FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Follow the science...
Follow the science...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change" What's your point? | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change" That's why it's extremely important to look at who funds the science. Not all of it is corporate funded nonsense. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change" Hmmm? So a corporation offers funding to a science group to look for a cure for measles. I really don't think that the scientists in that group are going to start looking for a cure for malaria. And of course they are looking for the correct results. Who going to fund anyone not looking for the correct results? Like many a great scientific discovery - you've stumbled on why they do it, lol.  | |||
| |||
| |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change" Honestly that's a pretty unintelligible sentence, I assume it's based on a conspiracy theory ? | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change That's why it's extremely important to look at who funds the science. Not all of it is corporate funded nonsense. "  | |||
| |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change" It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. " This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good." A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? " Lol " Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. " Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. " Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. " Excellent. " Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. " No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. " Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. " No on is suggesting this. " Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. " Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. " If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. " massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. " You have missed my point. The problem we face by living on Earth are volatile and unstable, such is the nature of standing on a rock hurtling through space and not really understanding why? We are all in the same position whether we like it or not, and we need to all work on solutions that impact the Earth, it can't succeed in silos. So what do we do, nothing or everything? Playing at it brings no real benefits other than to tick a box, and I see little appetite to be globally collaborative anytime soon. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. You have missed my point. The problem we face by living on Earth are volatile and unstable, such is the nature of standing on a rock hurtling through space and not really understanding why? We are all in the same position whether we like it or not, and we need to all work on solutions that impact the Earth, it can't succeed in silos. So what do we do, nothing or everything? Playing at it brings no real benefits other than to tick a box, and I see little appetite to be globally collaborative anytime soon. " I agree we are all in this together. I would say that the biggest risk is from human actions rather than the volatility from being a rock in space. So I'd say focys in reducing man led impacts. Not looking at mars. Nor trying to point at eons led data to suggest what is happening today if part of a natural cycle. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. You have missed my point. The problem we face by living on Earth are volatile and unstable, such is the nature of standing on a rock hurtling through space and not really understanding why? We are all in the same position whether we like it or not, and we need to all work on solutions that impact the Earth, it can't succeed in silos. So what do we do, nothing or everything? Playing at it brings no real benefits other than to tick a box, and I see little appetite to be globally collaborative anytime soon. I agree we are all in this together. I would say that the biggest risk is from human actions rather than the volatility from being a rock in space. So I'd say focys in reducing man led impacts. Not looking at mars. Nor trying to point at eons led data to suggest what is happening today if part of a natural cycle. " There is no denying climate warming and cooling has taken place many times in the history of the planet. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. You have missed my point. The problem we face by living on Earth are volatile and unstable, such is the nature of standing on a rock hurtling through space and not really understanding why? We are all in the same position whether we like it or not, and we need to all work on solutions that impact the Earth, it can't succeed in silos. So what do we do, nothing or everything? Playing at it brings no real benefits other than to tick a box, and I see little appetite to be globally collaborative anytime soon. I agree we are all in this together. I would say that the biggest risk is from human actions rather than the volatility from being a rock in space. So I'd say focys in reducing man led impacts. Not looking at mars. Nor trying to point at eons led data to suggest what is happening today if part of a natural cycle. There is no denying climate warming and cooling has taken place many times in the history of the planet." I'm not denying that. However this has happened over eons, not centuries or decades. | |||
| |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. You have missed my point. The problem we face by living on Earth are volatile and unstable, such is the nature of standing on a rock hurtling through space and not really understanding why? We are all in the same position whether we like it or not, and we need to all work on solutions that impact the Earth, it can't succeed in silos. So what do we do, nothing or everything? Playing at it brings no real benefits other than to tick a box, and I see little appetite to be globally collaborative anytime soon. I agree we are all in this together. I would say that the biggest risk is from human actions rather than the volatility from being a rock in space. So I'd say focys in reducing man led impacts. Not looking at mars. Nor trying to point at eons led data to suggest what is happening today if part of a natural cycle. There is no denying climate warming and cooling has taken place many times in the history of the planet.I'm not denying that. However this has happened over eons, not centuries or decades. " And it will continue to happen and we will not be to fix it. