What Do You Think About Climate Change?

[Travis]

I'm against this idea, because those technologies don't work to provide enough consistent power for modern civilization.

The arrogance; it burns.

What do you know about cold fusion? Anything?

Over-unity devices and perpetual motion machines?

Perhaps we needs some combustion, but there are technologies that would double or triple gas mileage without any loss of power or joy.

Are you saying that solar power is more complicated than nuclear fission? No it's not. The only thing holding back green technologies is the Big Energy Industries themselves.

It's the environmentalists that are the analogy to religion. Their original sin is humans consuming resources and producing pollution, and they believe in never ending penance to attempt to achieve forgiveness for this original sin.

Same old Kyle, trying to pathologize our love for the planet.

Wow.

Are you a Nazi Kyle?

Consumption by other organisms, or resource loss through random acts of God, are not evil however. Yet another similar religious concept.

This is not a religious concept. The logic is that other organisms haven't even mastered the use of fire.

Have you noticed this?

They are not capable of chemical synthesis and they are not even capable of refining uranium.

Don't you get it Kyle? Other animals cannot produce a Fukushima, a Bhopal, or a Minamata Bay disaster.

Should I mention all of the oil spills?

Buy hey, all of the maimed people from the aforementioned disasters don't really matter. Who cares about them? Union Carbide and Exxon Mobil still make millions per year. Anyone that has a problem with the Energy Status Quo is some kind of religious fanatic.

Right Kyle?

 

[Ahanu]

Their original sin is humans consuming resources and producing pollution, and they believe in never ending penance to attempt to achieve forgiveness for this original sin

that is your interpretation. Some think it has to do with some respect for our future generations

 

[Travis]

[Message deleted by editor. Member used the word Douchebag to describe Kyle. The editor fully agrees with this label, but the forum's rules disallow this word. This is unfortunate. I am looking to change the rules so we allow this rather fitting attribution in this case.]

 

[mujuro]

Any papers on the relationship between CO2 and crop yield or plant growth? That's something I'd like to read, because there's no way China and India and Russia are going to stop burning fossil fuels.

 

[x-ray peat]

Any papers on the relationship between CO2 and crop yield or plant growth? That's something I'd like to read, because there's no way China and India and Russia are going to stop burning fossil fuels.

Thankfully not and neither should we. We need more CO2 not less as we are close to the minimum historical levels and were heading even lower until the industrial age came along. Plants begin to die at 150 ppm and do much better at much higher levels. The earth is already starting to green from increased CO2.

 

[pepzorpdorp]

Climate Change is a giant crock of psuedo-scientific BS. The studies done to support the notion are remarkably shallow and biased, similar to the saturated fat=clogged arteries=heart attack studies that Ray Peat mentionned. Ray does is not swayed by the data on climate change himself.

Here is the truth to the best of my knowledge:
-The atmosphere is heating up, this is to be expected as the earth is in a "rising" temperature cycle as the last ice age only ended a few thousand years ago
-CO2 levels are being increased by human consumption
-CO2 levels have been decreasing for millions of years, and are in fact dwindling (this is not good)
-CO2 comprises less than 1% of atmospheric gasses
-"greenhouse gas effect" has been refuted by a few different independent academics
-"over 80% of climate scientists agree climate change is real" myth is a liberal lie based off of a survey of 400 pro-climate change scientists. The accurate number is around 30-40%

I believe it is quite likely the earth is being heated up by fossil fuels, but there is little evidence to say this is dangerous. There is far more evidence to say that the atmosphere NEEDS the increased CO2, as CO2 levels are set to be dangerously low in less than a millenia (relatively soon, could be problematic for the progression of human species)

Where do you get 30-40 % from?

 

[Kyle M]

that is your interpretation. Some think it has to do with some respect for our future generations

There is tremendous overlap in the people who describe themselves as environmentalists and the people who have no problem over consuming on credit in the now so that future generations will have to defer their own consumption to pay down national and international debts.

 

[Kyle M]

This is not a religious concept. The logic is that other organisms haven't even mastered the use of fire.

Have you noticed this?

They are not capable of chemical synthesis and they are not even capable of refining uranium.

Don't you get it Kyle? Other animals cannot produce a Fukushima, a Bhopal, or a Minamata Bay disaster.

Most of the chemical synthesis ever done on earth has been done by non-humans, same with most of the fire ever burned and most of the radiation ever released.

 

[Kyle M]

Buy hey, all of the maimed people from the aforementioned disasters don't really matter. Who cares about them? Union Carbide and Exxon Mobil still make millions per year. Anyone that has a problem with the Energy Status Quo is some kind of religious fanatic.

Right Kyle?

Many more people would die in a world without fossil fuel usage than in our world with it, even with the flawed state-regulated nature of these technologies. People regularly froze to death, and that's coming back in style in places like Germany where solar and wind is being pushed hard and raising the price of electricity several times what non-Germans pay. In that case it's older people that usually start to die first as they are forced to turn down their thermostats in the Winter.

 

[sladerunner69]

Where do you get 30-40 % from?

The Pew Research Center

 

[sladerunner69]

Any papers on the relationship between CO2 and crop yield or plant growth? That's something I'd like to read, because there's no way China and India and Russia are going to stop burning fossil fuels.

Maybe not in the next decade or two. These powers will however, begin implementing other forms of energy production as the technology becomes cheaper and more efficient, and as the "environmentalists" of the world scold and scorn them, because that is bad for their brand image.

 

[Travis]

Kyle said:

Most of the chemical synthesis ever done on earth has been done by non-humans, same with most of the fire ever burned and most of the radiation ever released.

