Might I ask a question of the science community

a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

Yeah it's called being quarantined until the virus is removed.

these filtering systems cost money and no company wants to spend on them.
a reply to: magnesiumbones

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

i dont mean to make it look like i am trying to argue forgive me if i am im just strongly in support of thinking about this in a different way and seeing how this they of lets say "hypothetical experiment" think of it this way you would be killing multiple birds with the same stone people are just not seeing it that way

imagine production levels and needs 10 or even 100 times the scale of world war 2 and how that pretty much ended the depression but on a scale this large it would literally take a complete global effort meaning other nations would all have to come together to pick up the slack of the nation that is not ready to meet this need or incapable of such tasks like 3rd world country's creating massive needs for materials engineers scientists miners factory workers basically creating the jobs and structure that the world needs pretty much everywhere

with that in mind its pretty much like teaching a man to fish

and with more jobs all across the planet that would increase the value of all currencies would increase if not level out meaning things like foreign aid would not be needed because within whatever amount of time the countries needing such aid would be able to aid themselves individually at the same time keeping a balance in the economy as well as the environment and overall living situation of earths inhabitants

please excuse grammar and spelling im severely tired at this point and must rest but i have enjoyed this discussion and the many important aspects i may have over looked or didnt realize

a reply to: chr0naut

thank you i drew it myself i posted more in member art if you like that one

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: magnesiumbones

Of course, absorption and sequestering is only necessary if the myth of anthropogenic global climate change is real. If the planetary changes are a natural cyclic or external influence event, then we're just pooched. Cheer up, the worst is yet to come ;-)

Cheers - Dave

Why - even if high atmospheric CO2 concentrations are exploding from non-human caused would you not attempt to bring the levels back to where humanity can survive.

What you said was if it is human caused then we should plant more trees and encourage other biological and easy CO2 sinks - but if it is from sun spots then we are screwed and just have to let it happen????? WTF. Human kind is all about 'conquering' nature, 'subduing' nature, 'controling' nature.

originally posted by: magnesiumbones
Thus destroying our environment.

Not destroying, per se, but absolutely causing harm to the environment. You must understand that the earth will find a balance, but we damn well should be showing some reasonable due diligence in trying to keep our effect on the environment as minimal as possible--and sometimes, a person's desire for an iPhone or flat-screen TV or transportation or K-cups for their Keurig counter that spirit (even so-called green activists have everything I just mentioned). So, there is a trade off that happens--the earth gives us all the materials we use to make these products, but we give it back in manufactured, concentrated forms that often take very long times (thousands of years and more, for some things) to break back down and become part of the earth again. Problem is, when we create the concentrated, manufactured waste, it's sometimes (but certainly not always) toxic to the environment to which it is introduced.


As for the rest of your comment, the major problem when trying to "clean up" our mess is that we don't often have a full understanding what types of microbial life would be destroyed in filters and other types of cleaning methods. This is the type of life that actually eats oil (like during the BP oil spill) or keeps a balance in nature that we have yet to fully understand (especially in the ocean).

We can propose conjecture after conjecture as a human species as to how we're harming the environment, warming the planet, cooling the planet, raising acidity of oceans, and all of this type of stuff that truly is in the infancy of its study (and, honestly, the ability to test and detect the cause/effect relationship of things). If we start trying to filter this and that out of the atmosphere or ocean, we run the risk of causing more problems by messing with nature's natural cycles.

But the reality is that, often times, it's just the amount of effort that we as humans need to put into being better stewards of the environment that will fix the problem. People just need to start caring more often. Just today on my way to work I saw an obviously full-of-trash McDonalds to-go back just sitting in the middle of the road...I picked it up and put it in a trash can. Just think if everyone just stopped every day and picked up one piece of trash that they encountered, how much nicer our cities and world would look. If recycling was a more available option in towns and cities, how much better would our world look?

I don't think that your proposed solutions of filtering and rummaging through others' trash is the solution--I think individuals need to start shedding their apathy for their societies and start remembering that having some pride in one's self and their community is actually a good thing, and when people are proud of something, they tend to care for it better. We need to start taking personal responsibility for what we do on a daily basis, and that includes becoming a society ("1st-world" nations especially) so 'consumed' with consumption of resources. Grow our own food in our back/front yards. Collect rain water, if possible, on your property for drinking and watering of crops/plants. Start composting. Learn to reuse things instead of just throwing them away (some people call it "life hacking"). Etc. Etc. Etc.

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point. We don't need to spend billions and trillions of dollars to fix what we're doing to the environment, we need to start fixing ourselves a bit, first, and the rest will follow in time. But this doesn't have to be an immediate fix, either. It took a long time to get where we are with environmental damage, and it'll take a long time to clean it up, but if slow the pace at which we are damaging it, and continue slow and steady clean-ups of obvious issues, then we'll get to a decent balance in time.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: magnesiumbones

Of course, absorption and sequestering is only necessary if the myth of anthropogenic global climate change is real. If the planetary changes are a natural cyclic or external influence event, then we're just pooched. Cheer up, the worst is yet to come ;-)

Cheers - Dave

Why - even if high atmospheric CO2 concentrations are exploding from non-human caused would you not attempt to bring the levels back to where humanity can survive.

