Climate Change being real, and being anthropogenic, doesn't mean that we should eradicate our economy by hiking our energy costs, submitting to CCP imperialism by making them the sole source of our energy infrastructure, and killing 50% of the planet's population by ceasing the use of fossil fuels. Don't even get me started on farmers being attacked for putting excess nitrogen in the water supply while cities are over-flowing the water supply with micro-plastics, fentanyl, and estrogen.
Take care of your shit and don't pollute, then all of the sudden you'll have a better environment.
Vance is aware of the damage that pollution can do from the East Palestine disaster, but that doesn't mean that the solution is Full Communism Now.
And the hatred of nuclear energy always makes me scratch my head. I remember my dad telling my about global cooling hysteria in the 70s and I can remember all my life hearing how global warming would end the world
We won't. They have made it almost impossible to build new facilities. It's so bad that it's not economically viable to rebuild existing reactors when they get damaged by storms and they shut down the plant.
Yes. But White men will do the first ''prove it's safe and produces alot of electricity'' work, then incompetent people will be promoted into it for being brown/black/''non-men'', and the catastrophic consequences will be worse than Tchernobyl.
The hatred of Nuclear Energy is the continuation of the Soviet Union's anti-nuclear movement to prevent the development of US nuclear weapons, and cheap energy within the US. It is being continued by Leftists supported by the CCP.
Best of all, we can mine our own uranium in the US. Nuclear power is a self-sufficient energy supply that would empower red rural states. Thus, it can't be allowed.
Climate change isn't real let alone anthropogenic.
Destroying whole forests and farmland for cheap/dense housing to hold all the illegal immigrants who won't fix their shit in their lands? Yeah - that's real.
Think that affects the water supplies in the area? Oh yeah. (Wondering why there's a drought in California when rainfalls have been statistically average? That's why)
Think that affects the energy supply? medical supply? police? cars?
Now do you think anybody in California REALLY cares about "Climate Change"? Or is that just a lie, created by Enron, to create the first bitcoin and told to children to get them to eat their bugs ?
Climate change isn't real let alone anthropogenic.
Destroying whole forests and farmland for cheap/dense housing to hold all the illegal immigrants who won't fix their shit in their lands? Yeah - that's real
I get the point you're making (or at least trying to make), but these two statements are directly contradictory. Man changes the climate by altering the environment (Forest->Grassland->Suburban->Urban.) Is weather (temperature, rainfall, etc.) changing due to this? Yes, but to an extent that's within the natural fluctuations that occur over time without human intervention.
Now, is humanity feeling the effects of climate more severely than the (recent) past? Definitely, but this has more to do with us making the bare minimum in infrastructure investments, and failing to account for the fact that the ground temperature in an urban or suburban environment where all the trees are newly planted is going to be higher than a rural environment with trees that are decades or centuries old.
Climate Change is absolutely real, even if you don't like the anthropogenic part.
If you can't accept that temperatures were different in previous eons, when the day-night cycle and the atmospheric concertation was different, then there's nothing to talk about. If you don't think the different element concentrations and day-night cycle don't effect climate, then there's no reason for me to believe that fossil evidence of tropical conditions would convince you. Ever.
Frankly, I don't understand why you would imagine humans could alter their immediate environment, if you don't believe that the climate changes.
Destroying whole forests and farmland for cheap/dense housing to hold all the illegal immigrants who won't fix their shit in their lands?
If you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, you don't believe that the destruction of forests can have any effect, despite it having immediately measurable effects. By your logic, there is no explanation for any climatic outcome for bulldozing a forest and putting up apartments would have any effect.
I would hope so, but as with evolution, this shit is climate change is the result of infinitely many minute changes. I've actually heard some, very un-smart people, say that the climate doesn't change. These are also the kinds of people that think psychology doesn't real.
And truly, the industrial revolution and that ballooning of the human population into multiple billions must have an effect.
