Young People Really Are Stupid

[Moderate Right]

Perhaps a keen historian such as yourself can educate us on what unprecedented event might have started around about the 1850s?

Didn't read the whole post, did you?

 

[Moderate Right]

So you can choose to help or hinder. I'd rather help than hinder.

What does help mean? Keep it realistic and the right would have a conversation with you.

 

[Moderate Right]

You have evidence for this, or is it another 'everyone knows' assertion?

It's common sense. The money we were sending didn't do the trick, that's why they were coming here by the boatloads (expression). It would be a lot cheaper for us to just randomly fired rounds across the border and have it make the six o'clock news. Not much money needed and the message gets across.

 

[Moderate Right]

Right, so the millions of tons of crap we have poured into the atmosphere since the onset of the industrial revolution and the subsequent exponential use of fossil fuels began has had no impact. Is that what you are suggesting?

The planet, without any humans at all, has gone through several periods of global warming, worse than we have now. Why do you deny science?

 

[Moderate Right]

You'd have to be stupid beyond belief to vote for Trump, irrespective of your age.

Why do you refuse to answer the question? Are young people stupid, or not. 62 million people voted for Trump. Do you want to try calling 62 million people stupid and see how that works out for you at the polls? Oh, wait a minute, you already did that in 2016. How'd that work out for ya?

 

[Glitch]

Right, so the millions of tons of crap we have poured into the atmosphere since the onset of the industrial revolution and the subsequent exponential use of fossil fuels began has had no impact. Is that what you are suggesting?

The tons of crap we have poured into the atmosphere since the onset of the industrial revolution has been confined entirely to the troposphere, which is washed out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks (often in the form of acid rain). All pollution is local, not global. The pollution China creates never reaches the western shores of the US because in order to be global it must reach the stratosphere, and man-made pollution doesn't do that. You need something like a super-volcano or a massive volcanic eruption (on the order of the 1991 Pinatubo, 1883 Krakatoa, or 1815 Tambora eruptions) in order to reach the stratosphere.

 

[snakestretcher]

The tons of crap we have poured into the atmosphere since the onset of the industrial revolution has been confined entirely to the troposphere, which is washed out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks (often in the form of acid rain). All pollution is local, not global. The pollution China creates never reaches the western shores of the US because in order to be global it must reach the stratosphere, and man-made pollution doesn't do that. You need something like a super-volcano or a massive volcanic eruption (on the order of the 1991 Pinatubo, 1883 Krakatoa, or 1815 Tambora eruptions) in order to reach the stratosphere.

What a steaming pile!:lamo Have you heard of something called 'wind', and 'ocean currents'? The 'local' fall out from Chernobyl reached the US. I think it was 'wind' that did it. Oh, and where does the acid rain 'washed out' pollution go?

 

[HAL9000]

Typical liberal BS. What is it they want? The planet warms. Get over it. Get used to it. What are their solutions?

Well, the sectors contributing the most carbon emissions are, energy, agriculture, industry and transport. So we could encourage investment in renewable energy, subsidize it's adoption. Put a tax on farm raised meat that subsidizes research on lab grown meat. Pass cap and trade, and place stricter limits on vehicle emissions.

This isn't an all or nothing thing, a save the planet or don't thing. We will have to deal with warming, and it's consequences. We can take some actions now, which will slow the rate at which the consequences arise, so that adapting to them isn't as hard. We can seek to find a balance between the current cost and the future benefit. The toll on the economy these measures might cause is largely nominal, because market externalities, like climate change, represent inefficiencies that are unaccounted for. Dealing with those externalities makes the economy more efficient.

I read about some interesting research recently. It was a small study, so this likely isn't a solution in itself, but for the first time, a drug cocktail, taken for a year, reversed participant's epigenetic clocks. Maybe climate change is a greater concern for future generations, than it will be for us, then again, maybe you'll be around longer than you think.

 

[Obscurity]

What does help mean? Keep it realistic and the right would have a conversation with you.

The "Right" needs to stop calling me an enemy to be defeated before I begin to care if they want to "converse" with me. But I digress. What I mean is, we can either help slow climate change by taking intelligent steps to reducing our reliance on pollution causing fossil fuels; or, we can choose to hinder, by going backwards on emission standards and polluting at will.

