Topic: Green New Deal - page 3. (Read 794 times)

There is no such thing as undesirable bacteria in nature.  Its part of the environment.  Nutrients cannot cycle back into the soil without bacteria.   Nitrogen cannot enter the food chain.  Without bacteria, everything dead would just stay dead carcasses.

Hospitals are not natural.  They cut the body open removing the first line of defense against infection. That is why they must be sterile. Sterilizing the natural world would not be beneficial to them either as it would simply select for bacteria that can survive the new conditions. 

Now what is that all about? Standard sterilization in hospitals includes using H2O2 at times.

H2O2 is created naturally high in the atmosphere when water is hit by cosmic rays, but possibly through other processes. Search on it.

More H2O2 in the atmosphere would kill off undesirable bacteria more in nature, naturally, as it settles to the ground - just like it is used to kill off undesirable bacteria in the hospitals by doctors and nurses.

This is reasonably common knowledge. I rather think that you are upset because you have an agenda, and I am proving that your agenda is based on maliciousness against whites in the USA. But maybe you are just an Antifa Democrat, and are malicious against anybody.

BADecker, I recommend you go drink a bottle of h2o2 to "prove" how healthy hydrogen peroxide is. Do it on video, and I'll probably give you a couple satoshi you silly troll you.

I don't even know how you can maintain a straight face with your scientifically inaccurate ranting.

Edit: Test edit.

You ain't gonna stop 2 billion people who decide they are going to move to Canada, Siberia and the Sahara. What are you going to do? Nuke out your own country just to stop them?

I would have thought the commie in you would want them to join your commie organization, and you would be sending out invitations.

Ok but what about the rising sea level displacing 2 billion people?

What about the food soruces for 250 million people who rely on coral reef ecosystems for all of their food? 

What is your solution? Move 2.25 billion people into North America and Europe?   Good luck convincing a world that doesn't even want to absorb 10 million syrian refugees. 

Regarding CO2 and plant growth, greenhouse growers sometimes add CO2 to the atmosphere of their greenhouses to get the plants to grow better.

If CO2 indeed caused warming, it is something we can take, and would even want. Even with a partial melting of the polar ice caps, some of the northern lands would be opened up for habitation. Mountains would still cause rain to some extent. The Sahara would become the lush green garden that it once was. We would have lots more room to grow crops and support life.

The amount of CO2 that would start to cause a drop in livability of the planet is quite distant. There would have to be way more CO2 than we could think about producing in the near future... like 500 or a thousand years. Of course, nobody knows for sure what nature will come up with. A big increase in volcanic activity could change atmospheric content in all kinds of ways.

One of the best benefits of CO2 heat would be to cause more moisture in the atmosphere. Currently, water in the atmosphere is acted upon by cosmic rays. This forms hydrogen peroxide. The more the moisture in the atmosphere, the more H2O2. Why is this good? Because the H2O2 kills off all kinds of bacteria and viruses. Many sick lakes and other bodies of water would be cleaned up. People would become sick less. And it would be a gradual thing, so that the medical would gradually go out of business... not overnight, which would be economically disaterous.

I admit that many in big business don't consider the idea of reducing the population. But there are those among them that do. And certainly some others do. Consider the Georgia Guidestones.

You didn't read my post did you?

If the extra co2 comes with more heat, which it will, crop yields actually go down due to heat stress. If it comes with extra evaporation that is not matched by extra rain, the water supply might not be stable enough to allow for agriculture in some areas.

Plants and ecosystems can't adapt to the rapid change in climate. Plants would happily adapt to the same change if it happened over 10 million years rather than 100-200.


In other cases, the extra heat in the climate system could create crop destroying snowfall or floods followed by a drier dry season.


Where currents may stop bringing warmth to, the colder winters may limit the growing season.


Also you should consider that co2 might not be the limiting factor for crop yields, and it definitely is not the limiting factor for crop quality. A plant that grows faster may in fact have worse taste (watery tasteless tomatoes) and lower nutritional value.

In Greece they grow some really tasty vegetables, they do this by sometimes limiting the amount of water they get when they grow them. Delicious.


Anyway, the proposed conspiracy isn't really rational, when the people have no food they revolt. Everyone loses, the richest have more to lose.
Even if they were to hide at a remote island they still need tons of support for the luxury goods and services they enjoy. Also the mechanics of the conspiracy are all wrong. There is so much momentum in the current system I don't see us even begin to significantly reduce co2 (from current levels) until 2030 rolls around. We're more likely to be increasing it or stagnating on a level similar to today's.

So far most of the talks about climate have been all bark no bite. We're still at record levels of emissions, decades after the problem was indisputably proven and yet even scientists are talking about tapping methane hydrates in the warming arctic region.

It's going to get interesting and we'll live through the start. We're killing and re-shaping most of life as we know it. It's really arrogant to think that it won't affect us.

It's kind of the equivalent of pissing and shitting in your car during a long road-trip. The climate change deniers are the ones who say that's fine. And that the shit might actually improve the road-trip because they'll make the car warmer and thus more comfortable.

