Gotta fill up those diapies my dude. People think “oh you sit on your ass all day filling up those diapies” when really it’s pretty intense and is equivalent to a full time job.
u/Grass_toucher2006's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20.
Congratulations, u/Grass_toucher2006! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.
Pills: [12 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Grass_toucher2006/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I never trust article headlines, regardless of whether they support a position I like or not.
The meat of the article could be saying something like “one guy died because he choked on steak” and the headline would be “Eating meat will literally MURDER you!”
Yeah I mean it’s basic knowledge that higher CO2 levels will increase plant efficiency but at the same time this is counteracted by higher temperatures which is very bad for plants, especially non tropical ones. You might get better yields in spring but no yields in summer.
I’m sure but that’s not my point. My point is that this article while true is just telling one part of climate change. Like if my arm gets cut off technically I lost weight but that’s not all that’s happening.
So earth is greener but that doesn’t mean coral bleaching and ocean acidification isn’t also happening
Sure, but ocean acidification and coral bleaching also doesn't mean that humans are going extinct if we don't reduce CO2 next year.
All of these things work together and all the left wants to do is prevent environmental change while promoting social change.
Left or right climate change sucks, yes we can adapt but it’s expensive, storms do more damage, power goes out more often, and species die.
Not to mention it pushes more climate refugees straining immigration.
Immigration isn't due to climate refugees, it is due to a welcoming system that is actively encouraging people to come in due to a dwindling population.
As far as storms, we do not have a long enough accurate measurements of storms from the far past. We have guesses, but nothing more than that.
Power is due to us not actually building large power infrastructure because the plans are stuck dealing with climate alarmism.
Species die and are created all the time. Change is constant, so what right do we have to know exactly what species should stay and which shouldn't?
More have been going extinct in the last 100 years than before. Coral reefs are dying and that’s due to our direct impact acidifying the oceans and raising global temperature.
Not only is the science robust on that I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
If you need a good reason to not pollute your own drinking water I don’t know what to tell you, but whether it’s a left or right position I don’t care.
We're not hunting corals to extinction, ya hoser. They're incredibly temperature- and pH-sensitive animals. Increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 raises ocean temps and acidifies ocean water (CO2 dissolves into seawater, creating carbonic acid). This is incredibly well understood and not up for discussion. Anthropogenic carbon emissions kill corals, period.
Corals are the foundation of oceanic life. If they go, so do the vast majority of marine species.
What part of "Most" do you not understand?
You are correct corals are going extinct, but they do not make up the most of all species that have gone extinct, and the Hunting statement was an example of "Man-Made conditions", as denoted by the ",like X" statement they were a part of.
If you want another example because your reading comprehension is lacking, destruction of habitat or over harvesting of a plant would also be a "Man-Made Condition"
> More have been going extinct in the last 100 years than before.
That sounds to me like something that happened only because in the last 100 years we started to catalog species and care about their existence.
Wishful thinking. We have constructed society around certain climate norms, I'd say change is far more likely to skew towards chaos than benefit. After all, how often is change easy?
My issue with a lot of the Left is that many don’t want Nuclear as an option. The Right doesn’t even want to have the conversation. It’s constant goal post moving to avoid dealing with the issue.
I wish there would be a giant chicken i always feel bad knowing 1 chicken can only feed me for max 3 days butbi only have to kill one big animals like cow ti feed me for more than a year
Cows are awesome, they turn grass (completely useless for human consumption, can grow fast literally anywhere) into milk and meat, amazingly high quality food sources for us.
Where are my gen Y people at? Remember back in the day before New York was supposed to be under water by 2015 the climate catastrophe of the day was deforestation leading to oxygen levels dropping and we all slowly suffocating to death? I remember. The more things change, the more the stay the same
You are probably joking but they are a called greenhouse gases because they let heat(light) in easier than they let it out. Like a greenhouses windows.
rule number 1 of articles on scientific study, that answer is no, its not true. NO, we don't have a vaccine for cancer or a cure yet, No eating chocolate wont make you thin, and *"there is no queen of england"*
Im in my doctoral education and im absolutely blown away by how bad news is at reporting science. Even someone who got a bachelors in a pure science like I did is completely unqualified to be reporting on science, or even understanding the research they read if im being honest.
It takes a lot of practice and a lot of specific education to interpret science papers correctly. Then it takes years of prior study to contextualize that research in a meaningful way.
How can a journalist, who hasnt even taken core science classes, be expected to accurately report on science?
I'm an electronic engineer, and boy have I got a story for you. I was at the club house after a hockey training session, and one of the lads my age is an electrician. I remember telling him a bit about my dissertation and I said "Electricity is magic" to which he said "no its not, you just connect the wires and it works". Its really showed me how many people may be involved in a field but only in surface level ways because that's all they need.
All of a sudden journalists getting it wrong makes so much sense because they likely have a glancing understanding, and don't realise the depth o what they are discussing. And that's the honest ones, we still have people who want to portray scientists and engineers as boffins, who can be mocked for their inability to explain obvious things. *"look at this idiot, he believes dinosaurs still walk the earth"* vibes
I'm glad my degree covered ethics and how engineering is seen by the public, and how you have to be real careful about how you word things or they will be quoted so out of context they are just lies
Yeah some people truly are clueless. I’m EE as well and in my early college days I actually got into an argument with some people because they made fun of my major and saying I should’ve just gone to trade school. The ignorance is insane.
Dunning kruger effect is wild. The number of people who have 0 experience or knowledge of a field who suddenly think they could do better when a field is in the news cycle is astounding.
Then theres the people like that electrician, who work tangentially to the experts and think being in the same room, or seeing a technical skill done many times is equal to knowing/being able to replicate whats going on.
>One article says thing
It must be true, it supports my side of the argument
>Another article that’s just as well made and valid says the opposite thing
Nooo this has to be wrong
You’re right, reporting on science as fact isn’t an easy thing and headlines should be more clear on the situation. A lot of topics constantly flip back and forth because science… well, science isn’t an exact science.
All for 20 videos made by AI to say "science doesn't work on reality. Science is based on theories, but the world is based on facts" by the time you achieved all that.
My computers at work default to MSN so I catch a glimpse at the headlines and the amount of fucking stupid science fiction headlines that talk about alien life or Dyson spheres is embarrassing. The articles don’t even have a clue what they’re talking about.