I'd prefer to help.

 

[snakestretcher]

The "Right" needs to stop calling me an enemy to be defeated before I begin to care if they want to "converse" with me. But I digress. What I mean is, we can either help slow climate change by taking intelligent steps to reducing our reliance on pollution causing fossil fuels; or, we can choose to hinder, by going backwards on emission standards and polluting at will.

I'd prefer to help.

I really don't understand the objection. I know I keep bringing Montreal up, but not a single conservative who whines about how much he thinks intervention would cost him (their only objection as far as I can tell), can tell me what Montreal has cost him, personally, over the thirty years since the protocol went into effect. Montreal was the single most important, and effective, climate change initiative of all time, but conservatives still whine despite the fact that it worked, and continues to do so.

 

[Glitch]

What a steaming pile!:lamo Have you heard of something called 'wind', and 'ocean currents'? The 'local' fall out from Chernobyl reached the US. I think it was 'wind' that did it. Oh, and where does the acid rain 'washed out' pollution go?

Your aversion to science is noted, and expected. Even carbon dioxide never makes it into the stratosphere, since it is 60% heavier than air. Unless, of course, it is put their by a super volcano or massive volcanic eruption. Only in the stratosphere will you find the jet stream that circulates around the planet. Nothing like that exists in the troposphere. All man-made pollution is confined to the first 8 to 10 miles of the atmosphere, and as a result never spreads further than a couple weeks from its source.

 

[snakestretcher]

Your aversion to science is noted, and expected. Even carbon dioxide never makes it into the stratosphere, since it is 60% heavier than air. Unless, of course, it is put their by a super volcano or massive volcanic eruption. Only in the stratosphere will you find the jet stream that circulates around the planet. Nothing like that exists in the troposphere. All man-made pollution is confined to the first 8 to 10 miles of the atmosphere, and as a result never spreads further than a couple weeks from its source.

Where did you get that information?

 

[akyron]

Hey, at least none of them are saying how they'd vote for a pedophile over a Democrat.

They dont have to pick one or the other.

Clinton, Obama silent on Ed Buck donations after Dem megadonor's arrest

""violent, dangerous sexual predator" who offered drugs, money and shelter to mainly addicted and homeless men in exchange for participating in sexual fetishes, including a fetish that involved administering dangerous doses of drugs.

Buck "has no regard for human life," the motion said."

Hillary and Bill's intimate dinner with Harvey Weinstein weeks after her election loss - showing just how close the Clintons were to the 'serial rapist'

Sex, Lies, and Epstein/Clinton Flight Logs

"One can almost see Bill Clinton stepping up to the microphone in full dudgeon to say something like, “I did not have sex with any underage sex slaves on that man’s, Mr. Epstein’s, island on the 26 occasions I didn’t fly with him.”"

 

[snakestretcher]

Your aversion to science is noted, and expected. Even carbon dioxide never makes it into the stratosphere, since it is 60% heavier than air. Unless, of course, it is put their by a super volcano or massive volcanic eruption. Only in the stratosphere will you find the jet stream that circulates around the planet. Nothing like that exists in the troposphere. All man-made pollution is confined to the first 8 to 10 miles of the atmosphere, and as a result never spreads further than a couple weeks from its source.

And yet the ozone layer is in the stratosphere (30 miles), and it is the depletion of the ozone layer by man made pollutants which led to the Montreal Protocol being established. So, where's your argument?

 

[Glitch]

Well, the sectors contributing the most carbon emissions are, energy, agriculture, industry and transport. So we could encourage investment in renewable energy, subsidize it's adoption. Put a tax on farm raised meat that subsidizes research on lab grown meat. Pass cap and trade, and place stricter limits on vehicle emissions.

This isn't an all or nothing thing, a save the planet or don't thing. We will have to deal with warming, and it's consequences. We can take some actions now, which will slow the rate at which the consequences arise, so that adapting to them isn't as hard. We can seek to find a balance between the current cost and the future benefit. The toll on the economy these measures might cause is largely nominal, because market externalities, like climate change, represent inefficiencies that are unaccounted for. Dealing with those externalities makes the economy more efficient.

