As with most things to do with ecological sustainability, I'd suggest that the State of Nature Report is probably the best place to go to first. If anyone wants a read, pages 84-7 are where it discusses wind turbines. It doesn't give a breakdown of bird numbers, but it does place an emphasis on seabirds being the most impacted. It stresses a need for further research and for careful placement of turbines to ensure that they are not sited in known flightpaths. Nowhere does it state that there shouldn't be turbines or that the danger they pose outweighs the positives of decreasing our reliance in fossil fuels. It also mentions a potential increase in fish species (surely a benefit for those seabirds) as a result of the reefification (my word, not theirs) of the turbine support structures.
Also need to take into account the damage and disturbance to the seabed involved in the installation of these huge turbines, and whether that is having an adverse effect on marine animals such as Whales and Dolphins and their highly sensitive sonar systems.
Was out on a boat off Tenerife recently with a marine mammal expert, surveying the resident nursery population of Pilot Whales The whales' home territory is the sea channel between the west coast of Tenerife and the east coast of neighbouring island La Gomera. It was 3 Celsius warmer throughout 2024 than 8 years ago when he started work there. 1.5 to 2C ocean temperature rise supposedly critical to global climate? That ship has sailed
3C rise in 8 years in open ocean.
But there's nothing to worry about boys'n'girls, the planet's 2nd largest emitter of climate warming pollution is set to 'drill, drill, drill' while winding back any responsible measures already in place. My generation may not yet actually be fcuked by the weather but the next one should be worried and the one after that...
This thread really has become a text-book study in how to derail an important discussion. We are now deep into cross-evidence about bird kills when we already have the information right there that it is a really low number. Nobody seems to be asking why we aren't preventing cats killing the 55 million per year.
As with most things to do with ecological sustainability, I'd suggest that the State of Nature Report is probably the best place to go to first. If anyone wants a read, pages 84-7 are where it discusses wind turbines. It doesn't give a breakdown of bird numbers, but it does place an emphasis on seabirds being the most impacted. It stresses a need for further research and for careful placement of turbines to ensure that they are not sited in known flightpaths. Nowhere does it state that there shouldn't be turbines or that the danger they pose outweighs the positives of decreasing our reliance in fossil fuels. It also mentions a potential increase in fish species (surely a benefit for those seabirds) as a result of the reefification (my word, not theirs) of the turbine support structures.
Also need to take into account the damage and disturbance to the seabed involved in the installation of these huge turbines, and whether that is having an adverse effect on marine animals such as Whales and Dolphins and their highly sensitive sonar systems.
This thread really has become a text-book study in how to derail an important discussion. We are now deep into cross-evidence about bird kills when we already have the information right there that it is a really low number. Nobody seems to be asking why we aren't preventing cats killing the 55 million per year.
Because we know the answer to that. It's to fit bells on their collars.
As with most things to do with ecological sustainability, I'd suggest that the State of Nature Report is probably the best place to go to first. If anyone wants a read, pages 84-7 are where it discusses wind turbines. It doesn't give a breakdown of bird numbers, but it does place an emphasis on seabirds being the most impacted. It stresses a need for further research and for careful placement of turbines to ensure that they are not sited in known flightpaths. Nowhere does it state that there shouldn't be turbines or that the danger they pose outweighs the positives of decreasing our reliance in fossil fuels. It also mentions a potential increase in fish species (surely a benefit for those seabirds) as a result of the reefification (my word, not theirs) of the turbine support structures.
Also need to take into account the damage and disturbance to the seabed involved in the installation of these huge turbines, and whether that is having an adverse effect on marine animals such as Whales and Dolphins and their highly sensitive sonar systems.
Onshore baby, onshore
Oh so @Stig was referring to ONSHORE reefs was he!. Got it🤣👍 Baby!
This thread really has become a text-book study in how to derail an important discussion. We are now deep into cross-evidence about bird kills when we already have the information right there that it is a really low number. Nobody seems to be asking why we aren't preventing cats killing the 55 million per year.
