Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Gotcha, so even though that might be true, and now that you have had the opportnuity to read it, you just focus on the orgional post which was not complete.
You ranted about cows and almonds.
1) I don't eat a lot of beef or almonds for that matter
2) We should be using bison instead of cows, they're a somewhat more eco friendly and sustainable large animal meat source, it's not a whole lot single bison-to-cow, but when we're talking upwards of 100million cows, even half would show a positive impact
3) We should promote vegetarianism and veganism more (of which the Right is known to look down on more so than others), make people feel good about cutting down on meats and animal products, educate them on the positives
4) I eat meat, but I do consciously abstain from and choose veggie options many a time. eg I'll want a burger, but I'll get the still delicious portobello mushroom option
So what now?
I didnt ask what you personally consumed.
Climate change is driven by industy and corporations. If we want to blame we need to blame McDonalds for they were the cataylst that brought about this beef revoltuion, a cheap mass produced hamburger that everyone wanted. But then if we blame them, we have to blame the people that eat them. Because wouldnt McDonalds only be a symptom of the problem, which is actually people.
I eat beef once a week on average, and chicken maybe twice a week.
But the industry as a whole are the problem
Just off the top of my head.
These are large conmpanies just in the US, and they have their counterparts around the world in other counties who do the same.
Food Establishments
McDonalds
Burger King
Sonic
Wendys
Etc
Food Distribtos
Tyson
Sysco Corporation
PepsiCo
Coke
Etc.
Chemical Compnaies
Dow
Monsanto
Johnson and Johnson
Sinopec
BASF
Originally posted by Robtard
I answered your question here about the ".01%". So yeah, that's another dodge because you know what I'm saying is true.
Yes or no are you saying you have never dodged a question on this forum? This should not be difficult, you either have or you haven't.
And oh a little tip: dodging a question and then answering it after being asked repeatedly doesn't somehow erase the initial dodge from existence 🙂
Ima be honest, I don't know how accurate this all is, I'm somewhat skeptical, but I've been too lazy to look into your study.
The bottom line is, I'm not really sure this is a problem that national policy could solve. You could wipe America off the face of the map and it still wouldn't put a dent in climate change. So I'm really not in favor of all the people who say we need to seriously restructure our economy.
At the end of the day I think solution to man made climate change is going to have to be an engineering solution that can actually be exported to the rest of the world, not a national policy solution that's just gonna make our economy worse while barely reducing the world's carbon emissions.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Ima be honest, I don't know how accurate this all is, I'm somewhat skeptical, but I've been too lazy to look into your study.The bottom line is, I'm not really sure this is a problem that national policy could solve. You could wipe America off the face of the map and it still wouldn't put a dent in climate change. So I'm really not in favor of all the people who say we need to seriously restructure our economy.
At the end of the day I think solution to man made climate change is going to have to be an engineering solution that can actually be exported to the rest of the world, not a national policy solution that's just gonna make our economy worse while barely reducing the world's carbon emissions.
Funny enough, India and China are far worse when it comes to negatively impacting the environment, and they have no incentives to change any time soon.
Originally posted by SquallX
Funny enough, India and China are far worse when it comes to negatively impacting the environment, and they have no incentives to change any time soon.
Originally posted by TempAccount
^ I agree with you DMB. This is an engineering solution, not an economy restructuring one.I am open for fiscal policy that taxes carbon emissions, however, on industries.
Yes but liberal ideology says that America inherently is the root of all the problems in the world. So since they believe that, they must blame America for climate change. Even though India and China eco friendliness would be equivalent to a that of gas’s guzzler and America would the equivalent of a high efficient hybrid car.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah exactly, unless we get an engineering solution that can be exported to them and works reasonably well it's not gonna happen.
Engineering a solution is useless when both India and China has no reason to change.
Look at the Paris accords, the US would have been forced to to pay and do everything in the accord, where as China and India wouldn't have to do shits till 2025 or some shit.
Re: Climate Change: .01% is 'Man-made' According to Results Duplicated Study
Originally posted by dadudemonDid anybody notice how this paper only has a whopping 6 references, and that 4 of those references were to works by the very authors of this paper, one of which was yet to be published?
Original Research, here:They feel that they have figured out why the IPCC's figures overestimate anthropogenic global warming, as well: cloud coverage.
Also, apparently the 5 pages within this short paper that claims to...disprove?... decades of climate study, hasn't been peer reviewed.
Originally posted by SquallX
Engineering a solution is useless when both India and China has no reason to change.Look at the Paris accords, the US would have been forced to to pay and do everything in the accord, where as China and India wouldn't have to do shits till 2025 or some shit.
India makes sense, being a developing economy. But China?
AOC’s top aide admits Green New Deal about the economy, not climate
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti then asked. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Intriguing!
Originally posted by Putinbot1
It indicates the emission may be less than first thought, this has nothing to do with modern warming estimates. It just indicates perhaps less greenhouse gases are needed to produce the modern trends being experienced. It would also be foolish to throw away past meta data based on hundreds of studies due to two. I don't even know who funded these. Much more research is needed. What we do know is temperatures and water levels are going up, Ice caps are melting and these correlate to increased Greenhouse gases.
No, you've misunderstood the research and findings.
They didn't say the global warming wasn't happening. They re-calibrated anthropogenic contribution because previous models forgot a huge variable that wasn't included, before, and it makes man's contribution to the undeniable global warming 10 times less.
From .1% to .01%.
The climate change numbers aren't different. We just shifted around the ratios within the already existing climate change figures with the new research.
And what this thread is about is not different than what Robtard and Adam are posting about: global warming IS happening. Water levels ARE rising. This thread isn't about that. People denying climate change are idiots. It's happening. There's mountains upon mountains of evidence from many different angles that supports this. What is in question is how much man is responsible for it. Current adjusted models with results duplication show that it is .01%, now, whereas the previous IPCC figure was .1%.
Originally posted by Robtard
I accept that the previous models may very well be wrong and are likely wrong considering how many factors are at play. But .01% seems very low considering how much pollution humanity creates, but I also don't know that even if that is correct and .01% is fact, is that seemingly small amount still enough to tip the scales to the point we f**k ourselves up the ass sans lube.People need to keep researching and we absolutely need to reign in the vast polluters and we need to keep pushing for sensible** cleaner outlets and regulation.
**Trump scaling back the MPG standards for automobiles was a stupid move on several fronts. Dirty cars are not good, giving less incentives for alternative/cleaner drive sources is not good.
Do you accept it?
Don't confuse the .01% anthropogenic contribution to climate change with pollution. Those are two separate issues. I'd say that man's contribution to pollution is damn near close to 100%. I mean...other than swamp gas, thawing tundra gas, and volcanic eruptions, what else pollutes the environment besides dirty stinking humans?