Food waste in general shouldn't be adding extra CO2 in the environment, unless they are extrinsically adding tons of CO2 to the system from e.g. synthetic chemicals derived from oil.
First of all, you *do* use synthetic chemicals derived from oil in agriculture -- well, more accurately, from natural gas (ammonia). Second, you *also* use extra amounts of oil-derived fuel to grow this waste food. And third, of course, there's also the issue of methane being much more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, so even if you're neutral in terms of (physical) CO2 consumed and produced, you're still not necessarily neutral in terms of CO2-equivalent GHG emissions.
and water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than methane.
The antihumanists should just unite behind water, pretty sure people are so dumb now they can be convinced to stop drinking and get all this over with quickly.
Antihumanists? You mean the people who are willfully abusing the biosphere to the point that it won't support humanity, despite the obvious outcomes for their fellow humans?
You can recognize humans' negative impact on the planet without being antihuman.
I'm antiunsustainablebehavior.
Frankly I suspect the planet could support a lot more humans, but only if we practiced sustainable agriculture, and it's hard to do that in our modern system. A lot of pharmaceuticals can for example survive composting of poop, which in surprisingly short order can turn crap into soil. So even a sewage sludge recovery system can actually be causing problems.
Before the plague, europe had reached its population max for sustainability. Ever scrap of land was dedicated to growing basic sustenance to support the population. We had more people than we knew what to do with, at the time. The plague comes around and wipes out 1/3rd of the people. The short term result was automation and more exotic foods. More vineyards began to appear. Fancy cheese production of different varieties. The loss of so many scribes brought forth the need to invent a printing press. Fast fo
Before the plague, europe had reached its population max for sustainability. Ever scrap of land was dedicated to growing basic sustenance to support the population. That is nonsense. I really wonder who teaches such bullshit in school, or where/how you picked up that nonsense.
During the plague(s) literally 90% of Europe was: woods. Call it "European jungle" if you want.
Food problems had two reasons: a) miss harvests b) trade barriers (it is not funny to carry food 100km when you have to cross 5 borders and ge
Antihumanists are the people characterised by Agent Smith in the Matrix.
People who believe human beings are a cancer of the planet. Mostly follow the work of Thomas Robert Malthus, fund eugenics programs like planned parent hood and forced sterilisations of people the deem particularly unworthy.
Lot of them in the US after the mass immigration from Germany after WWII.
You made a pretty big strawman there.
One does not be all of those things to say, understand Malthus. The idea that Malthus was wrong once, therefore he will always be wrong, shared by so many is their version of the cold hand fallacy. And those who I have pressed on the issue go into ancient aliens ideas, where humans somehow become creatures of pure energy to support their ideas.
Eugenics? forced sterilization? No need at all, a waste of energy because Nature will take of the human issue all by itself.
The idea that Malthus was wrong once, therefore he will always be wrong,
Ah the falling sky fallacy. Maybe you will be right at some point but since you have a 0% accuracy so far, I'm going to go with no. Why do we teach ideas from the 18th and 19th century in liberal arts still? They have a track record on par with religion.
The idea that Malthus was wrong once, therefore he will always be wrong,
Ah the falling sky fallacy. Maybe you will be right at some point but since you have a 0% accuracy so far, I'm going to go with no. Why do we teach ideas from the 18th and 19th century in liberal arts still? They have a track record on par with religion.
The irony is that I was posting what other people have claimed to me which is their using the "Hot Hand Fallacy".
And never said one thing or another about the sky is falling.
This is pretty simple. If the earth has infinite capacity to sustain humans, Malthus will have been proven completely wrong, There is no limit to either the ability to provide sustenance, therefore there is no limit to population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
His argument was that abundance cannot be sustained forever.
and water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than methane.
[Citation needed]
In any case, water in atmosphere is self-limiting. If you attempt to put more in it, it will condense out rather rapidly (and the condensed form even reflects sunlight efficiently). This is not the case with methane; you can emit as much of it as you want and it will stay in the atmosphere for quite some time.
So the answer would be "no", then? Water vapor accounts for 2-3% of the atmosphere whereas CO2 accounts for only 0.04% of the atmosphere. The fact that water vapor has less than triple the effect of CO2 while being present in almost two orders of magnitude higher concentration means that it's a weaker greenhouse gas rather than a stronger one than CO2.