Education, education, education. If we don't tell them, they'll never change their ways.
Since there's no thread on US politics, I'm going to say this in here.
I was 100% against Trump back when Hilary was running. I couldn't believe Trump won. I thought Americans were crazy. I'd been leaning towards the left for more than 20 years without even knowing - maybe it was a result of me watching Hollywood films and TV series ever since the 90's. Anyway, it wasn't until this past election that I realized why the Dems lost so spectacularly... I read about some policies by the Dems and they were shocking. I have a childhood friend who now lives in New Jersey and she isn't pleased with the Dems either. In my opinion, the left has taken many things way too far. I know 99% of Lifers don't like Trump - I still don't like him either but you really should look more closely to see why he won the election this time. It's partly because the Democratic Party have done awfully in recent years in quite a few areas. Voters always care more about things that directly relate to their own well-being. And I suppose even if it wasn't Trump that was running, the Democratic Party would still have lost this election.
So my point is, step back and take a real look. It's impossible that over half of the population of a country is dumb.
I give you two examples of why I don't like the Dems (especially the Biden administration). One, immigration policies and DEI gone too far. Two, the ridiculously chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan. These are just the ones that are off the top of my head.
I had stereotype impressions of the GOP. Now I'm probably more a centrist...
There is a very good reason why there is no US politics thread, or any other politics threads. There used to be but all it lead to was bickering, name calling and in some cases outright aggression.
As with most things to do with ecological sustainability, I'd suggest that the State of Nature Report is probably the best place to go to first. If anyone wants a read, pages 84-7 are where it discusses wind turbines. It doesn't give a breakdown of bird numbers, but it does place an emphasis on seabirds being the most impacted. It stresses a need for further research and for careful placement of turbines to ensure that they are not sited in known flightpaths. Nowhere does it state that there shouldn't be turbines or that the danger they pose outweighs the positives of decreasing our reliance in fossil fuels. It also mentions a potential increase in fish species (surely a benefit for those seabirds) as a result of the reefification (my word, not theirs) of the turbine support structures.
Also need to take into account the damage and disturbance to the seabed involved in the installation of these huge turbines, and whether that is having an adverse effect on marine animals such as Whales and Dolphins and their highly sensitive sonar systems.
Onshore baby, onshore
Oh so @Stig was referring to ONSHORE reefs was he!. Got it🤣👍
No, you haven't got it.
To avoid all the marine life impact you noted, I was suggesting an alternative.
Since there's no thread on US politics, I'm going to say this in here.
I was 100% against Trump back when Hilary was running. I couldn't believe Trump won. I thought Americans were crazy. I'd been leaning towards the left for more than 20 years without even knowing - maybe it was a result of me watching Hollywood films and TV series ever since the 90's. Anyway, it wasn't until this past election that I realized why the Dems lost so spectacularly... I read about some policies by the Dems and they were shocking. I have a childhood friend who now lives in New Jersey and she isn't pleased with the Dems either. In my opinion, the left has taken many things way too far. I know 99% of Lifers don't like Trump - I still don't like him either but you really should look more closely to see why he won the election this time. It's partly because the Democratic Party have done awfully in recent years in quite a few areas. Voters always care more about things that directly relate to their own well-being. And I suppose even if it wasn't Trump that was running, the Democratic Party would still have lost this election.
So my point is, step back and take a real look. It's impossible that over half of the population of a country is dumb.
I give you two examples of why I don't like the Dems (especially the Biden administration). One, immigration policies and DEI gone too far. Two, the ridiculously chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan. These are just the ones that are off the top of my head.
I had stereotype impressions of the GOP. Now I'm probably more a centrist...
There is a very good reason why there is no US politics thread, or any other politics threads. There used to be but all it lead to was bickering, name calling and in some cases outright aggression.
