Now they are being sued by California

General Discussion
667

No it’s just the truth.

Yes many are people just refuse to listen. Consensus isn’t science. Anthropogenic climate change isn’t science it’s a doomsday cult.

Ab-so-lutely. You know the United States is the only nation to do anything to comply with the Paris accords? We did it not only when we were no longer signatories we did it mainly by expanding the use of one fossil fuel and reducing others. No other nation has lifted a finger. Germany has bungled it so badly they’ve actually increased their use of coal to offset the loss of capacity caused by their switch to “renewables” from nuclear power. Don’t get me started on China who builds hundreds of new coal plants each year.

We need to do more but what we’re doing now is putting wind farms in the migratory paths of birds and it’s incredibly stupid.

2 Likes
668

Each summer goes hotter and each winter temperature goes lower. Each summer and each winter your electricity bill will ramp up as the inflation of price add to it. Don’t tell me it’s all bogus.

Many people refuse anything actually.

Maybe not in 10 years, but in 100 years, heat will go up and drop down at unexpected circumstances, as it started to happen here and there and this will hurt the crop eventually. Only then “many people” would believe this “doom cult”. They can refuse that at their own leisure now and the following decade, but statistics and information signals that it can draw whole another scenery.

Governments had to invest in green energy but its initial infrastructure is expenny yet it has little to no upkeep costs, and offers little to no pollution. They always had to mind the cost and effectiveness while placing the green energy plants or areas, fossil fuel had no such problem and widely accepted anyway.
For example along the years, cheaper solutions for wind farms and solar energy are developed but it requires the right geography for proper up time. Millions of birds killed by cats each year too, also when you paint the windmill birds notice them.

Please stop steering the thread subject all over the place. We started with Blizzard and now we’re talking about tin foil hats. This is not the place to inject your personal beliefs.

1 Like
669

Each of the last three summers has been cooler than the previous. Look at the average temperatures not the cherry picked highs and lows. Look at the raw data don’t just take the medias word for it. Carbon Dioxide cannot cause both increased and decreased average temperatures. Atmospheric physics make it impossible.

2 Likes
670

A simple web search tells me the exact reverse of what you imply. New York Times speak June 2020 as the warmest month of the year so far; Yale University Climate Connections names 2020 as the second warmest year so far almost a tie with the 2016, which is only 4-5 years away. I know you’ll jump to conclusions by pulling politics bias here and there but just don’t.

For anyone who calls it a nonsense as it’s not immediate risk, there are people who come up with solid data to warn people about the path we took. Just because it’s not immediate threat doesn’t mean we have all the time to turn back.
Those highs and low temps you speak of are not a good sign either if I get that part right. When temperatures don’t show any sobriety that means there’s more likely storm abrewing or hurricane growing in strength compared to last year at the following months. Your electricity and gas bill will be more expenny each year between those highs and lows too; it won’t be correlated with the inflation only as well.

Please do your own research and show me some solid data or receed and stop derailing this thread. Again, we are talking about a company’s workplace ethics and you’re trying to pull it the other way.

671

I hope i never receed my hair is already grey.

672

Still posting lies and mistruths?

3 Likes
673

He would be ine if thise in the future when the Climate tipped and disaster hits to blame the other side for not doing anything. Climate change is real, and we should have been doing something about in a global scale 35 years ago at a minimum.

674

How did THIS topic end up in talks about global warming lol

b.t.w. here’s an interesting video about it:

That, AND David Attenborough’s Netflix documentary…

Yes, global warming (and climate change) is true, but for the sake of counter-argument humans are not the only factor on these things

The SAD PART about the “politics” though is that things like that would’ve DESTROYED Trump (completely) in 2016 but the “establishment” didn’t want to give up a single thing and at all costs kept with their BS narrative/s

675

/highfives Miss Cheetah!

Good morning from South Carolina dear!

This is a great discussion, thanks for your input!

676

That is usually the case in anything.

That said, the ‘support change for the sake of change’ seems like a strawman. Who actually want that?
They want change because they believe those changes would make things better. They might be wrong of course (or both right and wrong, as change usually makes things better for some and worse for others).

Nor do I think you can remotely define ‘extreme right’ as not wanting change. They very much do want change (and some of them want to fight for that change). Even if some of it might be a change back to how they believe things were in some past, that is still very much a change.

The truth that there was more hot years in some unspecified decade (a very non-scientific measure regardless) in the past? Maybe yes. Quite unimportant if it is a fact. Since it would be a fact about something that has no relevancy for anything.

