Netflix's "Our Planet"

[sasquatch]

Planets fine, it's the humans who are ******

Then again anyone bitching about overpopulation is welcome to go take a long swim, feed some sharks and reduce it by one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just like anyone who thinks it DONT matter can move to India.

Also I already swim n dive with the sharks, still here though.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

If the language barrier wasn't so difficult would consider.



java on the other hand is a bit crowded. Like stupid crowded. And yet they still have rusa deer, tigers and Javanese rhino's.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

Just like anyone who thinks it DONT matter can move to India.

Also I already swim n dive with the sharks, still here though.

Not gonna lie, after seeing a guy get eatin in South Africa by a great White my stoke level seeing them eye to eye isnt high on the list.

Then again maybe karma is gonna get me for killing so many sharks.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

And raping the ocean

 

[Oregon]

Did the 60 million bison from a few hundred years ago fart way less than the 40 million cows today? Serious. Important to know

 

[WannabeHunter]

I knew Rokslide had lots of "experts" but you guys are really shining here.

Maybe finding alternate fuels that won't literally "run-out" isn't such a bad idea. If you want to keep cutting tops off mountains and polluting waterways then continue down this current path of "bring coal back." Not saying I'm for the GND, it's quite radical. But remember, that smaller more moderate changes have been asked for and rejected for political and monetary gain.

The next 5 years will be interesting and I can only hope super volcanoes stay quiet, we don't endorse genocide for population control, and we don't continue down a path that will eventually fall off the "flat-earth."

 

[Poser]

Planets fine, it's the humans who are ******

Then again anyone bitching about overpopulation is welcome to go take a long swim, feed some sharks and reduce it by one.

99.9% of climate scientist agree that without government funding coming from giant, efficient capitalist economies, they'd have to join the real workforce..

Funny how that is.

Create a problem then tell everyone else to fix it and keep stomping around the ivory towers.

Whatever happened to think for yourself and question authority??

Or should all the world be soybean fields and windmills with galloping stallions?

I tried this method once, but, after taking a nibble, the shark decided I didn’t taste so great

 

[Alaskanopolis]

@JWP58 its called Science: https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/
"Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels."

I love global warming--the further from the barren misery that was the ice age the better.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

I tried this method once, but, after taking a nibble, the shark decided I didn’t taste so great

Dang!! No deal. What's the backstory on that one?

Sharks usually don't muck around.

 

[Alaskanopolis]

I knew Rokslide had lots of "experts" but you guys are really shining here.

Maybe finding alternate fuels that won't literally "run-out" isn't such a bad idea. If you want to keep cutting tops off mountains and polluting waterways then continue down this current path of "bring coal back." Not saying I'm for the GND, it's quite radical. But remember, that smaller more moderate changes have been asked for and rejected for political and monetary gain.

The next 5 years will be interesting and I can only hope super volcanoes stay quiet, we don't endorse genocide for population control, and we don't continue down a path that will eventually fall off the "flat-earth."

The moral thing to do is not artificially restrict humans from access to what is the most economical form of energy available. Climate related deaths have decreased 99% since the advent of fossil fuels. It is the fossil fuels themselves that have saved countless billions from the dangers of climate. People in Barrow like being warm and people in Phoenix like being cool. I also find it suspicious that a lot of the modern civilizations that built said civilizations on fossil fuels now want to tell developing nations they're not allowed to do so themselves. It seems very reminiscent of what Western countries foisted on Japan, in regards to colonialism after WW1. It also seems a lot like the tactic used by large, established corporations in which they work with the government to impose regulations on their industry that create minor nuisances for them, but essentially push smaller/upstart competition that can't handle the expenses of arbitrary regulatory compliance out of the market. The "Climate Crisis" scare is the same old scam; don't fall for it.

 

[WannabeHunter]

The moral thing to do is not artificially restrict humans from access to what is the most economical form of energy available. Climate related deaths have decreased 99% since the advent of fossil fuels. It is the fossil fuels themselves that have saved countless billions from the dangers of climate. People in Barrow like being warm and people in Phoenix like being cool. I also find it suspicious that a lot of the modern civilizations that built said civilizations on fossil fuels now want to tell developing nations they're not allowed to do so themselves. It seems very reminiscent of what Western countries foisted on Japan, in regards to colonialism after WW1. It also seems a lot like the tactic used by large, established corporations in which they work with the government to impose regulations on their industry that create minor nuisances for them, but essentially push smaller/upstart competition that can't handle the expenses of arbitrary regulatory compliance out of the market. The "Climate Crisis" scare is the same old scam; don't fall for it.

I totally agree that our hypocrisy when it comes to developing nations wanting to use fossil fuels is ludicrous. I'm not so sure going forward that the most developed country in the world shouldn't be investing in technologies. The "Climate Crisis" isn't even my main point (But I do believe CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem, ie Venus). I just think that from a long term economical stand point, having as many sources of energy as possible is a good thing. It would drive down the cost of fossil fuels to due supply/demand.

