Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Craven Morehead]

I never disputed that. No one has disputed that... the point is about the CO2 and what it does to plants. A basic understanding of science is all that is required.



Literally in the same article... but ok let's ignore that because you know ignoring facts is important to the denial syndrome.

LOL.

You takes this Snake_Baker. You posted the article.

I'll give it two replies before he flies of the handle and starts the abuse.

 

[Snake_Baker]

LOL.

You takes this Snake_Baker. You posted the article.

I'll give it two replies before he flies of the handle andd starts the abuse.

My intolerance for stupidity is well known, but ultimately I am the one who pays the price in a place like this, so I will just move on and wait for something thought provoking or intelligent to arise.

Studies "may" show that effects diminish over time, but this does not dispute what has happened NOW.

The educated will also note that I also followed up with an article on farming this growing vegetation as a power source and to keep CO2 levels in check.

For the record, and the benefit of the left-right welded on myopics, I am not a climate change denier

 

[Bradesmaen]

LOL.

You takes this Snake_Baker. You posted the article.

I'll give it two replies before he flies of the handle andd starts the abuse.

But you also read the article apparently.

 

[Bradesmaen]

My intoerance for stupidity is well known, but ultimately I am the one who pays the price in a place like this, so I will just move on and wait for something thought provoking or intelligent to arise.

Studies "may" show that effects diminish over time, but this does not dispute what has happened NOW.

The educated will also note that I also followed up with an article on farming this growing vegetation as a power source and to keep CO2 levels in check.

For the record, and the benefit of the left-right welded on myopics, I am not a climate change denier

Studies showed tobacco was good for your health.

You're not a denier, what you are is a classic fence sitting narcissist only interested in making himself look like a god. Shallow_Baker.

 

[Craven Morehead]

My intolerance for stupidity is well known, but ultimately I am the one who pays the price in a place like this, so I will just move on and wait for something thought provoking or intelligent to arise.

Studies "may" show that effects diminish over time, but this does not dispute what has happened NOW.

The educated will also note that I also followed up with an article on farming this growing vegetation as a power source and to keep CO2 levels in check.

For the record, and the benefit of the left-right welded on myopics, I am not a climate change denier

Yep, read both articles and was impressed with the outcome.
I too am not a denier per se, but also have to watch my P's + Q's around here.

Studies showed tobacco was good for your health.

You're not a denier, what you are is a classic fence sitting narcissist only interested in making himself look like a god. Shallow_Baker.

And there it is.

Like clockwork.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Yep, read both articles and was impressed with the outcome.
I too am not a denier per se, but also have to watch my P's + Q's around here.



And there it is.

Like clockwork.

Sorry for speaking truths, I know you out there on the farm don't like it. Such as farming in areas where water was already scarce then complaining when it doesn't rain. Truth is farms should have never been put there. Now it's just getting worse. Oh well.

The article lacks fundamental detail and is written by a "philosopher" who studied Zoology, not climate science or plant biology. The second article from NASA also has some disclaimers in it that are fundamentally ignored because it doesn't suit the person who put it in the thread and he hoped by quoting a line that no one would read it to the full extent.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Sorry for speaking truths, I know you out there on the farm don't like it. Such as farming in areas where water was already scarce then complaining when it doesn't rain. Truth is farms should have never been put there. Now it's just getting worse. Oh well.

The article lacks fundamental detail and is written by a "philosopher" who studied Zoology, not climate science or plant biology. The second article from NASA also has some disclaimers in it that are fundamentally ignored because it doesn't suit the person who put it in the thread and he hoped by quoting a line that no one would read it to the full extent.

Oh, so the Wide Bay Burnett region should never have been developed for farming now?

Tell me all about your in depth knowledge of the region with regards to agriculture then.

While you're at it, just for a moment, ignore the author of the article and focus on the 2 papers produced by 32 authors and, of course, NASA.

Has desertification been reversed in areas?
Has there been a 14% increase in vegetation or not?

 

[Craven Morehead]

Notes with interest that Bradesmaen is posting on other boards but not touching this with a barge pole.
LOL.
And no-one is surpised.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Let me know any time you folks get around to addressing the problem.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Check out what the SCIENTISTS were doing while you lot were talking tripe and achieving NOTHING.


.
Cooperative copper centres in a metal–organic framework for selective conversion of CO2 to ethanol

Abstract

Selective conversion of CO2 to ethanol is of great interest but presents a significant challenge in forming a C–C bond while keeping a C–O bond intact throughout the process. Here, we report cooperative CuI sites on a Zr12 cluster of a metal–organic framework (MOF) for selective hydrogenation of CO2 to ethanol. With the assistance of an alkali cation, the spatially proximate Zr12-supported CuI centres activate hydrogen via bimetallic oxidative addition and promote C–C coupling to produce ethanol. The Cs+-modified MOF catalyst, in 10 hours, produces ethanol with >99% selectivity and a turnover number (based on all Cu atoms) of 4,080 in supercritical CO2, with 30 MPa of CO2 and 5 MPa of H2 at 85 °C, or a turnover number of 490 at 2 MPa of CO2/H2 (1/3) and 100 °C. Our work highlights the potential of using MOFs as a tunable platform to design earth-abundant metal catalysts for CO2 conversion.

Cooperative copper centres in a metal–organic framework for selective conversion of CO2 to ethanol - Nature Catalysis

The synthesis of ethanol via CO2 hydrogenation is a challenging process, often hampered by low selectivity. This work reports a Zr12 cluster-based metal–organic framework as support for cooperative Cu(i) sites that catalyse CO2 hydrogenation to ethanol with remarkable selectivity upon promotion...

www.nature.com

 

[Todman]

On the photos behind her u see Luisa-Marie Neubauer, her handler. She's a member of "ONE Foundation" managed by BONO, Bill Gates and George Soros

 

[Craven Morehead]

lt should also be noted, sorry Snake_Baker , that Bradesmaen decided to use the ignore function after these very simple questions were posed to him.
I'm sure that no-one is surprised.