As with most things to do with ecological sustainability, I'd suggest that the State of Nature Report is probably the best place to go to first. If anyone wants a read, pages 84-7 are where it discusses wind turbines. It doesn't give a breakdown of bird numbers, but it does place an emphasis on seabirds being the most impacted. It stresses a need for further research and for careful placement of turbines to ensure that they are not sited in known flightpaths. Nowhere does it state that there shouldn't be turbines or that the danger they pose outweighs the positives of decreasing our reliance in fossil fuels. It also mentions a potential increase in fish species (surely a benefit for those seabirds) as a result of the reefification (my word, not theirs) of the turbine support structures.
Also need to take into account the damage and disturbance to the seabed involved in the installation of these huge turbines, and whether that is having an adverse effect on marine animals such as Whales and Dolphins and their highly sensitive sonar systems.
Onshore baby, onshore
Oh so @Stig was referring to ONSHORE reefs was he!. Got it🤣👍
No, you haven't got it.
To avoid all the marine life impact you noted, I was suggesting an alternative.
Not much of an "alternative" seeing as we already have both onshore and offshore. But hey, whatever you do, don't ever admit you're wrong about something.
As with most things to do with ecological sustainability, I'd suggest that the State of Nature Report is probably the best place to go to first. If anyone wants a read, pages 84-7 are where it discusses wind turbines. It doesn't give a breakdown of bird numbers, but it does place an emphasis on seabirds being the most impacted. It stresses a need for further research and for careful placement of turbines to ensure that they are not sited in known flightpaths. Nowhere does it state that there shouldn't be turbines or that the danger they pose outweighs the positives of decreasing our reliance in fossil fuels. It also mentions a potential increase in fish species (surely a benefit for those seabirds) as a result of the reefification (my word, not theirs) of the turbine support structures.
Also need to take into account the damage and disturbance to the seabed involved in the installation of these huge turbines, and whether that is having an adverse effect on marine animals such as Whales and Dolphins and their highly sensitive sonar systems.
Onshore baby, onshore
Oh so @Stig was referring to ONSHORE reefs was he!. Got it🤣👍
No, you haven't got it.
To avoid all the marine life impact you noted, I was suggesting an alternative.
Not much of an "alternative" seeing as we already have both onshore and offshore. But hey, whatever you do, don't ever admit you're wrong about something.
Maybe it’s just me but I don’t see the wind farms / Turbines as an eye sore.
I find myself strangely drawn to looking at them whether onshore or offshore and accept them for what they are.
I see no practical issue (in pursuit of the greater good) but I can understand some ( a small number) of the onshore ones may have legitimate NIMBY objections.
Maybe it’s just me but I don’t see the wind farms / Turbines as an eye sore.
I find myself strangely drawn to looking at them whether onshore or offshore and accept them for what they are.
I see no practical issue (in pursuit of the greater good) but I can understand some ( a small number) of the onshore ones may have legitimate NIMBY objections.
Where I live they are spending millions moving National Grid cables underground to take the pylons out of the countryside, so assume no wind turbines where I live.
This thread really has become a text-book study in how to derail an important discussion. We are now deep into cross-evidence about bird kills when we already have the information right there that it is a really low number. Nobody seems to be asking why we aren't preventing cats killing the 55 million per year.
Because we know the answer to that. It's to fit bells on their collars.
The Heartland Institute, a US-based think tank known for its climate change denialism, has increasingly wielded political means to promote its controversial views in Europe. Through alliances with far-right politicians, the organisation has amplified its efforts to dismantle environmental policies and sow doubt about established climate science.
The Institute, which has ties to the Trump administration and funding sources such as ExxonMobil and wealthy Republican donors, recently expanded its influence by establishing a European base in London. This strategic move coincides with a surge in anti-climate action sentiment among rightwing factions across the Europe. For two years, Heartland representatives have collaborated with Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), leveraging platforms like the European Parliament to oppose climate-related legislation. Their campaigns have targeted laws such as the Nature Restoration Law, mobilising climate-sceptic MEPs from countries like Poland, Hungary and Austria to obstruct or delay environmental reforms.
