Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[kers]

I am in awe that this US administration can still shock. ...

...and it has by far the largest and most advanced army in the world... so let's hope they are not going to use it ...
Think that one major problem is that Trump cannot admit he can do anything wrong and has to be treated like a king otherwise he gets to you.
all very personal.

about his deals with foreign leaders: why doesn't anyone refelects on the outcome of his diplomacy with North Korea?
Completely nothing came out of that, except 'warm letters' and making Kim Jong-un a star.
Now his soldiers ar at the border of the Ukraine.

[Rob C]

Things to remember: the USSR got kicked out of Afghanistan, just as the US out of Vietnam. N.K. may already be aware of such things, and simply be using up spare military capacity, in the sense of clearing out the sell-by date stuff, such as older, less-fit soldiers who, otherwise, would have to be fed. Presumably, the ones in Europe will be on the Russian account regarding food and lodgings.

It would probably make for a worse situation for the Ukrainians if S.K. were to send in troops to help out. But hey, proxies can be useful, and battles on third-party territory always preferable to using one's own soil.

It's okay to have the biggest muscles, but they can't always be used without self-destruction being involved, whether physically or economically.

[Robert Roaldi]

Every day a new low, as JD Vance lowers the bar yet again, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/08/beijing-attacks-jd-vances-chinese-peasants-remark-in-tariffs-interview.

[Ray]

Here's another sensible change which should strengthen the US economy. The additional CO2 emitted will also increase crop production (a free fertilizer) and contribute to the overall greening of the planet, creating potentially more beautiful sights for photographers. What could be better! 

"Through an Executive Order by President Donald J. Trump, the Department will implement a series of bold policy moves and regulatory reforms to position coal as a cornerstone of the nation’s energy strategy by ensuring federally managed lands remain open and accessible for responsible energy development."

“The Golden Age is here, and we are starting to ‘Mine, Baby, Mine’ for clean American coal,” said Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. “Interior is unlocking America’s full potential in energy dominance and economic development to make life more affordable for every American family while showing the world the power of America’s natural resources and innovation.”

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/department-interior-moves-restore-coal-industry

[Rhossydd]

The additional CO2 emitted will also increase crop production (a free fertilizer) and contribute to the overall greening of the planet, creating potentially more beautiful sights for photographers. What could be better! 

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/co2-does-help-plants-grow-it-is-still-bad-global-warming-2024-04-29/

[kers]

Here's another sensible change which should strengthen the US economy. The additional CO2 emitted will also increase crop production (a free fertilizer) and contribute to the overall greening of the planet, creating potentially more beautiful sights for photographers. What could be better! 

"Through an Executive Order by President Donald J. Trump, the Department will implement a series of bold policy moves and regulatory reforms to position coal as a cornerstone of the nation’s energy strategy by ensuring federally managed lands remain open and accessible for responsible energy development."

“The Golden Age is here, and we are starting to ‘Mine, Baby, Mine’ for clean American coal,” said Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. “Interior is unlocking America’s full potential in energy dominance and economic development to make life more affordable for every American family while showing the world the power of America’s natural resources and innovation.”

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/department-interior-moves-restore-coal-industry

Apart from the environmental aspects like Pollution and global warming, it is probable that the US gets behind with the technology and knowledge to produce real clean energy.
So more import...( tariffs! )
and what we see here in the Netherlands ; the electric grid needs to be upscaled; that takes years.

[Ray]

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/co2-does-help-plants-grow-it-is-still-bad-global-warming-2024-04-29/

Sorry! Not allowed to discuss climate change on this forum. 

[digitaldog]

Sorry! Not allowed to discuss climate change on this forum. 

You mean not allowed to discuss facts and science of climate change on this forum 

Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
In addition to ignoring the long-term outlook, he says, many skeptics also fail to mention the potentially most harmful outcome of rising atmospheric CO2 on vegetation: climate change itself. Its negative consequences—such as drought andheat stress—would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO2 might offer plant life. “It’s not appropriate to look at the CO2 fertilization effect in isolation,”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

[Rhossydd]

You mean not allowed to discuss facts and science of climate change on this forum 

Once you see someone's a climate change denier it's not worth engaging anymore.

[digitaldog]

Once you see someone's a climate change denier it's not worth engaging anymore.

Yes, I acknowledge the reality that individuals with a confirmation bias cannot accept the facts and science. 

[Ray]

Once you see someone's a climate change denier it's not worth engaging anymore.

Exactly right! Now let's consider the true definition of 'climate change denier'.

It must be obvious that a 'climate change denier' is a person who denies that climate changes. In other words, if you are a 'climate change denier', you are a person who is completely ignorant of the geological history of past climates which have been much hotter than today, as well as much colder of course, and which have had much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than today, as well as modestly lower.