Just not sure the brilliant members of Rokslide can put aside the "evil commies" and "science denier" kind of comments to really talk about things.

 

[bowieknife50]

As was pointed out 99.9% of scientists say the current trending of global climate change is man made at a highly accelerated rate, which will lead to... (gotta point out this is 99.9% agreed upon scientific truth...

What is the reference for this statement?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alaskanopolis]

I'm a lot more worried about the death and misery that can be brought about by giving Man more power over Man, than I am people shopping for energy in a free market causing the planet to warm to a point it is no longer adaptable and inhabitable. Planned economies are always created with the noblest of intents, such as: driving prices of commodities and services down, economic equality, greater distribution of necessities etc. But, the arrogance and hubris that comes with One believing themselves smart enough to be a savior, if only given the authority to dictate the markets, and with it the necessities of Man as they see fit, is what creates a path towards mass misery and suffering. To be frank, I believe a lot of "elitists" invested heavily in non-nuclear alternatives to fossil fuels at the turn of the century and they're really pushing to make it work. I'm all for alternatives if they're developed and implemented naturally and of their own merits, not anointed from a list of winners and losers by bureaucrats.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

You know what having a bachelors degree in physical geography with an emphasis on human impact of the environment/sustainability leads too?

A well educated roughneck!

 

[fnf01]

What is the reference for this statement?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NASA but I was colloquial with it pardon my slang

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


*edit that’s also the same percentage of scientists that agree with evolution according to Pew Research Center

 

[JWP58]

I love how if you dont drink the koolaid you automatically want to destroy the environment lol. You want dirty air and water if you dont believe what ALL the scientists say is gospel. I mean it's a unanimous consensus....there is no question. We are the cause. Just like we caused multiple ice ages....geez. The next thing the deniers will claim is plants need CO2 to live....idiots!

Personally I'm anti volcano (not human). If we could plug up all the polluting volcanoes.....there might be hope for us.

 

[fnf01]

I love how if you dont drink the koolaid you automatically want to destroy the environment lol. You want dirty air and water if you dont believe what ALL the scientists say is gospel. I mean it's a unanimous consensus....there is no question. We are the cause. Just like we caused multiple ice ages....geez. The next thing the deniers will claim is plants need CO2 to live....idiots!

Personally I'm anti volcano (not human). If we could plug up all the polluting volcanoes.....there might be hope for us.

Volcanos =200 million tons of CO2 cars and industry 24billion tons. Orders of magnitude different. Carry on though don’t regulate it cause Volcanoes do it to so if we do it more it doesn’t mean anything https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/


Edit* in before more disingenuous claims of straw man, because the continued demonizing of scientific findings and recommendations of policy based on those findings is at a minimum intending to keep the status quo which is what is causing the mess in the first place. Pointing out that hypocrisy is not a straw man but forcing you to confront your own cognitive dissonance

 

[Mike7]

So 97% of publishing climate scientists believe it is likely that human activities, mostly by way of the greenhouse theory, are playing some role in warming noted during the past 100 years while we are between natural solar ice ages...or between volcanic, meteor, etc. natural events that have caused either warming or cooling, but that is unclear because scientists agree even less on all of the natural causes & effects.

So, what should be done about warming if anything? And if something should be done, how should that be funded or further studied, or even implemented? Certainly, getting rid of nuclear and hydroelectric power is not the answer is it?...or just blindly following a beautiful, ignorant 29 year old politician who did not invent the internet?

I like to see real scientific debates and solutions to things. But I guess because I think the carbon tax is nothing more than a scheme for taxation and control, that makes me a climate denier.

 

[*zap*]

This is interesting:

Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances.

According to the study, scientists also discovered that during this period of Global Warming “there were no ice sheets covering either Greenland or West Antarctica, and much of the East Antarctic ice sheet was gone.”

No, actually, what this study proves is that there is nothing we can do to stop the Earth’s naturally occurring climate cycles. Even the worst of the worst, even the most maniacal pushing the Global Warming Hoax admit that, at best, we can only cool the planet a couple of degrees, which will do next to nothing if the planet is determined to again warm itself by seven degrees, as we now know it did 2,999,998 years ago.

 

[Alaskanopolis]

The “climate crisis” has become just as dogmatic as the organized religions the supposed humanists supporting the concept of planet-murder-through-fossil-fuels tend to decry. The scary part is the emphasis of the dogma is placed on controlling humanity to prevent an impending apocalypse, but without the freewill aspect of Judeo-Christian theology. What does an ideology that doesn’t value free-will and the natural rights of Man, a near pathological view of impending doom, and a dictatorial lust get us? Sounds more like a death cult that has turned objective data into a supposed doomsday prophecy.

I look forward to warmer temps, higher CO2 concentrations and the lush, green environments that come with it.