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. You have missed my point. The problem we face by living on Earth are volatile and unstable, such is the nature of standing on a rock hurtling through space and not really understanding why? We are all in the same position whether we like it or not, and we need to all work on solutions that impact the Earth, it can't succeed in silos. So what do we do, nothing or everything? Playing at it brings no real benefits other than to tick a box, and I see little appetite to be globally collaborative anytime soon. I agree we are all in this together. I would say that the biggest risk is from human actions rather than the volatility from being a rock in space. So I'd say focys in reducing man led impacts. Not looking at mars. Nor trying to point at eons led data to suggest what is happening today if part of a natural cycle. There is no denying climate warming and cooling has taken place many times in the history of the planet." Yes but this is unrelated to climate change that's currently happening due to human activity. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. You have missed my point. The problem we face by living on Earth are volatile and unstable, such is the nature of standing on a rock hurtling through space and not really understanding why? We are all in the same position whether we like it or not, and we need to all work on solutions that impact the Earth, it can't succeed in silos. So what do we do, nothing or everything? Playing at it brings no real benefits other than to tick a box, and I see little appetite to be globally collaborative anytime soon. I agree we are all in this together. I would say that the biggest risk is from human actions rather than the volatility from being a rock in space. So I'd say focys in reducing man led impacts. Not looking at mars. Nor trying to point at eons led data to suggest what is happening today if part of a natural cycle. There is no denying climate warming and cooling has taken place many times in the history of the planet.I'm not denying that. However this has happened over eons, not centuries or decades. And it will continue to happen and we will not be to fix it. " that's a 10,000 years problem solved, not a 100 year tho. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. You have missed my point. The problem we face by living on Earth are volatile and unstable, such is the nature of standing on a rock hurtling through space and not really understanding why? We are all in the same position whether we like it or not, and we need to all work on solutions that impact the Earth, it can't succeed in silos. So what do we do, nothing or everything? Playing at it brings no real benefits other than to tick a box, and I see little appetite to be globally collaborative anytime soon. I agree we are all in this together. I would say that the biggest risk is from human actions rather than the volatility from being a rock in space. So I'd say focys in reducing man led impacts. Not looking at mars. Nor trying to point at eons led data to suggest what is happening today if part of a natural cycle. There is no denying climate warming and cooling has taken place many times in the history of the planet. Yes but this is unrelated to climate change that's currently happening due to human activity. " It might be, it might not be future history. However, that is not the point I'm making. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. You have missed my point. The problem we face by living on Earth are volatile and unstable, such is the nature of standing on a rock hurtling through space and not really understanding why? We are all in the same position whether we like it or not, and we need to all work on solutions that impact the Earth, it can't succeed in silos. So what do we do, nothing or everything? Playing at it brings no real benefits other than to tick a box, and I see little appetite to be globally collaborative anytime soon. I agree we are all in this together. I would say that the biggest risk is from human actions rather than the volatility from being a rock in space. So I'd say focys in reducing man led impacts. Not looking at mars. Nor trying to point at eons led data to suggest what is happening today if part of a natural cycle. There is no denying climate warming and cooling has taken place many times in the history of the planet.I'm not denying that. However this has happened over eons, not centuries or decades. And it will continue to happen and we will not be to fix it. that's a 10,000 years problem solved, not a 100 year tho. " You do not know this to be true, but for some reason you are avoiding the crux of my message, which is isolated attempts that are tick box exercises are not going to make too much of a difference, it requires global collaboration which is not forthcoming. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. You have missed my point. The problem we face by living on Earth are volatile and unstable, such is the nature of standing on a rock hurtling through space and not really understanding why? We are all in the same position whether we like it or not, and we need to all work on solutions that impact the Earth, it can't succeed in silos. So what do we do, nothing or everything? Playing at it brings no real benefits other than to tick a box, and I see little appetite to be globally collaborative anytime soon. I agree we are all in this together. I would say that the biggest risk is from human actions rather than the volatility from being a rock in space. So I'd say focys in reducing man led impacts. Not looking at mars. Nor trying to point at eons led data to suggest what is happening today if part of a natural cycle. There is no denying climate warming and cooling has taken place many times in the history of the planet.I'm not denying that. However this has happened over eons, not centuries or decades. And it will continue to happen and we will not be to fix it. that's a 10,000 years problem solved, not a 100 year tho. You do not know this to be true, but for some reason you are avoiding the crux of my message, which is isolated attempts that are tick box exercises are not going to make too much of a difference, it requires global collaboration which is not forthcoming." True. This is where we need to focus our efforts. The barriers are purely political driven by $$$ | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. You have missed my point. The problem we face by living on Earth are volatile and unstable, such is the nature of standing on a rock hurtling through space and not really understanding why? We are all in the same position whether we like it or not, and we need to all work on solutions that impact the Earth, it can't succeed in silos. So what do we do, nothing or everything? Playing at it brings no real benefits other than to tick a box, and I see little appetite to be globally collaborative anytime soon. I agree we are all in this together. I would say that the