|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is The World Getting Better Or Worse? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Since I asked AZ about possible chemical controls on Methane, I looked it up and found there is something called
"The Oxygen Activation Chemistry of Methane ..." The title sounds promising to me but of course I have no idea what it's all about. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: Greenery consumes carbon dioxide and gives off oxygen. Deforestation is not the cause of the sudden rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Reforestation will do nothing to reverse the current trend of increasing carbon dioxide levels. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
how about giving us the chemistry of controlling methane so we can think about it. Don't let so much of it out to begin with. Stop gas drilling. Stop fracking. Eat less mammals. Reuse and recycle. Use Beano.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Taq writes:
Greenery consumes carbon dioxide and gives off oxygen. Reforestation doesn't reduce carbon emissions. Non sequitur. Why are you trying to change the subject? Evasive much? Plants are not responsible for carbon emissions, but rather can serve to reverse that process. Deforestation does not increase carbon emissions, outside of the smoke from burning down the forests. Reforestation will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, but rather would help to reduce the effects of carbon emissions (albeit not enough). Think of the earth as a ship at sea. Think of the carbon emissions as a hole in the hull. Thinking of the increasing carbon levels as the amount of water rushing in through that hole threatening to sink the ship and drown us all. Now think of plants, your "greenery", as pumps working to pump that water out of the ship, trying to keep us afloat and alive. They're keeping us afloat longer and could counter small leaks effectively, but they're no match for that gaping hole in the hull, a hole that keeps getting ever bigger. Now think of deforestation as the act of not only shutting down those pumps, but also tearing them out and dumping them overboard. Suicide, basically. Finally, think of reforestation as reinstalling pumps and working to get them back on-line and pumping again. Not only will those new pumps not be enough to save the ship, but there's also all that extra water they have to deal with that had rushed in in the meantime. Now are you beginning to understand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
The overwhelming case is abuse, which is a real shame considering there are still millions who actually do need a legitimate helping hand.
Your source does not support your assertions. The source actually expresses the need for these programs.
quote: Sounds about as ferocious as a tampon commercial. I see you are burnishing your alt-right credentials with flippant misogyny.
You'd rather have everyone be poor so we can all eat a shit sandwich equally. I understand.
Aw now the strawman and misrepresentations. You must be proud of yourself.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Hyroglyphx writes:
It isn't ironic at all. The unhealthy foods are cheapest because the manufacturers don't have to put as much effort into them. Just plowing them full of preservatives so they'll last forever on the shelf is more profitable.
Then maybe you find it ironic how the poorest people also happen to be the fattest people. Hyroglyphx writes:
Bad life choices are not restricted to the poor. We don't have to let people go hungry because they made bad choices in the past.
What its really called is "bad life choices." Hyroglyphx writes:
Yes, that's the conservative way - grab what you can. The poor are just a resource for the rich to use as they see fit, without asking anybody's permission.
... the lion doesn't ask permission to feed its young. It sees its need and it goes out and gets it. Hyroglyphx writes:
You're jumping to conclusions about which ones have a genuine need and which ones do not. And, yes, some people do need social programs and charities. I'm distinguishing from the ones that don't and who selfishly and needlessly pilfer from those who do.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Then maybe you find it ironic how the poorest people also happen to be the fattest people.
