Reply With QuoteBecause that would be wrong.Originally Posted by Jason Donaldson
✓ Member
Not genetic manipulation, Rip - human engineering. In the video he's talking about creating it via inducing a food allergy non-genotypically.
Granted, he's talking about a voluntary therapy, (more like Antabuse than like the nicotine patch he equates it to...), so that should be no problem, as we've never seen any form of coercion or force used to get people to partake in an immune system therapy for the sake of anyone's alarmist narrative about the common good.
TMPHBITEU
Because that would be wrong.
Member
No thanks, I've got incisors for a reason; namely a big fat ribeye steak smoking on some hickory and oak charcoal right now!
Oh yeah, it was 93 degrees here today, probably get snow soon too! F'n global warming. Or maybe that's just late summer up north like it always is!
TMPHBITEU
This is choice: Climate scientist: Yes, I cooked my Nature article on global warming -- and here's why – HotAir
The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.
This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.
To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.
...
This type of framing, with the influence of climate change unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers. For example, in another recent influential Nature paper, scientists calculated that the two largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to extreme heat and damage to agriculture. However, the authors never mention that climate change is not the dominant driver for either one of these impacts: heat-related deaths have been declining, and crop yields have been increasing for decades despite climate change. To acknowledge this would imply that the world has succeeded in some areas despite climate change—which, the thinking goes, would undermine the motivation for emissions reductions.
...
It is standard practice to assess impacts on society using the amount of climate change since the industrial revolution, but to ignore technological and societal changes over that time. This makes little sense from a practical standpoint since societal changes in population distribution, infrastructure, behavior, disaster preparedness, etc., have had far more influence on our sensitivity to weather extremes than climate change has since the 1800s. This can be seen, for example, in the precipitous decline in deaths from weather and climate disasters over the last century. Similarly, it is standard practice to calculate impacts for scary hypothetical future warming scenarios that strain credibility while ignoring potential changes in technology and resilience that would lessen the impact. Those scenarios always make for good headlines.
Member
We all know black and brown people only eat chicken anyway, right?
Member
TMPHBITEU
This is worth the 20 minutes. And this:
This needs to be bumped periodically, along with this:
Really, think about this: A 4.6 billion-year-old planet with an 8000-mile diameter, with a molten core (heat, etc.), with an atmosphere that is only 50 miles/240,000ft thick (being rather generous), that orbits a star only 93 million miles away with 330,000 times the earth's mass and that emits enough radiation to burn your naked ass in 30 minutes, is having its weather unalterably changed over the course of the next 5/10/15 years (whatever it is now) by the presence of a weak greenhouse gas, CO2, that happens to now be at its lowest level in damn near the entire history of the planet -- a history punctuated by global glaciations while that weak greenhouse gas was far higher than it is now -- and that also happens to be the basis of plant life (and therefore atmospheric oxygen), a gas whose greenhouse effect is dwarfed by that of water vapor (on a planet with a surface area that consists of 70% water), and that geologically is currently in an interglacial period. The models that generated this political bullshit have predicted nothing correctly -- not sea level change, polar ice cover, or weather.
And everybody believes it anyway, to the extent that they are handing the management of the world's economy to elderly megalomaniacs with an agenda based on their own personal power. You're not even allowed to question it -- otherwise sensible people have agreed with the ridiculous premise that CO2 is a deadly poison that must be eliminated from the surface of the earth. Every August, everybody runs around like it's not supposed to be hot. Every time there's a drought, everybody acts like it's the very first time it's been dry too long. "Hurricane season" started in June, and how many hurricanes have devastated the coastlines already inundated by the molten ice caps? How many times over the past 20 years of this shit have the hurricane predictions been correct?
Really, the children are in charge now, seeking validation for "caring about the planet," running around yelling about "carbon" -- the 4th most abundant element in the physical universe --being a deadly poison. Their managers are common criminals whose entire agenda is money and control, and we are letting it happen. It is the result of the shitty science education we received in the government schools, and it probably cannot be stopped.
And in addition, the Government that brought you the flu from China, lockdowns, and vaccines that killed far more people than the flu, the Government in charge of "public education", the war(s) in Asia, the economy, and pronouns wants to also be in charge of the weather.
✓ Member
Very interesting. I must admit I had never considered Fact 2. I suppose the explanation here is that there is only so much EM energy in the absorption spectrum of CO2 being re-emitted by the Earth, and therefore adding more CO2 beyond a certain point will necessarily show an asymptotic curve. And I would expect that, for carbon dioxide at least, even the highest historical quantities (say, 6,000 PPM) do not increase surface temperatures enough to increase the wavelength or intensity of those emissions (which might increase the amount of energy those CO2 molecules - or any other atmospheric substance - can absorb).
Hard to tell since neither the video nor the actual website offer any explanation. I'm curious as to the source of those "data".
✓ Member
Good catch . Here is the simple explanation by example. Consider tinting car windows. The first sheet transmits 50% of light. A second sheet same thing but it’s 50% of 50% or light is reduced to 25%. A third sheet cuts that by half and so on. After awhile more sheets don’t do anything.
The physics of radiation transfer (absorption, reflection, transmission of light) is and has been very well known for over a century. It is fraudulent to deny this.
Member
EV Charger RAGE: US Secretary of Energy Convoy Boxes Out a Young Family and Baby • Watts Up With That?
Are we enjoying our electric future yet? I had a Chevy volt for a few years that I recently sold, and even though i didn't need to charge....I ran into a lot of broken pubic chargers. They tended to stay broken a long time too.
Granholm’s trip through the southeast, from Charlotte, N.C., to Memphis, Tenn., was intended to draw attention to the billions of dollars the White House is pouring into green energy and clean cars. The administration’s ambitious energy agenda, if successful, could significantly cut U.S. emissions and reshape Americans’ lives in fundamental ways, including by putting many more people in electric vehicles.
…
But between stops, Granholm’s entourage at times had to grapple with the limitations of the present. Like when her caravan of EVs — including a luxury Cadillac Lyriq, a hefty Ford F-150 and an affordable Bolt electric utility vehicle — was planning to fast-charge in Grovetown, a suburb of Augusta, Georgia.
Her advance team realized there weren’t going to be enough plugs to go around. One of the station’s four chargers was broken, and others were occupied. So an Energy Department staffer tried parking a nonelectric vehicle by one of those working chargers to reserve a spot for the approaching secretary of energy.
That did not go down well: a regular gas-powered car blocking the only free spot for a charger?
In fact, a family that was boxed out — on a sweltering day, with a baby in the vehicle — was so upset they decided to get the authorities involved: They called the police.
The sheriff’s office couldn’t do anything. It’s not illegal for a non-EV to claim a charging spot in Georgia. Energy Department staff scrambled to smooth over the situation, including sending other vehicles to slower chargers, until both the frustrated family and the secretary had room to charge.
Posting Permissions