biggest risk is from human actions rather than the volatility from being a rock in space. So I'd say focys in reducing man led impacts. Not looking at mars. Nor trying to point at eons led data to suggest what is happening today if part of a natural cycle. There is no denying climate warming and cooling has taken place many times in the history of the planet.I'm not denying that. However this has happened over eons, not centuries or decades. And it will continue to happen and we will not be to fix it. " I do not see it that way, all I can say is my own experience. I wonder where all the snow has gone, it was a guarantee that it would snow, now I hardly see snow. People who live around the equator experience 40c every summer and it is rising, to the point that people are now migrating to places that have more chance of providing water. Floods are a yearly occurrence, as are fires. India is going through a heat emergency right now. Growing up we were warned as the next generation to not allow this to happen, we ignored them. Finally David Attenborough has been making nature docs since before I was born so has evidence of climate change and its affects on nature primarily through the effects it has on animals and plants, which includes marine life, and it is there for all of us to see what it was like when he first started documenting nature and what it has lead to. So for me this change has happened in my life time so eons is something I do not believe and it is a statement I thought I would here off B.P or Shell rather than an everyday person and from what I can see it is accelerating. My solution stop using fossil fuels that are available now watch their profits drop, and they will soon change direction. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. You have missed my point. The problem we face by living on Earth are volatile and unstable, such is the nature of standing on a rock hurtling through space and not really understanding why? We are all in the same position whether we like it or not, and we need to all work on solutions that impact the Earth, it can't succeed in silos. So what do we do, nothing or everything? Playing at it brings no real benefits other than to tick a box, and I see little appetite to be globally collaborative anytime soon. I agree we are all in this together. I would say that the biggest risk is from human actions rather than the volatility from being a rock in space. So I'd say focys in reducing man led impacts. Not looking at mars. Nor trying to point at eons led data to suggest what is happening today if part of a natural cycle. There is no denying climate warming and cooling has taken place many times in the history of the planet.I'm not denying that. However this has happened over eons, not centuries or decades. And it will continue to happen and we will not be to fix it. that's a 10,000 years problem solved, not a 100 year tho. You do not know this to be true, but for some reason you are avoiding the crux of my message, which is isolated attempts that are tick box exercises are not going to make too much of a difference, it requires global collaboration which is not forthcoming. True. This is where we need to focus our efforts. The barriers are purely political driven by $$$" I agree, but not solely on fossil fuel players. There are multiple countries that will not make a global effort because it will damage their economies, or they feel it would make them vulnerable. That puts those that also have risk in a position of no commitment. Stalemate | |||
"Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it." "Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables." I find it laudable when people look at the science behind climate change, and conclude that we must stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible. I find it laughable when those same people look at the science behind energy storage, and assert that the science must be wrong and we just need to spend some more money on research to find magic new ways to store all the energy that will be required for 'renewables'. | |||
"Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. I find it laudable when people look at the science behind climate change, and conclude that we must stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible. I find it laughable when those same people look at the science behind energy storage, and assert that the science must be wrong and we just need to spend some more money on research to find magic new ways to store all the energy that will be required for 'renewables'." What's the options then, nothing, we're fucked, or should we at least try? | |||
"Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it." "Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables." "I find it laudable when people look at the science behind climate change, and conclude that we must stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible. I find it laughable when those same people look at the science behind energy storage, and assert that the science must be wrong and we just need to spend some more money on research to find magic new ways to store all the energy that will be required for 'renewables'." "What's the options then, nothing, we're fucked, or should we at least try?" The obvious path is to put lots of money into building nuclear power stations. The science and engineering is settled, and they can provide stable and dependable power for decades. Once that is done, then we can look at renewables to see if there's a path to an even better future. Wasting money on 'renewables' now is expensive, and quite likely to not work, leaving us even worse off. | |||
| |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up Fauci confesses social distancing and masking kids didn't stop covid https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13481839/dr-anthony-fauci-social-distancing-masks-prevent-covid.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton" People won't care, they did as they were told and they'll do as their told next time It's easier for them lol | |||
"Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. I find it laudable when people look at the science behind climate change, and conclude that we must stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible. I find it laughable when those same people look at the science behind energy storage, and assert that the science must be wrong and we just need to spend some more money on research to find magic new ways to store all the energy that will be required for 'renewables'. What's the options then, nothing, we're fucked, or should we at least try? The obvious path is to put lots of money into building nuclear power stations. The science and engineering is settled, and they can provide stable and dependable power for decades. Once that is done, then we can look at renewables to see if there's a path to an even better future. Wasting money on 'renewables' now is expensive, and quite likely to not work, leaving us even worse off." This week 42.6% of our electricity was generated from wind, solar and hydro electric. Hardly a "waste of money". Nuclear works, but that doesn't solve the political problems in transitioning off fossil fuels. | |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up " Then it wasn't science. | |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up Then it wasn't science. " Why did you wear a mask and social distance? | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change What's your point?" I was wondering the same thing. Is it a conspiracy thread, or maybe Luddites anonymous? The fact is, the vast majority of R&D is done under the closest scrutiny and to international protocols. Researchers are trained to the highest standards and are held accountable to their respective professional bodies, be it engineering, pharma, nuclear, whatever. Yes, there are financial considerations - but there is in all business. In every single aspect of our lives, science and tech have made huge contributions to our life quality, health, wellbeing. We should applaud science, not knock it. | |||
"It was interesting how melissa fleming said that "we own the science and we think that the world should know it" of course, noone really owns it, but it makes you wonder, of how it could be controlled with economic interests, doesnt it?" How can one own a process, unless it's patented  | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. " Nothing wrong in working towards net zero but it's as likely as net zero immigration. | |||
"Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. I find it laudable when people look at the science behind climate change, and conclude that we must stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible. I find it laughable when those same people look at the science behind energy storage, and assert that the science must be wrong and we just need to spend some more money on research to find magic new ways to store all the energy that will be required for 'renewables'. What's the options then, nothing, we're fucked, or should we at least try? The obvious path is to put lots of money into building nuclear power stations. The science and engineering is settled, and they can provide stable and dependable power for decades. Once that is done, then we can look at renewables to see if there's a path to an even better future. Wasting money on 'renewables' now is expensive, and quite likely to not work, leaving us even worse off." Three mile island Fukushima Chernobyl and that is just a little snap shot of the pitfalls of this energy source | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. " Once it leaves the proverbial pay packet it's no longer yours! It's collectively the people's that the government does what it wants with, like squander on a turd like stop the boats Rwanda scheme. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. " And probably plump up tory coffers. | |||
"The obvious path is to put lots of money into building nuclear power stations. The science and engineering is settled, and they can provide stable and dependable power for decades. Once that is done, then we can look at renewables to see if there's a path to an even better future. Wasting money on 'renewables' now is expensive, and quite likely to not work, leaving us even worse off." "This week 42.6% of our electricity was generated from wind, solar and hydro electric. Hardly a "waste of money"." Yes, but that's only possible because we have fossil fuels to back them up when the sun goes away and the wind falls calm. And we're already at the point where we're asking wind farms to turn off their equipment because the fossil fuel plants can't be turned off, and they're generating more energy than we need. If we invest a lot of money into nuclear now, in 15 years we'll be able to turn off all of the old fossil fuel plants. If we instead invest that same money into 'renewables', we will still need the fossil fuel plants right up to the point that the magic new energy storage system is invented. That might be in 10 years time, or it might be never. Are you happy to gamble with the future of the planet, or would it be better to implement a solution that is guaranteed to work? | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change What's your point? I was wondering the same thing. Is it a conspiracy thread, or maybe Luddites anonymous? The fact is, the vast majority of R&D is done under the closest scrutiny and to international protocols. Researchers are trained to the highest standards and are held accountable to their respective professional bodies, be it engineering, pharma, nuclear, whatever. Yes, there are financial considerations - but there is in all business. In every single aspect of our lives, science and tech have made huge contributions to our life quality, health, wellbeing. We should applaud science, not knock it." Nothing wrong with genuine science... but governments/corporations are giving out their version of it to suit their needs or their masters | |||
"The obvious path is to put lots of money into building nuclear power stations. The science and engineering is settled, and they can provide stable and dependable power for decades. Once that is done, then we can look at renewables to see if there's a path to an even better future. Wasting money on 'renewables' now is expensive, and quite likely to not work, leaving us even worse off." "Three mile island Fukushima Chernobyl and that is just a little snap shot of the pitfalls of this energy source" How many people died in each of those incidents? And how many people are predicted to die from the effects of continuing to burn fossil fuels? | |||
"The obvious path is to put lots of money into building nuclear power stations. The science and engineering is settled, and they can provide stable and dependable power for decades. Once that is done, then we can look at renewables to see if there's a path to an even better future. Wasting money on 'renewables' now is expensive, and quite likely to not work, leaving us even worse off. This week 42.6% of our electricity was generated from wind, solar and hydro electric. Hardly a "waste of money". Yes, but that's only possible because we have fossil fuels to back them up when the sun goes away and the wind falls calm. And we're already at the point where we're asking wind farms to turn off their equipment because the fossil fuel plants can't be turned off, and they're generating more energy than we need. If we invest a lot of money into nuclear now, in 15 years we'll be able to turn off all of the old fossil fuel plants. If we instead invest that same money into 'renewables', we will still need the fossil fuel plants right up to the point that the magic new energy storage system is invented. That might be in 10 years time, or it might be never. Are you happy to gamble with the future of the planet, or would it be better to implement a solution that is guaranteed to work?" In truth we do not need energy, it is a thing I have grown up with, but I realise I do not need it. I can live without it with no issues or impact on my life. | |||
