261 scientists sign open letter calling for ‘deep (2025 Update)

Trump would just use a big coal fire to burn up the letter. I'm surprised he hasn't thought of that yet, having big bonfires to pollute as much as possible outside his rallies. Trump has some big balls. His campaign is selling "LGBTs for Trump" stuff, after Trump threw them under the bus, his throwing them out of the military being the best example. The man really has no shame or ethics.

If you believe in God and the Bible, then he created the whole shebang about ten thousand years ago, not 4 bil. And just because the planet has changed naturally over it's existence doesn't mean that man can't also be changing it. Co2 has increased by a third in just the last 100 years, it's now at levels not seen in 700k years. That increase corresponds to our burning of fossil fuel. Previous increases of co2 that happened naturally took tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, not a hundred.

I think that is part of it. Nature aside, look at all the coal and oil we burn. Don't you think that some of the residual heat may be sticking around? Just look at the simple logic of it. That heat has to go someplace. Just like in your house when you use the oven.

What we do is puny compared to what Mother Nature does. I might also mention that less than 3% of the US population can be called scientists. Yet we have many more citizens professing a full understanding of science.

The political divide has been caused by those wanting more government control in our lives using the state of fear created by this issue to get their way.

Let's look at the elephant in the room. We're closing in on a world population of 8 billion, each of which is using a greater or lesser amount of energy. As the third world develops and wants more of the so-called benefits of industrial civilization, it will only get worse.

Sorting trash, buying electric vehicles, and replacing coal fired plants with windmills is only putting lipstick on a dying pig. Very few will acknowledge that and will insist there is a technological fix to an unsustainable system.

There's a discussion about nuclear fusion on the sci.electronics.design group. Haven't people been talking about that since Model T days?

He is at least partly right. AOC wants to change our life with the New Green Deal. Carbon is a secondary benefit of it. Socialism is first.

Political divide is the worst I've ever seen. It is not just disagreement, it is often downright hatred. No compromise.

What do they know.

/s Stumpie McMuffin LOTUS

Doesn't matter if people caused it or not.

If people can stop it or slow it down, that's what matters. and it seems clear that they can.

Don't bother me with facts.

/Stumpie McMuffin JOTUS

That might be true with her (I don't read about her much or read her mind so I'm not sure. )

What galls me is the name "green new deal" because afaik

I certainly don't discuss politics with more than 3 other people**. Some I know I will fight with and others I'm not sure.

No, they cannot. There is nothing people can do short of nuclear winter that will have any kind of noticeable effect, and even that would eventually run its course and nature would take over.

Bottom line for me is that I will do nothing to lower my carbon footprint.

But we have strong scientific evidence that man is directly responsible for the increase in CO2. It would be incredibly silly to think that we can dig up billions of tons of carbon fuels that accumulated over millions of years and burn them in just 100 years, without having an impact on the environment. If someone came to your house and said, we're going to light 1000 kerosene lamps inside your house, would you expect things to remain the same?

I think part of the problem here is that people think because they look up in the sky and it seems endless, that it is big and endless. In reality most of the atmosphere is in the first 25K feet. As an analogy, if you took a globe that's 2 ft in diameter, the atmosphere is mostly in the first

And why exactly is that? Man has been burning fossil fuels that emit CO2. If man switches to other sources that do not emit CO2, we absolutely can reduce, stop, or decrease the increase in CO2 that is occurring. We've demonstrated that solar works, nuclear works, windmills work. We have the tools.

No surprise there. You probably actually want to increase burning fossil fuels, just like Trump.

This is part of the fallacy:

That's ok. You'll probably be dead by the time we run out of fossil fuels.

As far as I can tell, nearly everything that's required to reduce anthropogenic climate change is stuff that we ought to be doing anyway or will soon be doing anyway. Why wait until the last gallon of has has been burned?

Cindy Hamilton

Sure Frank, 99% of the world's climate scientists that have concluded anthropogenic warming is occurring, don't understand the basic principles of logic. But you do. That's a good one.

Ed Abbey always drove gas guzzlers. His theory was the faster the oil was used up the faster industrial civilization collapsed. Old school environmentalists like him, Linkola, and Naess had a different approach than the current crop. This generation wants wind turbines producing electricity so they can still use their iPads while driving their Teslas.

I'm more with "this generation". Although I've never seen a Tesla that passed my test for vehicle utility.

Cindy Hamlton

So, 99% of the world's climate scientists don't understand science and basic logic. But you and the rest of the trumptards do.

ROFL