If you kill all the sparrows in China, you get a locus horde. This devastates tons of plant life. You're going to see knock on effects if you were to keep that population down to zero. When you do the inverse of this, for the dominant species on the planet, with the ability to have industrial capacity, you're going to have some climate change. Even if it's as simple as accelerating what was already happening.
It's called WEATHER. Natural forces (the sun, moon, volcanic reactions, geothermal reactions, tectonic shifts) are THOUSANDS of times more altering to "climate change" than anything man does.
Can man alter the local ENVIRONMENT? YES. See smog in Los Angeles years ago, see all the waste flushed into the waters. We call that pollution. See what Japan has done to get more landmass, converting land to towns and cities - we call that building. I'm all for cleaning up pollution and reducing public waste (I draw the line at plastic straws though).
So what IS Climate Change, the thing you think you're all excited about because you've been appropriately educated on but are just a brainwashed propagandized NPC on? It's all about the CARBON OFFSETS. Y'know... that stuff cars and coal burning put into the air? Enron effectively monetized carbon by creating carbon CREDITS. How does a company get to be net zero and "fight Climate Change(tm)"? Well.. by first reducing their carbon burning... Buying energy from wind and solar farms and not coal... but that's nigh impossible now so how else do you do it? Well by buying CARBON CREDITS which nullify your CARBON OFFSETS. Those credits are supposed to go to things like building out the rain forests and protecting them or building new wind and solar farms, etc; But funny thing... turns out that almost never happens... the money (like taxes) goes to other things. And this is what the WHOLE "Climate Change" scam is all about. It's not about solving carbon pollution, because if it WERE, we'd all be going nuclear which is clean, safe and provides more than enough energy for the populace - it's about embezzling money and you have to keep the carbon pollution around to... well... keep the spice flowing...
If you can't accept that temperatures were different in previous eons, when the day-night cycle and the atmospheric concertation was different, then there's nothing to talk about. If you don't think the different element concentrations and day-night cycle don't effect climate, then there's no reason for me to believe that fossil evidence of tropical conditions would convince you. Ever.
I do believe in this. Which is exactly why I think the "anthropogenic" part is inadequately proven. How the hell are you using "the climate changes drastically over long periods of time throughout the Earth's history" to support the conclusion that any climate change we see must therefore be the work of man?
Because the changes in temperature are never as sudden as the speed we've seen since the industrial revolution. It's accelerated in a way that doesn't naturally occur anywhere else.
We have effectively (or are effectively) ending the Ice Age over the span of 200-300 years. Major planetary transitions like this ten to take at least 10,000 years, but could take as long as several hundred thousand years. The new normals then last tens of millions of years.
The magnitude of the change is smaller, but the rate of change hasn't been matched outside of mass extinction events. We're not as fast as a 6 mile wide asteroid hitting Mexico, but we're certainly causing a rapid change, and one that isn't likely to only continue at this fast pace given the melting perma-frost emitting methane into the atmosphere.
There's research showing that increasing CO2 ppm higher than 300-400 ppm range (some disagreement) doesn't increase heat retaining at all; atmosphere is already saturated for CO2 retaining heat.
If that's right there's two solutions: either destroy the world economy including overthrowing China CCP causing massive hardship and suffering worldwide, or geoengineering.
Yeah I'm gonna say geoengineering. Or do nothing and wait for technology to solve it for us.
I don't think any of that is a reasonable solution.
I think the reasonable solution is just living in a more adapted way to our current environment, and accepting that some cities shouldn't be sustained. You know, like what every other civilization has ever done.
The problem with doing nothing are Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns".
Like if the north atlantic conveyor shuts down and/or methane calthrates are released then we're boned. These may happen quickly and irreversibly, we don't know.
We can't quantify the risk for doing nothing so we should probably avoid it if there are low-risk alternatives.
