Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

image.png.4ca9966cea40e300f278d097715dd760.png

The exact remorse being reported here would be interesting to know.  The article is behind a paywall.  This industry "news" site is usually left of hyper-progressives and has been a shill for EVs for at least half a decade.  I would not be surprised if their conclusion is that the remorse is that the EV subsidies are too small, EV mandates are too weak, and the biggest remorse is that vehicles operating on organic fuels were not banned during the 1973 oil embargo.

Posted

I think it goes without saying that we should be good stewards of the environment.   We should try to move to better and less polluting energy.   Nuclear does not pollute the air but its waste lasts thousands of years.   That can work but we need something better.   Wind and Solar take too much out of the earth to be carbon neutral both in manufacturing and disposal.  Plus they are not reliable methods to produce energy.  Dams are good and reliable but do affect the landscape and salmon out here are affected negatively.   They seem to manage but salmon stocks are reducing.  

Hydrogen power is good and reliable.   From Fusion to fuel cells, hydrogen is a good option and it is plentiful.   And with fusion we get helium for our balloons.   Who doesn't want helium for their balloons?   Fusion is non polluting.   But dangerous with extreme temps that melt everything.   

mspart

Posted
3 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

lmao

 

"What do we do with this?'

Well, you could start by actually reading the article before assuming it's stupid.

The gist is that the heating effect of increased carbon in the atmosphere has always been slightly offset by the air pollution caused by those gases. The aerosols in carbon cause darker cloud cover which better blocks the sun. As air pollution is cleaned up, less of the greenhouse effect is offset because the aerosols block less sun which means that the Earth would heat even faster than it has been. 

Posted
38 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

"What do we do with this?'

Well, you could start by actually reading the article before assuming it's stupid.

The gist is that the heating effect of increased carbon in the atmosphere has always been slightly offset by the air pollution caused by those gases. The aerosols in carbon cause darker cloud cover which better blocks the sun. As air pollution is cleaned up, less of the greenhouse effect is offset because the aerosols block less sun which means that the Earth would heat even faster than it has been. 

So hence our efforts at cleaning up emissions is causing global warming.   So we should stop and pollute the crap out of the atmosphere.   That's what that is saying to me. 

mspart

Posted
9 minutes ago, mspart said:

So hence our efforts at cleaning up emissions is causing global warming.   So we should stop and pollute the crap out of the atmosphere.   That's what that is saying to me. 

mspart

No, our efforts at removing air pollution - in the form of aerosols - makes the reduction of total emissions even more necessary.

Both must be reduced. Pollution causes serious health issues. Carbon causes rapid temperature increases that are too fast for the environment to adapt.

Posted
4 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

"What do we do with this?'

Well, you could start by actually reading the article before assuming it's stupid.

The gist is that the heating effect of increased carbon in the atmosphere has always been slightly offset by the air pollution caused by those gases. The aerosols in carbon cause darker cloud cover which better blocks the sun. As air pollution is cleaned up, less of the greenhouse effect is offset because the aerosols block less sun which means that the Earth would heat even faster than it has been. 

so you are saying the current plan by experts and geniuses to put something in the atmosphere to block the sun... is stupid.

noted.

Posted
3 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

No, our efforts at removing air pollution - in the form of aerosols - makes the reduction of total emissions even more necessary.

Both must be reduced. Pollution causes serious health issues. Carbon causes rapid temperature increases that are too fast for the environment to adapt.

carbon is supposedly at skyrocketed levels already... heating hasn't followed...

 

Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, nhs67 said:

Brass Tacks - Details of immediate practical importance.

Ah, I am familar with the concept of brass tacks.

Husker is one goofy poster... he made brass tax appear to be a type of tax.

As weird as that may seem, much weirder things are posted here daily.

Edited by RockLobster
Posted
17 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

dont tell me climate change caused the 'drought' in california... when it was always dry.

they had to bring water in... shut that off...

blame climate change

You tell me, you seem to think you have answers.

Posted
10 hours ago, RockLobster said:

1PwQ9GdumNynlZ41Lw5X6KhPH5A.jpg

You, TPT and a couple more aliases.  Nice family you got there.  Looks like the one in the middle has transitioned. Good for “it”.  

Posted
12 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

carbon is supposedly at skyrocketed levels already... heating hasn't followed...

 

150% wrong. Extreme heating has followed the skyrocketing CO2 levels. Are you smoking crack? 

  • Fire 1
Posted
19 hours ago, red viking said:

150% wrong. Extreme heating has followed the skyrocketing CO2 levels. Are you smoking crack? 

extreme heating? where

i was told we were .5 degrees hotter

Posted

i told you not to tell me that climate change isn't causing the drought.

there was always drought..

they brought water in to make it an oasis.

then took it away

and called it climate change

did i spell it out enough for you..

or do you need pictures too 

  • Fire 1
Posted

a few years ago for my 50th, we went to vegas. first time.

we were out and about and it was warm but not terrible.

two different uber drivers were like man it's hot today aren't you guys wiped out. im like no.. its not bad out.. how hot...

97 they said.. i was like 

this is nothing... no humidity.

97 in nebraska? i would have been soaked .

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Calli Gilchrist

    Choate Rosemary Hall, Connecticut
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Brown (Women)
    Projected Weight: 124

    Dean Bechtold

    Owen J. Roberts, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2026
    Committed to Lehigh
    Projected Weight: 285

    Zion Borge

    Westlake, Utah
    Class of 2026
    Committed to Army West Point
    Projected Weight: 133, 141

    Taye Wilson

    Pratt, Kansas
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Little Rock
    Projected Weight: 165, 174

    Eren Sement

    Council Rock North, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Michigan
    Projected Weight: 141
×
×
  • Create New...