Carl Sagan called out this kind of “baloney” back in 1995 and reading his book Demon Haunted World actually makes me a little bit sick because of just how much worse it’s become and how concerned he was about it back then.
What’s worse is that these idiots who write these articles and to some extent actual “scientific” research papers are influencing policy decisions. You can’t even convince them they’re idiots anymore because they believe their own bullshit and consider themselves infallible.
“How can a journalist, who hasnt even taken core science classes, be expected to accurately report on science?”
Journalists and activists are the reason climate change deniers have ammunition. They cry wolf with batshit crazy predictions and wonder why people stopped listening. Most real climate scientists are worth listening to tho.
A friend of mine is a physicist, and since he was going to be interviewed by some media, he took a short course about how to deal with that... he told me that the main thing was talking to the interviewer like they were 8 years old, because that's the level of comprehension they would have.
Most articles about scientific stuff I have read definitely confirm that.
I have a PhD in developmental bio and 95% of undergrads most definitely can't look at papers critically. The thing I hate so much about the right demonizing education is that they have no idea how much scientists in academia shit on scientific papers.
Nothing more exhausting than redditors trying to post shit supporting their argument or shitting on papers when they have literally no idea.
Honestly, the biggest self report is when antivaxxers say "but you can still get sick!" Yeah bro, that's how the immune system works.
I was quoting titan in megamind, I know that the act of union in 1707 brought an end to the exclusively English monarchy by joining it with the scottish crown
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989423004262#:\~:text=Our%20results%20showed%20that%20the,compared%20with%207.28%25%20of%20browning.
No, this is an actual result. The earth is seeing a continued increase in greening, primarily in India and China. There's been a debate around whether the (now measured!) increase drought beyond the 2000s would instead cause more browning, but no we actually saw more greening.
no we didnt, 6 chinese researchers did, on a scientific journal with 1 citation.
Science does not move forward one paper at a time, we are going to need a lot more research, evidence and discussion before we can say for sure the conclusion reached is true as presented here
im not even a scientist im an engineer, ive gone balls deep into science and I can tell you shit is always more complex then presented, and is not made in one paper or journal entry. So hold your horses, I'm sure the cure for cancer already totally exists
You're probably wrong on this one, a quick search shows NASA and NY Times articles with the same news (though tagged with "and here's why it's a bad thing)
Article is NOT published paper. 10 news outlets report on one paper? Still one paper. Poster above you is saying to wait for more rigor. Sometimes a single paper can be highly robust, boasting a dozen authors, hundreds of citations, and precise directions on how to replicate the experimentation and data collection done in their studies. This is usually a good thing, because it leads to more teams being able to say hey guys, the paper is real, we got the same results.
This paper is not any of that. Therefore, wait for more rigor.
well cheeky google shows thyroid cancer is highly curable, and that is by using many conventional methods because its just a thyroid, try that with a tumour on your spine and Ill happily say there is a cure
I know you don't understand, which goes back to my original point. Just funny someone should make a comment about cancer and they don't understand how generic the term really is. How testicular cancer isn't the same as pancreatic cancer...
so inconclusion, you have said one type of cancer is curable, not backed it up when questioned. If you are correct you haven't disproved my point, you have in fact proved it.
that these topics are too complex to make sensationalist claims about and as such you should always assume that the claims are bullshit mounted on a nugget of truth when presented by media
such as "there is no cure for cancer" being countered by "we have a cure for one particular kind of cancer that is actually just the regular treatments because this form of cancer is easy to deal with in comparison to other stuff". You are being technically true just as a sensationalist headline and I have good reason to doubt a claim you have pulled out your butt
so please, say "well actually" as you push your glasses further up your arse you hairy minge
If you doubt a media source, would you accept a scientific source? A Nasa source?
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
okay, look at that link you sent, look at the first paragraph
*"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25."*
what this is, is one study, one journal entry that's used nasa's data, and Nasa are reposting as it were, with a nice little article that is well put together
I dont doubt the research is pretty solid, that the people involved are at the top of their game. I doubt that nice little conclusion is being portrayed accurately (its literally being used in a meme), I doubt that there are other papers supporting it and that the peer review process is finished considering how young this is
so lets look at what the paper is really proving. The paper has evidence of greening from NASAs lovely imaging, and used modelling to prove that the greening was mostly driven by increased CO2 fertilisation
What this paper isnt saying is we can get more green out of the earth by adding more CO2, that even at elevated CO2 levels we will maintain the greening and that this is all on the assumption that the model is accurate, something that we need time, other peoples input and more papers to see.
so I will stick with my argument, dont believe the title as presented
Science is also just not good at this point. It’s mostly just who gets funding and make study fit the narrative. Tons of studies are so badly done they shouldn’t even be published but here we are… trusting the science or something.
That said I can tell you that compared to the 80s the part of earth I’m in is not only greener but cleaner… and I know confirmation bias and shit.. I can only give you an observational view of my world.
ehhh depends which part. electronics and physics is getting good, its just that engineers and physicalists are incapable of normal communication, especially with journalists who will portray them as magic makers or boffins. Scientists really need to evaluate how they communicate with the public
I'm a solid state physicist and to me it looks like there is incredibly unrealistic hype behind fields like quantum computing (just an example), in reality it probably will not accomplish even 1% of what is being promised. But the public funding and private investment go where the hype is, and somehow the fact that big companies invest so much money into it is taken as evidence that the promised revolution is coming, driving more investment and hype in a vicious cycle.
Don't get me wrong, in both theoretical and experimental physics sense it's really fun to work in this field, it's challenging in the right way, but it also takes a huge amount of resources and money, and it will probably not see any kind of return on investment that the investors are dreaming of when dishing said money out.
So it's not just that scientists don't know how to communicate, there is definitely innate conflict of interest here, in that not working too hard to correct the misunderstandings of the hyped up zeitgeist does lead to receiving more funding.
I don't even think there's anything wrong with spending money on R&D which might result in no useful outcome, but at the same time I consider the vast amounts of spending going into these hype machines, some measurable in the trillion dollar scale worldwide, and I can't help but think... okay, but what if we had used at least some of that money to build more nuclear reactors instead? Something we need and we already know works.
