Do we have to destroy the world to save it?

[Guitar's Cry]

We will run out of fossil fuels gradually over the next few hundred years. As we do we will continue to pursue alternate energy sources. Fossil fuels will increase in price as they become more rare making other options more attractive.

And better we begin to implement options sooner to improve them.

We don’t need government mandates for this to happen.

Maybe not, ideally. But I wouldn't bet my life on it.

I like your user name, by the way.

Thanks! What is KW? Name initials?

 

[KW]

So you're claiming that the scientific method - to which owe medicine and technology - has a liberal bias?

of course not.

That’s why liberals can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman and they think the universe spontaneously appeared.

 

[KW]

And better we begin to implement options sooner to improve them.



Maybe not, ideally. But I wouldn't bet my life on it.



Thanks! What is KW? Name initials?

I don’t think we should undermine our current energy infrastructure to get to the next phase. It is very wasteful and hurts our economy. It has to happen anyway because the fuel source is finite.

Yes, just initials.

 

[KW]

What's your source for levels being 17 times higher in the past? How far in the past?

During the Cambrian Explosion, the era which saw the largest expansion of life ever.

It did not create an upward death spiral.

 

[Father Heathen]

of course not.

That’s why liberals can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman and they think the universe spontaneously appeared.

Nothing is more productive, effective, and persuasive than a conga line of lazy straw men.

 

[rational experiences]

If you are only as old as each human is science comparing our life to any past it what science does. I compare.

Life now isn't comparable as there is no life in any past as a human correct thinker. Life living yesterday died. It survived by any type of body surviving today.

If you see sick unhealthy early age death from human womb to all ages you know we're in trouble as human life hadn't evolved into balanced healthy human life.

Science of humans know all life is its first type it should hence only be healthy.

As cooling evolved any lesser type of form heated.

By allowing complete whole expression.

Once humans made a scientific pact agreement. No looking back theorising allowed.

The law valued 0AD to a promised healthy earth life to return in year 2012.

It is a proven agreement based on biologies sacrifice in the use dust technologies.

No science nuclear agreement which was lost as a human fight as natural life rights versus science and technology.

The war in human life was only ever our war human natural versus human ego.

 

[Wandering Monk]

During the Cambrian Explosion, the era which saw the largest expansion of life ever.

It did not create an upward death spiral.

The highest they have been in 4 million years. And that is supposed to be a comfort? LOL

Climate explained: what the world was like the last time carbon dioxide levels were at 400ppm.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I don’t think we should undermine our current energy infrastructure to get to the next phase. It is very wasteful and hurts our economy. It has to happen anyway because the fuel source is finite.

The reality is we should have started awhile ago. And we have to start sometime. As you said, it has to happen.

Also, I was going through some of PragerU's cited sources for this video, and I think it's important to note that they cite the American Bird Conservancy:

Wind Energy and Birds FAQ — Part 1: Understanding the Threats

The American Bird Conservancy suppirts wind power, though, like Audubon, with appropriate regulations in order to protect birds:

"Climate change is a critical threat to birds. Recognizing this fact, ABC supports renewable energy, including wind energy, and the transition away from fossil fuels."

Wind Energy

 

[Kooky]

Does anybody else find it highly suspicious when spokespeople who seemingly had no issue with corporations and governments bulldozing thousands of square miles of natural bird habitats suddenly become very concerned about the fate of birds once wind turbines are involved?

 

[KW]

The reality is we should have started awhile ago. And we have to start sometime. As you said, it has to happen.

Also, I was going through some of PragerU's cited sources for this video, and I think it's important to note that they cite the American Bird Conservancy:

Wind Energy and Birds FAQ — Part 1: Understanding the Threats

The American Bird Conservancy suppirts wind power, though, like Audubon, with appropriate regulations in order to protect birds:

"Climate change is a critical threat to birds. Recognizing this fact, ABC supports renewable energy, including wind energy, and the transition away from fossil fuels."

Wind Energy

That doesn’t change the fact that hundreds of thousand of birds are being killed. There is no empirical evidence proving that global warming had killed any birds. Its all a guess and in many cases it is propaganda.

 

[metis]

People don’t care because it isn’t true.

Tell that to NASA, NOAA, the NAS, and even our own DoD.

I go by the science, thus not politicians on this.

 

[KW]

Does anybody else find it highly suspicious when spokespeople who seemingly had no issue with corporations and governments bulldozing thousands of square miles of natural bird habitats suddenly become very concerned about the fate of birds once wind turbines are involved?

Are you referring to solar farms?

Did you read the bio on Michael shellenbereger?

 

[metis]

That’s why liberals can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman and they think the universe spontaneously appeared.

Ah, ya just gotta love the stereotypes,

 

[metis]

BTW, this is from NASA dealing with climate change, and it includes stats: NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

 

[Kooky]

Did you read the bio on Michael shellenbereger?

He is a PR consultant without background in any of the sciences involved in climate research, ecology, environmentalism, nuclear energy, or the environmental impact of shale gas extraction, yet has been paid very well to write and talk about all of those topics at length, most famously by Republicans to appear in front of the US House of Representatives.

 

[Kooky]

People don’t care because it isn’t true.

Did you know that the winter of 2021 was the coldest ever recorded in the Antarctic?

Probably not, because the leftist news sources bury inconvenient truths.

And finally, the zinger!

Why didn't you lead with this post? You could have stopped wasting a lot of people's time by announcing up front that you are denying established scientific consensus for political reasons.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That doesn’t change the fact that hundreds of thousand of birds are being killed. There is no empirical evidence proving that global warming had killed any birds. Its all a guess and in many cases it is propaganda.

Hundreds of thousands are killed by fossil fuels as well: A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States - ScienceDirect

 

[KW]

He is a PR consultant without background in any of the sciences involved in climate research, ecology, environmentalism, nuclear energy, or the environmental impact of shale gas extraction, yet has been paid very well to write and talk about all of those topics at length, most famously by Republicans to appear in front of the US House of Representatives.

He is a dedicated life long environmentalist. He wants a cleaner planet but he he thinks the hysteria often leads to counter productive outcomes.

Hundreds of thousands are killed by fossil fuels as well: A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States - ScienceDirect

How are they killed by fossil fuels?

 

[KW]

Hundreds of thousands are killed by fossil fuels as well: A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States - ScienceDirect

How does that happen?

 

[KW]

And finally, the zinger!

Why didn't you lead with this post? You could have stopped wasting a lot of people's time by announcing up front that you are denying established scientific consensus for political reasons.

There is no consensus that the rate of warming is increasing.