"How many times have we heard that in a lifetime and in reality, it's follow the money and corporate masters. Science follows how ever gives them grants/funding as long as they get the correct results... what a lovely system it is, and whoever you vote for, it won't change It’s why when I hear the unintelligent rantings of the likes of the Thunberg Doom Pixie screaming that we are in the “7th Extinction Climate Breakdown deeeeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhh” I just ignore and vote for whoever has the stones to not rush headlong into destroying the economy for the sake of Carbon Net Zero. This is exactly what I was talking about. Taking time to understand science is important, and a part of that is looking at where the funding came from. In this example, if we had a better collective understanding of climate science, it would be more difficult for the media to redirect our ire from those making money from fossil fuels onto a kid trying to do some good. A kid who has swerved from school strikes for climate change to wanting to bring about global socialism you mean? Lol Science is a debate that is very rarely definitively settled and evolves constantly. Sometimes. Climate science has been well understood since the early 80s and has been refined ever since. Do I think the environment is being damaged? yes. Do I think the climate is being altered as a consequence of humanity? Yes. Excellent. Do I believe the doom-laden hyperbole and screaming mental hysteria? No. No need to, try not to let yourself be pushed into focussing on Greta. Therefore do I think we should send ourselves back to the stone age while India and China race ahead economically and politically? No. No on is suggesting this. Do I want to pay for the mass hysteria of the climate nutters through my taxes? No, because it’s my money not theirs/yours and you can all get your fucking hands off it. Ah I see. What you need to do is look at the amount of money given in subsidies to the fossil fuels industry ($7 trillion in 2022). Look at what would happen if we no longer relied on externally priced oil and gas. And look at the long term reduction in energy prices if we transitioned to renewables. Both the long term economic and environmental arguments point to renewables. The only winner of sticking to fossil fuels, are the big oil companies who continue to make record profits while our energy bills go up and up. If we follow the science on climate change, it tells us that the Earth has experienced extreme heating and cooling long before humans existed. Given this historical context, we can expect temperature fluctuations to continue, potentially threatening human survival. Where should we focus our resources and intellect? Should we prioritise reducing emissions locally, or should we develop technologies to leave Earth? Ideally, we should pursue both paths. However, achieving a common goal is the challenge. Would it take the threat of extinction to unite us? Right now I can see no united front, lots of talk but nothing realistic and as we tiptoe along we are in drifting further apart at local and global levels. The earth is volatile in a volatile environment and it will at some point not be inhabited by humans, it could happen today and there is nothing anyone can do about it. massively long term trends and very short term large changes shouldnt be conflated. Ive not seen much about Mars outside of tech bros. However the biggest issue I see is the "what about china" argument. You have missed my point. The problem we face by living on Earth are volatile and unstable, such is the nature of standing on a rock hurtling through space and not really understanding why? We are all in the same position whether we like it or not, and we need to all work on solutions that impact the Earth, it can't succeed in silos. So what do we do, nothing or everything? Playing at it brings no real benefits other than to tick a box, and I see little appetite to be globally collaborative anytime soon. " Hurtling through space? And there's me thinking planets have orbits  .
History tells us our planet has instability. The science suggests humankind has increased it. So yeah we need to work together to decrease that human cost if we want more millenia here on earth. Will it happen? Not in my lifetime. Too much greed. | |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up Fauci confesses social distancing and masking kids didn't stop covid https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13481839/dr-anthony-fauci-social-distancing-masks-prevent-covid.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton" It reduced the risk  | |||
"The obvious path is to put lots of money into building nuclear power stations. The science and engineering is settled, and they can provide stable and dependable power for decades. Once that is done, then we can look at renewables to see if there's a path to an even better future. Wasting money on 'renewables' now is expensive, and quite likely to not work, leaving us even worse off. This week 42.6% of our electricity was generated from wind, solar and hydro electric. Hardly a "waste of money". Yes, but that's only possible because we have fossil fuels to back them up when the sun goes away and the wind falls calm. And we're already at the point where we're asking wind farms to turn off their equipment because the fossil fuel plants can't be turned off, and they're generating more energy than we need. If we invest a lot of money into nuclear now, in 15 years we'll be able to turn off all of the old fossil fuel plants. If we instead invest that same money into 'renewables', we will still need the fossil fuel plants right up to the point that the magic new energy storage system is invented. That might be in 10 years time, or it might be never. Are you happy to gamble with the future of the planet, or would it be better to implement a solution that is guaranteed to work? In truth we do not need energy, it is a thing I have grown up with, but I realise I do not need it. I can live without it with no issues or impact on my life." Hey stinky
Obviously tongue in cheek. | |||
"Hurtling through space? And there's me thinking planets have orbits .