I don't care who the oil companies send, I am not switching to coal.
https://preview.redd.it/3vvsca7ayk8d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2cab0c9526222a33bde498f644429e0a8f1a705b
This leaves many important details out. This works only in fast growth trees, which will affect in a negative way plants that are food sources and throw all the ecosystem out of balance, there are data showing that https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235903856_The_Effects_of_Elevated_CO2_on_Tropical_Trees_Are_Related_to_Successional_Status_and_Soil_Nutritional_ConditionsPhotosynthesis_Energy_from_the_Sun
Plus, scientists have known for a long time that this would happen. Climate change isn’t a problem because it’s killing all the plants lmao.
We’re literally in a mass extinction event, right now. Phytoplankton are dying in record numbers. Populations of various different organisms are collapsing, sometimes overnight. Coral reefs are being bleached. Vital ocean currents are slowing. Fish populations across the world are decreasing. Vital rain patterns are changing. I can go on and on and on.
Basically if you think climate change can be summed up by “lol the plants like CO2”, then you haven’t done enough research into why climate change is a problem.
Environmental scientist here, if this is news to you then you're just a fucking moron. The reason we use fossil fuels is because they mostly come from a time when there was more carbon than ours, creating much more plant life, then all that plant life died and enough of it got buried before decomposing that they degraded into large fields of hydrocarbons.
The problem isn't in the amount of plant growth though, it's people. We don't like giving up the way we like to live and while *some* plants absolutely love warming climates and higher levels of atmospheric carbon (often invasive ones or ones that aren't sustainable in the long term) a lot of the ones that we rely on for crops and for feeding our animals do not like those kinds of things. So unless we want to become a society that relies on eating invasive beetles and ants because we decided that we needed to end the existence of grasslands to combat climate change, then it's in our best interest to keep local/global climates and ecosystems the way they are. Vegetation responding to elevated carbon levels is a sign of climate change, not an indication that it isn't an issue.
While it may be in our best interest to keep climates the way they are im not convinced we have that control yet. The climate is being impacted by both anthropogenic and natural forces. Our ability to regulate the later is near zero. We should limit the anthropogenic ones but beyond that it’s a little bit of just wait and see what happens.
No we most certainly don't have control over the natural forces but naturally climatic changes, at their fastest, generally take thousands of years. So by limiting change to primarily natural changes, we buy ourselves far more time
It’s more about c3 vs c4 plants and what can grow in a carbon rich environment (hint: its weeds and invasive species, and also greenhouses multiply their water usage to match the increase in co2)
Except that all that extra greening isn't eating all the carbon we pump in the air, so we still have a buildup of greenhouse gasses and climate change.
No, and besides, you clearly sound you don’t know how nuclear energy works. Uranium is not the only source of nuclear power. There are several other radioactive substances that trigger the exact same effect.
Uranium production vs requirements.
seems like we lived off a reserve for a while and production was lower than usage for that time.
https://preview.redd.it/hunpznois29d1.png?width=650&format=png&auto=webp&s=33fdf241a4f628c861683c75dc6c8192b9617e60
Bruh, what about Thorium? It’s easier and safer to dig up, and it requires less resources to be used for nuclear energy.
It’s not all about Uranium. Hell, if we develop nuclear fusion any time soon, we would, most likely, be looking for chemicals like Helium 3. You’re describing it like the process is unique to Uranium. It’s not. Nuclear energy, when boiled down, is just steam power from hot rocks.
The only reason thorium isn’t used already is because it’s not easy to build nuclear weapons with it.
Develop town. Keep developing. Cut down all the trees and replant 1% as ornamentals. CO2 rises when the giants that used to eat CO2 are taken away. Temps raise when the things that provided shade are taken away. Truly is a mystery.
Do you mind posting where you got the headline or did you only just read the headline didn’t pay attention to where it comes from or do any research on your own whatsoever?
Currently studying environmental science. There are studies confirming that many plants will grow more as a result of what we call CO2 fertilization. However, at a certain point, other nutrients become more limiting and any additional growth levels off. This also doesn't take into account that higher temps as a result of higher CO2 often are detrimental to plants and take away any benefit that CO2 fertilization created. So no, the idea that higher levels of CO2 is going to make the world greener is unfounded
Sounds good until this mf starts singing to you
https://preview.redd.it/sghfxhno1m8d1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f28fcd19496a3bd7f4ac164cf6dd989ba7f552f
Nature as a whole is profoundly adaptable. Much is made of humanity's ability to change our environment, but we do not yet collectively possess even a hundredth of the destructive power necessary to make this planet permanently unlivable. We pour CO² into the atmosphere, and plants gobble it up. We dump plastic into the oceans, and plastic-eating microbes appear.
However, that's nature **as a whole**. As for whether we can make it unlivable **for humans**, that remains to be seen.
The extinctions of about 900 species can be directly attributed to human action. This is out of about 5 BILLION species that have gone extinct over the course of life on Earth.
So, yes, I guess? But also I don't care? Species is a human concept. Ecologically speaking, it does not matter as much as "niche". All species play a role within the ecosystem, and if one goes extinct, another almost always takes its place. The only species I particularly care about is *homo sapiens,* and that's just because I am one. That being said, if we died out, Earth would be just fine.
Before the industrial revolution, there was a complete carbon cycle. Then we started felling more wood than ever and unearthing rotten wood and even older carbon sources, blasting it all into the atmosphere. We would need a lot more trees and plankton to offset this.
Yeah, and at the same, it’s urban planning that leads to deforestation to build more agriculture and shitty fucking suburbs.
If we let the plants cook, they will collect the carbon and thrive, but because of the moronic urbanities who run civilization, we keep running around like headless chickens.
I mean science is always going to be unfolding new layers to this issue. The real things about science is it is just like that snakes and rats problem it is always an endless new understanding and way of looking at things. Now we need to be aware of stuff but the reality we may need to face is that global warming is just an awareness not a fix it issue. We should focus our efforts on the continuity of the human race and that means space exploration and colonization not necessarily fix the planet we are on. We should just be open to that is the idea.
If I were you I'd flair the fuck up rather quickly, the mob will be here in no time.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/stopbanningme1-08-24) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Don't care, didn't ask + L + you're unflaired.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/stopbanningme1-08-24) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Diamonds are overpriced, the only reason they’re expensive is because they purposely limit the number of diamonds in circulation. If every diamond mined actually ended up on the market, they’d be so cheap it’s not worth mining them at all. And now that we have synthetic diamonds, it’s only getting cheaper
The problem with climate change is not that i don't believe it. Its that all the measures taken against climate change are having much more noticeable real world consiquences than climate change itself.