It is also the case that the water vapor is a trailing indicator, meaning that it follows temperature. In other words, it is an effect. It is CO2 levels that are leading indicators and correlated with global temperature. CO2 level changes lead to changes in temperature. That's why we care about CO2 levels and not about water vapor levels.
36 to 70 percent percent of greenhouse warming provided by water vapor.
Side journey - one of the fundamentalist young earth biblical flood hypotheses was an attempt to explain how enough water to cover the entire earth to allow for no landmass to be exposed was that all of that water was stored in the atmosphere.
Even the people promoting that hypothesis ended up agreeing that we'dbecome Venus for a while.
state secrets there. But I can do protip, it doesn't need to be the whole earth, just a sea that quickly came into existence. Flood "myths' are common enough that you would be foolish to believe there is not at least some truth in them, its just that like the massive cities in the Amazon jungle until recently, its not been made public yet.
state secrets there.
But I can do protip, it doesn't need to be the whole earth, just a sea that quickly came into existence.
Flood "myths' are common enough that you would be foolish to believe there is not at least some truth in them, its just that like the massive cities in the Amazon jungle until recently, its not been made public yet.
It's the problem of Fundamentalists, who claim that every word in their book is the exact words of their god, as revealed to man. Interestingly until the early mid 20th century, most of those tales were regarded as allegory. In the flood's case, yes - it was considered a great local flood, not as their book notes that the entire earth was covered past the tallest peaks - but fundies allow for no other interpretation. Being raised by strict Catholic parents with even stricter fundamentalist grandparents, I h
->It's the problem of Fundamentalists, who claim that every word in their book is the exact words of their god,
yuck. which branch of christianity is that. Im only familiar with Judiasm, Catholic, protestants and orthodox, and they all teach the bible is a symbolic record of events. e.g. God saying "let there be light" would today be written as "god created the big bang".
Catholics seem to interpret it the best, they have (at least) three meanings for every passage.
->It's the problem of Fundamentalists, who claim that every word in their book is the exact words of their god,
yuck. which branch of christianity is that. Im only familiar with Judiasm, Catholic, protestants and orthodox, and they all teach the bible is a symbolic record of events. e.g. God saying "let there be light" would today be written as "god created the big bang".
Catholics seem to interpret it the best, they have (at least) three meanings for every passage.
The Evangelicals tend toward Each wors is the exact word of God as given to man.
King James translation only.
And with heavy focus on the old Testament. I love watching them twitch while I read the Beatitudes - presumably words direct from God himself sans any possible translation by ancient desert dwellers.
Modern fundamentalists would crucify Jesus all over again, because they would call him a commie.
And they would love to attack the neighboring village, kill the all the men and women except for
->The Evangelicals tend toward Each wors is the exact word of God as given to man.
Well, thats just bonkers when 90% of the bible is little more than a few ancient autobiographies told as folk tales and translated through (at least) three modern languages and likely a few pre ice age ones as well.
My favourite of which is the common mistranslation of "thou shalt not murder" into "thou shalt not kill"
King James bible cant even get the abbreviated version of the commandments right (Moses was given some 300+
->The Evangelicals tend toward Each wors is the exact word of God as given to man.
Well, thats just bonkers when 90% of the bible is little more than a few ancient autobiographies told as folk tales and translated through (at least) three modern languages and likely a few pre ice age ones as well.
My favourite of which is the common mistranslation of "thou shalt not murder" into "thou shalt not kill"
King James bible cant even get the abbreviated version of the commandments right (Moses was given some 300+ to live by, Jesus and his followers shortened it to 10 throwing out the broken ones like "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth")
There is a bit of wisdom in saying that the old Testament should be read in Hebrew.
There is also a school of thought that says that the whole Old Testament was a way of forging a civilization from a bunch of rowdys, and not much is really relevant to people who have become civilized. Various restrictions were more about getting people to behave themselves, and not many civilized groups would stone women to death for infidelity, or for not being virgins when they married these days, or marrying your broth
Yes, and there's like 12000 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than there is methane. So the fact that the 25000 ppm of water vapor cause 36-70% of the warming while the comparatively puny 2 ppm of methane cause 4-9% of the warming mean that methane is a much stronger GHG than water vapor.
one of the fundamentalist young earth biblical flood hypotheses was an attempt to explain how enough water to cover the entire earth to allow for no landmass to be exposed was that all of that water was stored in the atmosphere.
