Semua Diskusi > Forum Steam > Off Topic > Rincian Topik
De Hollandse Ezel (Di-ban) 17 Agu @ 3:05pm
Why climatenonsence is a scam to steal your freedom.
Personally I don't see co2 as a problem.. or better said :
even IF all the panic comes true.. earth still be there, life still be there and humans still be there.. yes there be some starvation, draughts.. wars etc. but it is NOT an apocaliptic turning earn into venus kind of event even if ALL fossil fuels in excistance are burned.
-
co2 levels have been much higher than even now.. and life was just fine..
I also doubt how large a percentage of co2 is man caused.. there are many other contributors...
and carbondating is NOT suited imho for any dating past 30000 years give or take imho.
(and thats even IF you believe creation dated that far back..)

on top of that I see the earths natural mechanisms to absorb co2 as more capable.. than they are projected so as we produce more co2 the mechanisms to scrub it back out the atmosphere also will kick in overdrive filtering it away..

but ok.... lets for a moment presume it really IS a terrrrrrible problem... ok than here are the numbers..

We DO have technology to filter specific gasses out the atmosphere and liquidise them.
it cost a lot of energy to do so.. and we would have to build large facilities to do this on a proper scale.. but IF we do this...

it would cost 2.4x10^20 Joules of energy to filer ALL gasses out of the atmosphere (provided we have an 100% efficient technology) ofcourse all techlonology has SOME waste.. so lets presume a terrible efficiency of 10% (which is WAY lower than we can make this technology most our tech is between 30% (lightbulbs) and 99.97% (power converters) efficient.

well.. annual GLOBAL energy output is 5.8x10^21 joules.
so even at JUST 10% efficiency it would cost just 41% of all the energy produced in a single year to wipe out ALL the co2 ever presumed produced by humans.. we would instantly be back at 280ppm.

and the materials needed to build al the infrastructue for this would be CONSIDERABLE less in volume and MUCH less poluting than all this suppose "green" energy needs.. ..

think of it.. a electric car is 3x as heavy as a regulair car.. it eneds 3x as many matertials to be produced.. and not just that.. the TYPE of materials are types that are of the most poluting to mine.. also an 3x as heavy car... wil need 3x the energy to move the same distance... than we need to massively increase the electric grid to power all those cars... meaning 60 times more copper needs to be annually mined permanently.. and thats JUST to convert cars,,, add all the rest and going green starts to look QUITE dirty...


but wait you may say ok 41% to pump out all the damage done away.. is one thing.. but what about whats produced today,... well now..
we would need about 2.8*10^15 Joules of energy to filter out the air
at the same 10% efficiency thats just
or about 0,0005% of global energy production
a tiny fraction we easely can afford

so if we allocate somewhere between 0.0005% and 41% of globbal fossil energy production to co2 scrubbing.. annually.. the problem would fix itself.. and no drastic freedom limiting nor any insane cost increasing and earth poluting "green" measures needed.

but wait you may say.. thats billions of cubic meter of liquidised co2.. where to store all that stuff...
well now... the very underground reservoirs we pumped the oil and gas out can serve fine for that.. alternatively we might create deep mineshafts where we store
**even IF some of these fail at one time.. it is FAR less a headache problem than the hassle we have with nuclear waste storage.. after all a ♥♥♥♥ of co2 storage just means the scubbers need to work a bit harder this year... it is not imediatly deadly.

even better such a global grid of co2 storages and scrubbers would allow us to climate control the earth.. if an ice age would come.. or the sun would eventually burn hotter.. we can increase or decrease co2 levels at will to prevent iceages or the future expantion of the sun to be a problem..
-and a massive supply of liquidised co2 + development of co2 scrubbers can help in colonising both mars and venus in the coming centuries.

ofcourse eventually fossil fuels will run out.. and we need to convert to more sustanable means.. but that aint an isue for hundreds more years... and by than we hopefully have nuclear fusion powerplants..
< >
Menampilkan 1-15 dari 370 komentar
Frankie 17 Agu @ 3:12pm 
No it isn't
#1
Goldenglow 17 Agu @ 3:13pm 
2
Alright grampa, let's get you to bed
#2
Ghost Metal 17 Agu @ 3:14pm 
I agree with the sentiment in your post but... what freedom?
#3
AdahnGorion 17 Agu @ 3:36pm 
Earth will become like Mars and humans would be trapped in a underground ocean where they would evolve into mermaids
#4
Competizione 17 Agu @ 3:44pm 
Part freedom, part money. The elites want to create neofeudalism. In the past they used the church to whip the peasants into obedience with the threats of damnation and suffering. These days they use climate hysteria as a new religion.

Same people, same methods, same idiots falling for it. The climate zealots defacing art and vandalizing property are just as insane as christian fundamentalists or islamists
#5
De Hollandse Ezel (Di-ban) 17 Agu @ 3:46pm 
Diposting pertama kali oleh Dr. Staten Island:
I agree with the sentiment in your post but... what freedom?

well with all electronic/electric
-all cars like that have computers onboard.. (sure some modern fuel using cars do too..)
those computers can be used to deny you use of your vehicle at a goverment dictators whim.. or to track your every movement.. powerfull tools for a future anticrist dicator.

compare that to classical diesel cars.. that can be run on vegetable oil you can produce yourself... and that are 100% mechenical (at worst the lights or windows won't work.. which is why I prefer cars with classic winding windows..)

here in europe with the insane "2030 no non EV cars allowed to sell" plan.. and the "2025 all new build houses must be fully co2 neutral, aka all electric heated, solar panels, heatpumps" which means that the already way to few houses will become even fewer and houses become even MORE unaffordable.. driving even more into rent-slaver (rents that already eat 70% of our incomes)

than there is the co2 tax on our exorbitant utility bills.. and cartaxes... (that are by weight so ev being heavier can be taxed even more)...


