by my math....this covid19 crap has kept 1,500 miles off my truck

[Jakenbake]

Shanghai photo taken on February 22, 2020. Residents actually viewed blue skies thanks the Covid-19 shutdown. China relies on coal for about 60% of its power generation.

View attachment 140876


A typical day in the city

View attachment 140878

Question, you mention coal in regards to the two photos. Did China shutdown power plants as a result of the virus? I mean this as a legit question.

 

[Jakenbake]

The scientists themselves say their findings could be wrong, because they are scientists and have no political ideology behind their scientific methods and approaches. The fact that some folks disregard the findings of 95% probability by 97% of the scientific community agreeing on that probability (yes, i used those numbers on purpose, visit the NASA site) because it's a "******* conspiracy" is utterly (do I have to say it?), hence my little sarcastic story. If 9700 doctors of the 10,000 you visit, tell you to stop smoking cuz it's gonna kill you, I think most folks would stop smoking, even if all 9700 hundred of those urging you to stop smoking said "well, there's a small chance, a 5% chance, i could be wrong".

Look, I'll say it again, I hope the deniers are right. I would hope if a loved one of mine ignored the advice of 9700 out of 10000 doctors, that the 300 doctors who say, "Ahh...it's fine, smoke away", I would hope they are right too, but the MATH just doesn't work out that well for the smoker, and no political ideology is gonna save them.

I think it would be wrong to say that no scientists have any political affiliations. I’m not saying there is some large conspiracy at play but there is human nature and the possibility exists. Could be subliminal, could be motivation for grants, could be that they are right and it seems like they are politically motivated.


In regards to smoking, there is a difference between not caring and thinking the Doctor is an idiot. I’m sure there are some who do not listen to a doctor and think “what do they know?” but I also imagine there are people who plainly don’t care. That would be their prerogative to do something knowing full well the consequences. Same could be said for someone who does anything that does not promote better health, such as fast food, alcohol, sky diving, getting angry on social media (not accusing you of this to be clear), etc

 

[Russ103]

When I went to my Doctor, he said there's a 95% probability that I'll die within 5 years if I don't stop smoking. Some dude with a microphone and podium told me that doctor's are libtards, so I keep smoking, I mean the chances that the doctor, who has spent much of his life studying and practicing his field is actually right only means that I die before turning 50, so it's worth it!

Oh, I forgot to say, because of the dire outcome (death) I decided to seek the opinion of 10,000 other doctors. 97% of them agreed with my doctor's prognosis, but I still believe the guy with the microphone and the podium, cuz..."libtards".

The only one here calling you that is yourself. Ditto to the TDS that is clearly on display from you.

Let’s be honest, when you say “we” in regard to “investing in renewable energy”, you mean that as your political opponents.

Admit it, you want to mandate what you like, and ban anything that you don’t like. You lefties are the most predictable bunch there ever was. I know you and the predictable talking points that you’re pre-programmed with better then you know yourselves.

Now take your pills and move along. This was/is about a low mileage Raptor, not a Prius.

 

[Denvertaco07]

The only one here calling you that is yourself. Ditto to the TDS that is clearly on display from you.

Let’s be honest, when you say “we” in regard to “investing in renewable energy”, you mean that as your political opponents.

Admit it, you want to mandate what you like, and ban anything that you don’t like. You lefties are the most predictable bunch there ever was. I know you and the predictable talking points that you’re pre-programmed with better then you know yourselves.

Now take your pills and move along. This was/is about a low mileage Raptor, not a Prius.

ok, i'll move along...sir, yes sir!

I didn't bring politics into the thread, I'm only responding in kind, sorry you don't like my opinion.

I'm for what is right is right, what is wrong is wrong, don't care what politics are, but I do find that a certain platform actually believes in facts much more so than the other. I much rather believe NASA and the rest of the folks committed to the science than some right-wing hack.

Ride it like a cowboy

 

[Denvertaco07]

I think you might be misunderstanding me when I say "All science has been wrong before."

It's kind of how science works. For example, Isaac Newton was wrong. F does in fact not equal m*a. The point I'm making here is that scientific understanding expands over time. The argument of "science was wrong before" for dismissing advancements in science is absurd.

The right's denial of climate change is absurd. We can measure it, and we know it's us.

Some of the left's actions on climate change and other environmental policies have increased the cost of doing business here and contributed to it only being practical to offshore it. Now we get our stuff from factories in China where the air is brown and the law is what you can get away with and pay for. They send product over on container ships that burn heavy fuel oil, adding 3% to global CO2 emissions. And then they use their tax profits to build hundreds of coal plants in Africa with no-money-down and 50 year commitments: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal.

Cliff notes:
* Climate change is a critical problem.
* The right is being stupid about it.
* The left is being stupid about it.

You might be right, but one absurdity is much more existential than the other. Politicians with good intentions can be criticized, I'm fine with that. The other side of the coin is dangerous and they don't even care because "Libtards".

