/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14792297
Public policy discussions go on >>>/pol/
>b-b-but muh doctored data shows that my political agenda is the scientifically sound approach
Public policy discussions go on >>>/pol/

>>14792297
Is this Greta look alike of age? I’m afraid to look it up.

>>14792314
It says ...fakes.com on the top-right corner if it wasn't obvious enough that this is a deepfake.

>>14792327
I thought that for a second, but stared at her face and it seemed seamless. I’ve been taking a lot of pills recently, I think I’m slowly becoming retarded.

>>14792327
> this is a deepfake.
prosopagnosia, commonly associated with brain damage or other cognitive failure

>>14792337
>stared at her face and it seemed seamless
Eh. Not so seamless. Look at her mouth or the area near the corner of her eye and the nose bridge.

>>14792302
>Every truth I don't like is politics
>Sugar gives you cavities is /pol/
>One should eat veggies is /pol/

>>14792445
Public policy is /pol/. Is that hard for you to grasp?

uh oh climatebros

Is this board just like pol filled with nothing but agents?

>>14792490
if it gets colder it means global warming is real, chud
take your meds and eat the bugs

Threadly reminder that the greenhouse effect is real but the Chinese are far, far more responsible for it than we are

keep saying i don't care about temperatures, that shit always swings
what i do care about is how much of that CO2 poison we pump into the atmosphere

1000 ppm CO2 isn't recommended indoors in my country and we're almost halfway outside

Is this board just like pol filled with nothing but agents?

>>14792546
Lol no. The US tops China in both cumulative emissions and emissions per capita.

>>14792556
Yeah but that was then and this is now. We can't legislate the past, we can legislate the future.

It doesn't make any sense for the US to make unilateral concessions on climate policy when our biggest rival, who is also the single larger producer of CO2 on the planet, is unwilling to match.

>>14792337
Which pills and why?

>>14792550
>that CO2 poison

>>14792592
High levels of CO2 are good for plants and bad for humans.

Simple as.

>>14792563
Nonsense

>>14792540
i'm allergic to chitin, i can't eat bugs or fungus.

>>14792550
Do you have a CO2 meter in your house?

>>14792660
are you allergic to starvation?

>>14792700
you can eat the bugs and fungus while people who are allergic to bugs and fungus dine on other resources.

>>14792612
Cool nice argument loser.

The US is 11% of total global CO2 emissions. China is 27%. China is America's biggest economic and military competitor.

There is no universe in which it makes sense for us to impose measures that harm our own economy, while they don't reciprocate.

Climate change is probably not going to be the end of the world, but it could fuck up crop yields and disrupt regional weather patterns. Humans see worsened cognitive performance in rooms with CO2 levels greater than 1000 ppm, so it's probably best not to get much higher than it is now.

Regardless of how bad climate change will be, building out nuclear would provide significant amounts of cheap, reliable, clean energy necessary to power an advanced industrial economy. Solar and wind should be deployed where it makes sense economically. Advances in high temperature semiconductors could also allow for deep directional drilling through hot granite, enabling cheap geothermal anywhere on Earth. Fusion is the ultimate goal, but may be unnecessary in the near term if we deploy the right intermediate technologies.

The most important thing in life is the cost of energy since it is the input for all activity. Make energy cheap and everyone becomes rich. Issues like climate change or low economic growth would be vastly easier to deal with if energy were an order of magnitude cheaper.

>>14792730

>>14792730
yeah china sure "competes" with US by producing all the cock rings and dragon dildos

>>14792730
Nonsense

>>14792297
>>14792314
>>14792327
>>14792337
>>14792351
Kill yourselves, she's 16 and has mental disabilities. Fucking scum

>>14792597
I was going to ask why we don't just have machines that convert CO2 to oxygen but then I remembered plants literally do that, lel. Maybe climate fags should just stop supporting city infrastructure and move to the countryside where there's a better balance and plants can naturally adapt with the greater CO2 levels to keep things in check.

>>14792597
bro science ftw

>>14793080
>she's 16 and has mental disabilities.
And she receives more attention from attractive men than you ever will. Does it make your blood boil?

>>14793128
So does every woman, that's not special.

>>14792297
is that a deepfake

>>14793118
urbanites only voice environment concern for virtue signaling reasons

>>14793144
Get laid, femcel. Even Greta gets more cock than you.

>>14793157
I know, I just don't get why they aren't anti-city, all of their supposed values align with moving out to the country side (local food, proper animal husbandry, clean air, more balanced ecosystems, less technology/noise/violence, more simplisitc, etc), yet they dwell in their studio apartmnet pods and lick the boots of their corporate employers and government. Obviously their not rational, but their disdain for farmers and rural areas always strikes me as unusually odd.

>>14793118
Plants are carbon neutral. You can't sequester carbon just by growing them. Amending soil with biochar is a useful way to sequester carbon from plants.

>>14793251
>hey goy, you need to burn down a bunch of trees, its good for he environment
are you an idiot or a shill?

>>14793260
Charring and burning are different things. You understand that the carbon in our fuel was removed from the carbon cycle for millions of years, right? You cannot reduce atmospheric carbon to preindustrial levels without removing carbon from the carbon cycle.

>>14793231
Cities use less energy than the rural regions. No joke. Because distances are shorter so theres less need to drive (and you can drive in bulk like in a bus). Heating and cooling is also easier in a city given how many walls and ceilings are shared by apartments. Distribution of products and electrification are also easier.
Rural regions dont exist anymore except as resource pits for the cities, theres no "rural community" anymore.

>>14793305
Is there anything worse than filthy urban bugmen, scientifically speaking?

>>14793307
Only the inbreeders in "rural" areas

>>14793310
So the only people lower than urban bugmen are literal inbreds? Is this the scientific consensus? Sounds pretty harsh.