Greta Thunberg

adam cool dude said:
One of my biggest bugbears is those help Africa adverts. I am all for helping the poor and needy but having several kids without thinking of the complications and being unable to support yourself is where natural selection should just take its course.
Click to expand...

You feel sorry to see human suffering but why bring a child/children into the world knowing you don't have enough food to feed yourself let alone kids. But that's okay the Uk has an open border policy so if you don't send them money they can come and take it directly from the tax you paid. Neat right?
 
Agamemnon said:
I have no idea what is bookface. I was talking about the myth c02 is bad for the atmos.
Click to expand...

and yet you know to call it bookface, yeah OK.

And yes you have just spouted the myth again that is all over Faceache that CO2 is good for the atmosphere, it is good in the right amounts but not the amounts it's getting now.
Farmers do buy CO2 to help crops grow but put too much in and you'll kill them or make them useless.
 
Honestly, I don't use bookface, but I'll try googling to find what c02 meme you're on about.
Have you noticed any plants dying because there is too much c02? How much is too much?
Again so many poisonous chemicals ruining the waterways/seas, being pumped out into the atmos making our breathable air toxic, growing soils becoming toxic waste grounds and becoming increasingly infertile but of all the toxic gasses being pumped out you wish to jump on to the c02 propaganda train.
Can there be too much c02, sure. But is c02 the cause of all the weather problems we are facing? I really doubt that. There are patents on weather manipulation.
 
Boris offering Cameron the poison Chalice of organising the Scottish Climate COPA talks,
just an opportunity for Boris, to try and push, green UK intentions, like the new 2035 proposal; as Greta says, just words.
Cameron know what his currency is worth.

If this represents an net economic loss to Scotland, not surprising they want to reject hosting it, although, would be a good opportunity for independence protests.
 
Rroff said:
Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do better. Also I hate the way certain things have become the be all and end all over things like innovative solutions for instance all the focus is now on electric cars because that is what the activists have decided is best and far too little time is spent on things like revolutionary changes to increase fuel efficiency and new ways to reduce pollutants in ICEs, etc. trying to go all out in banning certain types of packaging when the replacements have environmental concerns of their own versus clever ways to being able to recycle or reuse packaging, etc. for instance some companies have started making jiffy bags where once opened and/or once beyond a state of re-using as a jiffy bag you can quickly disassemble them for easy recycling of parts you'd normally not be able to due to the construction and other parts can be repurposed once disassembled for other uses such as part of one layer can be removed, refolded, stuck and used as a normal envelope rather than disposed of as normally would have been the case.
Click to expand...
I'm all for ditching ICEs as quickly as possible. Dirty, smelly, foul things.

Imagine the air quality improvements if we all switched to electric.

Even if you don't buy the climate change angle (as many seem not to), electric vehicles are just so much cleaner and nicer to be around, if you fancy having a jog next to a main road, or stuck in traffic on the motorway, or whatever.

I'd still want to see electric vehicles become the norm even if we were opening 5 new coal power stations every day...
 
Jesus wept. THE level of intelligence displayed by some people is actually disturbing.

Is the school system failing to teach basic biology and chemistry these days?
Regardless of the actual amount attributable to humans, global warming/climate change is currently a thing.
 
Suicidal Ferret said:
Where does the electricity come from for these cars?

Hydrogen is the way forward, yet we hear hardly anything. Why?
Click to expand...

Because hydrogen is an extremely inefficient way of moving energy from one place to another. It's not an energy source, it's just a very bad way of wasting energy to move some of it somewhere. There are much better ways of moving energy from one place to another. The only reason there's any consideration of hydrogen at all is that hydrogen is a waste product of oil refining so it might be worth trying to invent a semi-practical way of using it as long as oil refining is done on the current massive scale. But isn't massively reducing oil use a big part of the goal?

There are two scenarios in which hydrogen could be practical:

1) We have a hyperabundance of clean energy so we don't need to care how much we waste. Hydrogen would have numerous problems even then, but those are more likely to be possible to overcome with existing technology in a pactical way. Probably.
2) Some completely new way of seperating hydrogen from other atoms is discovered which somehow requires vastly less energy to do. That would then be like (1).

If we're entering the realms of technology that doesn't currently exist in any practical form, I'd go with nuclear fusion for generating energy in a useable form and a combination of a national grid and solid state batteries to move the energy from one place to another. At least those exist. Fusion and solid state batteries aren't practical yet, but they do exist.
 
Angilion said:
Because hydrogen is an extremely inefficient way of moving energy from one place to another. It's not an energy source, it's just a very bad way of wasting energy to move some of it somewhere. There are much better ways of moving energy from one place to another. The only reason there's any consideration of hydrogen at all is that hydrogen is a waste product of oil refining so it might be worth trying to invent a semi-practical way of using it as long as oil refining is done on the current massive scale. But isn't massively reducing oil use a big part of the goal?

There are two scenarios in which hydrogen could be practical:

1) We have a hyperabundance of clean energy so we don't need to care how much we waste. Hydrogen would have numerous problems even then, but those are more likely to be possible to overcome with existing technology in a pactical way. Probably.
2) Some completely new way of seperating hydrogen from other atoms is discovered which somehow requires vastly less energy to do. That would then be like (1).

If we're entering the realms of technology that doesn't currently exist in any practical form, I'd go with nuclear fusion for generating energy in a useable form and a combination of a national grid and solid state batteries to move the energy from one place to another. At least those exist. Fusion and solid state batteries aren't practical yet, but they do exist.
Click to expand...

Inefficient if it is clean isn't necessarily a big issue - there are parts of the world where we can generate vast amounts of electricity cleanly such as from tidal currents, etc. but they tend to be very remote from where we need the power.
 
Terminator Greta is pleased!

kd1oj48fsxi41.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom