This planet has been here 4.5 billion years give or take and you think that a couple of decades of poorly explained climate change are significant?
False premise. Straw man.
This planet has been here 4.5 billion years give or take and you think that a couple of decades of poorly explained climate change are significant?
This planet has been here 4.5 billion years give or take and you think that a couple of decades of poorly explained climate change are significant?
False premise. Straw man.
The planet's gonna be fine in the long run.
And it's actually a few hundred years since the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at anything measurable in that amount of time, it's actually impossible to conclude that how we produce and consume energy, and our general activity, is in any way sustainable. We're talking about just a couple hundred years. Imagine another 200, trending the same way.
We're not long-term thinkers.
No, it's not. We have "climate scientists" who think that their data over a period of a few decades supplemented by iffy earlier date proves their positions. I say it mostly proves they want more funding. When your modelling is crap as shown by results, it's time to rethink your modelling. But the Left has bought into this and like any good religion, they can't be wrong even when they are proven wrong.
The latest fads are that nitrogen is now an issue (see the revolt in the Netherlands), and that simply consuming goods as the modern world does is an issue.
The Industrial Age is over. We've entered the Electronics Age and should be advancing nuclear power for energy but aren't due to Luddites on the Left.
The planet's gonna be fine in the long run.
And it's actually a few hundred years since the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at anything measurable in that amount of time, it's actually impossible to conclude that how we produce and consume energy, and our general activity, is in any way sustainable. We're talking about just a couple hundred years. Imagine another 200, trending the same way.
We're not long-term thinkers.
I know this is hard for you, but do some honest research as to where a lot of used PC's and their junk end up. You might be surprised....because the "electronics age" doesn't magically appear.
Yes it is. Or are you claiming that the Industrial Revolution wasn't the first one?
It wasn't. It was preceded by the Scientific Revolution also known as the Rennaissance. Without that, the Industrial Revolution wouldn't have occurred.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
I know this is hard for you, but do some honest research as to where a lot of used PC's and their junk end up. You might be surprised....because the "electronics age" doesn't magically appear.
Doesn't change what I stated.
Stop being willfully ignorant, will ya please? I tire of doing homework for folks like you. Here's a primer ... Hope you have the brain power to understand the significance and why it shows the flaw in your claim.Stop being willfully ignorant, will ya please? I tire of doing homework for folks like you. Here's a primer ... Hope you have the brain power to understand the significance and why it shows the flaw in your claim.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-29/the-rich-world-s-electronic-waste-dumped-in-ghana
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Stop being willfully ignorant, will ya please? I tire of doing homework for folks like you. Here's a primer ... Hope you have the brain power to understand the significance and why it shows the flaw in your claim.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...umped-in-ghana
Technologically, there are four periods in human history:
Ancient. Inventions were discovered and rediscovered. Due to lack of a means to document things widely and securely, this period stagnated.
Rennaissance / Scientific Revolution: The invention of the scientific method and printing press made it possible to make advances off discoveries and disseminate them widely and permanently.
Industrial Revolution: Worked off the knowledge of the Rennaissance and made industrialization possible.
Electronics Revolution: Harnessing and using electricity and electronics made it possible to advance the industrial revolution's discoveries beyond human capacity alone.
Prove me fucking wrong asshole. I know more about history than you or your neighbor's dog does--I assume you are far too much an asshole to own one of your own...
A lot of moot points and chest thumping, yet you're still too dumb to catch on. So I'll pablum feed you.
Computers are made up of processed, metals, composites.
Where do you think the metals come from?
How do you think the metals are turned into wires and circuits and such (same with the creation of the screens and tempered glass)?
WTF do you think happens to all that when it breaks down or becomes obsolete?
Did you even READ THE ARTICLE I PROVIDED?
To dumb it down further, we are STILL using Industrial Age mechanics and technology to in part produce these Electronic wonders you're so hyped about.
Until the world goes complete recycling and using the best filtration systems to date, the pollution and such will just continue at a slower pace, and effect the industrial nations just a little slower.
READ THE ARTICLE, YOU DIMWIT. GET EDUCATED AND STOP BRAYING LIKE AN ASS. If you still don't understand, get a nearby adult to explain it to you.
Bullshit.
In the Industrial Age a factory relied on workers operating individual machines and on what amounted to a manual paperwork factory in a skyscraper office building to control things.
![]()
![]()
In the Electronics Age, that has been replaced by industrial robots and software that eliminates the need for masses of workers:
![]()
![]()
So, unless there is some massive, planet-wide, disaster that destroys the electronics and AI running things we aren't returning to the Industrial Age.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pacific-northwest-braces-hazardous-heat-191033588.htmlAs the U.S. West encounters its driest megadrought in at least 1,200 years, driven by climate change....
Yes it does.
It's not significant.No it isn't.
Nope.You just contradicted yourself. You are now locked in paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It's irrational.
Agreed.Okay.
Agreed. Absorption and reemission (and refraction) would have been a more exacting word choice.Reflection does not change the frequency of light reflected.
Agreed.There is no problem with carbon dioxide.
No one is saying that you can. It only slows the escape of heat, like an insulator.No. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You cannot reduce entropy. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Heat always flows from hot to cold. NEVER THE REVERSE.
Meh.False authority fallacy.
Disagree.It does. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.