Data please?Also, you are familiar with the term "food desert" aren't you? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Plants are not responsible for carbon emissions, but rather can serve to reverse that process. Deforestation does not increase carbon emissions, outside of the smoke from burning down the forests. Reforestation will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, but rather would help to reduce the effects of carbon emissions (albeit not enough). That's all I was saying, Trees and other plants would remove some of the CO2 and replenish some of the O2. You say it's not enough. OK, it's not enough. But it's something, and the more plants the better. No plants will get us nothing. Besides, greenery is lovely, we can always use lots more of it. It breaks down and makes organic food for more plants, and trees could bring back the birds. If we get rid of the windmills and the solar panels that kill them and do something to keep the plate glass window and the housecats from killing them. Educating about the problems, getting people working on them, producing inventions and methods. And nothing is stopping anyone from proposing or working on other kinds of solutions to the carbon emissions as well. But scientists don't know everything and motivating the average person is probably not their forte. I think that focusing so emphatically on the global problems of climate change and the Extinction is counterproductive. Most people can't follow the science, but there are plenty of consequences related to these larger problems that we CAN get across to people along with proposals for practical solutions. People love to cooperate on good projects, we don't need to hammer on the heavier kinds of science. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You're already said you have no hope for anything to change so I assume you have no hope for these proposals either. I'm looking for something we could make work. Even your proposals could work if those who believe in them put in the necessary commitment to persuade people or whatever else it takes. Without the browbeating and the scientific rankpulling and the disdain.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: That's all I was saying, Trees and other plants would remove some of the CO2 and replenish some of the O2. You say it's not enough. OK, it's not enough. But it's something, and the more plants the better. No plants will get us nothing. It's a band-aid on a head wound. If we are going to fix the actual problem, reforestation ain't it. The oceans make up the vast majority of both carbon fixation and oxygen production, in case you were wondering.
If we get rid of the windmills and the solar panels that kill them and do something to keep the plate glass window and the housecats from killing them. Educating about the problems, getting people working on them, producing inventions and methods. Increasing the bird population will do nothing to reverse climate change.
And nothing is stopping anyone from proposing or working on other kinds of solutions to the carbon emissions as well. The Trump administration is stopping research on this front. In fact, they are trying to stop scientists from even saying that carbon emissions are to blame for climate change.
But scientists don't know everything and motivating the average person is probably not their forte. I think that focusing so emphatically on the global problems of climate change and the Extinction is counterproductive. Most people can't follow the science, but there are plenty of consequences related to these larger problems that we CAN get across to people along with proposals for practical solutions. People love to cooperate on good projects, we don't need to hammer on the heavier kinds of science. Conservatives seem to be motivated by whatever Trump says. Trump is saying that CO2 has nothing to do with climate change. That's a massive problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh of course it's all Trump's fault. So let's all lie down and die.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
A more constructive approach would be to help get rid of Trump. Oh of course it's all Trump's fault. So let's all lie down and die.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm trying to address more than one issue that has come up. The bird population is a different problem. I'm assuming we'd like to bring them back, and any other species that are depopulating, whatever we do about the other problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: Oh of course it's all Trump's fault. So let's all lie down and die. Where do you get this stuff from? Where has anyone stated that we should all lie down and die? I find it rather stunning that a conservative like yourself would be completely unaware of the Republican party actively stopping research on climate change, and trying to dissuade people from accepting the science. The only way this is going to stop is if conservative voters start getting angry about it, and letting their elected officials know about it. What I am saying is stand up and let your voice be heard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't want to focus on climate change per se, I want to identify problems we can recognize that may or may not be related to climate change, and on a level the average person might be able to care about. Too much carbon dioxide for instance. The depopulation or extinction of various species for instance.
I was just watching a documentary on the Sixth or Holocene Extinction and of course it gives me an epistemological headache as it were, because of my belief in the Biblical view of history. I can certainly accept that people are causing extinctions but I can do without the historical framework about the supposed previous extinction events that just makes me roll my eyes so hard they threaten to pop out of my head. We don't need to care what Trump or anyone thinks of climate change, but surely we can understand if there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, or the fact that there is an enormous decrease in the bird population or any other population. Or that the ice caps are smaller than they used to be, and so on and so forth. (My own view is that we are MOSTLY seeing the recession of the ONE ice age that was caused by the Flood but my opinion isn't relevant either as i'm thinking about all this. Again I think the average person needs to focus on separate events and given some role to play on our everyday level, whatever that role might be because that's the level we'll get motivated on. Saving the whole planet is a little beyond our mental range. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024