Even if the whole atmosphere were pure water vapor, it would be a 10m layer of water.
Yes, and there's like 12000 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than there is methane. So the fact that the 25000 ppm of water vapor cause 36-70% of the warming while the comparatively puny 2 ppm of methane cause 4-9% of the warming mean that methane is a much stronger GHG than water vapor.
Not my argument - Water vapor has a certain percentage of the warming. It does cycle much quicker - something like 9 days.
And here in the ready to flood east, it's sad we can't send some of our rain out to our western friends. I just finished watching people escaping through fires in Northern Nevada. What a shame -
one of the fundamentalist young earth biblical flood hypotheses was an attempt to explain how enough water to cover the entire earth to allow for no landmass to be exposed was that all of that water was stored in the atmosphere.
Even if the whole atmosphere were pure water vapor, it would be a 10m layer of water.
Aha! Yes - Okay - I see you do know what you are doing here. Yes, the people who proposed that pretty quickly admitted it wasn't possible.
Are you aware it is the greenhouse effect that is responsible for clear days being colder than cloudy days during winter?
I'm not the one with a problem with cause and effect, that would be people who think mankind somehow caused the earth to get warmer since the last ice age, while offering no plausible explanation why the ice age ended.
I don't just *believe* that the Earth is getting warmer -- I *know* it, i.e., the belief is true and justified. We have extensive measurements of this.
dude we can barely even track the temperature of a room accurately today, what gives you so much confidence in temperature estimates of the entire planet 100 years ago pretty much before we'd even been to the south pole.
dude we can barely even track the temperature of a room accurately today
Fortunately measuring the average temperature on larger scale is easier than measuring instantaneous temperature at a smaller scale - the errors decrease inversely proportionally with the square root of the number of measurements.
Current, i.e. now, an instantaneous measurement, which you record and use to construct time series data of how the temperature changes over time
Average: i.e. over the entire atmosphere being counted, from ground level to the upper atmosphere.
That you require to say with such confidence that "the entire atmosphere is getting warmer", and you said is easier than measuring the temperature of my room.
Technically yes, but water's half life in the atmosphere is much shorter (on the order of hours or days) and it can't be a driver of long term climate change. It can be a multiplier of the effect of less potent greenhouse gases.
Climate scientists are not stupid. The effect of water vapor has been a key element of climate models from the start. Climate scientists initially rejected Arrhenius's idea of a CO2 driven greenhouse effect because it was believed at the time that CO2 and water vapor had the same absorption spectrum. When more precise spectrum measurements showed that to be false, the very first thing they looked at is could this have any effect given that water was both common and a potent short term greenhouse gas.
Climate change is not a question of being pro- or anti-human. It's a scientific question. The *policy* question is whether ignoring facts we'd rather not be true is better than considering them. It certainly feels better in the short term, but that doesn't make it better for humanity.
but the point is all we need to do is get people to stop drinking for a week or so and all the problems will be solved. And all we need to do that is pay for a few months news stories that all the scientists agree not drinking is a safe and effective way to stop climate change.
And enough dumb people will believe it to solve the problem. Blame them dieing on covid Win win.
and water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than methane.
I honestly can't tell is this post is clueless, a troll, irony, deliberate disinformation, or is intended as an example of "a stupid argument" mentioned in the comment subject .
Yes, water is a greenhouse gas. But oceans full of water are exposed to the atmosphere continously; it's not a greenhouse gas that humans are significantly adding to the atmosphere. And it equilibrates out of the atmosphere on a time scale of hours to days-- we call this "rain".
The stupidity would depend on how much you trust the media to tell you its also safe. I'd wager on what we've seen recently that enough people are actually stupid enough to be convinced its safe despite all the evidence to the contrary as to blindly do exactly what they are told.
"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at
speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)."
-- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.
Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1, Insightful)
Food waste in general shouldn't be adding extra CO2 in the environment, unless they are extrinsically adding tons of CO2 to the system from e.g. synthetic chemicals derived from oil.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1)
and water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than methane.