 

[911 Crazy]

The cost of not doing anything because we believe DT and those like him, is that we have to find another planet to live on, I wonder how much that will cost? I'd guess magnitudes on top of magnitudes above anything that the "libtards" are gonna cost you by investing in renewable energy.

And yes, many deny science before he is POTUS, but he is the leader of the folks who deny, so he is a good example of who some trust with their scientific "facts" other than actual science.

Ride it like a cowboy

DT is closer to the truth than the alarmists.

 

[Denvertaco07]

DT is closer to the truth than the alarmists.

I know right...those damn NASA alarmists, when will they stop with all their sciency stuff!

 

[911 Crazy]

I know right...those damn NASA alarmists, when will they stop with all their sciency stuff!

I don't know. Do you?

 

[JAndreF321]

I was saw this thread and started adding up my mileage reduction also...didn't expect the climate change talk haha.

I'll say that man-made climate change is a fact based on multitudes of studies and the effects are far reaching in ways people would never consider on this forum. The effect of our specific contribution to climate change is not something that can be thrown on a graph. An example would be eventual collapse of certain ecosystems, especially deep sea ecosystems. Second and third order effects are not easily predicted, and while some may say "the world will end when phytoplankton die off," we don't know when that will happen or even if that will happen because the environment is complicated and will change and adapt.

These multitudes of studies are reducing under the current administration because of the reduction of grants and funding for all sorts of research, but specifically climate change research. While individual scientists do have bias, their work must be peer reviewed and the science must be sound to be published. The lack of funds is why my wife is working a desk instead of conducting research right now.

It is foolish to think that the US can simply change energy sources and make it cost effective. When the previous administration made certain regulatory changes it reduced the abilities for companies to compete, reduced our energy resource capability, and harmed our economy. It also helped improve water quality and reduced our carbon footprint. Introducing climate change regulation isn't stupid so long as risks to economy and national security are mitigated. Unilateral changes may be seen soley as losing financially to our enemies, however, globalization is inevitable and the US should recognize the reality of our transition to technology-innovation-service based economy vs physical labor. Protectionist measures will only harm us in the long term.

The effects that we are seeing now, as far as improvement of air quality, reduction of certain pollutants in waterways, return of animals, etc. are benefits that are not sustainable, obviously. They also shouldn't be used as some poster for climate change policy. Dolphins returning to certain bays when they aren't used or sea turtles coming to a new area to lay eggs doesn't equal close all beaches permanently after COVID.

I'm not dismissive of economic concerns with climate change regulation, but something must be done to address human impact on the environment. The US is a leader on the world stage; if the Paris climate accord wasn't acceptable, then we should have looked to improve on it and not abandon it all together.

Droid said it best:

* Climate change is a critical problem.
* The right is being stupid about it.
* The left is being stupid about it.

 

[911 Crazy]

I was saw this thread and started adding up my mileage reduction also...didn't expect the climate change talk haha.

I'll say that man-made climate change is a fact based on multitudes of studies and the effects are far reaching in ways people would never consider on this forum. The effect of our specific contribution to climate change is not something that can be thrown on a graph. An example would be eventual collapse of certain ecosystems, especially deep sea ecosystems. Second and third order effects are not easily predicted, and while some may say "the world will end when phytoplankton die off," we don't know when that will happen or even if that will happen because the environment is complicated and will change and adapt.

These multitudes of studies are reducing under the current administration because of the reduction of grants and funding for all sorts of research, but specifically climate change research. While individual scientists do have bias, there work must be peer reviewed and the science must be sound to be published. The lack of funds is why my wife is working a desk instead of conducting research right now.

It is foolish to think that the US can simply change energy sources and make it cost effective. When the previous administration made certain regulatory changes it reduced the abilities for companies to compete, reduced our energy resource capability, and harmed our economy. It also helped improve water quality and reduced our carbon footprint. Introducing climate change regulation isn't stupid so long as risks to economy and national security are mitigated. Unilateral changes may be seen soley as losing financially to our enemies, however, globalization is inevitable and the US should recognize the reality of our transition to technology-innovation-service based economy vs physical labor. Protectionist measures will only harm us in the long term.

The effects that we are seeing now, as far as improvement of air quality, reduction of certain pollutants in waterways, return of animals, etc. are benefits that are not sustainable, obviously. They also shouldn't be used as some poster for climate change policy. Dolphins returning to certain bays when they aren't used or sea turtles coming to a new area to lay eggs doesn't equal close all beaches permanently after COVID.

I'm not dismissive of economic concerns with climate change regulation, but something must be done to address human impact on the environment. The US is a leader on the world stage; if the Paris climate accord wasn't acceptable, then we should have looked to improve on it and not abandon it all together.

Droid said it best:

Is there a Cliff's Notes version?