Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)

Of course the other index to take into account is the insulin .....

The Insulin Index (II) measures how much a food increases insulin levels after consumption, compared to a reference food like glucose, when equal portions of calories are consumed. It's different from the Glycemic Index (GI), which measures how quickly a food raises blood sugar levels. The II helps predict insulin demand, which can be crucial for managing blood sugar and insulin resistance.

Try thinking of restaurants as a currency calculator, as opposed to a biological organism, you'll sleep better. Just the same, I abhor them too. Being around so many humans with their nervous energy, and constant probing is toxic to my equilibrium.

this week some fake or mistaken Doordarsher left a 23 $ canadian dollars sandwich at some neighbor's door ... When after a full hour waiting -- poor sandwiches, generally speaking man-- I happen to finally come by ... it's time to give it a try; was good.... Chicken, feta cheese and stuff . Thanks God it's 🫂 christmas 🎄

Not all Doordarshers know what they're doing 🥳

That looks quite useful.
Good things to know about.

Looks like it definitely has Doordashing food beat !! Especially the so-called Fast Foods.

This is why constant reference to natural climate change has virtually NO bearing on a discussion of human induced climate change.

It's not glacial activity that causes temperature change, it's temperature change that causes glacial activity.

Regarding it being 'annoying' I think there was only one person who actually was irresponsibly emotional or acted like it. And it wasn't the opening poster.
Whoever (overreacting) could egg other people on to be 'annoyed'.
He's run off now. But will probably be back soon under another account name.
------------------------
15% of adults worldwide don't accept the climate science regarding manmade climate change.
That's more than a billion people.
Regarding the forum title well I guess I could make a joke ...
If I start saying just 'global warming' or just 'climate change' ...
and whoever jumps and says every single time 'those have been around for thousands of years' ...
then I can reply every time 'Got me!!'
'You got me!'
'You caught me!'
Like in both Blazing Saddles .... and in 'The Devil's Advocate'.

All fun and games until one of those breaks. As soon as you implement something new, people will just wait for something bad to happen and blow it out of proportion. Also they have to be maintained and tamper proof, or else someone could simply cut the wire and kill dozens of innocent civilians

Ziplines?
I don't know if there's anything like that anywhere.
Besides the structural problems and potential accidents and disasters of such a concept.
---------------------------
They've already got something to get from Manhattan to Jersey without making auto traffic.
Like the Path train for example.
And the subways to get around and to get to Queens and Brookly and so on.
Unfortunately one of the nuclear power plants serving NYC was closed down.
Indian Point. Still leaving three.
But natural gas is used for a lot of the electricity of NYC.
Cleaner than coal but still putting that disaster-CO2 up there.

It's an interesting idea, but I imagine that if it was worth it, then it would be done already. But my only real issues are tampering and negligence during use.

Make the ziplines bright neon, or put LEDs in them

I guess you won't let go of that one fast.
In many towns they have a particular way to reduce traffic congestion.
Zoning laws.
You can't build over a certain number of floors.

Zoning laws are what prevents congestion.
Build sideways not vertically.
There are other places to build besides Manhattan island and Long Island.
Althought they've probably got lots of good zoning laws on Long Island.
I like the idea of buildings with a lot of sublevels underground.
Built on higher ground to prevent flooding.
Especially federal hospitals and federal prisons. On federal land.
Solves certain problems. Including some we can't talk about here.
But underground shopping mallls ... doesn't fit well with federal land.
Fits with underground mass transit though.

Seems reasonable to me. Notice I didn't say temperature change, I said climate change. I believe the original comment was about climate, not temperature. It seems like climate could be caused by both. But it also seems like both are caused by things like the orbit of the earth or the sun, or a number of other things.

I was just commenting on Players comment, about stipulating which kind of global warming or climate change. It only makes sense to specify if you are talking about something people are doing vs. natural causes. Even saying things like "anthropogenic" is going to make a lot of people just roll their eyes. If you want to win the climate debate, you have to talk to people normally. Pretending you know it all, or insist on using words people don't care for or understand doesn't further the cause. The term "manmade climate change" which Player used is the most practical term. It reduces or even eliminates any misunderstanding.

you guys all live in NYC i'm in rural areas of Québec

Isn't it interesting how Elroch started two topics, Evolution, and Climate Change, which are so important to leftists.

Yes it's well known right wingers have not evolved but I'm relatively sure the weather affects them.

No, there is no such thing as a "leftist science", because science is, by definition about what is objectively true. This belongs to no-one and to everyone, even the clueless. You first need to get your mind around the fact that what is objectively true is not a matter of person preference, like politics.

Evolution is an objectively important part of the biological sciences, as it comprises pretty much everything about how the present living world arose.

And Climate Change is an objectively important applied scientific topic, because it deals with a way in which human activity is affecting the whole world's weather (and consequences of that weather) in an unintended and very dangerous way.

The personal preferences of unscientific people are irrelevant to objective importance, the subject of the two forums I started in 2015.

Stick to scientific discussion if you want to participate here. If not, go away.

I think your response is partially the reason for his comment. Even if you WANT something to be true that doesn't mean it IS true.

When you say "because science is, by definition about what is objectively true" you wander off into the realm of politics and religion. You BELIEVE it's true. It's just your opinion.

Science, by definition, is the study and experimentation about theories about the physical world. It's NOT what you believe, that's it's objectively true. In science, what is believed to be true can be tossed out and replaced with something new that is newly believed to be true. I think you meant to say "subjectively" true. Meaning that it's what you want to be true, depending on the circumstances.

To be fair, he IS right when he says those are issues that are important to certain people. And when you quoted "leftist science" who are you quoting? He didn't say that. He said "leftists". He never said the word science. The reason, I believe, is because people of a certain persuasion often don't limit their concern about such things to JUST the science of it. They feel so strongly about it they give it religious enthusiasm. They feel SO strongly about it anything contrary (which should be WELCOMED by science) is denied, dismissed, or ignored. Religions do that exact same thing.

It seems to me the purpose of such strong beliefs is control. There have been MANY examples given here already. Which is why I suggest taking a voluntary approach. Let the climateers voluntarily takes the steps they advocate and let others choose a different path. That way there can be no excuses.