The antihumanists should just unite behind water, pretty sure people are so dumb now they can be convinced to stop drinking and get all this over with quickly.
Re: (Score:1)
The antihumanists should just unite behind water
Antihumanists? You mean the people who are willfully abusing the biosphere to the point that it won't support humanity, despite the obvious outcomes for their fellow humans?
Re: (Score:2)
You can recognize humans' negative impact on the planet without being antihuman.
I'm antiunsustainablebehavior.
Frankly I suspect the planet could support a lot more humans, but only if we practiced sustainable agriculture, and it's hard to do that in our modern system. A lot of pharmaceuticals can for example survive composting of poop, which in surprisingly short order can turn crap into soil. So even a sewage sludge recovery system can actually be causing problems.
Re: (Score:1)
Either you believe antihumanists have a right to stop humans' negative impact on the planet without being antihuman or you dont.
There isn't really any middle ground there.
Re: (Score:2)
Either you believe antihumanists have a right to stop humans' negative impact on the planet without being antihuman or you dont.
Mu
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Before the plague, europe had reached its population max for sustainability. Ever scrap of land was dedicated to growing basic sustenance to support the population.
That is nonsense. I really wonder who teaches such bullshit in school, or where/how you picked up that nonsense.
During the plague(s) literally 90% of Europe was: woods. Call it "European jungle" if you want.
Food problems had two reasons:
a) miss harvests
b) trade barriers (it is not funny to carry food 100km when you have to cross 5 borders and ge
Re: (Score:2)
Antihumanists are the people characterised by Agent Smith in the Matrix.
People who believe human beings are a cancer of the planet. Mostly follow the work of Thomas Robert Malthus, fund eugenics programs like planned parent hood and forced sterilisations of people the deem particularly unworthy.
Lot of them in the US after the mass immigration from Germany after WWII.
You made a pretty big strawman there.
One does not be all of those things to say, understand Malthus. The idea that Malthus was wrong once, therefore he will always be wrong, shared by so many is their version of the cold hand fallacy. And those who I have pressed on the issue go into ancient aliens ideas, where humans somehow become creatures of pure energy to support their ideas.
Eugenics? forced sterilization? No need at all, a waste of energy because Nature will take of the human issue all by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that Malthus was wrong once, therefore he will always be wrong,
Ah the falling sky fallacy. Maybe you will be right at some point but since you have a 0% accuracy so far, I'm going to go with no. Why do we teach ideas from the 18th and 19th century in liberal arts still? They have a track record on par with religion.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that Malthus was wrong once, therefore he will always be wrong,
Ah the falling sky fallacy. Maybe you will be right at some point but since you have a 0% accuracy so far, I'm going to go with no. Why do we teach ideas from the 18th and 19th century in liberal arts still? They have a track record on par with religion.
The irony is that I was posting what other people have claimed to me which is their using the "Hot Hand Fallacy".
And never said one thing or another about the sky is falling.
This is pretty simple. If the earth has infinite capacity to sustain humans, Malthus will have been proven completely wrong, There is no limit to either the ability to provide sustenance, therefore there is no limit to population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
His argument was that abundance cannot be sustained forever.
Where
Re: (Score:3)
and water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than methane.
[Citation needed]
In any case, water in atmosphere is self-limiting. If you attempt to put more in it, it will condense out rather rapidly (and the condensed form even reflects sunlight efficiently). This is not the case with methane; you can emit as much of it as you want and it will stay in the atmosphere for quite some time.
Re: (Score:1)
quick google
https://iedro.org/articles/wat... [iedro.org].
Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25%
But that's the first time I've ever heard it called into question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you not simply save us all those posts and simply google which one he stronger is?
It is not that hard ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than methane.
[Citation needed]
Citation provided - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
36 to 70 percent percent of greenhouse warming provided by water vapor.
Side journey - one of the fundamentalist young earth biblical flood hypotheses was an attempt to explain how enough water to cover the entire earth to allow for no landmass to be exposed was that all of that water was stored in the atmosphere.
Even the people promoting that hypothesis ended up agreeing that we'dbecome Venus for a while.
