thing is?  Most of these scientist agree that Climate Change WILL happen, especially if we don't take measures right now.  The only things they're having trouble agreeing on is exactly how much we need to do, and how long we have before we have before we have to start abandoning coastal cities.  Scientists that flat-out deny everything are the ones getting kick-backs funding from corporations that flat-out refuse to spend money on changing things - never mind that these changes will be revenue generators in the long run.  They're interested only in making as much money as they can in as little of time as possible.

Which, BTW, has already been agreed on elsewhere in this forum that this behavior is having detrimental effects on society and needs to change.
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#88
BA, you obviously haven't looked at the NGD wishlist that Ocasio-Cortez and Markey introduced to the house and senate respectively. It would literally shutdown manufacturing in this country simply due to the lack of power and put hundreds of millions of people out of work. Its a Red/Green Christmas list of redistributionism and socialism that would kill us as a nation, and it is going up for a vote.

Now granted the vote as it stands is a political maneuver to make Democrats either show their true colors to the nation, or their base, but it is still going up for a vote, and with no language of how to pay for it except Tax The Rich.
Wolf wins every fight but the one where he dies, fangs locked around the throat of his opponent. 
Currently writing BROBd

Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#89
Tax the rich, cut off some of the loopholes billionaires use to hide their money, maybe cut back on the military budget a bit... sounds like a plan with potential.
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#90
(02-28-2019, 09:40 PM)Rajvik Wrote: BA, you obviously haven't looked at the NGD wishlist that Ocasio-Cortez and Markey introduced to the house and senate respectively. It would literally shutdown manufacturing in this country simply due to the lack of power and put hundreds of millions of people out of work. Its a Red/Green Christmas list of redistributionism and socialism that would kill us as a nation, and it is going up for a vote.

Obviously you haven't looked at what is going up for a vote either, because it's a non-binding resolution that will literally do nothing beyond stating an opinion.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#91
Labster you literally cut off the line where I pointed out it was a political maneuver to either embarrass the deems, or make them hold solidarity with the socialist/communists in their party.

Matrix, realize that if you do that then THEY WILL LEAVE AND TAKE THEIR MONEY WITH THEM.
Wolf wins every fight but the one where he dies, fangs locked around the throat of his opponent. 
Currently writing BROBd

Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#92
(02-28-2019, 11:59 PM)Rajvik Wrote: Matrix, realize that if you do that then THEY WILL LEAVE AND TAKE THEIR MONEY WITH THEM.


Ah, so continue to bend over and be their bitches. Right. Carry on.
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#93
(02-28-2019, 11:59 PM)Rajvik Wrote: Labster you literally cut off the line where I pointed out it was a political maneuver to either embarrass the deems, or make them hold solidarity with the socialist/communists in their party.

Matrix, realize that if you do that then THEY WILL LEAVE AND TAKE THEIR MONEY WITH THEM.

At this point, it doesn't matter because it's not like they're gonna spend it anyhow except to see who's got the biggest dick.
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#94
Alright then let me take a slightly different tack and point something else out.

The top 1%, you know those billionaires that everyone seems to scream should pay their fair share? They pay something like 60% of all taxes paid in and something like 52% of the population effectively pays no taxes what so ever.
Wolf wins every fight but the one where he dies, fangs locked around the throat of his opponent. 
Currently writing BROBd

Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#95
(03-01-2019, 12:10 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: At this point, it doesn't matter because it's not like they're gonna spend it anyhow except to see who's got the biggest dick.


The worst dick measuring contest. Ever. Of all time.
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#96
Only because that much of the population is so destitute that they literally can't afford to be taxed - their income tax is pretty much just an interest-free savings plan where they get the money back every April/May. The Top 1% only seem to pay that much because the Top 0.1% have bled the rest of America so much that the tax burden has shifted that much.

In all reality, the majority of the tax burden should be sitting on the middle class, but the middle class is disappearing faster than an endangered species that's being exploited by poachers.
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#97
(02-28-2019, 11:59 PM)Rajvik Wrote: Labster you literally cut off the line where I pointed out it was a political maneuver to either embarrass the deems, or make them hold solidarity with the socialist/communists in their party.

Matrix, realize that if you do that then THEY WILL LEAVE AND TAKE THEIR MONEY WITH THEM.

Sorry after all of the hyperbole I kind of lost interest in reading the rest.  I don't understand the freak out over "sense of Congress" resolutions, no one made a big deal when they made surfing the official sport of California, a resolution with equal import.

Resolutions are not policy.  Someone could vote that "Bill Cosby is the official state entertainer" and while I'd think that was ill advised, it's probably not worth getting off my couch over.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#98
If they'd tried it in the eighties or nineties, they probably could have gotten a resolution to name Bill Cosby "America's Dad" through. Maybe even the noughties, depending on how the nostalgia was flowing.
--
‎noli esse culus
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
#99
(02-28-2019, 01:48 PM)Rajvik Wrote: @Epsilon: Yes, now do you believe that the output of the solar body that provides said radiating warmth can vary massively in its output level?
We'll get there, trust me.
Okay, next question.
Do you accept that most solar radiation is emitted and filtered through our atmosphere as short wavelength radiation and most of the heat captured in our planet's surface is emitted and filtered through our atmosphere as long wavelength radiation? Yes or no will do, please.
Reply
RE: Forests and carbon capture
(03-01-2019, 12:03 AM)Matrix Dragon Wrote:
(02-28-2019, 11:59 PM)Rajvik Wrote: Matrix, realize that if you do that then THEY WILL LEAVE AND TAKE THEIR MONEY WITH THEM.


Ah, so continue to bend over and be their bitches. Right. Carry on.

The ones who leave, DLTDHYOTWO.

The ones who stay (such as Warren Buffett - one of the top ten richest people in the world, who is on record as saying he should be paying more tax than he does) get to help guide the country.

Besides, past the point where all of one's needs and some of one's wants are covered, money doesn't really mean anything.
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)