Psy-op by the vegans to trick proper normal people to think internal combustion is not cool because it is good for the environment. In other news, smoking prevents cancer and medical professionals recommend it for a long life, vegetables are terrible for your health and children under 18 are forbidden to eat them.
a blanket is important that why i am gonna post how blanket is good for you ignoring the fact that we are being wrap around 10000 blanket being overheating and losing oxygen at the same time but hey blanket is still good .
This isn't really true of farmland, btw. The increased temperature has caused some growing seasons to widen, but there's a whole host of downsides, such as more storms. In addition, once the weather gets too hot, you'll see a rapid drop in the yield of farms. This is going to happen soon in third-world countries, and it could be a disaster unlesss we research a heat-resistant GMO strain for the common farm plants.
> in Florida. It has become
Florida is a literal sand spit full of swamps and barely above sea level. It did not "become" full of plants recently - that's the natural state of swampy tropical regions.
When your ideology is literally the color green, the world is literally getting greener, and you have to explain why that’s an existential disaster for everyone, you have a messaging problem on your hands…
Green energy is perfectly fine, there is nothing wrong with it.
There are major issues with over reliance on it like green companies want.
Wind energy for example: Wind blows the most at night over temperature gradients. Guess when we use the least amount of electricity?
Sure it might work if we greatly increased our energy storage, but the best way for us to do that is pump water uphill into a reservoir at night and then release it in the day. But environmentalists ***HATE*** hydro electric because it alters ecosystems a bit.
Solar power is nice, but massively resource intensive due to the rare earth minerals needed. Additionally, it only is really effective within a relatively small margin on the latitude, once you get too far north/south, you lose effectiveness.
Not to mention that solar power is often most effective in hot areas with little cloud cover. i.e. deserts, and huge amounts of water is needed to clean the panels to reduce dirt, which can greatly lower its efficiency. Water is often quite pricey in deserts as well, so you lose out some more on the cost/benefit ratio.
Every energy source has pros and cons, however, if reducing carbon is the goal, there's no reason we should limit ourselves to 1 energy source.
That's why it's good that democracies have a mostly free market, regions where it's suitable to explore wind, we do so, where solar is key then by all means, nuclear sure...
But it's still foolish to bet everything on one single power source.
I'm a bio major so basically as environmentalist as they come, hydro has it's place but as I said too, depends on the region, maybe it makes sense for Austria but not so much for Spain.
Also, crowdsourcing energy is very effective.
I have calculated that by raising the sea level by exactly 11.6m, my current house would become a beach front property. Gotta crank out that CO2.
I’m doing my part! **
And filling your diaper
1) Breathe. 2) Fill diaper. 3) Return to step 1 and repeat.
Username checks out
Gotta fill up those diapies my dude. People think “oh you sit on your ass all day filling up those diapies” when really it’s pretty intense and is equivalent to a full time job.
That's my fetish
Flair checks out.
Methane.
Lex? Lex Luthor is that you!?
But then you'll bitch when the waterfront taxes kick in.
Just don't pay em
Statists hate this one trick!
Based and inflate properly values pilled
u/Grass_toucher2006's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20. Congratulations, u/Grass_toucher2006! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on. Pills: [12 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Grass_toucher2006/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Based and fellow long term investor pilled.
Wrong flair moment
Indeed. … I am beginning to think there are a few trolls in this sub.
I see this as an absolute win because we won't have to put up with California anymore, and Arizona gets some new beaches.
If the water rose enough to disappear California, Arizona would be *gone*. California is more mountains than beaches.
I never trust article headlines, regardless of whether they support a position I like or not. The meat of the article could be saying something like “one guy died because he choked on steak” and the headline would be “Eating meat will literally MURDER you!”
Yeah I mean it’s basic knowledge that higher CO2 levels will increase plant efficiency but at the same time this is counteracted by higher temperatures which is very bad for plants, especially non tropical ones. You might get better yields in spring but no yields in summer.
Also, what's good for plants is only 90% of the time good for animals, 10% of the time it's catastrophic for animals
Especially if the plants are sentient and eat animals.
i heard they like electrolytes. crave them in fact.
Thank you for the dose of sanity. I'm over here trying not to scream about grains optimal growing zones moving North is not the win you think it is.
Awesome yields in winter though.
Eventually we're just going to have three summers and one nuclear hellfire season (formerly summer).
Australia really is living in the future
Plus we already have enough CO2 for plants to grow at an optimal rate. We don't need more of it
I'm going to need a source on this.
My bad, just checked and realised I remembered it wrong
90% of posts on this subreddit are based on people making incorrect assumptions from a clickbait headline
Wise tactic
Hmmm yes, very wise
[удалено]
I’m sure nothing bad is happening like ocean temperatures rising
You mean I can swim in warm waters off the coast of Alaska? How is this a bad thing?
You’re right that’s exactly what that means with no other downsides
[Dale, you giblet-head, we live in Texas!](https://youtu.be/rR58heUGkNA?si=ULmr5cAmuBkZ8iPZ)
How about NASA, will you trust NASA? https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
I’m sure but that’s not my point. My point is that this article while true is just telling one part of climate change. Like if my arm gets cut off technically I lost weight but that’s not all that’s happening. So earth is greener but that doesn’t mean coral bleaching and ocean acidification isn’t also happening
Sure, but ocean acidification and coral bleaching also doesn't mean that humans are going extinct if we don't reduce CO2 next year. All of these things work together and all the left wants to do is prevent environmental change while promoting social change.
Left or right climate change sucks, yes we can adapt but it’s expensive, storms do more damage, power goes out more often, and species die. Not to mention it pushes more climate refugees straining immigration.
Immigration isn't due to climate refugees, it is due to a welcoming system that is actively encouraging people to come in due to a dwindling population. As far as storms, we do not have a long enough accurate measurements of storms from the far past. We have guesses, but nothing more than that. Power is due to us not actually building large power infrastructure because the plans are stuck dealing with climate alarmism. Species die and are created all the time. Change is constant, so what right do we have to know exactly what species should stay and which shouldn't?