History tells us our planet has instability. The science suggests humankind has increased it. So yeah we need to work together to decrease that human cost if we want more millenia here on earth. Will it happen? Not in my lifetime. Too much greed."The Solar System is orbiting the centre of the Milky Way galaxy it takes approximately 225-250 million years to complete one full revolution, often referred to as a "galactic year." The Solar System, including Earth, travels at an average speed of about 514,000 mph around the galactic centre. Additionally earth orbits the sun once every year 365.25 days. The average speed of Earth's orbit around the Sun is approximately 66,600 mph. I believe we are hurtling through space  | |||
"Hurtling through space? And there's me thinking planets have orbits .
History tells us our planet has instability. The science suggests humankind has increased it. So yeah we need to work together to decrease that human cost if we want more millenia here on earth. Will it happen? Not in my lifetime. Too much greed.
The Solar System is orbiting the centre of the Milky Way galaxy it takes approximately 225-250 million years to complete one full revolution, often referred to as a "galactic year."
The Solar System, including Earth, travels at an average speed of about 514,000 mph around the galactic centre.
Additionally earth orbits the sun once every year 365.25 days.
The average speed of Earth's orbit around the Sun is approximately 66,600 mph.
I believe we are hurtling through space "Nah, I see hurtling as having no trajectory. | |||
"Hurtling through space? And there's me thinking planets have orbits .
History tells us our planet has instability. The science suggests humankind has increased it. So yeah we need to work together to decrease that human cost if we want more millenia here on earth. Will it happen? Not in my lifetime. Too much greed.
The Solar System is orbiting the centre of the Milky Way galaxy it takes approximately 225-250 million years to complete one full revolution, often referred to as a "galactic year."
The Solar System, including Earth, travels at an average speed of about 514,000 mph around the galactic centre.
Additionally earth orbits the sun once every year 365.25 days.
The average speed of Earth's orbit around the Sun is approximately 66,600 mph.
I believe we are hurtling through space
Nah, I see hurtling as having no trajectory. "Okay | |||
"The obvious path is to put lots of money into building nuclear power stations. The science and engineering is settled, and they can provide stable and dependable power for decades. Once that is done, then we can look at renewables to see if there's a path to an even better future. Wasting money on 'renewables' now is expensive, and quite likely to not work, leaving us even worse off. This week 42.6% of our electricity was generated from wind, solar and hydro electric. Hardly a "waste of money". Yes, but that's only possible because we have fossil fuels to back them up when the sun goes away and the wind falls calm. And we're already at the point where we're asking wind farms to turn off their equipment because the fossil fuel plants can't be turned off, and they're generating more energy than we need. If we invest a lot of money into nuclear now, in 15 years we'll be able to turn off all of the old fossil fuel plants. If we instead invest that same money into 'renewables', we will still need the fossil fuel plants right up to the point that the magic new energy storage system is invented. That might be in 10 years time, or it might be never. Are you happy to gamble with the future of the planet, or would it be better to implement a solution that is guaranteed to work? In truth we do not need energy, it is a thing I have grown up with, but I realise I do not need it. I can live without it with no issues or impact on my life." You don't need any energy whatsoever | |||
"In truth we do not need energy, it is a thing I have grown up with, but I realise I do not need it. I can live without it with no issues or impact on my life. You don't need any energy whatsoever "I don't need ener  | |||
"Hurtling through space? And there's me thinking planets have orbits .
History tells us our planet has instability. The science suggests humankind has increased it. So yeah we need to work together to decrease that human cost if we want more millenia here on earth. Will it happen? Not in my lifetime. Too much greed.
The Solar System is orbiting the centre of the Milky Way galaxy it takes approximately 225-250 million years to complete one full revolution, often referred to as a "galactic year."
The Solar System, including Earth, travels at an average speed of about 514,000 mph around the galactic centre.
