Alex, if it turns out like that, thank God we built our house when we did. Living in a plastic bag with styrofoam insulation—terrible. The windows are probably screwed shut, and if the mechanical ventilation system fails, you suffocate. Your eyes constantly itch and everyone gets asthma because of the dry air.
No way. The EU? Seriously? Poland, Greece, and Slovakia are going along with this nonsense? I just can’t believe it. Karsten
No way. The EU? Seriously? Poland, Greece, and Slovakia are going along with this nonsense? I just can’t believe it. Karsten
Marvinius II30 Jan 2018 14:57Tego12 schrieb:
Ah, a climate change skeptic. No one says there hasn’t always been climate change, but nowadays climate scientists worldwide agree that the observed warming is significantly negatively impacted by human activity and therefore must be limited. It is quite sad that there are still isolated specialists who deny this.And always paying indulgences to the climate church, it’s easy to do, for example through the electricity bill....B
Bieber081530 Jan 2018 15:00Nordlys schrieb:
needs between 5 and 7 liters, has space for 4 and CO2 around 110 g. With 5 to 7 liters of gasoline per 100 km (62 miles), CO2 emissions should be between 117 and 163 g per km (1.9 and 2.6 oz per mile). However, this is not very relevant here, as it is off-topic .Tego12 schrieb:
Your argument is, with all due respect, quite limited. Just because A isn’t prohibited doesn’t mean that banning B isn’t reasonable. If the government didn’t regulate anything, we’d still be living like in the Stone Age.
The same applies to climate change... choosing not to implement a sensible measure just because another possible measure isn’t taken is, well, somehow… ?! This is where liberals and environmentalists differ. This was and still is not the point with Jamaica. I shudder at the tegos, and it’s probably the same the other way around. Karsten
Marvinius II30 Jan 2018 16:11Bieber0815 schrieb:
With 5 to 7 liters of gasoline per 100 km (62 miles), the CO2 emissions should be between 117 and 163 g CO2 per km (0.19 to 0.26 lb CO2 per mile). But that’s not very important here since it’s off-topic .Better to have more CO2 and fewer particulates and nitrogen oxides!C
chand198630 Jan 2018 16:31Just as a point to consider: In every school of thought, it is frowned upon (including—and especially—in liberal ones) to justify something wrong by pointing to mistakes elsewhere.
No one would think to say: Car accidents are unavoidable, so we might as well do away with traffic regulations altogether.
SUVs can’t be regulated, so it doesn’t matter how houses are built... the quality of the logic is the same.
It is no surprise that CO2 effect deniers usually come from the liberal camp, aiming to shut down the discussion about this kind of logic right from the start. After all, their own school of thought would then stand in their way.
There are engineers who outright deny the greenhouse effect itself—of course, without ever fully understanding what this term actually means. But their worldview is fixed. Discussions with such people are more barren than the Gobi Desert. At the first uncomfortable counterargument, they pull out the “freedom-restriction” card—the equivalent of a Nazi accusation—and the conversation ends.
Climate change as such and the human contribution to climate change are two different matters. It’s enough to look at the time scale on which climate changes occurred before the industrial revolution and compare it to the time scale since then.
We might be able to build higher dikes here and enjoy the fact that the red wine improves. But what about the poor people living on certain other coasts?
No one would think to say: Car accidents are unavoidable, so we might as well do away with traffic regulations altogether.
SUVs can’t be regulated, so it doesn’t matter how houses are built... the quality of the logic is the same.
It is no surprise that CO2 effect deniers usually come from the liberal camp, aiming to shut down the discussion about this kind of logic right from the start. After all, their own school of thought would then stand in their way.
There are engineers who outright deny the greenhouse effect itself—of course, without ever fully understanding what this term actually means. But their worldview is fixed. Discussions with such people are more barren than the Gobi Desert. At the first uncomfortable counterargument, they pull out the “freedom-restriction” card—the equivalent of a Nazi accusation—and the conversation ends.
Climate change as such and the human contribution to climate change are two different matters. It’s enough to look at the time scale on which climate changes occurred before the industrial revolution and compare it to the time scale since then.
We might be able to build higher dikes here and enjoy the fact that the red wine improves. But what about the poor people living on certain other coasts?
Marvinius II30 Jan 2018 16:43chand1986 schrieb:
Just a thought: In every school of thought, it is considered unacceptable (especially in liberal ones) to justify something wrong by pointing to errors elsewhere.
No one would ever suggest: traffic accidents are inevitable, so let’s just do away with traffic laws entirely.
SUVs can’t be regulated, so it doesn’t matter how houses are built... the quality of logic is the same.
It’s no surprise that climate change deniers often come from the liberal camp, aiming to shut down the discussion of this type of logic at the outset. Because that would conflict with their own school of thought.
There are engineers who outright deny the greenhouse effect—without ever really understanding what that term actually means. But their worldview is fixed. Discussions with such people are less productive than the Gobi Desert. At the first inconvenient counterargument, they pull out the equivalent of the “Nazi card,” the “freedom-restrictor card,” and the conversation ends.
And climate change itself and the human contribution to climate change are two different things. It’s enough to look at the timescales over which climate changes occurred before the Industrial Revolution and the timescales since then.
Here we might be able to build higher levees and even enjoy better red wine. But what about the poor souls on certain other coasts?Of course, climate change always brings winners and losers. The real question is: where are there more winners and more losers—with warming or with cooling? My guess: with cooling, everyone loses.