Today of course, fundamentalists are n
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1)
state secrets there.
But I can do protip, it doesn't need to be the whole earth, just a sea that quickly came into existence.
Flood "myths' are common enough that you would be foolish to believe there is not at least some truth in them, its just that like the massive cities in the Amazon jungle until recently, its not been made public yet.
Re: (Score:2)
state secrets there. But I can do protip, it doesn't need to be the whole earth, just a sea that quickly came into existence. Flood "myths' are common enough that you would be foolish to believe there is not at least some truth in them, its just that like the massive cities in the Amazon jungle until recently, its not been made public yet.
It's the problem of Fundamentalists, who claim that every word in their book is the exact words of their god, as revealed to man. Interestingly until the early mid 20th century, most of those tales were regarded as allegory. In the flood's case, yes - it was considered a great local flood, not as their book notes that the entire earth was covered past the tallest peaks - but fundies allow for no other interpretation. Being raised by strict Catholic parents with even stricter fundamentalist grandparents, I h
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1)
->It's the problem of Fundamentalists, who claim that every word in their book is the exact words of their god,
yuck. which branch of christianity is that. Im only familiar with Judiasm, Catholic, protestants and orthodox, and they all teach the bible is a symbolic record of events. e.g. God saying "let there be light" would today be written as "god created the big bang".
Catholics seem to interpret it the best, they have (at least) three meanings for every passage.
Re: (Score:2)
->It's the problem of Fundamentalists, who claim that every word in their book is the exact words of their god,
yuck. which branch of christianity is that. Im only familiar with Judiasm, Catholic, protestants and orthodox, and they all teach the bible is a symbolic record of events. e.g. God saying "let there be light" would today be written as "god created the big bang".
Catholics seem to interpret it the best, they have (at least) three meanings for every passage.
The Evangelicals tend toward Each wors is the exact word of God as given to man.
King James translation only.
And with heavy focus on the old Testament. I love watching them twitch while I read the Beatitudes - presumably words direct from God himself sans any possible translation by ancient desert dwellers.
Modern fundamentalists would crucify Jesus all over again, because they would call him a commie.
And they would love to attack the neighboring village, kill the all the men and women except for
Re: (Score:1)
->The Evangelicals tend toward Each wors is the exact word of God as given to man.
Well, thats just bonkers when 90% of the bible is little more than a few ancient autobiographies told as folk tales and translated through (at least) three modern languages and likely a few pre ice age ones as well.
My favourite of which is the common mistranslation of "thou shalt not murder" into "thou shalt not kill"
King James bible cant even get the abbreviated version of the commandments right (Moses was given some 300+
Re: (Score:2)
->The Evangelicals tend toward Each wors is the exact word of God as given to man.
Well, thats just bonkers when 90% of the bible is little more than a few ancient autobiographies told as folk tales and translated through (at least) three modern languages and likely a few pre ice age ones as well.
My favourite of which is the common mistranslation of "thou shalt not murder" into "thou shalt not kill"
King James bible cant even get the abbreviated version of the commandments right (Moses was given some 300+ to live by, Jesus and his followers shortened it to 10 throwing out the broken ones like "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth")
There is a bit of wisdom in saying that the old Testament should be read in Hebrew.
There is also a school of thought that says that the whole Old Testament was a way of forging a civilization from a bunch of rowdys, and not much is really relevant to people who have become civilized. Various restrictions were more about getting people to behave themselves, and not many civilized groups would stone women to death for infidelity, or for not being virgins when they married these days, or marrying your broth
Re: (Score:1)
-> worked with a NucE who was a born again, Earth was created in 4004 B.C.E., Christian.
This is a very American invention, literally no one afaik believes this outside of the US.
Any idea whose idea it was?
Re: (Score:2)
one of the fundamentalist young earth biblical flood hypotheses was an attempt to explain how enough water to cover the entire earth to allow for no landmass to be exposed was that all of that water was stored in the atmosphere.
Even if the whole atmosphere were pure water vapor, it would be a 10m layer of water.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and there's like 12000 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than there is methane. So the fact that the 25000 ppm of water vapor cause 36-70% of the warming while the comparatively puny 2 ppm of methane cause 4-9% of the warming mean that methane is a much stronger GHG than water vapor.
