I'll take that as a poke at my clean energy point

Firtsly I'd agree we need more manhatten/etc on steroid projects than just clean energy. Your behavior points are still masks/lockdowns which are fine as far as they go but must not hide the need for the desperately needed real solutions. In all areas we need advances in science and technology. Once we have the science, it's cheap clean energy that makes implementing them possible.

I think we're coming at this from different perspectives.

We have laws which prohibit disorderly behavior. Laws against killing, stealing, etc. There is no science and technology which gets around those prohibitions. The only right answer is to not do those things.

If someone invents a crypto-currency like Bitcoin which uses 1.3 million x as much electricity as a standard debit card transaction, we don't need a solution which makes that energy clean. We need a solution that says NO, we can't do this until the clean energy alternative is available.

We are poisoning the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. 30,000 lbs per year per average US resident. Our gaseous waste dwarfs our solid waste but we ignore it because we can't see it.

There is no moral system which says it OK to destroy the future, We need a moral government which has the capability to say that some activities are prohibited. The prohibition will provide urgency to come up with solutions. In the absence of that urgency, there is no imperative to stop destroying the future.

Totally agree there is no moral system that says it's ok to destroy the future. Well not one I support anyway.

It's not just bitcoin, it's all recent and future progress that has to be stopped if we dont find real solutions. That's just not going to happen in any reality. We have to pursue the answers with the utmost vigour. Failing to do that is moral negligence imo. Sure lets try to buy time as well but we need to make the maximum use of it.

you are poisoning the internet with leftism, the worst ideology in the history of humanity, this doesn't mean I would be morally justified to block you from doing that. you have a fundamental right to your shitty, disgusting, embarrassing opinion

What I don't get is how pro-lifers (on the right) are OK with roughly 7 million people a year dying from air pollution

Here is an article

Everyone, this is not a clever way to circumvent the personal attacks rule. Don't do this, please. Luciom will rejoin us in 24 hours.

How do you define leftism ?

Is all of the citizens in a community sharing the cost of paving the roads an example of leftism ? Is sharing the cost of a police force and a fire department an example of leftism ? Is sharing the cost of border security an example of leftism ? Are antitrust laws an example of leftism ? How about laws against pollution ?

Would you like to have a substantive interaction or do you prefer name calling as a way to interact ?

Don’t worry , everything that is far right libertarian or fascism is leftish .
No centered view and context have its place in his views .

You don’t seem to understand how humans are actually pretty dependent on the eco system for survival purpose .
That is what is the threat ,it has nothing to do with : « yo man , we gain 3degrees for less harsh winter in northern countries , so cool … »

.
Septic tanks in parts of Miami are failing due to rising seas

lots of stinky non functioning toilets and putrid smelling homes

it will cost billions to fix the problem and it's a very slow process


https://archive.ph/T8xWH

Last June when NYC and the surrounding area was covered in an orange haze from the Canadian "wildfires", it was said to be caused by "Climate Change".

However, what a lot of people don't know is all these fires started simultaneously at the exact same time over an area of hundreds of miles. How's that even possible? I mean it's not like I'm tryna be a conspiracy theorist or anything but it's almost like someone used lasers from planes or satellites to ignite them.

This is an actual radar video from Eastern Canada when all the fires mysteriously appeared last year

Solver says this is a pure call.

Okay, you have to admit that the video is at least good for a raised eyebrow or two.

I can get on board with the air temperature and lack of moisture hitting certain breakpoints that encourage combustion of some specific material scattered around the local area, but someone should link to a guy in a lab coat explaining the specifics.

Because otherwise, it's pretty clearly those jewish space lasers I've been hearing so much about on the interwebs.

The problem is the guys in the lab coats that avtually know what they're talking about get banned and fact checked (lying to say their info is false).. That's the world we're living in today.

I always forgot but can you remind me please ?
To what end and to whom Benefits ?

The precise problem with the world we are living in today is people like you.

i don't know I am not pro life in the sense Americans mean it (I am ok with no question asked abortion in the first trimester).

that said, I deny any validity of models which attribute causes of death to single factors like that, the fraud in that kind of publishing is immense. no one can believe 7% of world mortality is linked to air.

and if you checked all possible causes of death and summed those "models" up you would get a total in the several hundreds of not thousands.

in general any science published to push leftist ideas is to be completely discarded, especially when it's epistemologically ******ed, like cause of death attribution is. if you go check the small lines in those models they basically use insane unproven and unprovable assumptions all the times

.
.
extreme heat in Miami - records have been broken - and it's only May

"Not only is it insane it's dangerous" said John Morales a meteorologist

"It's completely crazy what just happened," said Brian McNoldy a senior research analyst at the U. of Miami

from the article:

"the heat index reached 112 this past Saturday and Sunday breaking the previous daily record by an astonishing 11 degrees"


https://archive.ph/fALN8

.

the sea is indeed getting a lot hotter nowadays, and it's a very recent phenomenon, unfortunately for some of you guys the cause is actually the "fight against air pollution", c02 emissions matter very little for the recent increases.

So your fanatic attempt actually caused the very disaster you otherwise claim to want to avoid.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weath...-temperatures/

Ofc as expected, you cause a big jump in temperature then blame it all on emissions to futher socialism, nothing new under the sun. Create or exacerbate the problem on purpose (like housing scarcity) to claim capitalism is bad and more socialism is needed

Stating this as a fact is nonsense. Your cited article even states

Maybe try reading the whole article you're linking to next time?

.

extreme heat in Mexico has caused 147 howler monkeys to drop dead - they're falling out of the trees as many as 10 at a time - people are tripping over them

they are critical to the country's envirornment - the article explains how and why

26 people have also died from the heat also

temps have topped 113 degrees

from the article:

"severe drought has parched most of Mexico leaving parts of the country grappling with an acute water crisis"


https://archive.ph/I8R6e


.

oh jesus, maybe i gave you the WP in 2023 admitting there are doubts, which is like the catholic church publishing doubts about the virginity of Mary ok? the slightest admission that current warming events aren't entirely caused by previous and present co2 emissions by people who pushed that for 10+ years is more than enough.

ofc non biased sources are already reporting the "war against sulfur" is what caused that increase.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...lobal-warming/

Carbon Brief analysis shows that the likely side-effect of the 2020 regulations to cut air pollution from shipping is to increase global temperatures by around 0.05C by 2050. This is equivalent to approximately two additional years of emissions

2 years of 2019 emissions-equivalent in 30 years. That's 6% of total emission 2020-2050 if emissions stay at 2019 levels, if they go down it's more. It's like more than 3 times all planes, like half of all agriculture, in 2019.

And that's only the SHIPPING FUEL regulations, not all anti-sulfur regulation worldwide.

Your article goes on to state

It's likely having some effect but possibly isn't the major factor despite you desperately wanting it to be.

It's the major factor for the recent spikes in ocean temperature.

But whatever, it's enough you admit it's a factor. Now can we avoid using that factor to justify more economic sacrifices wrt CO2 emissions? or rather, can we go back to use a lot of sulfur and if anything use more than we did in the past, to cause cooling? and put a ban on further sulfur regulations for a couple of decades at the very least? do you actually care about reducing global warming or "it depends" ?

Yet again you have no data to support your assertion that its the largest factor.