CO2 in the atmosphere is good. It promotes plant growth so that we can grow more crops better and easier to feed the starving nations. In fact, the Elite of the world want to reduce populations, and that is the real reason they want to reduce CO2.

Look here to see what reduction of CO2 has cause in the past - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0_Of0WGkEs.

It doesn't really matter if you think it has been proven. We can set up a hypothesis and test it. We have a world of data at our fingertips thanks to all those who collect and make public all that data.
 
Here is the mass of the atmosphere: 5.1480×10^18 kg
Let's calculate the mass of C02 in the atmosphere

Total Estimated Atmospheric C02 Mass of the atmosphere * 0.0004147 = 2.1348756×10^15

Now let's see what it would take to change that by 1ppm: 2.1348756×10^15 /417 = 5.11960576×10^12

Let's assume every person on the planet expended the equivalent of 1 gallon of gas a day for 365 days. 7500000000 * 9.07185kg *365

2.48341894×10^13

So that alone, burning a few pounds of charcoal or a gallon of gas every day, that would raise the co2 level by 5ppm

So humans can affect the co2 level, and the co2 level can affect the climate. Human behavior can therefore affect the climate.

Even if my calculations are way wrong, and they are hasty estimates they prove my point.

(The above is to back up my statement that "Humans can absolutely change the climate")




As for your second point, I sympathize, why should we do our best about climate change when China is going to pollute a bunch anyway?

Well, I sympathize with a similar argument. Just a handful of corporations are responsible for most of the emissions. Even if I stopped driving my car my contribution is minimal and I can't really make a difference. The same goes about eating hamburgers and other meat. And I believe that meat grown reasonably is carbon neutral anyway. Cycle of life and what not.


But here we're talking about an entire nation's infrastructure. What's different here is that a Green New Deal will send a strong signal around the world that we're willing to do what's right. China and India could follow our example and we could all, globally benefit from economies of scale.


I truly believe that alternative forms of energy can bring us more individual freedom as well. Renewable energy can be far more decentralized and can be deployed at any scale and a lot more discreetly as well.



As for your later points, they are statements with no proof. A claim without evidence, such as yours that a green new deal would destroy the US economy or that it would take control of it can be dismissed without evidence. But I'll argue the point anyway.

A claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Bring it on. How would a Green New Deal be bad for the economy? We need the jobs and innovation almost always results in economical profit.

If properly placed wind and solar can produce more power with less input after an initial investment, which I believe it can, it's a no brainer. If we just took the true cost of carbon into account (included the subsidies and legal authority granted to fossil fuel companies, as well as the economic and humanitarian harm done) then clearly renewable
sources of energy are better.




As a tangent, your brought up methane. It's not actually cow farts that are the problem it's a byproduct of food digestion, more like burps. Also, the amount of cows and their lifestyle on the planet is only what it is because of human behavior.

Also what if climate change was happening but it wasn't caused by humans. Wouldn't we as an intelligent species have to find a way to stop it to prevent our own suffering or the potential extinction of thousands of species including our own? 

I don't think this has been proven. There have been multiple periods of 'ice age' on Earth, along with multiple periods of hotter climate. The question is not if co2 affects the climate, the question is if changes in human behavior can slow or reverse the path of what will likely be a warmer climate in years to come. There are naturally occurring reasons why co2 will be sent to the atmosphere that has nothing to do with human activity, and there is naturally occurring reasons why co2 goes from the atmosphere to land masses and the ocean (and bodies of water). There are also other things such as methane (from cow farts, and manure) that also contribute to the changing of the world's climate.   

The biggest human contributor to co2 emissions is China, which the GND does nothing to address, which leads me to my next point:
It entails seizing control of the economy, destroying the economy, and setting up the US for socialism.

Wrong on all counts.

First off to understand climate change you need to open your mind to a few facts.

The rate of change of the climate is very important. If the rate of change is higher than what ecosystems can adapt to we get a lot of ecosystem destruction.
Practically all of us are dependent on earth's ecosystems.

The Earth's sensitivity to CO2 is variable. Depending on where the land masses are located on the earth's surface, the tilt of the earth and the brightness of the sun (the sun is slightly more powerful today than it was in the past)


Humans can absolutely change the climate. Even at home with very limited resources you can set up an experiment to prove that co2 traps heat. Just fill up an aquarium with co2 and have another one filled with air. The co2 aquarium (after being exposed to the sun for a while) will be hotter.


The level of CO2 acts almost like a thermostat, when it is increased, the earth's temperature equilibrium changes, we get a lot more heat trapped in the atmosphere. Since the level of CO2 is so tiny (about 400ppm) it's not difficult for humans to change it.

When you burn a gallon of gas (6.3 pounds you produce 20 pounds of CO2) The reason that a gallon of gas produces so much CO2 is that most of the mass of the c02 molecule comes from the oxygen in the air.

You get similar figures for other fossil fuels.


It's easy for us to burn fossil fuels made up of centuries of plants and other organisms that were eating up co2 in the past in a single year. All it takes for us is lighting it up.


Long story short, NASA has nothing to admit. They're right on climate change, but like any big organization they do make mistakes. There's always going to be someone working for NASA that is wrong and times that NASA does stupid things. But when it comes to climate change they're definitely on the side that is backed by science and facts and nuance.


Climate change is a subject that requires nuance. It requires you to be open to learning about the physical world and the laws of physics that govern it. There always seems to be people that build their arguments on rhetoric and bullshit.


It snowed a lot last year and I'm holding a snow-ball therefore there is no climate change, or how could we affect the earth when it is so big, or it's really cold right now so climate change can't be happening. CO2 is good for plants so more CO2 means increased food output. co2/temperature or both in the past was/were higher so climate change is not a big deal.

These are but a few of an endless pool of stupid non arguments against climate change. I'll debunk these quickly.

While weather is unpredictable a hotter climate can produce more rainfall, and where the temperature is low enough more snowfall, especially in the winter. The changing climate can also change where the snowfall/rain tends to fall and the amount. Increased rainfall in certain areas may not match increased precipitation causing droughts in some areas or it may surpass it causing floods.

We can easily affect the earth, especially its climate. The ppm of co2 in the atmosphere is increasing, the earth's ecosystems, oceans and rocks can't absorb all the co2 we put out and that's why it gets slightly higher every year.

Cold winters don't disprove climate change. Climate change is about where the global thermostat is moving towards. It's more likely there will be more hot temperature records broken than cold, and that there will be more hotter days but that doesn't mean that winters are going to go away, there will still be cold days. Climate change affects different parts of the world unevenly, I believe that the polar regions get the greatest differences.

Plants would benefit from more co2 but not necessarily the heat stress that the added co2 would bring, most crops will probably produce less food due to the heat stress, however there may be more growing days in some regions of the world and maybe more land where it used to be too cold to farm. The extra co2 in the air won't help a plant grow if the extra evaporation turns the area it used to grow into a desert.

The earth is more sensitive to co2 now then it was in the past. The rate of change in the earth's climates is the cause of the sixth mass extinction. If the temperature became 6 degrees higher but it took a billion years life would adapt to it. If that happens over 200 years most complex life is likely to die off.

My guess is that I'll only get trolled for posting this. The response is likely to be something conspiratorial, like environmentalists are trying to get rich off government grants or carbon taxes, or I'm going to get bombarded with a link to an already debunked piece of pseudo-science.


There is a profit motive behind all of this climate change denial. The fossil fuel industry gets to make a little bit more money. This has happened before with cigarette smoking and cancer. The industry was well aware of what cigarettes cost but instead of letting people chose whether to smoke or not knowing all the facts they chose to make an extra buck and in the meantime there was a debate on whether cigarettes where actually bad for you.

The same sell-outs that produced pseudo-science on behalf of the tobacco industry are now doing it on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.

I don't understand why people go along with it. I wish more people where competent enough to see they're being played. I'm not very smart but I like chemistry and physics and knowing how the world works enough that I can legitimately not even understand the other point of view here.

In fact it'd be more difficult for me to prove that cigarettes cause cancer then that co2 causes global warming yet people accept the first truth and reject the latter.




Now to get back on topic. I'm all for a Green New Deal. I'm not going to comment on it before I get a good grasp of what it entails.

Lots of science deniers on this forum.

Crazy that. 

https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/beatles/hellogoodbye.html

No, these are bunko pseudo science crap. Neither the Earth's orbit or axial tilt is responsible for the last century of alleged warming, to whatever extent it actually exists.

Besides, you can get all these foreigners together with their green cards, put them into a green new deck, to get a green new deal anytime. And that's what the Dems are continually trying to do to get the Presidency.

Since the hockey stick temperature curve has been proven false, I don't see any reason for urgent action on climate issues.

The point is that many among both, Democrats and Republicans, care about truth.

The truth in climate change is that it happens without anything that people do or can do. Science has known for a long time that it is the sun and the Earth orbit that creates climate change in either direction, colder or warmer.

The changing of the term "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" shows that the climate change proponents needed a new term to further cloud their lying explanations, because people were starting to see through what they were doing.


NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in Earth's solar orbit




^^^ Excellent article, btw.

GND is an all-in-one wish list for the democrats. I don't think everyone who participated actually think it was going to pass (well I sure hope not).

It was purely a publicity stunt to try and reinforce their narrative (whether right or wrong) that the republicans don't care about climate change.

The idea is that the GND would make renewable energy the cheapest option and build so much of it that supply is not an issue.  You could definitely provide a small amount free for each home like 15kwh per day and install free to use charging stations then everything after that is super expensive.  

There's no way you actually think that electricity is going to get CHEAPER under the green new deal. There's no way in the least.

If we stop using a good amount of the cheap fossil fuels, and switch to other means which would include solar, wind, hydro,etc. We're talking about a VERY large amount of money spent to setup this system and a large amount of land and so on and so forth. The industry probably isn't even close to ready for this sort of demand.

This would cause electricity prices to increase drastically as people are going to have to help undertake this project in some way.