Climate Change being real, and being anthropogenic, doesn't mean that we should eradicate our economy by hiking our energy costs, submitting to CCP imperialism by making them the sole source of our energy infrastructure, and killing 50% of the planet's population by ceasing the use of fossil fuels. Don't even get me started on farmers being attacked for putting excess nitrogen in the water supply while cities are over-flowing the water supply with micro-plastics, fentanyl, and estrogen.
Take care of your shit and don't pollute, then all of the sudden you'll have a better environment.
Vance is aware of the damage that pollution can do from the East Palestine disaster, but that doesn't mean that the solution is Full Communism Now.
And the hatred of nuclear energy always makes me scratch my head. I remember my dad telling my about global cooling hysteria in the 70s and I can remember all my life hearing how global warming would end the world
Oh just wait we get the inevitable outcomes of DEI policies in nuclear energy.
Things will be wonderful.
If we have any nuclear reactors left by then.
We won't. They have made it almost impossible to build new facilities. It's so bad that it's not economically viable to rebuild existing reactors when they get damaged by storms and they shut down the plant.
I didn’t think of that. Yikes. My point remains that qualified people with nuclear energy is a good idea.
Yes. But White men will do the first ''prove it's safe and produces alot of electricity'' work, then incompetent people will be promoted into it for being brown/black/''non-men'', and the catastrophic consequences will be worse than Tchernobyl.
The hatred of Nuclear Energy is the continuation of the Soviet Union's anti-nuclear movement to prevent the development of US nuclear weapons, and cheap energy within the US. It is being continued by Leftists supported by the CCP.
Best of all, we can mine our own uranium in the US. Nuclear power is a self-sufficient energy supply that would empower red rural states. Thus, it can't be allowed.
Russia russia russia
Thank you for the question, Mr. Acosta.
The only reason we can't is political.
Go help Bill Gates build some nuclear reactors then, maybe he'll give you a free booster.
Climate change isn't real let alone anthropogenic.
Destroying whole forests and farmland for cheap/dense housing to hold all the illegal immigrants who won't fix their shit in their lands? Yeah - that's real. Think that affects the water supplies in the area? Oh yeah. (Wondering why there's a drought in California when rainfalls have been statistically average? That's why) Think that affects the energy supply? medical supply? police? cars?
Now do you think anybody in California REALLY cares about "Climate Change"? Or is that just a lie, created by Enron, to create the first bitcoin and told to children to get them to eat their bugs ?
I get the point you're making (or at least trying to make), but these two statements are directly contradictory. Man changes the climate by altering the environment (Forest->Grassland->Suburban->Urban.) Is weather (temperature, rainfall, etc.) changing due to this? Yes, but to an extent that's within the natural fluctuations that occur over time without human intervention.
Now, is humanity feeling the effects of climate more severely than the (recent) past? Definitely, but this has more to do with us making the bare minimum in infrastructure investments, and failing to account for the fact that the ground temperature in an urban or suburban environment where all the trees are newly planted is going to be higher than a rural environment with trees that are decades or centuries old.
Climate Change is absolutely real, even if you don't like the anthropogenic part.
If you can't accept that temperatures were different in previous eons, when the day-night cycle and the atmospheric concertation was different, then there's nothing to talk about. If you don't think the different element concentrations and day-night cycle don't effect climate, then there's no reason for me to believe that fossil evidence of tropical conditions would convince you. Ever.
Frankly, I don't understand why you would imagine humans could alter their immediate environment, if you don't believe that the climate changes.
If you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, you don't believe that the destruction of forests can have any effect, despite it having immediately measurable effects. By your logic, there is no explanation for any climatic outcome for bulldozing a forest and putting up apartments would have any effect.
Predates Enron.
He obviously means that man-made climate change isn't real, not that the climate doesn't change naturally over time.
I would hope so, but as with evolution, this shit is climate change is the result of infinitely many minute changes. I've actually heard some, very un-smart people, say that the climate doesn't change. These are also the kinds of people that think psychology doesn't real.