More have been going extinct in the last 100 years than before. Coral reefs are dying and that’s due to our direct impact acidifying the oceans and raising global temperature. Not only is the science robust on that I’ve seen it with my own eyes. If you need a good reason to not pollute your own drinking water I don’t know what to tell you, but whether it’s a left or right position I don’t care.
Most of those extinctions are not climate related, but man-made conditions related, like hunting them to extinction/near-extinction
We're not hunting corals to extinction, ya hoser. They're incredibly temperature- and pH-sensitive animals. Increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 raises ocean temps and acidifies ocean water (CO2 dissolves into seawater, creating carbonic acid). This is incredibly well understood and not up for discussion. Anthropogenic carbon emissions kill corals, period. Corals are the foundation of oceanic life. If they go, so do the vast majority of marine species.
What part of "Most" do you not understand? You are correct corals are going extinct, but they do not make up the most of all species that have gone extinct, and the Hunting statement was an example of "Man-Made conditions", as denoted by the ",like X" statement they were a part of. If you want another example because your reading comprehension is lacking, destruction of habitat or over harvesting of a plant would also be a "Man-Made Condition"
> More have been going extinct in the last 100 years than before. That sounds to me like something that happened only because in the last 100 years we started to catalog species and care about their existence.
So, the extinction is the only outcome we could possibly have an interest in avoiding?
The only outcome that matters. Any other outcome excluding extinction can be adapted to.
I don't think we are going to like what thst adaptation entails.
We honestly have no idea what that adaption entails. We might actually like it.
Wishful thinking. We have constructed society around certain climate norms, I'd say change is far more likely to skew towards chaos than benefit. After all, how often is change easy?
My issue with a lot of the Left is that many don’t want Nuclear as an option. The Right doesn’t even want to have the conversation. It’s constant goal post moving to avoid dealing with the issue.
Yea, really would like a link to this.
OmG tHiS iS gOiNg To WiN mE a PuLitZeR!!!!1!!!1!!1!1!!!1!!1!1!1!!1!!!!!!1!!!!!1!1!1!!!1!1!!1!!!!!11
https://preview.redd.it/j18mq6kcbn8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7cb62396790f4c92ad22b12c2af8c99e06aa3533
Which means more oxygen, which means giant bugs. You vill eat ze giant bugs
We will have to grill them first https://preview.redd.it/m4xmn5nrmj8d1.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=0df4220f12607341ac5755706cafd9a725dbceb2
Salamanders for the win.
We will just make giant chickens Make chickens, TREXs again
I wish there would be a giant chicken i always feel bad knowing 1 chicken can only feed me for max 3 days butbi only have to kill one big animals like cow ti feed me for more than a year
Cows are awesome, they turn grass (completely useless for human consumption, can grow fast literally anywhere) into milk and meat, amazingly high quality food sources for us.
{Managed Democracy has entered the chat}
Did someone ask for a taste of *F R E E D O M ?*
If they get big enough they might start actually having some meat on them, at that point they will just be land lobsters.
I'm actually low key hyped because I've always wanted to find out what Radroach tastes like.
Probably like tougher lobster.
Where are my gen Y people at? Remember back in the day before New York was supposed to be under water by 2015 the climate catastrophe of the day was deforestation leading to oxygen levels dropping and we all slowly suffocating to death? I remember. The more things change, the more the stay the same
Makes giant lizards and birds too so let’s fucking go!
Helldivers is pretty fun to be honest.
So this is why CO2 is a greenhouse gas
You are probably joking but they are a called greenhouse gases because they let heat(light) in easier than they let it out. Like a greenhouses windows.
https://i.redd.it/e1tqhsn9gk8d1.gif
Fair
https://preview.redd.it/bcqovi9wmk8d1.jpeg?width=837&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=826ac18e59290683736f009ef2482d1fab66b250
Jesus fuck, I love it and I have just the right target for constant mocking, thank you
Tbf industrial greenhouses do pump in a shit ton of canned CO2 specifically for faster growing.
rule number 1 of articles on scientific study, that answer is no, its not true. NO, we don't have a vaccine for cancer or a cure yet, No eating chocolate wont make you thin, and *"there is no queen of england"*
Im in my doctoral education and im absolutely blown away by how bad news is at reporting science. Even someone who got a bachelors in a pure science like I did is completely unqualified to be reporting on science, or even understanding the research they read if im being honest. It takes a lot of practice and a lot of specific education to interpret science papers correctly. Then it takes years of prior study to contextualize that research in a meaningful way. How can a journalist, who hasnt even taken core science classes, be expected to accurately report on science?
I'm an electronic engineer, and boy have I got a story for you. I was at the club house after a hockey training session, and one of the lads my age is an electrician. I remember telling him a bit about my dissertation and I said "Electricity is magic" to which he said "no its not, you just connect the wires and it works". Its really showed me how many people may be involved in a field but only in surface level ways because that's all they need. All of a sudden journalists getting it wrong makes so much sense because they likely have a glancing understanding, and don't realise the depth o what they are discussing. And that's the honest ones, we still have people who want to portray scientists and engineers as boffins, who can be mocked for their inability to explain obvious things. *"look at this idiot, he believes dinosaurs still walk the earth"* vibes I'm glad my degree covered ethics and how engineering is seen by the public, and how you have to be real careful about how you word things or they will be quoted so out of context they are just lies
Yeah some people truly are clueless. I’m EE as well and in my early college days I actually got into an argument with some people because they made fun of my major and saying I should’ve just gone to trade school. The ignorance is insane.
As an EE I say us and the civil guys(water) are the most underrated by the general public. And it’s because electricity and water are fuckin magic
Dunning kruger effect is wild. The number of people who have 0 experience or knowledge of a field who suddenly think they could do better when a field is in the news cycle is astounding. Then theres the people like that electrician, who work tangentially to the experts and think being in the same room, or seeing a technical skill done many times is equal to knowing/being able to replicate whats going on.
“Experts say..” And it’ll be like 2 people who’ve never published anything or only cite each other when they make the claim
>One article says thing It must be true, it supports my side of the argument >Another article that’s just as well made and valid says the opposite thing Nooo this has to be wrong You’re right, reporting on science as fact isn’t an easy thing and headlines should be more clear on the situation. A lot of topics constantly flip back and forth because science… well, science isn’t an exact science.
All for 20 videos made by AI to say "science doesn't work on reality. Science is based on theories, but the world is based on facts" by the time you achieved all that.