OK, if you count biosynthesis, you are right. But animals can't biosynthesize Agent Orange or DDT and spray entire forests with that ***t. Don't you see the difference Kyle? You douche.

But the other two, I am going to need some sources.

And your comment about radiation in meaningless. Natural nuclear decay happens so slowly and is so spaced out that it doesn't cause any perceptible ill effect.

You can't compare this with Fukushima you douche.

 

[mujuro]

My only protest against the fossil fuel industry is the liberation and distribution of heavy metals, aromatic hydrocarbon reactants, petrochemical waste runoff, etc. I feel like cleaner fuel processing would benefit everyone. Mercedes have developed such efficient petroleum engines that they are now retiring all or most diesel technology.

 

[x-ray peat]

My only protest against the fossil fuel industry is the liberation and distribution of heavy metals, aromatic hydrocarbon reactants, petrochemical waste runoff, etc. I feel like cleaner fuel processing would benefit everyone. Mercedes have developed such efficient petroleum engines that they are now retiring all or most diesel technology.

I completely agree. Those are some of the real environmental problems that we should be dealing with instead of wasting our money figuring out ways to put CO2 into the ground. I am worried that Trump is going to do an about face as Ivanka is a big man made warming believer.

 

[Kyle M]

Kyle said:

OK, if you count biosynthesis, you are right. But animals can't biosynthesize Agent Orange or DDT and spray entire forests with that ***t. Don't you see the difference Kyle? You douche.

But the other two, I am going to need some sources.

And your comment about radiation in meaningless. Natural nuclear decay happens so slowly and is so spaced out that it doesn't cause any perceptible ill effect.

You can't compare this with Fukushima you douche.

I don't know of any Fukushima level natural radiation releases, but much more oil has leaked into the oceans and lakes and rivers throughout history naturally than from accidental spills of man.

As far as chemicals, I suppose there are some synthetics unique to human production, but most of the dangerous chemicals in the world have been produced by non-human organisms over the many millions of years of earth's history.

By the way, I don't think you calling me a douche over and over is going to help convince anyone you're right and I'm wrong. And it doesn't bother me, it's actually pretty pathetic. If you really had a problem with me, you would have messaged me to try and figure it out, but you haven't. I suppose if it makes you feel good, that's all it's doing.

 

[Travis]

...but most of the dangerous chemicals in the world have been produced by non-human organisms over the many millions of years of earth's history.

This is why Kyle. This is a total lie.

Can you name 50 dangerous chemicals sythesized by animals?

And to think that anything highly toxic wouldn't poison it's host?

This is complete garbage Kyle. You continue to post these stupidly false comments.

 

[Travis]

As far as chemicals, I suppose there are some synthetics unique to human production

There are thousands Kyle.

 

[Bahaa El wazzan]

Pikachu and pokemon are responsible of it

Pika pika pikachuuuuu

 

[Kyle M]

There are thousands Kyle.

It is not really possible to "prove" that in the billions of years of molecules flying around the universe, some synthetic a chemist made has never existed before. I think it's fair to say that they probably didn't exist in concentrations and around earth animals as they are when a factory is pumping them out.

An enormous amount of the periodic table, in atomic form, is toxic. Arsenic, mercury, chlorine and fluorine are more popular ones to know, but most atoms are pretty messed up, that's why they rarely exist in that form when there's enough chemicals to react with. Atomic sodium is a bomb in atmosphere. Then there's the simple molecules, like anything with mercury, or carbon+nitrogen cyanide. I used to test ground water for NJ American water and plenty of ground wells were spewing arsenic and other heavy metals. There are millions of toxic chemicals, and the toxic phenomenon of ionizing radiation from isotopes and from the different types of rays are out there in space and raining down on us in amounts impossible to reproduce. If our magnetic field was brought down we would all be exposed to lethal doses of radiation immediately from space, pulsars and magnetars etc. The worst thing you can find in your house foundation is not man-made chemicals, like a former dry cleaner site to use a stereotype, but naturally occurring radon. Of course there are thousands of plant chemicals that, if you wanted to, you could extract and use as very potent poisons for humans and other animals. A good many of them don't even need to be chemically extracted, and those comprise the poisonous plants. The puffer fish and other deep sea creatures make neurotoxins that are so powerful they are used in labs to manipulate cell potentials. The frogs with poisons on their skin, the hundreds of venomous snakes and probably tens of thousands of venomous bugs.

Of course the real bulk of toxic production, in terms of raw numbers, is in the bacteria domain. Most species, when quorum sensed at a high titer, will produce their own unique brand of toxin to take down their host. That would be somewhere in the millions of different types. People talk about endotoxin or lipopolysaccharide as if it's a monolithic molecule, but many gram negative species produce variations in their LPS, and they are varying degrees of damaging to animal tissues. Their lipopeptides and flagella, also unique to the species, are also similarly toxic as LPS to animals such as ourselves. Of course most humans in the entire history of humanity have probably been brought down by infection, something that is almost entirely unknown to modern western humans. Well I think a lot of health problems are due to low level infection, like heart disease, but that's a different story.

I forgot the fungal kingdom, it's eminently easy to accidentally kill yourself picking your own mushrooms, some famous kings were killed with poisonous mushrooms. Emperor Claudius I think.

Most of the crap Ray Peat talks about avoiding are not man-made chemicals, but simply natural extracted ones. PUFA, the gums from trees and sea weeds, etc.

Any way, the point is that calling something a "chemical" is a Luddite way of thinking and communicating. Everything is a chemical, and everything can be dangerous, and human produced chemicals are so far from cornering the market on this that it's ridiculous to talk about it that way.

 

[Kyle M]

There are thousands Kyle.

What a big numbers, thousands. When I was a child I thought a thousand dollars was all of the money in the world.