Heartland's rhetoric has been extreme, equating climate action advocates to terrorists and branding human-caused climate change as "fake news". These ridiculous and inflammatory positions underscore the political, rather than scientific, nature of their interventions. The Institute’s European foothold was cemented in February 2023 when far-right Austrian MEPs Harald Vilimsky and Roman Haider attended Heartland’s International Conference on Climate Change in Florida. Their subsequent collaboration saw Heartland’s president, James Taylor, invited to speak in the European Parliament, fostering connections with Hungarian politicians. These alliances have directly influenced legislative processes; for instance, Hungary’s withdrawal of support delayed the Nature Restoration Law, highlighting Heartland's tangible political sway.
The organisation has also courted high-profile far-right figures such as Nigel Farage, who assisted in launching its London branch, and has established ties with Polish leaders opposing coal mine closures. Their joint declaration dismissing climate crisis measures as fearmongering exemplifies Heartland’s alignment with far-right narratives that prioritise economic interests over environmental responsibility. Heartland’s European activities reveal a calculated strategy to undermine climate action through political manoeuvring rather than scientific discourse. Its newsletter openly celebrated successes in delaying or modifying energy taxes and climate policies across the EU, framing these outcomes as victories against what it calls “climate restrictions.”
The growing influence of the Heartland Institute in Europe has alarmed environmental advocates and Green MEPs. Austrian MEP Lena Schilling condemned the FPÖ’s role in providing a platform for climate deniers, calling it a betrayal of citizens’ trust. German MEP Daniel Freund warned of a “cult-like” alliance between far-right parties and climate denialism, further exacerbating Europe’s climate challenges.
The Heartland Institute’s activities in Europe underscore the extent to which political strategies are employed to promote climate change denial. By forging alliances with far-right politicians and obstructing environmental legislation, the Institute not only undermines climate science but also endangers efforts to combat the climate crisis. Its rise highlights the urgent need for vigilance against such politically driven misinformation campaigns.
These are worrying times, the cost of all the climate related disasters grows every day.
How much better would it be to spend money on developing alternatives to fossil fuels, than to spend ever growing sums of money on mitigations and clearing up after each climate related disaster. I wonder what the tipping point will be, for man made climate change deniers to realise that it is actually costing more to do nothing.
The Heartland Institute, a US-based think tank known for its climate change denialism, has increasingly wielded political means to promote its controversial views in Europe. Through alliances with far-right politicians, the organisation has amplified its efforts to dismantle environmental policies and sow doubt about established climate science.
The Institute, which has ties to the Trump administration and funding sources such as ExxonMobil and wealthy Republican donors, recently expanded its influence by establishing a European base in London. This strategic move coincides with a surge in anti-climate action sentiment among rightwing factions across the Europe. For two years, Heartland representatives have collaborated with Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), leveraging platforms like the European Parliament to oppose climate-related legislation. Their campaigns have targeted laws such as the Nature Restoration Law, mobilising climate-sceptic MEPs from countries like Poland, Hungary and Austria to obstruct or delay environmental reforms.
Heartland's rhetoric has been extreme, equating climate action advocates to terrorists and branding human-caused climate change as "fake news". These ridiculous and inflammatory positions underscore the political, rather than scientific, nature of their interventions. The Institute’s European foothold was cemented in February 2023 when far-right Austrian MEPs Harald Vilimsky and Roman Haider attended Heartland’s International Conference on Climate Change in Florida. Their subsequent collaboration saw Heartland’s president, James Taylor, invited to speak in the European Parliament, fostering connections with Hungarian politicians. These alliances have directly influenced legislative processes; for instance, Hungary’s withdrawal of support delayed the Nature Restoration Law, highlighting Heartland's tangible political sway.