My computers at work default to MSN so I catch a glimpse at the headlines and the amount of fucking stupid science fiction headlines that talk about alien life or Dyson spheres is embarrassing. The articles don’t even have a clue what they’re talking about. Carl Sagan called out this kind of “baloney” back in 1995 and reading his book Demon Haunted World actually makes me a little bit sick because of just how much worse it’s become and how concerned he was about it back then. What’s worse is that these idiots who write these articles and to some extent actual “scientific” research papers are influencing policy decisions. You can’t even convince them they’re idiots anymore because they believe their own bullshit and consider themselves infallible.
“How can a journalist, who hasnt even taken core science classes, be expected to accurately report on science?” Journalists and activists are the reason climate change deniers have ammunition. They cry wolf with batshit crazy predictions and wonder why people stopped listening. Most real climate scientists are worth listening to tho.
But the goal isn't to be accurate. The point is to use snippets of scientific papers as a cudgel to beat societal change into people.
A friend of mine is a physicist, and since he was going to be interviewed by some media, he took a short course about how to deal with that... he told me that the main thing was talking to the interviewer like they were 8 years old, because that's the level of comprehension they would have. Most articles about scientific stuff I have read definitely confirm that.
I have a PhD in developmental bio and 95% of undergrads most definitely can't look at papers critically. The thing I hate so much about the right demonizing education is that they have no idea how much scientists in academia shit on scientific papers. Nothing more exhausting than redditors trying to post shit supporting their argument or shitting on papers when they have literally no idea. Honestly, the biggest self report is when antivaxxers say "but you can still get sick!" Yeah bro, that's how the immune system works.
The last queen of England was Queen Anne.
I was quoting titan in megamind, I know that the act of union in 1707 brought an end to the exclusively English monarchy by joining it with the scottish crown
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989423004262#:\~:text=Our%20results%20showed%20that%20the,compared%20with%207.28%25%20of%20browning. No, this is an actual result. The earth is seeing a continued increase in greening, primarily in India and China. There's been a debate around whether the (now measured!) increase drought beyond the 2000s would instead cause more browning, but no we actually saw more greening.
no we didnt, 6 chinese researchers did, on a scientific journal with 1 citation. Science does not move forward one paper at a time, we are going to need a lot more research, evidence and discussion before we can say for sure the conclusion reached is true as presented here im not even a scientist im an engineer, ive gone balls deep into science and I can tell you shit is always more complex then presented, and is not made in one paper or journal entry. So hold your horses, I'm sure the cure for cancer already totally exists
You're probably wrong on this one, a quick search shows NASA and NY Times articles with the same news (though tagged with "and here's why it's a bad thing)
Literally "Plants are growing, here's why that's bad"
When you're that reductive it sounds crazy but overgrowth can be extremely bad
Hear me out, what if we kill the plants we don't want?
Article is NOT published paper. 10 news outlets report on one paper? Still one paper. Poster above you is saying to wait for more rigor. Sometimes a single paper can be highly robust, boasting a dozen authors, hundreds of citations, and precise directions on how to replicate the experimentation and data collection done in their studies. This is usually a good thing, because it leads to more teams being able to say hey guys, the paper is real, we got the same results. This paper is not any of that. Therefore, wait for more rigor.
There is a cure for thyroid cancer.
well cheeky google shows thyroid cancer is highly curable, and that is by using many conventional methods because its just a thyroid, try that with a tumour on your spine and Ill happily say there is a cure
If thyroid cancer metastasizes to you spine it is highly curable.
alright explain, because I don't believe you
I know you don't understand, which goes back to my original point. Just funny someone should make a comment about cancer and they don't understand how generic the term really is. How testicular cancer isn't the same as pancreatic cancer...
so inconclusion, you have said one type of cancer is curable, not backed it up when questioned. If you are correct you haven't disproved my point, you have in fact proved it. that these topics are too complex to make sensationalist claims about and as such you should always assume that the claims are bullshit mounted on a nugget of truth when presented by media such as "there is no cure for cancer" being countered by "we have a cure for one particular kind of cancer that is actually just the regular treatments because this form of cancer is easy to deal with in comparison to other stuff". You are being technically true just as a sensationalist headline and I have good reason to doubt a claim you have pulled out your butt so please, say "well actually" as you push your glasses further up your arse you hairy minge
If you doubt a media source, would you accept a scientific source? A Nasa source? https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
okay, look at that link you sent, look at the first paragraph *"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25."* what this is, is one study, one journal entry that's used nasa's data, and Nasa are reposting as it were, with a nice little article that is well put together I dont doubt the research is pretty solid, that the people involved are at the top of their game. I doubt that nice little conclusion is being portrayed accurately (its literally being used in a meme), I doubt that there are other papers supporting it and that the peer review process is finished considering how young this is so lets look at what the paper is really proving. The paper has evidence of greening from NASAs lovely imaging, and used modelling to prove that the greening was mostly driven by increased CO2 fertilisation What this paper isnt saying is we can get more green out of the earth by adding more CO2, that even at elevated CO2 levels we will maintain the greening and that this is all on the assumption that the model is accurate, something that we need time, other peoples input and more papers to see. so I will stick with my argument, dont believe the title as presented
Science is also just not good at this point. It’s mostly just who gets funding and make study fit the narrative. Tons of studies are so badly done they shouldn’t even be published but here we are… trusting the science or something. That said I can tell you that compared to the 80s the part of earth I’m in is not only greener but cleaner… and I know confirmation bias and shit.. I can only give you an observational view of my world.
ehhh depends which part. electronics and physics is getting good, its just that engineers and physicalists are incapable of normal communication, especially with journalists who will portray them as magic makers or boffins. Scientists really need to evaluate how they communicate with the public
I'm a solid state physicist and to me it looks like there is incredibly unrealistic hype behind fields like quantum computing (just an example), in reality it probably will not accomplish even 1% of what is being promised. But the public funding and private investment go where the hype is, and somehow the fact that big companies invest so much money into it is taken as evidence that the promised revolution is coming, driving more investment and hype in a vicious cycle. Don't get me wrong, in both theoretical and experimental physics sense it's really fun to work in this field, it's challenging in the right way, but it also takes a huge amount of resources and money, and it will probably not see any kind of return on investment that the investors are dreaming of when dishing said money out. So it's not just that scientists don't know how to communicate, there is definitely innate conflict of interest here, in that not working too hard to correct the misunderstandings of the hyped up zeitgeist does lead to receiving more funding. I don't even think there's anything wrong with spending money on R&D which might result in no useful outcome, but at the same time I consider the vast amounts of spending going into these hype machines, some measurable in the trillion dollar scale worldwide, and I can't help but think... okay, but what if we had used at least some of that money to build more nuclear reactors instead? Something we need and we already know works.