No. It is just a strawman you are making. Those scientists are not saying that Earth will die. You pretend they are, so you can shoot your own strawman down.
You cant kill Earth. It is a big rock. You can however kill human civilization (also not the same as killing humankind). And a bunch of animals if you care about that.

But once again this thread is an astounding reminder that apparently Reality is left-leaning.

At the end of the day, the danger of climate change is not well, the climate change… Most of us wont be affected by a few pacific islands disappearing, or Florida going away. It just won’t matter much, unless you live there. The danger of climate change is security. War, massive immigration etc.
Funny thing is, the right-wingers who deny climate change, should be the most worried about it, since it will bring more of what they dont like; refugees.

Why do we need to do more if you believe climate change is fake (in the sense that you believe it isn’t man-made and we cant do anything against it)?

This is just flat out not true. By changing weather systems, ocean currents etc. some places might get hotter while others see lower temperatures. And yeah, that can also vary throughout the year. So highs and lows here can be just as important as averages.

Yeah, that will be the response from those people. They will probably blame the governments they defunded :rofl:

That is very true. Earths climate is such an extremely complex system, that you will never be able to say 1 single factor did 100% of the change.
However, it would not even matter if climate change was not affected by humans (which it very much is). Again, we dont cause earth quakes. Not an argument for doing nothing to prevent their consequences.
If there for some reason was an external non-human factor increasing carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, it would still be in our own interest to do everything we could to stop it.

People focus so much on “who did it”, because they want to make it a blame game. “If we didn’t do it, it is not our job to stop it”-mindset. Which is nonsense.
(same with the CRT thing btw, and inequality in the workplace)

1 Like
677

Haha! Gratz on 10k posts. :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

1 Like
678

Damn, didn’t notice. Wanted to save it for something actually D4 related. And not speaking with climate change deniers. Oh well.
Maybe if our posts get deleted I might get another chance :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like
679

I know tell me about it… we can only each do our bit to save the planet. Everyone knows it’s happening.

680

No that’s mostly the media, the government, and all the people who call anyone who disagrees with them science deniers. Actual scientists will tell you what they think is happening and admit no one is really sure.

Because of all the other things that come from using dirty and dangerous sources of energy besides carbon dioxide. Coal kills more people in a year that nuclear energy has in all of it’s history. Oil too and nuclear energy as we practice it is far, far, from safe.

It’s true on a planetwide scale. Carbon dioxide cannot both increase and reduce the heat content of the atmosphere.

We’ll all be long dead. The only people who want to defund the government are anarchists and utopians. I just want to trim it like the overgrown tree it is.

682

What?!
Okay, web search “carbon dioxide effect on climate” and it exactly states:

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs and radiates heat .

So yes, it can cause high and lows between temperature; it both absorbs heat and radiates heat that’s the trait of the gas. That means it can cause a shift in temperature at any place on earth by wind streams.
Stop derailing the thread and do your own research.

Nobody wants to do that. Government knows when they should invest in green energy and when they shouldn’t. They need to do research on geographic location to decide upon this first as solar efficiency or windy environment don’t grow on trees, nor you can dig it up.

Also even green energy infrastructure is expenny for the initial cost, the logistic cost of fossil fuel can be a matter as well. Some countries just import fuel from other countries to not pay more to the logistics than the carried fuel’s cost. Investing in green energy might save them from the import costs too.
I respect you and I know you don’t mean ill, but you have no idea what are you talking about. Stop derailing the subject; don’t bring your personal beliefs here.

683

I believe it was Einstein that said keep things simple but not simpler ? :smiley: , so the goal is not to be 100% right on everyting but have a nice “generally useful tool for recognition” of things

There always are and will always be… It’s usually people that would profit from it (or even in some cases already “cheated” upfront and just seek to justify it publicly)

In another post I also mentioned about how we’re living in an era of “high risk low reward type changes being the most profitable ones” and that’s because there’s a generally recognised trending uprise of “failing upwards” on things, i.e. someone gets scapegoated and things go on as nothing happened

And that’s what power ends up doing basically, not only earn “another shot to miss” but also scapegoat someone and (arguably) make others pay for you doing it

That’s why I also said when you support a change for the sake of it you also lose on “objective criteria to hold accountable” those that do it

Although not untrue, this is a very risky thought, not by chance there’s a proverb “path to hell is all covered in marbles” kind of thing, i.e. it’s super easy to get blinded by the goal/s of something and not recognise the “shifts” and “distractions” of going towards it