And truly, the industrial revolution and that ballooning of the human population into multiple billions must have an effect.
If you kill all the sparrows in China, you get a locus horde. This devastates tons of plant life. You're going to see knock on effects if you were to keep that population down to zero. When you do the inverse of this, for the dominant species on the planet, with the ability to have industrial capacity, you're going to have some climate change. Even if it's as simple as accelerating what was already happening.
It's called WEATHER. Natural forces (the sun, moon, volcanic reactions, geothermal reactions, tectonic shifts) are THOUSANDS of times more altering to "climate change" than anything man does.
Can man alter the local ENVIRONMENT? YES. See smog in Los Angeles years ago, see all the waste flushed into the waters. We call that pollution. See what Japan has done to get more landmass, converting land to towns and cities - we call that building. I'm all for cleaning up pollution and reducing public waste (I draw the line at plastic straws though).
So what IS Climate Change, the thing you think you're all excited about because you've been appropriately educated on but are just a brainwashed propagandized NPC on? It's all about the CARBON OFFSETS. Y'know... that stuff cars and coal burning put into the air? Enron effectively monetized carbon by creating carbon CREDITS. How does a company get to be net zero and "fight Climate Change(tm)"? Well.. by first reducing their carbon burning... Buying energy from wind and solar farms and not coal... but that's nigh impossible now so how else do you do it? Well by buying CARBON CREDITS which nullify your CARBON OFFSETS. Those credits are supposed to go to things like building out the rain forests and protecting them or building new wind and solar farms, etc; But funny thing... turns out that almost never happens... the money (like taxes) goes to other things. And this is what the WHOLE "Climate Change" scam is all about. It's not about solving carbon pollution, because if it WERE, we'd all be going nuclear which is clean, safe and provides more than enough energy for the populace - it's about embezzling money and you have to keep the carbon pollution around to... well... keep the spice flowing...
Drink some more Kool aid lolol
I do believe in this. Which is exactly why I think the "anthropogenic" part is inadequately proven. How the hell are you using "the climate changes drastically over long periods of time throughout the Earth's history" to support the conclusion that any climate change we see must therefore be the work of man?
Because the changes in temperature are never as sudden as the speed we've seen since the industrial revolution. It's accelerated in a way that doesn't naturally occur anywhere else.
We have effectively (or are effectively) ending the Ice Age over the span of 200-300 years. Major planetary transitions like this ten to take at least 10,000 years, but could take as long as several hundred thousand years. The new normals then last tens of millions of years.
The magnitude of the change is smaller, but the rate of change hasn't been matched outside of mass extinction events. We're not as fast as a 6 mile wide asteroid hitting Mexico, but we're certainly causing a rapid change, and one that isn't likely to only continue at this fast pace given the melting perma-frost emitting methane into the atmosphere.
Climate change isn’t man-made.
It a social movement to get us comfortable with having less under Globehomo Communism.
Two different things.
They are one and the same.
There's research showing that increasing CO2 ppm higher than 300-400 ppm range (some disagreement) doesn't increase heat retaining at all; atmosphere is already saturated for CO2 retaining heat.
If that's right there's two solutions: either destroy the world economy including overthrowing China CCP causing massive hardship and suffering worldwide, or geoengineering.
Yeah I'm gonna say geoengineering. Or do nothing and wait for technology to solve it for us.
I don't think any of that is a reasonable solution.
I think the reasonable solution is just living in a more adapted way to our current environment, and accepting that some cities shouldn't be sustained. You know, like what every other civilization has ever done.
The problem with doing nothing are Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns".
Like if the north atlantic conveyor shuts down and/or methane calthrates are released then we're boned. These may happen quickly and irreversibly, we don't know.
We can't quantify the risk for doing nothing so we should probably avoid it if there are low-risk alternatives.
I have seen zero evidence that the Atlantic conveyor belts will shut down. I think that is a far-flung risk.