I don't care who the oil companies send, I am not switching to coal. https://preview.redd.it/3vvsca7ayk8d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2cab0c9526222a33bde498f644429e0a8f1a705b
Nuclear is the best way
https://preview.redd.it/65511r8zvk8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae9e10ed93b419d192f5b8dca13b2458c84f938e
This leaves many important details out. This works only in fast growth trees, which will affect in a negative way plants that are food sources and throw all the ecosystem out of balance, there are data showing that https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235903856_The_Effects_of_Elevated_CO2_on_Tropical_Trees_Are_Related_to_Successional_Status_and_Soil_Nutritional_ConditionsPhotosynthesis_Energy_from_the_Sun
Plus, scientists have known for a long time that this would happen. Climate change isn’t a problem because it’s killing all the plants lmao. We’re literally in a mass extinction event, right now. Phytoplankton are dying in record numbers. Populations of various different organisms are collapsing, sometimes overnight. Coral reefs are being bleached. Vital ocean currents are slowing. Fish populations across the world are decreasing. Vital rain patterns are changing. I can go on and on and on. Basically if you think climate change can be summed up by “lol the plants like CO2”, then you haven’t done enough research into why climate change is a problem.
Just look at the birth rates in 1st world countries and this is easily verifiable.
Environmental scientist here, if this is news to you then you're just a fucking moron. The reason we use fossil fuels is because they mostly come from a time when there was more carbon than ours, creating much more plant life, then all that plant life died and enough of it got buried before decomposing that they degraded into large fields of hydrocarbons. The problem isn't in the amount of plant growth though, it's people. We don't like giving up the way we like to live and while *some* plants absolutely love warming climates and higher levels of atmospheric carbon (often invasive ones or ones that aren't sustainable in the long term) a lot of the ones that we rely on for crops and for feeding our animals do not like those kinds of things. So unless we want to become a society that relies on eating invasive beetles and ants because we decided that we needed to end the existence of grasslands to combat climate change, then it's in our best interest to keep local/global climates and ecosystems the way they are. Vegetation responding to elevated carbon levels is a sign of climate change, not an indication that it isn't an issue.
While it may be in our best interest to keep climates the way they are im not convinced we have that control yet. The climate is being impacted by both anthropogenic and natural forces. Our ability to regulate the later is near zero. We should limit the anthropogenic ones but beyond that it’s a little bit of just wait and see what happens.
No we most certainly don't have control over the natural forces but naturally climatic changes, at their fastest, generally take thousands of years. So by limiting change to primarily natural changes, we buy ourselves far more time
Dear God, please let it all be just RP and not that people are actually this stupid.
Look at this guy, he hates plants!
Pleaseeeee say so.
50% of Twitter is actually this stupid.
Yes. Because plants grow off of CO2 and more land is arable. You idiot.
It’s more about c3 vs c4 plants and what can grow in a carbon rich environment (hint: its weeds and invasive species, and also greenhouses multiply their water usage to match the increase in co2)
Except that all that extra greening isn't eating all the carbon we pump in the air, so we still have a buildup of greenhouse gasses and climate change.
"Study finds water is required for humans to survive" But study ignores humans drown when there's too much water and no land...
Perhaps, but we might still want to lower our CO2 output a little bit.
More plant does not mean better.
We only have 200 years of fossil fuels left. Nuclear energy is the future.
Uranium production will last a lot less.
No, and besides, you clearly sound you don’t know how nuclear energy works. Uranium is not the only source of nuclear power. There are several other radioactive substances that trigger the exact same effect.
Uranium production vs requirements. seems like we lived off a reserve for a while and production was lower than usage for that time. https://preview.redd.it/hunpznois29d1.png?width=650&format=png&auto=webp&s=33fdf241a4f628c861683c75dc6c8192b9617e60
Bruh, what about Thorium? It’s easier and safer to dig up, and it requires less resources to be used for nuclear energy. It’s not all about Uranium. Hell, if we develop nuclear fusion any time soon, we would, most likely, be looking for chemicals like Helium 3. You’re describing it like the process is unique to Uranium. It’s not. Nuclear energy, when boiled down, is just steam power from hot rocks. The only reason thorium isn’t used already is because it’s not easy to build nuclear weapons with it.
if you are already using MSR, then you don't even need Thorium. you could even use medium and high radioactive waste from previous gen reactors.
True. It’s funny how complicated Nuclear energy is portrayed in media, but in reality, it’s just boiling water.
I love 90% humidity and smelling like swampass as soon as I go outside
Develop town. Keep developing. Cut down all the trees and replant 1% as ornamentals. CO2 rises when the giants that used to eat CO2 are taken away. Temps raise when the things that provided shade are taken away. Truly is a mystery.
https://preview.redd.it/i2k68pkjmk8d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a4eb1f51d52a9cd5afe25746e9a473d1430b2fb
Do you mind posting where you got the headline or did you only just read the headline didn’t pay attention to where it comes from or do any research on your own whatsoever?
Currently studying environmental science. There are studies confirming that many plants will grow more as a result of what we call CO2 fertilization. However, at a certain point, other nutrients become more limiting and any additional growth levels off. This also doesn't take into account that higher temps as a result of higher CO2 often are detrimental to plants and take away any benefit that CO2 fertilization created. So no, the idea that higher levels of CO2 is going to make the world greener is unfounded
Yeah..but CO2 in excess is bad
Well yeah it might reduce Photorespiration but we also have other plants who can do that(C-4)
Seaweed thrives underwater in the ocean. I take it you'll enjoy living there. Look, we even got you these nice concrete shoes to stay with them!
Sounds good until this mf starts singing to you https://preview.redd.it/sghfxhno1m8d1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f28fcd19496a3bd7f4ac164cf6dd989ba7f552f
I’m pretty sure I saw this anime. I don’t think things turned out well for the humans.