The organisation has also courted high-profile far-right figures such as Nigel Farage, who assisted in launching its London branch, and has established ties with Polish leaders opposing coal mine closures. Their joint declaration dismissing climate crisis measures as fearmongering exemplifies Heartland’s alignment with far-right narratives that prioritise economic interests over environmental responsibility. Heartland’s European activities reveal a calculated strategy to undermine climate action through political manoeuvring rather than scientific discourse. Its newsletter openly celebrated successes in delaying or modifying energy taxes and climate policies across the EU, framing these outcomes as victories against what it calls “climate restrictions.”
The growing influence of the Heartland Institute in Europe has alarmed environmental advocates and Green MEPs. Austrian MEP Lena Schilling condemned the FPÖ’s role in providing a platform for climate deniers, calling it a betrayal of citizens’ trust. German MEP Daniel Freund warned of a “cult-like” alliance between far-right parties and climate denialism, further exacerbating Europe’s climate challenges.
The Heartland Institute’s activities in Europe underscore the extent to which political strategies are employed to promote climate change denial. By forging alliances with far-right politicians and obstructing environmental legislation, the Institute not only undermines climate science but also endangers efforts to combat the climate crisis. Its rise highlights the urgent need for vigilance against such politically driven misinformation campaigns.
These are worrying times, the cost of all the climate related disasters grows every day.
How much better would it be to spend money on developing alternatives to fossil fuels, than to spend ever growing sums of money on mitigations and clearing up after each climate related disaster. I wonder what the tipping point will be, for man made climate change deniers to realise that it is actually costing more to do nothing.
People like him are obviously not intelligent enough to work out why it is that Trump/Vance will now dominate global politics for the next eight years.
They are still scratching their heads in disbelief and wallowing in depression at what's happened.
But how delicious and hilarious it is that they actually only have themselves to blame!
For suppressing free speech, and for abusing, deriding, belittling and trying to silence anyone with a differing view to their own, which is attained, it seems, without critical thinking, from the same old left wing sources, and must not dare be challenged, or even questioned, by anyone.
Is it any wonder that other decent posters who appeared earlier in the thread, tend to refrain from posting?
Joe Rogan (Formerly of the Political Left) summed it up perfectly yesterday:
Rogan argued that those pretending “everyone is Hitler” are “broken” and not constructively contributing to any conversation.
“This is why they want to conflate and they always want to pretend that everyone’s Hitler. The problem with that is, just after a while, it’s crying wolf and people are like, ‘Oh, this is a bullshit game you’re playing, and you’re just using it as an excuse.’ Elon has talked about this a lot. He’s absolutely correct,” Rogan said.
People, the comedian and podcaster added, use “woke ideology” as an “excuse to be an asshole” and a way to bring perceived “virtue” into their lives.
“People use woke ideology as an excuse to be an asshole, and it’s really just people that are assholes that are attaching themselves to things that make them feel righteous,” Rogan argued. “So they wrap themselves in this idea to give them virtue and to allow them to say the most awful things about other people that have different perspectives.”
“Horrific unfounded personal attacks,” Rogan continued, only make you “less and less effective.”
“Intelligent and aware people who have control of their emotions recognize that,” he said. “They’re not going to take your perspective seriously, so you’re going to be less and less effective with what you do.”
The Heartland Institute, a US-based think tank known for its climate change denialism, has increasingly wielded political means to promote its controversial views in Europe. Through alliances with far-right politicians, the organisation has amplified its efforts to dismantle environmental policies and sow doubt about established climate science.
The Institute, which has ties to the Trump administration and funding sources such as ExxonMobil and wealthy Republican donors, recently expanded its influence by establishing a European base in London. This strategic move coincides with a surge in anti-climate action sentiment among rightwing factions across the Europe. For two years, Heartland representatives have collaborated with Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), leveraging platforms like the European Parliament to oppose climate-related legislation. Their campaigns have targeted laws such as the Nature Restoration Law, mobilising climate-sceptic MEPs from countries like Poland, Hungary and Austria to obstruct or delay environmental reforms.
