451–460 of 472 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that image is wrong. If the tree is that big then it's okay to focus on it.
Even a huge tree, is still a tree in the forest. You need to look at consumption patterns, not just energy, which derive from the first anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> effective carbon taxing would tax you right out of pretty much all modern convenience What tax number do you have in mind for "effective"? $100 per ton or maybe $200 per ton would have massive differences on industry but wouldn't prevent modern convenience at all.
What's the point if it doesn't change overconsumption?
But the two biggest points would be that every power plant and tons of factories stop emitting CO2, and the cost of vehicles shifts significantly in favor of electric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Mensa score correlated with intelligence?
Yes. Genuinely smart people don't feel the need to get tested.
Are you saying that one can't be "genuinely" intelligent AND one or more of the following:
1) curious about their IQ 2) enjoy timed puzzles 3) want to be part of the Mensa community 4) have a friendly IQ competition with friends 5) be an insecure teenager and take the test for validation
Does "genuine" intelligence preclude all of the above?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Is Mensa score correlated with intelligence?
Did you not read the parent before it was deleted?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The little ice age is in the graph, it was just completely insignificant on a global scale, as opposed to global warming which as you can see from the graph is extremely significant on a global scale. You are expecting to see the little ice age on the graph because you think that was a comparable event to global warming, but the fact is it wasn't. Local changes due to global warming are even more significant than the…
We are discussing aridification in europe, a specifically local event? Also one that can happen regardless of global warming and has happened severalt times in the last 5000 years. Do you not even track what conversation context you're in before going off? edit: im editing here to respond to the absurd response below. The reponder, while lecturing rabidly missed several things like the difference between aridificatio…
Also I forgot to address this point in your earlier comment:
> As someone who hope global warming is man-made becuase that woudl be FIXABLE at least in theory
The fact that I am able to shoot you in the face does not imply that I am able to fix you afterwards. We are in no way capable of removing all the carbon we have added to the atmosphere within a reasonable timeframe, it would probably take about a thousand to a few thousand years if we really went for it.
And as I've shown you with the graph, global warming is indisputably, without a doubt, anthropogenic which means man-made.
Arguing about whether this heat wave is related to the severe global warming we are currently is experiencing is absolutely asinine, there is literally not a single fucking thing about the climate on our planet right now that wouldn't be different without climate change. The heat wave in Europe would be less hot, and/or it would be shorter, or it wouldn't be here at all. The general severe warming Europe has seen over the past decade would not have occurred.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's cut the chase: if you have medical conditions for which *a doctor* prescribes you a carnivore diet, referring to the original comment, you can be exempt from the carbon tax.
I disagree, I think red meat is healthy in all/most scenarios. What should be taxed is high carb, sweets, ultra processed.
As I posted you a comprehensive review of carnivore diet literature there's no evidence of any long term benefit, in fact, there's evidence of the contrary.
You really sound like somebody who takes advice from Joe Rogan and Tik tok instead of going to a doctor.
Continue believing the narratives and data that back your preferences or your anecdotal experience I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, I think red meat is healthy in all/most scenarios. What should be taxed is high carb, sweets, ultra processed.
No, that's your opinion not backed by any science. As I posted you a comprehensive review of carnivore diet literature there's no evidence of any long term benefit, in fact, there's evidence of the contrary. You really sound like somebody who takes advice from Joe Rogan and Tik tok instead of going to a doctor. Continue believing the narratives and data that back your preferences or your anecdotal experience I guess.
While carnivore is eating only meat.
Your paper just said that you may have issues with blood lipids and stuff, there's no real measurements if those blood levels end up as real issues.
Example:
> In contrast, a systematic review by Palmer (2025) [12] concluded that the long-term adverse effects of red and processed meat consumption—such as increased risks of type 2 diabetes, cancer, obesity, hypertension, inflammation, and atherosclerosis—clearly outweigh any potential benefits [12].
Putting diabetes & obesity in there is literally insane! One big issue on carnivore or keto is it's very hard to gain weight, because protein & fat are very fulfilling.
The whole study is always "eating more meat might do this", and never considering real carnivore where you eat nothing else. And even on cases on carnivore, most of the things were extrapolating from the transitory period (hint: staying 30 years carnivore and transitioning to mediterrean also has issues)
Again, it's very hard when you know no details whatsoever.
This is a mongodb moment for you my man (going by marketing), but it's ok, you just don't know better, and don't have the tools or time or ability or the necessity! to try anything else.
Complete nonsense. Even climate chance won't change the amount of rainfall we get over the course of the year. In fact, it will most likely be wetter due to it. But it will become more uneven, with droughts followed by torrential rains and floods. We simply need to adapt by creating underground water basins that store torrential rainfall preventing floods and also serve as buffers for when the drought comes. I do bel…
I’ve been to quite a few deserts that get the occasional seasonal torrential rain. They still remain deserts nine to ten months out of twelve. The water saturates the soil, can’t percolate to underground aquifers where it could otherwise be stored, and runs into (ephemeral) rivers, washing away some of whatever is left of the soil with it. I wouldn’t be surprised if two places could have roughly the same yearly amoun…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not really a common perspective, but I have a theory that the primary cause of especially this kind of drought has way more to do with Europe essentially draining itself through all of the river straightening projects of the 19th century. How could it not be. Before all the industrial age river straightening that has gone on until even rather recently with damming and concrete encasement projects in I think even…
The concept of winter pretty much stopped existing where I live. It's just colder autumn. The ground doesn't freeze. Snow doesn't accumulate. No amount of meandering is going to compensate for the fact that the mountains do not hold water. Something needs to feed the springs and rivers. And the source is gone. Europe is shifting into a different climate, where water primarily comes as rainfall, causing floods. I imag…
It sounds drastic, but all I keep hearing is that we need drastic actions, but those drastic actions seem to always be based on diffuse, abstract, and really rather meaningless and insignificant things like reducing energy use, while at the same time driving tens of millions of more people from low energy consumption regions into relatively high energy consumption regions.
But to address your point too, yes, Europe seems too be shifting into a different climate, but it's because based on my theory, Europe has effectively drained it's water cycle of the very moisture it needs. Sure, climate change has warmed things everywhere, but don't you think if Europe had the moisture it drained into the oceans that could evaporate under the higher heat into clouds that both would provide ray reflection/shadow/cooling, and deposit rain into the alps in the form of snow in winter; things would likely look a lot different?
The thing is that the source does not have to be gone, because it is actually not in Europe at all, but you have to kind of "kickstart" the cycle again if that is even possible. The source of European moisture in the European water cycle is effectively the USA and the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean area. The Gulf Stream then drives that moisture by way of the energy in the water towards Europe, where it then is driven inland from the north through the cooling at the poles.
What I am saying is effectively, if you drain your lawn with elaborate drainage systems that suck all the moisture out at a faster rate than you can even water it, you should not be surprised that it still will dry up and die.
There are clearly things going on, e.g., the US has not really had anywhere near the number of hurricanes that keep getting predicted, but I can assure you that the heat is generating a lot of storms and clouds. It's a bit anecdotal, but I am actually oddly surprised at how "cool" the ocean water is this year in particular compared to the past. I hope it's not the other wild prediction scientist have made that he AMOC seizes up and you guys end up wishing there were more global warming, but that's for another day.
May you live in interesting times