Additionally earth orbits the sun once every year 365.25 days.
The average speed of Earth's orbit around the Sun is approximately 66,600 mph.
I believe we are hurtling through space "Relativity is one sly son of a bitch. | |||
"Hurtling through space? And there's me thinking planets have orbits .
History tells us our planet has instability. The science suggests humankind has increased it. So yeah we need to work together to decrease that human cost if we want more millenia here on earth. Will it happen? Not in my lifetime. Too much greed.
The Solar System is orbiting the centre of the Milky Way galaxy it takes approximately 225-250 million years to complete one full revolution, often referred to as a "galactic year."
The Solar System, including Earth, travels at an average speed of about 514,000 mph around the galactic centre.
Additionally earth orbits the sun once every year 365.25 days.
The average speed of Earth's orbit around the Sun is approximately 66,600 mph.
I believe we are hurtling through space
Relativity is one sly son of a bitch."So it appears | |||
"Hurtling through space? And there's me thinking planets have orbits .
History tells us our planet has instability. The science suggests humankind has increased it. So yeah we need to work together to decrease that human cost if we want more millenia here on earth. Will it happen? Not in my lifetime. Too much greed.
The Solar System is orbiting the centre of the Milky Way galaxy it takes approximately 225-250 million years to complete one full revolution, often referred to as a "galactic year."
The Solar System, including Earth, travels at an average speed of about 514,000 mph around the galactic centre.
Additionally earth orbits the sun once every year 365.25 days.
The average speed of Earth's orbit around the Sun is approximately 66,600 mph.
I believe we are hurtling through space
Relativity is one sly son of a bitch."falling though time-space? | |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up Fauci confesses social distancing and masking kids didn't stop covid https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13481839/dr-anthony-fauci-social-distancing-masks-prevent-covid.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton It reduced the risk "They literally said it didn't but ok, cling to your fantasies | |||
"Hurtling through space? And there's me thinking planets have orbits .
History tells us our planet has instability. The science suggests humankind has increased it. So yeah we need to work together to decrease that human cost if we want more millenia here on earth. Will it happen? Not in my lifetime. Too much greed.
The Solar System is orbiting the centre of the Milky Way galaxy it takes approximately 225-250 million years to complete one full revolution, often referred to as a "galactic year."
The Solar System, including Earth, travels at an average speed of about 514,000 mph around the galactic centre.
Additionally earth orbits the sun once every year 365.25 days.
The average speed of Earth's orbit around the Sun is approximately 66,600 mph.
I believe we are hurtling through space
Relativity is one sly son of a bitch.falling though time-space?"Hurtling through spacetime, yes. | |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up Fauci confesses social distancing and masking kids didn't stop covid https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13481839/dr-anthony-fauci-social-distancing-masks-prevent-covid.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton It reduced the risk
They literally said it didn't but ok, cling to your fantasies "I braved the Daily Outrage. (What a fucking horrendously written article). It talks about the 6ft social distance rule being selected at random. Couldn't pick up on anything saying the science was wrong. Maybe I missed it amongst the relentless ads and conspiracy theory stuff. | |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up Fauci confesses social distancing and masking kids didn't stop covid https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13481839/dr-anthony-fauci-social-distancing-masks-prevent-covid.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton It reduced the risk
They literally said it didn't but ok, cling to your fantasies "Bless. I have experiential knowledge being a front line HCP. I prefer erotic fantasies. | |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up Fauci confesses social distancing and masking kids didn't stop covid https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13481839/dr-anthony-fauci-social-distancing-masks-prevent-covid.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton It reduced the risk
They literally said it didn't but ok, cling to your fantasies
I braved the Daily Outrage. (What a fucking horrendously written article). It talks about the 6ft social distance rule being selected at random. Couldn't pick up on anything saying the science was wrong.
Maybe I missed it amongst the relentless ads and conspiracy theory stuff."I cba to read it. | |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up Fauci confesses social distancing and masking kids didn't stop covid https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13481839/dr-anthony-fauci-social-distancing-masks-prevent-covid.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton It reduced the risk
They literally said it didn't but ok, cling to your fantasies
I braved the Daily Outrage. (What a fucking horrendously written article). It talks about the 6ft social distance rule being selected at random. Couldn't pick up on anything saying the science was wrong.
Maybe I missed it amongst the relentless ads and conspiracy theory stuff.