I read about some interesting research recently. It was a small study, so this likely isn't a solution in itself, but for the first time, a drug cocktail, taken for a year, reversed participant's epigenetic clocks. Maybe climate change is a greater concern for future generations, than it will be for us, then again, maybe you'll be around longer than you think.

Try to put things into perspective. Carbon dioxide is 0.04% of the atmosphere, or 18 trillion tons of total CO2 in the atmosphere. According to the EPA's best estimates all of humanity's world-wide contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 36 billion tons. That means we are literally destroying our economy by wasting hundreds of billions in a vain attempt to limit the 0.2% of the 0.04% that is already in our atmosphere, and then pretend as if that makes a difference in the global climate. Seriously? That is truly mental.

 

[Glitch]

And yet the ozone layer is in the stratosphere (30 miles), and it is the depletion of the ozone layer by man made pollutants which led to the Montreal Protocol being established. So, where's your argument?

Actually, it isn't "in the stratosphere (30 miles)." The ozone layer separates the troposphere from the stratosphere and varies anywhere from 15 to 35 miles above sea level, but it is always below the stratosphere. Ozone is continuously being created and destroyed, and it has absolutely nothing to do with man-made pollutants. Ozone is the product of molecular oxygen and UV radiation. Which means as long as there is oxygen and sunlight, there will be ozone. When there is no sunlight, like at the poles during their respective Winter months, then there is no ozone. The ozone layer, naturally, is its thickest where it receives the most sunlight - around the equator.

 

[Obscurity]

I really don't understand the objection. I know I keep bringing Montreal up, but not a single conservative who whines about how much he thinks intervention would cost him (their only objection as far as I can tell), can tell me what Montreal has cost him, personally, over the thirty years since the protocol went into effect. Montreal was the single most important, and effective, climate change initiative of all time, but conservatives still whine despite the fact that it worked, and continues to do so.

It's just become a dog whistle. It's a total nightmare, and there is no reason why conservatives are against it, save the Koch money machine that primaried any republican who "agreed" with the climate change narrative.

DJT's current removal of CA waiver, per Forbes, is going to be a total economic disaster.

 

[Moderate Right]

Well, the sectors contributing the most carbon emissions are, energy, agriculture, industry and transport. So we could encourage investment in renewable energy, subsidize it's adoption. Put a tax on farm raised meat that subsidizes research on lab grown meat. Pass cap and trade, and place stricter limits on vehicle emissions.

This isn't an all or nothing thing, a save the planet or don't thing. We will have to deal with warming, and it's consequences. We can take some actions now, which will slow the rate at which the consequences arise, so that adapting to them isn't as hard. We can seek to find a balance between the current cost and the future benefit. The toll on the economy these measures might cause is largely nominal, because market externalities, like climate change, represent inefficiencies that are unaccounted for. Dealing with those externalities makes the economy more efficient.

I read about some interesting research recently. It was a small study, so this likely isn't a solution in itself, but for the first time, a drug cocktail, taken for a year, reversed participant's epigenetic clocks. Maybe climate change is a greater concern for future generations, than it will be for us, then again, maybe you'll be around longer than you think.

I want to know the solutions wanted of the kid activists. As far as I know, all they have said is that they won't have any kids until their countries get serious about climate change. What does that mean? What are their demands? For the record, I hope they never have children. I'm calling their bluff.

 

[Moderate Right]

The "Right" needs to stop calling me an enemy to be defeated before I begin to care if they want to "converse" with me. But I digress. What I mean is, we can either help slow climate change by taking intelligent steps to reducing our reliance on pollution causing fossil fuels; or, we can choose to hinder, by going backwards on emission standards and polluting at will.

I'd prefer to help.

The left calls the right an enemy to be defeated and lie, saying that the right denies climate change, when they don't.

 

[UtahBill]

Why should they have kids? They're expensive as all hell and thanks to this ****ty country there is no medical coverage in place for everyone, and no one gets paid leave to build a family.

The sole incentive is to work.

So why should they have kids?

Let's hear it, cons. Why should they have kids?

So the Libs won't be the majority...

 

[Obscurity]

The left calls the right an enemy to be defeated and lie, saying that the right denies climate change, when they don't.