 

[Snake_Baker]

lt should also be noted, sorry Snake_Baker , that Bradesmaen decided to use the ignore function after these very simple questions were posed to him.
I'm sure that no-one is surprised.

............and this is not a fortuitous outcome because?

 

[Snake_Baker]

View attachment 751875
On the photos behind her u see Luisa-Marie Neubauer, her handler. She's a member of "ONE Foundation" managed by BONO, Bill Gates and George Soros

So this kid is basically the Justin Beiber for the climate change movement?

Fair enough, it's worked for a truckload of other marketing purposes.

 

[Bradesmaen]

View attachment 751875
On the photos behind her u see Luisa-Marie Neubauer, her handler. She's a member of "ONE Foundation" managed by BONO, Bill Gates and George Soros

A "20" year old handler. Yeah... sure. More likely she's interested in her causes as well.. OH WHAT? NO WAY! The rest of that is more made up shit by people who have the IQ of 3 flies put together.

 

[Sainteric]

More moronic lack of action at the un, China can continue to increase emissions as a solution.

None of these lefty nutters take it seriously.

 

[Mitchell54]

Its not a matter of opinion. Its called science.

Don't disagree with you're opinion as such but can you please not refer to science as fact as it's not. Its the study of observations to help come to a conclusion which may be factual.

There is opinion in science too. Scientists can come to different conclusions(similar or not) about something based on the same(or close to the same) statists.

Also wish I could change my answer for this from scam to wait for global approach.
The simplicity of polls are annoying though as you can't get a good perspective in the wide variation of fews but that's a poll for you. It's interesting to see the results still.

 

[its free real estate]

Starting to hope this ends like the original Children’s Crusade.

 

[madmug]

Don't disagree with you're opinion as such but can you please not refer to science as fact as it's not. Its the study of observations to help come to a conclusion which may be factual.

There is opinion in science too. Scientists can come to different conclusions(similar or not) about something based on the same(or close to the same) statists.

Also wish I could change my answer for this from scam to wait for global approach.
The simplicity of polls are annoying though as you can't get a good perspective in the wide variation of fews but that's a poll for you. It's interesting to see the results still.

So we just ignore the vast majority of scientific consensus, & do nothing.

Just like the original smoking debate & argument by vested interests.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Politically motivated people quibbling about complicated scientific concepts is where this whole debate falls down.

It's complexity allows the politically motivated, but scientifically uneducated lay person, to zoom in on some technical aspect and run with it for their own purposes. Their designs are then facilitated via the politically motivated, but scientifically uneducated rebuttal process. Let's just take it as read that no one is going to give up their creature comforts, and short of not choosing to breed, no one is going to be contributing anything realistically approaching a solution via the political process.

We must look to science for solutions, and that's where the majority of financial resources should be going, whilst the boring political circus plays out in public.

 

[Papa Juggs]

We're now getting to the point where the corporations are taking in on themselves to be greener because the governments are so corrupt they let them get away with anything.

So it's not that they can't get away with polluting it's that the people are judging them for it and they don't like it.

Unfortunately it's only really some of the more trendy cutting edge companies that can afford it for their image. Ikea and Facebook are the ones I remember from recent stories.

The problem is definitely fear of economic growth stalling and Greta is 100% right when she says eternal economic growth is a fairy tale. The Earth simply cannot sustain the abuse this growth is requiring.

 

[Snake_Baker]

We're now getting to the point where the corporations are taking in on themselves to be greener because the governments are so corrupt they let them get away with anything.

So it's not that they can't get away with polluting it's that the people are judging them for it and they don't like it.

Unfortunately it's only really some of the more trendy cutting edge companies that can afford it for their image. Ikea and Facebook are the ones I remember from recent stories.

The problem is definitely fear of economic growth stalling and Greta is 100% right when she says eternal economic growth is a fairy tale. The Earth simply cannot sustain the abuse this growth is requiring.

Politicians have kids, mothers, fathers, brothers & sisters also, but you can't trust the process of placing the power to deal with this in the hands of people whose influential life span potentially lasts a maximum of 3-5 years.

Science, science, science.

Don't march in the streets, raise money and invest it in environmental research projects. NOW you are actually engaging in the process of facilitating a solution.

The political process is massively overrated. It's a distraction.

 

[Mitchell54]

So we just ignore the vast majority of scientific consensus, & do nothing.

Just like the original smoking debate & argument by vested interests.

Never said that

 

[madmug]

Politicians have kids, mothers, fathers, brothers & sisters also, but you can't trust the process of placing the power to deal with this in the hands of people whose influential life span potentially lasts a maximum of 3-5 years.

Science, science, science.

Don't march in the streets, raise money and invest it in environmental research projects. NOW you are actually engaging in the process of facilitating a solution.

The political process is massively overrated. It's a distraction.

Its the political process & politicisation of the science which has allowed many Governments to get away with ignoring the scientific consensus.

Protest & marching are just about all the people have these days. Its vested corporations & wealthy individuals who buy their own action/inaction.

Of course you can be the the POTUS & just draw the weather maps to suit yourself.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Its the political process & politicisation of the science which has allowed many Governments to get away with ignoring the scientific consensus.

Protest & marching are just about all the people have these days. Its vested corporations & wealthy individuals who buy their own action/inaction.

Of course you can be the the POTUS & just draw the weather maps to suit yourself.

Hey, you can't sell crap to anyone if they're all dead.

It will be addressed, but the circus that comes with the current process basically fuels the deflections that are stalling the process.