There is no way to prove that climate change is caused by man. You can only speculate. And I don't care how many scientists are on it.

Have you forgotten what you learned in science classes in university? What you are bandying about is not proof/evidence. It's just a huge hypothesis.

We have most of the technologies already. Public electric transport infrastructure with renewables and nuclear would be the largest and easiest way to drastically reduce emissions. Reforestation and reclaiming wetlands are ridiculously effective carbon sinks.

Technofuturists would have you believe we all need to drive electric cars to save the world and we just need to invest in that. But the fact is that the vast majority of technology to go green exists today.

If you think decarbonizing electricity generation and cars was the only hurdle to overcome, you are myopic. Heating, industrial processes, food, steel and concrete production - all those things come with huge amounts of carbon emissions too.

Also, we've already had this debate in the past. Global uranium reserves would be depleted within 20 years if the whole world went to nuclear. It is an important bridge technology, but it is not a viable long-term solution at global scale. Likewise, the global reserves of rare earths would not be sufficient to supply the whole world with electric cars. And that's not even talking about the rare earths which go into solar panels and wind turbines. And last but not least, the problem of storing excess generation from renewables at the necessary scale is still not solved. Without storages for renewable energy, the base load power plants would have to supply close to 100% of the energy demand during windless winter weeks. Good luck doing that without coal and gas.

And I pointed out that the reserves are not a meaningful indication because we have quite frankly never engaged in an economy dependent mining effort the way we have with coal and oil.

Uranium is incredibly abundant. You can get more of it. Reserves are not stagnant. Just the minor exploration we do now has increased them 25% in the past 10 years. Just precipitating it from seawater is a viable option after the easy stuff is gone. The bridge is massively more abundant than 20 years. That's an incredibly low estimate. There's likely at least an order of magnitude still accessible.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Oct 22 2022 03:36pm

Construction and maintenance and repair and replacement all have massive carbon footprints, as does consumption even in a society with the benefit of all those mitigation efforts. Putting up windmills and building reactors and dams and solar arrays, its all huge amounts of steel and concrete. And even then, global warming is one of the smaller and less direct consequences of overpopulation, when deforestation and biodiversity loss was already in full swing before we even started burning fossil fuels en masse. None of these mitigation efforts can scale down our consumption at a rate higher than the inverse proportion of our population growth.

it's called "climate change" now

"Climate change"?
There are about 1,500 volcanos on earth.
Every single day about 50 of them are erupting.
These daily active volcanos put out about 500 to 1,000 times more C02 every day than all of humanity has put out for our entire existence!
Now go look up "Photosynthesis" and see for yourself that C02 is NOT a pollutant, it is one of the three most essential elements for life, especially the plant life on this planet.
No C02, no plants.
No plants giving off oxygen, no animals and humans.
No plants, animals and humans = dead lifeless planet.

All lies.

No, it's called free speech. Your right to assembly is in the constitution. You can't just punish people who say things you don't like. What are you a leftist? Please stop being such a snowflake you make us right wingers look like pussy