That being said usually “experimenting with baseline ruleset” that has been out there for thousand/s of years (millions even arguably) isn’t a wise move unless one knows EXACTLY WHY (and for what) they’re doing it… And sadly usually ends up not being the case, and usually when that happens (i.e. a change makes more damage than good) things like “new way of thinking” programmes, books and all that get published

I mean the following sentence isn’t not 100% true in all honesty: “those that want a change for the sake of it hate their own life” (now whether a greater “swing” is required or not that’s debatable but usually the reason why people want to change things the way they don’t understand is by not being satisfied with current position/ing)

Don’t get me wrong, experimentation can pay off (even sometimes if “introduced” by force, i.e. semi/tyranically) but what I want you to understand is that “changing the rules of a game” is not an invesetment (as some want to present it) but rather a GAMBLE that usually and most of the time pays off to very few instead of the many

Yes, that’s what the very definition of what a “conservative” is :smiley: , now the difference and confusion may come from this “inversion of societal activity” from US past few decades (i.e. civil society maintained/aided by act of corporations and companies rather than governmentally-provided public services)

Which also makes a unique/special/different case, for example in most parts of the world there’s not as much of a big risk to vote “right-wing” if a one doesn’t know “what next best thing” just for the very “safety” that whatever comes from outside will get slown-down or even postponed/relegated, BUT in the US the stakes and risks are higher and more lasting because those guys also control the “criteria of public thought of what’s objective” narrative (as opposed to just keep to only business and keep most of other things as used to be)

That’s the “curse” of both reinvention as well as being #1 tbh, hardly will there be anyone to help if/when things start backfiring or failing (not only cause lower power can’t swing the higher one to “return it on track” but also cause noone’s basically gone to similar problem/position even remotely)

Technically yes and no…Often the price is the difference but not the outcome (unless someone got to like the new things “so much so fast” in meantime, which usually “reeks”, I mean “getting comfortable in a new chair so fast” without changing ruleset or cheating usually isn’t a normal thing)

The price difference is ALWAYS there however, I mean:

Start a car, go in one direction for 50 miles, now turn the car back and at the end of day you basically end up in the same spot you started with but with a tank emptier for 100 miles to work with

That being said, “change of heart” from a performance standpoint is always a bad thing, but not necessarily a bad experience I think (during that “inefficient” ride you may have seen a nice place in the future you’d like to visit)

And yeah I know this is kinda “wall of text” by my side, but always remember one thing: the goal is not to be 100% right (which will never happen), but rather “build up” a healthy if/then/else system that makes you understand things (more or less) conceptually i.e. just as mentioned above: “provide oneself with a generally useful tool for recognition” of things

684

It absorbs sunlight and radiates heat into the atmosphere directly, at the same rate as water vapor which is far more prevalent. All matter absorbs and radiates heat when appropriate. It’s one of the basic properties of matter. Carbon dioxide being a gas at normal temperatures and pressure doesn’t store heat worth a fig.

Solyndra. A parade of failures with a veritable marching band of corruption says otherwise.

4 Likes
685

Water vapors turn to rain, anything excess doesn’t belong in that equation. Try to measure carbondioxide in a rain droplet and let me know. Carbon dioxide and other gasses pile up to stay at the atmosphere while hurting the ozone layer; water cycles around the earth to turn to rain. Stop.

One corruption scenery doesn’t discredit others. Again, that’s your personal belief and you’re parroting something you heard. Green energy is cost effective strategy for whole world when used with balance. You can’t deem people as bad for wanting more of it. Any energy invest also creates more work force demand.

I can’t believe how am discussing this…

686

It cant. But it can set in motion changes that reduce the heat in some places, at some times. So even if you have a generally increasing temperature average, you might see lower temperatues. Hence why people talk about more extreme weather, rather than just more hot weather. There is more to climate than the atmosphere.

But we were talking about the scientists?
You can find fake news everywhere from fringe media, if you want to. That is not much of an argument.

If you are profiting from a change, then it surely cant be called a change for the sake of change? Since you are getting something tangible out of that change.

What specifically is a gamble?
A change is not a gamble. It can be of course. But take your car example. Turning your car back, driving the exact same route you came from, is a change, but not much of a gamble.

Conservative and ‘extreme right’ is not remotely the same thing.

Not that I would fully agree that conservatism is about not wanting change - even if that is a big part of it. Not wanting change also usually comes with a desire to change things backward, toward what they thought was the right state of things, before the changes happened that they did not want.

Turning the car back would be the change in this example.

687

So anything new on the case? ATVI stock seems like it’s stabilized after $6 drop. When is the investors meeting for the financial quarter?