Heartland's rhetoric has been extreme, equating climate action advocates to terrorists and branding human-caused climate change as "fake news". These ridiculous and inflammatory positions underscore the political, rather than scientific, nature of their interventions. The Institute’s European foothold was cemented in February 2023 when far-right Austrian MEPs Harald Vilimsky and Roman Haider attended Heartland’s International Conference on Climate Change in Florida. Their subsequent collaboration saw Heartland’s president, James Taylor, invited to speak in the European Parliament, fostering connections with Hungarian politicians. These alliances have directly influenced legislative processes; for instance, Hungary’s withdrawal of support delayed the Nature Restoration Law, highlighting Heartland's tangible political sway.
The organisation has also courted high-profile far-right figures such as Nigel Farage, who assisted in launching its London branch, and has established ties with Polish leaders opposing coal mine closures. Their joint declaration dismissing climate crisis measures as fearmongering exemplifies Heartland’s alignment with far-right narratives that prioritise economic interests over environmental responsibility. Heartland’s European activities reveal a calculated strategy to undermine climate action through political manoeuvring rather than scientific discourse. Its newsletter openly celebrated successes in delaying or modifying energy taxes and climate policies across the EU, framing these outcomes as victories against what it calls “climate restrictions.”
The growing influence of the Heartland Institute in Europe has alarmed environmental advocates and Green MEPs. Austrian MEP Lena Schilling condemned the FPÖ’s role in providing a platform for climate deniers, calling it a betrayal of citizens’ trust. German MEP Daniel Freund warned of a “cult-like” alliance between far-right parties and climate denialism, further exacerbating Europe’s climate challenges.
The Heartland Institute’s activities in Europe underscore the extent to which political strategies are employed to promote climate change denial. By forging alliances with far-right politicians and obstructing environmental legislation, the Institute not only undermines climate science but also endangers efforts to combat the climate crisis. Its rise highlights the urgent need for vigilance against such politically driven misinformation campaigns.
Never a truer word from Chizz, "need for vigilance against such politically driven misinformation campaigns".
Truss? FFS
Nothing meaningful will happen whilst politicians only ever see short-term populist policies for their own gain and convince enough people to buy into jam today mentality.
When the histories are written in a few hundred years (if there is anyone left to write them) they will not be kind to this generations' leaders.
“Intelligent and aware people who have control of their emotions recognize that,”
he said. “They’re not going to take your perspective seriously, so
you’re going to be less and less effective with what you do.”
Not very nice Mr Rogan talking about you like that, Queerie.
There has to be a problem when UK households pick up the tab in the region of £3b per year to pay suppliers of electricity to the national grid not to produce electricity during high winds as the grid cannot cope with the excess supplies. One can only hope the proposed Great British Energy will be able to address ti's problem but I won't hold my breath.
There has to be a problem when UK households pick up the tab in the region of £3b per year to pay suppliers of electricity to the national grid not to produce electricity during high winds as the grid cannot cope with the excess supplies. One can only hope the proposed Great British Energy will be able to address ti's problem but I won't hold my breath.
This is where batteries (solid state ideally) come in. During periods of excess supply there will be incentives to charge batteries which have the capacity to store a few weeks or more power for a household. Connected localised grids of batteries will help us smooth out peaks and troughs in supply.
This got me thinking. If CO2 hangs about in the atmosphere for roughly 2000 years or so, and the last big eruption of this super volcano was in 250 CE, then a concentration of CO2 is due to dissipate within the next 100 years or do.
Now I know we're putting so much more C02 into the atmosphere than comes from volcanic activity at the moment, but eruptions of 'supervolcanoes' do have a dramatic and rapid effect on climate change.
This article states that this one's 800 years overdue for another eruption if I'm reading it correctly, added to which, some research I've referenced in an earlier post, has been done to suggest that increasing the temperature of the earth's crust, as we're doing, does increase the likelihood of increased volcanic activity.
Now I'm not saying we shouldn't do all we can to reduce our emissions, but if this big bugger blew it's top, it might dwarf the serious damage we're doing and trigger a period of cooling, as has happened in the past when supervolcanoes have erupted, the clouds of ash limiting the amount of sun light reaching the earth's surface.