Wrong. I never called anyone on the right wing that, until this forum. THIS forum, when I joined, is when I realized the right wing has gone so far, fallen so far for the hysterical propaganda spewed by the likes of Newt Gingrich, to be reasoned with.

Now.

What is it about the second part of my quote you find objectionable?

What I mean is, we can either help slow climate change by taking intelligent steps to reducing our reliance on pollution causing fossil fuels; or, we can choose to hinder, by going backwards on emission standards and polluting at will.

I'd prefer to help.

What is objectionable, to you, about that position?

 

[HenryChinaski]

We've got young adults from Canada, Sweden, Germany, etc all pledging to not have children unless their countries take serious action on climate change. LOL. I mean we're talking about Canada, Sweden, Germany, and other tree hugger countries who were part of the Paris Accord. What in the hell is it these people want? I am personally glad that these idiots aren't going to be passing on their DNA. Let their breed die out.




No future, no children: Teens refusing to have kids until there'''s action on climate change

I remember as a child, my granddad ranting about "know nothing, panty waste, subversive hippie kids" I suggest adding more fiber to your diet..

 

[calamity]

The left calls the right an enemy to be defeated and lie, saying that the right denies climate change, when they don't.

The Right lies about their lies. I see.

 

[HAL9000]

Try to put things into perspective. Carbon dioxide is 0.04% of the atmosphere, or 18 trillion tons of total CO2 in the atmosphere. According to the EPA's best estimates all of humanity's world-wide contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 36 billion tons. That means we are literally destroying our economy by wasting hundreds of billions in a vain attempt to limit the 0.2% of the 0.04% that is already in our atmosphere, and then pretend as if that makes a difference in the global climate. Seriously? That is truly mental.

I appreciate someone bringing numbers to the table, but those numbers are pretty scary.

It's true, in Earth's distant past, CO2 once reached 2000 ppm. And at today's current rate, we won't reach that for another 2500 years.

However, when numbers spiked that high in the past, it did it over 60,000 years, not 2500, and 99% of all species on Earth went extinct. And that 36 billion tons we emit today was 14 Billion, just 50 years ago. The world population has increased by nearly 100% in that time, but carbon emissions have increased more than 150%. That 2500 years just keeps getting shorter. And due to this high rate of carbon emission, we shouldn't expect the collapse of life to correspond with the raw CO2 levels seen during the Great Dying. Life's only challenge isn't just surviving the conditions of high CO2 levels, but being able to adapt quickly enough to the change.

I have a lot of faith in human ingenuity. That problems that may seem insurmountable today, may seem trivial in the future. Maybe fusion power arrives tomorrow(might be useful to increase investment into researching it), and the cheap energy it provides makes fossil fuel obsolete, and makes our concerns look silly. But I've been told one shouldn't count their chickens before they hatch. Maybe we should look to our own genius, instead of relying on the genius of our progeny. In the mean time, if an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure, what's the harm in being proactive?

Are the measures we're taking now "literally destroying our economy"? No. Will making reasonable increases to these measures literally destroy our economy? That's just silly. Renewable energy has reached 36.1% in Germany. Is their economy being destroyed? The price of solar panels has gone from more than $100/Watt in 1975 to $2.98/Watt($0.61/Watt raw panel wholesale) today. Many of the breakthroughs that have made such a low price possible have been funded by grants from governments around the world. I don't think many expect that an industrious species such as ourselves will reduce, or even stop increasing, its energy usage, so it's important to reduce the negative consequences of producing energy.

 

[HAL9000]

I want to know the solutions wanted of the kid activists. As far as I know, all they have said is that they won't have any kids until their countries get serious about climate change. What does that mean? What are their demands? For the record, I hope they never have children. I'm calling their bluff.

"I pledge not to have children until I believe the government has done enough to ensure a safe future"

It's rather subjective no? But I imagine if all the measures I listed were takes, some would be satisfied.

Thankfully, one of the benefits of living in society is that one can have an impact on the future without having children. Consider Jesus, Isaac Newton and George Washington. Not saying one comparably great can be found among this group, just that it's a bit silly to hope that someone doesn't breed because you disagree with their politics. Politics isn't genetic.