I agree we already lost much freedom... and the covid scam showed how easy what little is left can be taken away..
#6
kingjames488 17 Agu @ 3:46pm 
so a couple small island are going to flood... have you looked at the actual landmass that will become more hospitable to grow more crops if the planet was just a little warmer?
#7
🧸DirectorChimera🧸 17 Agu @ 3:52pm 
cananda and siberia become breadbaskets
#8
kingjames488 17 Agu @ 3:53pm 
Diposting pertama kali oleh kimiko:
cananda and siberia become breadbaskets
and northern europe... all the way from russia back to america.
#9
Rumpelcrutchskin 17 Agu @ 4:02pm 
Diposting pertama kali oleh kingjames488:
so a couple small island are going to flood... have you looked at the actual landmass that will become more hospitable to grow more crops if the planet was just a little warmer?

Might want to check it what happens when Earth`s average temperature rises only two degrees.
At three degrees most people will be dead.
#10
De Hollandse Ezel (Di-ban) 17 Agu @ 4:02pm 
even if just the Eu would start the scrubbing
(and scrap all the co2 tax, the ev only project the co2 neutral and all those insane plans)

the eu alone produces 3.8*10^19 Joules of energy
so say we increase that production by 1% and alocate all of that to co2 scrubbing.
**the eu imports about 200 billion annually of energy of which 60% is imported.
so to do this would cost about 4 billion euro. which spread over all eu citycens as a tax is WAY WAY less than all these climate neutral taxes and measures cost.

now lets presume a more realistic efficiency of 70% (eu after all has acces to high tech)
than the eu could scrub just by doing the reasonable plan above..
2,66*10^17 Joules worth of co2

at that rate.. not only would they FULLY compensate the entire co2 output of the entire earth.. but it would take about 910 years to also scrub ALL the co2 our of the air produced ever.
**if other nations (especially developed ones, india and china) chip similairly in.. adressing 1% of energy consumption to co2 scrubbing... than that time can be massively reduced to well before the end of the century WITHOUT breaking anybody's economy.
#11
kingjames488 17 Agu @ 4:04pm 
Diposting pertama kali oleh Rumpelcrutchskin:
Diposting pertama kali oleh kingjames488:
so a couple small island are going to flood... have you looked at the actual landmass that will become more hospitable to grow more crops if the planet was just a little warmer?

Might want to check it what happens when Earth`s average temperature rises only two degrees.
At three degrees most people will be dead.
I'm not sure how long you think we can actually maintain the planet in a state of glacial thaw?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srtTmZtbJg0
Terakhir diedit oleh kingjames488; 17 Agu @ 4:04pm
#12
Kobs 17 Agu @ 4:05pm 
Whether it's true or not someone is making money with it
#13
De Hollandse Ezel (Di-ban) 17 Agu @ 4:08pm 
Diposting pertama kali oleh Rumpelcrutchskin:
Diposting pertama kali oleh kingjames488:
so a couple small island are going to flood... have you looked at the actual landmass that will become more hospitable to grow more crops if the planet was just a little warmer?

Might want to check it what happens when Earth`s average temperature rises only two degrees.
At three degrees most people will be dead.

1 did you even read my post... IF you believe that.. still green is a scam. read the data on co2 scrubbers.

2 at the worst possible models... earth still could supply 2 billion people...and thats worst case (all fossil fuel burned.. all methane released)

it may become unlivable for humans around the equator... at 6 degrees warmer.. but it be quite a while before the northern and most souther regions become unlivable.. and in fact they will turn more habitable first.. in fact upto 8 degrees warmer the carry capacity of earth goes UP (due more now frozen land freed for agriculture or made more productive due longer grow seasons.. than is lost to deserfication and sea level rise)

some panicseeders claim that at 4.5 degrees of temperature increase...
"over 2 billion people around the equator dying due starvation/heatstrokes/sea level rise"
while true.. this is a political problem.... as land is freed up to carry much more than that at the same time... sure it would cause polical strife.. and potentially they be blocked from migrating and die out.. even that worst case would mean we would have over 5 billion humans left...

yes a LOT of the new habitable land be in russia (which is a political problem) and canada (which is less of a political problem)
Terakhir diedit oleh De Hollandse Ezel; 17 Agu @ 4:12pm
#14
kingjames488 17 Agu @ 4:11pm 
the biggest issue is the violent weather systems... but I think that has as much to do with china's cloud seeding program throwing off the natural atmospheric moisture content as global warming myself.
#15
< >
Menampilkan 1-15 dari 370 komentar
Per halaman: 1530 50

Semua Diskusi > Forum Steam > Off Topic > Rincian Topik
Tanggal Diposting: 17 Agu @ 3:05pm
Postingan: 371
Buat Diskusi Baru

Pedoman dan Aturan Diskusi