I cba to read it."It's a non-story dragged on for ages that then veers into conspiracy nonsense. It contains the line "The pandemic patriarch..." To give you a flavour of the tone. Maximum outrage, minimum facts. | |||
"It was interesting how melissa fleming said that "we own the science and we think that the world should know it" of course, noone really owns it, but it makes you wonder, of how it could be controlled with economic interests, doesnt it? How can one own a process, unless it's patented "Yes, noone can own a process. I also want to add that no doubt, for the right price, they can get the data that they need to support the agenda too. | |||
"It was interesting how melissa fleming said that "we own the science and we think that the world should know it" of course, noone really owns it, but it makes you wonder, of how it could be controlled with economic interests, doesnt it? How can one own a process, unless it's patented Yes, noone can own a process. I also want to add that no doubt, for the right price, they can get the data that they need to support the agenda too."Just watched the clip. "We" = UN? "Own the science" = resources, that she just denigrated? | |||
| |||
"I was literally about to post something about this. Science has become unbelievable and fabricated. When results from 70% of the research papers out there can't be replicated it sends alarm bells. When 11,000 papers are redacted because their peer review has failed, it sends alarm bells. How can we trust the science anymore? It's in every scientists best interests to publish, and everyone is doing it, but what if years of research evaluates to nothing? You're forced to make stuff up to save face." I do agree that there is a lot masquerading as science, especially around the social studies. One of the basic requirements of empiricism is repeatability of experiments, which seems to miss in most of these researches. But the fact that many of them are being rejected by peer reviews shows that the process of peer reviews at least is reasonably working. I think most of these bogus researches are down to lots of people doing degrees which require them to put their names on some papers and them winging out some random shit. This has a profound impact on online discussions because, no matter what you believe you could probably find a "research paper" that supports your view. I see people throwing links at each other and claiming "My research is the absolute truth but yours is trash". I guess we are dangerously close to a post-truth society. | |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up Fauci confesses social distancing and masking kids didn't stop covid https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13481839/dr-anthony-fauci-social-distancing-masks-prevent-covid.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton It reduced the risk
They literally said it didn't but ok, cling to your fantasies "Jeremy Clarkson recommends investing in bitcoin where he made his millions in 29 minutes .... Oh ... Wait .... That was bullshit news too | |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up Fauci confesses social distancing and masking kids didn't stop covid https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13481839/dr-anthony-fauci-social-distancing-masks-prevent-covid.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton It reduced the risk
They literally said it didn't but ok, cling to your fantasies
Jeremy Clarkson recommends investing in bitcoin where he made his millions in 29 minutes ....
Oh ... Wait .... That was bullshit news too "Trying to be witty but as usual you're just wittering on instead Follow the rules, sorry, follow the 'science', easier to not have to think for yourself isn't it | |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up Fauci confesses social distancing and masking kids didn't stop covid https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13481839/dr-anthony-fauci-social-distancing-masks-prevent-covid.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton It reduced the risk
They literally said it didn't but ok, cling to your fantasies
I braved the Daily Outrage. (What a fucking horrendously written article). It talks about the 6ft social distance rule being selected at random. Couldn't pick up on anything saying the science was wrong.
Maybe I missed it amongst the relentless ads and conspiracy theory stuff."Ah yes, just because something is picked at random doesn't mean it's not science Random science perhaps Just follow your orders and don't worry about it | |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up Fauci confesses social distancing and masking kids didn't stop covid https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13481839/dr-anthony-fauci-social-distancing-masks-prevent-covid.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton It reduced the risk
They literally said it didn't but ok, cling to your fantasies
I braved the Daily Outrage. (What a fucking horrendously written article). It talks about the 6ft social distance rule being selected at random. Couldn't pick up on anything saying the science was wrong.
Maybe I missed it amongst the relentless ads and conspiracy theory stuff.
Ah yes, just because something is picked at random doesn't mean it's not science
Random science perhaps
Just follow your orders and don't worry about it"Just because one guy estimated the distance at which we have to social distance to reduce the spread of the virus isn't the outrage that the DM wants it to be. And isn't some kind of proof that science isn't real. | |||
"Another one ... follow the science, opps we made it up Fauci confesses social distancing and masking kids didn't stop covid https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13481839/dr-anthony-fauci-social-distancing-masks-prevent-covid.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton It reduced the risk
They literally said it didn't but ok, cling to your fantasies
I braved the Daily Outrage. (What a fucking horrendously written article). It talks about the 6ft social distance rule being selected at random. Couldn't pick up on anything saying the science was wrong.
Maybe I missed it amongst the relentless ads and conspiracy theory stuff.
Ah yes, just because something is picked at random doesn't mean it's not science
Random science perhaps
Just follow your orders and don't worry about it"You're conflating science with ministers making decisions. | |||