What you said was if it is human caused then we should plant more trees and encourage other biological and easy CO2 sinks - but if it is from sun spots then we are screwed and just have to let it happen????? WTF. Human kind is all about 'conquering' nature, 'subduing' nature, 'controling' nature.

And your point is?

If CO2 increases are the result of natural cyclic based temperature increases (CO2 increase/decrease follows temperature increase/decrease as confirmed in the research), am I to presume that you believe we are organized and technologically advanced enough to correct an entire planet, when we can't even get together enough to correct the man-made political or banking systems? If the human race as a species is doomed to extinction due to some outside cause, well, sh*t happens. If the cause of the CO2 increases are man-made (there may be an additive effect but I expect it's marginal), well hopefully we can figure it out without too much political stupidity or taxation. Otherwise, see above extinction comment.

I'll only take any of this seriously once we have corrected the political and banking systems.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Mianeye
I can only speak for my own country (Denmark), which is relatively small.

All the money the carbon tax is generating, is put back in to the infrastructure of the country.

It's all spent on cleaner industry, farming and agriculture, more efficient public transportation instead of everyone owns a car (especially for cities), green energy like wind and solar energy, and much much more, and has been done for years.

Also as the climate is changing which we feel a lot here in massive amount of torrential or constant rain, the severs and high risk areas of flooding are being renewed and made more efficient to deal with the water.

So when it comes to here, we are dealing with the problems through the carbon tax, to limit co2 and have a cleaner environment.

No scientist or politicians are getting rich, as many wants you to believe by saying "scam".

It's a long term plan that needs a lot of money, but things are done incl. some of your suggestions.

Can we get some numbers on the amount of carbon-tax going back into R&D and cleaning up the environment ? As I hear it in Australia , it has been an epic fail . Just a way for the government and certain "private investors" to raise "revenue" (and we all know what that means) . A quick Google shows a lot of the power in Denmark is produced by wind generation (Denmark is number one in that category in the world) . If that is true , would not that make a carbon-tax nearly non-relative ? I am not being facetious , merely curious as to your statements .

originally posted by: Mianeye
I can only speak for my own country (Denmark), which is relatively small.

All the money the carbon tax is generating, is put back in to the infrastructure of the country.

It's all spent on cleaner industry, farming and agriculture, more efficient public transportation instead of everyone owns a car (especially for cities), green energy like wind and solar energy, and much much more, and has been done for years.

Also as the climate is changing which we feel a lot here in massive amount of torrential or constant rain, the severs and high risk areas of flooding are being renewed and made more efficient to deal with the water.

So when it comes to here, we are dealing with the problems through the carbon tax, to limit co2 and have a cleaner environment.

No scientist or politicians are getting rich, as many wants you to believe by saying "scam".

It's a long term plan that needs a lot of money, but things are done incl. some of your suggestions.

Good to know you have leashes on your politicians, I always liked Denmark, except for the cost of jeans and macdonalds, oh, and the canal near central station with the dead cats floating in it.

If we could trust politicians to do the right thing and not financially rape us to support their buddies along with the rampant nepotism and kickbacks to themselves, yeah, sure, let's try to do something even it fails. My problem is that the taxes disappear into the coffers of the excessively rich and nothing gets done but a lot of sound bits, talking points, spin and window dressing. The most retarded application of tax dollars is committees. They are paid for by us, to find the solution we already know years after we already knew it, what a waste of time and tax dollars. But again, nepotism, kickbacks and supporting political buddies.

Politicians have no credibility, the media has no credibility, businessmen have no credibility and the science community which can be easily bought off, again has no credibility. You're better off buying dinner for some homeless guy on the street, at least you know your money went someplace that actually makes a difference.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Mianeye
All the money the carbon tax is generating, is put back in to the infrastructure of the country.

It's all spent on cleaner industry, farming and agriculture, more efficient public transportation instead of everyone owns a car (especially for cities), green energy like wind and solar energy, and much much more, and has been done for years.

Also as the climate is changing which we feel a lot here in massive amount of torrential or constant rain, the severs and high risk areas of flooding are being renewed and made more efficient to deal with the water.

So when it comes to here, we are dealing with the problems through the carbon tax, to limit co2 and have a cleaner environment.

This is meant to be a constructive criticism, not a trolling response:

Honestly, it sounds more to me like you're spending a crap-load of money to live in an area that is trying to tell you that it may soon not be suitable for efficient human habitation. But, I'm fully convinced (via scientific research, not U.S. politicians or a fabricated "consensus") that 98%* of climate warming is the result of a natural cycle. No amount of taxation is going to change that--nor should it. It's natural.

* Percentage number pulled out of my *** in order to make a point.

a reply to: here4this

Huh?

and sorry for not responding I'm out for the weekend and I'm not trying to write paragraphs on a phone right now but I will most likely be back tomorrow rest assured.