I suppose the point I'm making is that, whilst we're undoubtedly making things worse at the moment, in the geological timeframe of things, we're pretty insignificant. We don't really have the degree of control we like to think we have over mother nature. All we can do is try to limit / reverse the damage we're causing, but far greater forces than us will ultimately shape the planet's future climate, as they have before.
Comments
The whales' home territory is the sea channel between the west coast of Tenerife and the east coast of neighbouring island La Gomera.
It was 3 Celsius warmer throughout 2024 than 8 years ago when he started work there.
1.5 to 2C ocean temperature rise supposedly critical to global climate?
That ship has sailed
3C rise in 8 years in open ocean.
But there's nothing to worry about boys'n'girls, the planet's 2nd largest emitter of climate warming pollution is set to 'drill, drill, drill' while winding back any responsible measures already in place.
My generation may not yet actually be fcuked by the weather but the next one should be worried and the one after that...
Onshore baby, onshore
Got it🤣👍
Baby!
Education, education, education. If we don't tell them, they'll never change their ways.
Perhaps a feline "prevent" strategy?
But hey, whatever you do, don't ever admit you're wrong about something.
It's not just you.
Jesus wept.
https://www.dailyclimate.org/heartland-institute-teams-up-with-far-right-european-politicians-to-fight-climate-policies-2670987485.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder
How much better would it be to spend money on developing alternatives to fossil fuels, than to spend ever growing sums of money on mitigations and clearing up after each climate related disaster. I wonder what the tipping point will be, for man made climate change deniers to realise that it is actually costing more to do nothing.
Never a truer word from Chizz, "need for vigilance against such politically driven misinformation campaigns".
People like him are obviously not intelligent enough to work out why it is that Trump/Vance will now dominate global politics for the next eight years.
They are still scratching their heads in disbelief and wallowing in depression at what's happened.
But how delicious and hilarious it is that they actually only have themselves to blame!
For suppressing free speech, and for abusing, deriding, belittling and trying to silence anyone with a differing view to their own, which is attained, it seems, without critical thinking, from the same old left wing sources, and must not dare be challenged, or even questioned, by anyone.
Is it any wonder that other decent posters who appeared earlier in the thread, tend to refrain from posting?
Joe Rogan (Formerly of the Political Left) summed it up perfectly yesterday:
Rogan argued that those pretending “everyone is Hitler” are “broken” and not constructively contributing to any conversation.
Elon has talked about this a lot. He’s absolutely correct,” Rogan said.
Yep Joe, I couldn't have put it better myself !
Have a great day Chips and 🤞 for a nice win.
Not very nice Mr Rogan talking about you like that, Queerie.
This got me thinking. If CO2 hangs about in the atmosphere for roughly 2000 years or so, and the last big eruption of this super volcano was in 250 CE, then a concentration of CO2 is due to dissipate within the next 100 years or do.
Now I know we're putting so much more C02 into the atmosphere than comes from volcanic activity at the moment, but eruptions of 'supervolcanoes' do have a dramatic and rapid effect on climate change.
This article states that this one's 800 years overdue for another eruption if I'm reading it correctly, added to which, some research I've referenced in an earlier post, has been done to suggest that increasing the temperature of the earth's crust, as we're doing, does increase the likelihood of increased volcanic activity.
Now I'm not saying we shouldn't do all we can to reduce our emissions, but if this big bugger blew it's top, it might dwarf the serious damage we're doing and trigger a period of cooling, as has happened in the past when supervolcanoes have erupted, the clouds of ash limiting the amount of sun light reaching the earth's surface.
I suppose the point I'm making is that, whilst we're undoubtedly making things worse at the moment, in the geological timeframe of things, we're pretty insignificant. We don't really have the degree of control we like to think we have over mother nature. All we can do is try to limit / reverse the damage we're causing, but far greater forces than us will ultimately shape the planet's future climate, as they have before.