please delete this thread

Sort:
Avatar of festers-siesta
strawberri_juicee wrote:

would say i'm something between group 2 and group 4

okay. thanks

Avatar of M0lten_Knight
The earth is getting warmer, but it’s not a big enough problem yet where it’s worth the resources it’d take to make big changes. Everybody doing small things and conserving energy? Sure. Forcing everybody to switch to electric cars (which aren’t good for the environment either) or having the us go another $5 trillion in debt to switch to renewable energy? Not worth it. So I guess I’m in group 4, but modified a bit.
Avatar of M0lten_Knight
#77 this completely disregards the fact that God uses men to carry out His plan, and you could be one of the men that should help with it. Not saying I’m freaking out over global warming gonna kill us all tomorrow either, just pointing out a slight flaw in the logic.
Avatar of festers-siesta
xtreme2020 wrote:
The earth is getting warmer, but it’s not a big enough problem yet where it’s worth the resources it’d take to make big changes. Everybody doing small things and conserving energy? Sure. Forcing everybody to switch to electric cars (which aren’t good for the environment either) or having the us go another $5 trillion in debt to switch to renewable energy? Not worth it. So I guess I’m in group 4, but modified a bit.

Your knowledge of EVs and the cost of renewables needs work.

Avatar of BlueHairedPerson13

at the moment, i care not about climate change. i want to see the sky. the real sky.

Avatar of M0lten_Knight
#104 it’s only a month or two out of date, and unless there’s been some massive breakthrough in the technology of both and for some reason I haven’t heard about it, both statements are still true.
Avatar of festers-siesta
xtreme2020 wrote:
#77 this completely disregards the fact that God uses men to carry out His plan, and you could be one of the men that should help with it. Not saying I’m freaking out over global warming gonna kill us all tomorrow either, just pointing out a slight flaw in the logic.

This is an excellent point proving even creationists can't agree.

No more religious comments period.

Make one and I will have to block you to save the thread from being locked

Avatar of festers-siesta
xtreme2020 wrote:
#104 it’s only a month or two out of date, and unless there’s been some massive breakthrough in the technology of both and for some reason I haven’t heard about it, both statements are still true.

No.

Avatar of BlueHairedPerson13
BlueHairedPerson13 wrote:

at the moment, i care not about climate change. i want to see the sky. the real sky.

Avatar of M0lten_Knight
I can send you my sources once I get home, the $5 trillion one is pretty straightforward, just a general agreed estimate by experts, I will admit the ev one takes going a bit deeper, but if you want to think about it really simply, that electricity came (most likely) from burning fossil fuels, and waste from broken down evs is TERRIBLE for the environment. And, to be clear, I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything ever. My plan would be (just for the US, I haven’t really done research on other countries) to first sort out the national debt, then start investing resources and money into renewables slowly. After we’ve progressed well in that, then invest in evs for the simple reason that running evs off energy generated by renewables is much better than running off energy made from burning fossil fuels. It could take from 10-50 years, as long as we make sure it’s sustain and stable to invest in these things, in the meantime we’re not all gonna die of heatstroke. I just think there are more urgent issues that we should prioritize before climate change, not necessarily that nothing should be done.
Avatar of M0lten_Knight
Sorry for writing a whole essay, and I can’t reply to anything now but I’ll look back later.
Avatar of M0lten_Knight
#108 as I’ve said, I’ll get my sources when I get home in a couple hours. In the meantime if you have any, I’d be interested to see them, but just “no” with no reasoning or sources isn’t really going to convince anybody.
Avatar of festers-siesta

Illogical?

For the third time I repeat I am interested in your position related to climate in the four categories I listed. Feel free to expand on your reasons but I am not inclined in this thread to engage with you.

There is another thread for that

Avatar of AnnaLK

I am a 2, sort of. Initial discussions about climate change envisioned a 3 prong approach: reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prepare for the inevitable climate changes in order to mitigate the impact, and finally to research climate engineering, which may be eventually required. Imo, we have over focussed on the first of these 3 prongs.

