Al_GGG just whupped all of all of yous's asses and it was okay
" I think She specially prepared that speech for Lord Voldemort. Too bad he didn't even stay to listen. So... she’s definitely doesn't have a backup plan. How dare you walk out of my specially prepared speech indeed. Woe be us. |
|
" I like the idea that it is better if we don't destroy the world as we know it. One should also appreciate her commitment. Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!
|
|
" She is an ignorant little girl. 2 degree wouldn't destroy the world, not really. It is the same as Covid, people should know better. Some people might die but people don't care. |
|
"I'd rate this as Mostly False. First, the part I agree with: From a historical perspective, hundreds of millions of years ago Earth had roughly quadruple current levels of atmospheric carbon, and through natural processes this was brought way down before humans became a distinct species. Indeed, the atmospheric carbon levels when homo sapiens first became genetically distinct are estimated to be higher than current levels.This is all uncontroversial paleoclimatology consensus, you can look it up in Wikipedia yourself, no politics here. On the other hand: the planet's ability to recover is different from our ability to recover. Humans evolved when atmospheric carbon levels were relatively low, and our period of greatest thriving, including the invention of civilization itself, took place during the lowest atmospheric carbon levels the planet has ever seen. And while I wouldn't call 2 degrees hotter a ruined world, I'd definitely call it a different world, and a worse one. For instance, if you want to sample Jurassic air with its quadruple atmospheric carbon, that's pretty easy — just go indoors. A typically ventilated building has an indoor CO2 level roughly quadruple current outside air. So if you want the TLDR on all that: you're talking about a world where fresh air literally doesn't exist, where you take a walk in the woods and take a deep breath to experience the same thing you can get right now at your cubicle. Is that going to kill everyone? Doubtful. But it would suck. While we shouldn't panic, we should avoid sucking. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
" I like how you rate me as mostly false while agreeing that 2 degrees hotter wouldn't ruin the world. Carbon dioxide concentration and temperature are different thing. Higher Carbon dioxide concentration make you uncomfortable but probably wouldn't kill you either unless you going to dangerously high level like 40,000 ppm. Jurassic CO2 levels were a few thousand ppm. Make it worse, maybe yes. Destroy it? That is a NO. I was wondering what you mean. When humans first diverged from apes, they aren't homo sapiens rather they are our distant humanoid relatives. They are closer to apes and chimpanzee than to humans.  |
|
"Yep. True: The new world would technically be human habitable. False: The world wouldn't be destroyed. This is false because it would very clearly be a new world. False: People wouldn't actually care about the changes. This is false because the changes would be have sufficient substance. False: Covid is a good analogy. While a significant number of people experience no symptoms from Covid, it will be impossible for people to not notice significant negative effects from 2 degrees of climate change. "Mostly true. Atmospheric carbon levels are a primary driver of overall temperature; there is a causal relationship. So this is kinda like saying "drug abuse and death from overdose are different things." When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Jul 7, 2021, 10:04:31 AM
|
|
" They are affected by it, bothered by it. That is not how I define "Caring". As in showing genuine concern, attaching great importance and doing something significant about it. " Perspective. It is actually Water vapor, Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide increase the amount of Water vapor in the air in a feedback loop. "Atmospheric carbon levels are a primary driver of overall temperature" "Human activities are the primary driver of climate change." The most offensive words is therefore the context that determines the offensiveness of our words. Isn't that Right? |
|
|
Whether or not climate change is anthropogenic or not is a very difficult subject to have a valid opinion on. I view the situation somewhat like this: you have two teenagers who each own 1 of two cats, both of whom share 1 litter box. You come home from being gone for some time, and the home is in a disgraceful state, as if the litter has never been changed. When you try to ask the people who would know best, they have enough inventive to lie about which cat did what, if they even know, to say which of the two cats left what poop that still hasn't been cleaned by its owner. While there may exist somewhere objective truth proving one cat shat more than the other, it could be debated infinitely.
What we can say, without doubt, is 1. BOTH anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic global warming are real. It is true that the Earth would be warming currently even if humanity had never evolved, AND humans are making the Earth warm faster than it would otherwise. And 2. We should at least reduce, and better yet reverse, the increase in atmospheric carbon levels. You could be right that no one will actually die if we leave the litter box intended another day, but it will degrade quality of life. Some people are really into the determination of blame, and I'm not going to say there is zero utility in such a determination if it is true. But I will say that the utility is low compared to the costs involved to determine it. The moderation policy of forbidding discussion of such topics is wise. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Jul 7, 2021, 10:39:21 PM
|
|
" Fine, lets talk about the next statistic.  I determined that inorder to save the bees we will have to drop V2-rockets on little britain. This will encourage the population to register fake beekeeper accounts to the authorities inorder to get to the sweet sugar coupons handed out to the ones that were ment to feed the bees with it but selfishly consumed the sugar themselfs inorder to dodge the foodshortages. Atleast the numbers of pollinators would increase statistically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drDs-Y5DNH8
|
|
"Is there a correlation between Democratic voter registrations and beekeeper accounts? When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