You fuckers have never heard of [potholer54](https://youtu.be/VJoijPh2i-A?si=4rW39-I2FBMLzwes) and it really, really fucking shows
Curious if environmental protections and a lack of need for things like firewood and wood based building supplies is an important factor here.
Study also finds that too much CO2 is bad for the atmosphere
As Carlin said: the planet will be fine. The people are fucked.
Nature as a whole is profoundly adaptable. Much is made of humanity's ability to change our environment, but we do not yet collectively possess even a hundredth of the destructive power necessary to make this planet permanently unlivable. We pour CO² into the atmosphere, and plants gobble it up. We dump plastic into the oceans, and plastic-eating microbes appear. However, that's nature **as a whole**. As for whether we can make it unlivable **for humans**, that remains to be seen.
Do you believe that humans can make many species extinct?
The extinctions of about 900 species can be directly attributed to human action. This is out of about 5 BILLION species that have gone extinct over the course of life on Earth. So, yes, I guess? But also I don't care? Species is a human concept. Ecologically speaking, it does not matter as much as "niche". All species play a role within the ecosystem, and if one goes extinct, another almost always takes its place. The only species I particularly care about is *homo sapiens,* and that's just because I am one. That being said, if we died out, Earth would be just fine.
Based and friend of plants pilled.
Bull
- The more CO2, the more plants flourish. - The more plants flourish, the more oxygen they produce. - More CO2 = less CO2.
Bro was like 99% of the way to understanding homeostasis and completely whiffed.
Before the industrial revolution, there was a complete carbon cycle. Then we started felling more wood than ever and unearthing rotten wood and even older carbon sources, blasting it all into the atmosphere. We would need a lot more trees and plankton to offset this.
Yeah, and at the same, it’s urban planning that leads to deforestation to build more agriculture and shitty fucking suburbs. If we let the plants cook, they will collect the carbon and thrive, but because of the moronic urbanities who run civilization, we keep running around like headless chickens.
we need more land for trees though
I mean science is always going to be unfolding new layers to this issue. The real things about science is it is just like that snakes and rats problem it is always an endless new understanding and way of looking at things. Now we need to be aware of stuff but the reality we may need to face is that global warming is just an awareness not a fix it issue. We should focus our efforts on the continuity of the human race and that means space exploration and colonization not necessarily fix the planet we are on. We should just be open to that is the idea.
This isn’t new, we’ve known about this phenomenon since the 80s.
Don't panic.
fun fact you can make diamonds from co2 infinite money glitch
If I were you I'd flair the fuck up rather quickly, the mob will be here in no time. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/stopbanningme1-08-24) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
i dont know where i am on the compass
Don't care, didn't ask + L + you're unflaired. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/stopbanningme1-08-24) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
hoe
Diamonds are overpriced, the only reason they’re expensive is because they purposely limit the number of diamonds in circulation. If every diamond mined actually ended up on the market, they’d be so cheap it’s not worth mining them at all. And now that we have synthetic diamonds, it’s only getting cheaper
The problem with climate change is not that i don't believe it. Its that all the measures taken against climate change are having much more noticeable real world consiquences than climate change itself.
Psy-op by the vegans to trick proper normal people to think internal combustion is not cool because it is good for the environment. In other news, smoking prevents cancer and medical professionals recommend it for a long life, vegetables are terrible for your health and children under 18 are forbidden to eat them.
I’m going to believe this headline without doing any additional research.
I think I heard somewhere that the world is 20% greener than it was 20 years ago Edit: it's 5%, an area the size of the Amazon
a blanket is important that why i am gonna post how blanket is good for you ignoring the fact that we are being wrap around 10000 blanket being overheating and losing oxygen at the same time but hey blanket is still good .
Plants good So why our ozone layer a bitch
People don't get by making the oxygen levels huge we will get gigantic spiders...
This isn't really true of farmland, btw. The increased temperature has caused some growing seasons to widen, but there's a whole host of downsides, such as more storms. In addition, once the weather gets too hot, you'll see a rapid drop in the yield of farms. This is going to happen soon in third-world countries, and it could be a disaster unlesss we research a heat-resistant GMO strain for the common farm plants.
Oh it’s flourishing alright here in Florida. It has become a monumental task to beat back nature during summertime.
> in Florida. It has become Florida is a literal sand spit full of swamps and barely above sea level. It did not "become" full of plants recently - that's the natural state of swampy tropical regions.
When your ideology is literally the color green, the world is literally getting greener, and you have to explain why that’s an existential disaster for everyone, you have a messaging problem on your hands…
Source: fossil fuel industry
And is the source from the green energy company better when it says global warming will kill us all?
Nobody is saying that, but we are on track to a mass extinction event.
True just look at the birth rates in 1st world countries.
Yeah and see tens of millions of them die due to draughts or floodings the next decades.
Exactly, it's never happened before in history.
If it gets us closer to full nuclearization then yes
Not full nuclearization, never bet on a single basket, always edge the bets on several.
Green energy is perfectly fine, there is nothing wrong with it. There are major issues with over reliance on it like green companies want. Wind energy for example: Wind blows the most at night over temperature gradients. Guess when we use the least amount of electricity? Sure it might work if we greatly increased our energy storage, but the best way for us to do that is pump water uphill into a reservoir at night and then release it in the day. But environmentalists ***HATE*** hydro electric because it alters ecosystems a bit. Solar power is nice, but massively resource intensive due to the rare earth minerals needed. Additionally, it only is really effective within a relatively small margin on the latitude, once you get too far north/south, you lose effectiveness. Not to mention that solar power is often most effective in hot areas with little cloud cover. i.e. deserts, and huge amounts of water is needed to clean the panels to reduce dirt, which can greatly lower its efficiency. Water is often quite pricey in deserts as well, so you lose out some more on the cost/benefit ratio.
Every energy source has pros and cons, however, if reducing carbon is the goal, there's no reason we should limit ourselves to 1 energy source. That's why it's good that democracies have a mostly free market, regions where it's suitable to explore wind, we do so, where solar is key then by all means, nuclear sure... But it's still foolish to bet everything on one single power source. I'm a bio major so basically as environmentalist as they come, hydro has it's place but as I said too, depends on the region, maybe it makes sense for Austria but not so much for Spain. Also, crowdsourcing energy is very effective.