Avatar of festers-siesta

Interesting.

How do you envision preparing for the impact of, say, coastal flooding from increase in storm severity?

What are you referring to as climate engineering?

Avatar of AnnaLK
Billy-bingo wrote:

Interesting.

How do you envision preparing for the impact of, say, coastal flooding from increase in storm severity?

What are you referring to as climate engineering?

We could have, for example, stopped building in flood prone areas.

Climate engineering is not just one thing, potentially. We could, for example, put particulates in the upper atmosphere, which would decrease the solar load on the planet. We could attempt to mitigate solar load in a few other seemingly futuristic manners.

The point about climate engineering is to research better what might be possible, so I don't have great examples to provide.

NASA included all 3 prongs in their advisements until I believe 2019. Then they removed climate engineering from the list, saying it is too risky. That is possibly true, but scant research has been conducted, as far as I can tell, so to me it sounds a bit like contempt prior to investigation.

Avatar of festers-siesta
AnnaLK wrote:
Billy-bingo wrote:

Interesting.

How do you envision preparing for the impact of, say, coastal flooding from increase in storm severity?

What are you referring to as climate engineering?

We could have, for example, stopped building in flood prone areas.

Climate engineering is not just one thing, potentially. We could, for example, put particulates in the upper atmosphere, which would decrease the solar load on the planet. We could attempt to mitigate solar load in a few other seemingly futuristic manners.

The point about climate engineering is to research better what might be possible, so I don't have great examples to provide.

NASA included all 3 prongs in their advisements until I believe 2019. Then they removed climate engineering from the lust, saying it is too risky. That is possibly true, but scant research has been conducted, as far as I can tell, so to me it sounds a bit like contempt prior to investigation.

okay thanks for that. I agree about coastal building but there is no one entity controlling that. There is activity in that arena such as eliminating building permits on beachfronts but only in small areas and seemingly only after disaster washes away structures.

In some places insurance costs have risen so high as to prohibit all but the most foolish to build.

I have seen nothing about climate engineering significant enough to follow.

There are plenty of conspiracy theories about it being done already.

Avatar of festers-siesta
theeldest1 wrote:
Billy-bingo wrote:

Interesting.

How do you envision preparing for the impact of, say, coastal flooding from increase in storm severity?

What are you referring to as climate engineering?

Is this engaging?

Please read post #1.

Avatar of festers-siesta
Billy-bingo wrote:
theeldest1 wrote:
Billy-bingo wrote:

Interesting.

How do you envision preparing for the impact of, say, coastal flooding from increase in storm severity?

What are you referring to as climate engineering?

Is this engaging?

Please read post #1.

Don't imagine you are the first to complain you can't post your religious views. The simple concept you can't grasp is that the creator of the thread does not make that rule. The site does. But there have been many threads locked by the site for allowing that discussion. It, therefore behooves the thread owner to stop it, by blocking if necessary.

Secondly, there have been creationists who intentionally cause threads to be locked because they don't agree with science, or whatever in the topic bothers them.

It is for this reason, according to you, I ignored you. The alternative was to block you, which I chose not to do.

However, since you have decided to take your grievance to a different thread indicates to me your opinion I am somehow to blame for singling you out. You did that to yourself. I gave you ample opportunity and even engaged for a few comments, but that didn't satisfy you.

Your attempt to continue your complaint elsewhere convinces me your intention is to proselytize there too.

With that in mind you are blocked from this and any thread I create.

If you continue your present vendetta elsewhere I will report you for trolling.

Avatar of festers-siesta
theeldest1 wrote:

Apologies, I'll leave you alone

Obviously not.

You went on another thread and lied about me disrespecting you here. Have you put your morals away for another day or does your homeschooling teach lying as a method of getting your own way?

Please list the comments here where I disrespected your life choices, your religion and your character etc that you lied about.

I'm sure anyone here would like to see it.