Not my argument - Water vapor has a certain percentage of the warming. It does cycle much quicker - something like 9 days.
And here in the ready to flood east, it's sad we can't send some of our rain out to our western friends. I just finished watching people escaping through fires in Northern Nevada. What a shame -
one of the fundamentalist young earth biblical flood hypotheses was an attempt to explain how enough water to cover the entire earth to allow for no landmass to be exposed was that all of that water was stored in the atmosphere.
Even if the whole atmosphere were pure water vapor, it would be a 10m layer of water.
Aha! Yes - Okay - I see you do know what you are doing here. Yes, the people who proposed that pretty quickly admitted it wasn't possible.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware of an acceleration factor coming from warmer climate and higher water vapor content in the atmosphere?
And I hope you are aware that you have a problem with cause and effect.
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1)
Are you aware it is the greenhouse effect that is responsible for clear days being colder than cloudy days during winter?
I'm not the one with a problem with cause and effect, that would be people who think mankind somehow caused the earth to get warmer since the last ice age, while offering no plausible explanation why the ice age ended.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1)
so you dont believe the earth is getting warmer.
fair enough, I dont have anything to convince you its warmer now than 50 years ago, let alone more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1)
dude we can barely even track the temperature of a room accurately today, what gives you so much confidence in temperature estimates of the entire planet 100 years ago pretty much before we'd even been to the south pole.
Re: (Score:2)
dude we can barely even track the temperature of a room accurately today
Fortunately measuring the average temperature on larger scale is easier than measuring instantaneous temperature at a smaller scale - the errors decrease inversely proportionally with the square root of the number of measurements.
Re: (Score:1)
->ortunately measuring the average temperature on larger scale is easier
Temperature of my room is currently 21 degrees Celsius, what the current average temperature of the planet right now?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Current, i.e. now, an instantaneous measurement, which you record and use to construct time series data of how the temperature changes over time
Average: i.e. over the entire atmosphere being counted, from ground level to the upper atmosphere.
That you require to say with such confidence that "the entire atmosphere is getting warmer", and you said is easier than measuring the temperature of my room.
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:5, Informative)
Technically yes, but water's half life in the atmosphere is much shorter (on the order of hours or days) and it can't be a driver of long term climate change. It can be a multiplier of the effect of less potent greenhouse gases.
Climate scientists are not stupid. The effect of water vapor has been a key element of climate models from the start. Climate scientists initially rejected Arrhenius's idea of a CO2 driven greenhouse effect because it was believed at the time that CO2 and water vapor had the same absorption spectrum. When more precise spectrum measurements showed that to be false, the very first thing they looked at is could this have any effect given that water was both common and a potent short term greenhouse gas.
Climate change is not a question of being pro- or anti-human. It's a scientific question. The *policy* question is whether ignoring facts we'd rather not be true is better than considering them. It certainly feels better in the short term, but that doesn't make it better for humanity.
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1, Troll)
but the point is all we need to do is get people to stop drinking for a week or so and all the problems will be solved.
And all we need to do that is pay for a few months news stories that all the scientists agree not drinking is a safe and effective way to stop climate change.
And enough dumb people will believe it to solve the problem. Blame them dieing on covid
Win win.
Re: (Score:2)
and water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than methane.
I honestly can't tell is this post is clueless, a troll, irony, deliberate disinformation, or is intended as an example of "a stupid argument" mentioned in the comment subject .
Yes, water is a greenhouse gas. But oceans full of water are exposed to the atmosphere continously; it's not a greenhouse gas that humans are significantly adding to the atmosphere. And it equilibrates out of the atmosphere on a time scale of hours to days-- we call this "rain".
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1)
The idea was that getting people to stop drinking would solve climate change faster than getting them to stop eating.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea was that getting people to stop drinking would solve climate change faster than getting them to stop eating.
Indeed, that is a stupid idea.
What you didn't make clear is whether you posted that because you were stupid, or because you were showing it as an example of a stupid idea.
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1)
its an effective idea.
The stupidity would depend on how much you trust the media to tell you its also safe. I'd wager on what we've seen recently that enough people are actually stupid enough to be convinced its safe despite all the evidence to the contrary as to blindly do exactly what they are told.