For example, around the time of the evolution of Homo Sapiens from ape-like creatures, about 6 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels were comparable to today, and models suggest global temperatures were 3°C to 4°C warmer than the pre-industrial climate. Yet, despite the benefits of all our modern technology, many people are worried that global temperatures might reach the same levels they were during our early evolution.      Why is that?

Hope this post is not deleted by the moderators. 

[kers]

Exactly right! Now let's consider the true definition of 'climate change denier'.

It must be obvious that a 'climate change denier' is a person who denies that climate changes. In other words, if you are a 'climate change denier', you are a person who is completely ignorant of the geological history of past climates which have been much hotter than today, as well as much colder of course, and which have had much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than today, as well as modestly lower.

For example, around the time of the evolution of Homo Sapiens from ape-like creatures, about 6 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels were comparable to today, and models suggest global temperatures were 3°C to 4°C warmer than the pre-industrial climate. Yet, despite the benefits of all our modern technology, many people are worried that global temperatures might reach the same levels they were during our early evolution.      Why is that?

Hope this post is not deleted by the moderators. 

I agree that climate change is a common factor and as old as the earth even without our CO2 emmisions. That is why i refer to pollution as well. But the climate change we see today is a very quick one and certainly partly man-made. One cannot adapt to rapid changes easely, so that can be more dangerous for animals and plants especially. A change does not necessarely have to be a negative change for many ; it is just a change.  Nature is often seen as something static and especially here in the Netherlands where almost everything is man-made I would like to change the word nature in to nature-parcs, for what we have here is nature how we want it to be. That would also take away the false emotion some like to express.

[Jeremy Roussak]

You mean not allowed to discuss facts and science of climate change on this forum 

This is the bear pit. You can discuss anything you like, if it makes you happy.

Jeremy

[digitaldog]

Exactly right! Now let's consider the true definition of 'climate change denier'.
. 

Man made climate change deiner!!!

From NASA:
Human Activity Is the Cause of Increased Greenhouse Gas Concentrations
Over the last century, burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).Increasing Greenhouses Gases Are Warming the Planet
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/

[Robert Roaldi]

.
.
.
For example, around the time of the evolution of Homo Sapiens from ape-like creatures, about 6 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels were comparable to today, and models suggest global temperatures were 3°C to 4°C warmer than the pre-industrial climate. Yet, despite the benefits of all our modern technology, many people are worried that global temperatures might reach the same levels they were during our early evolution.      Why is that?
.
.
.

There may be many other variables involved.

Please stop calling CO2 a fertilizer.

[digitaldog]

Please stop calling CO2 a fertilizer.

It's almost as bad as Ivermectin as a cure for COVID-19 or vitamin A as a cure for measles.

[Ray]

There may be many other variables involved.

Please stop calling CO2 a fertilizer.

Of course there are many other variables involved. Why would anyone think there isn't? However, CO2 is absolutely essential for all life. It's an amazing molecule.

Regardless of the changes in other variables, such as temperature, availability of water, soil-type, mineral content, and so on, if one removes CO2, then all plants die. If one increases CO2 levels, above the current levels of 420 ppm, then most plants (about 95%) will increase their growth.

This can be verified scientifically, in real greenhouses, and confirmed by satellite measurements which show the greening of the planet has significantly increased during the past 30 years or more.

Another advantage of increased CO2 levels, is that it enables plants to thrive with less water because the pores in the leaves become smaller, reducing the amount of transpiration.

You might find the following article interesting.

"Despite warnings that climate change would create widespread desertification, many drylands are getting greener because of increased CO2 in the air — a trend that recent studies indicate will continue."

https://e360.yale.edu/features/greening-drylands-carbon-dioxide-climate-change

By the way, I asked Google if it's correct to call CO2 a fertilizer, and the AI response was as follows.

"Yes, it's accurate to call CO2 a fertilizer in a specific context. While CO2 isn't a traditional fertilizer like nitrogen or phosphorus, it plays a vital role in plant growth by fueling photosynthesis. Higher CO2 levels can increase photosynthesis, leading to faster growth and increased yields in many plants."

[Ray]

I agree that climate change is a common factor and as old as the earth even without our CO2 emmisions. That is why i refer to pollution as well. But the climate change we see today is a very quick one and certainly partly man-made. One cannot adapt to rapid changes easely, so that can be more dangerous for animals and plants especially. A change does not necessarely have to be a negative change for many ; it is just a change.  Nature is often seen as something static and especially here in the Netherlands where almost everything is man-made I would like to change the word nature in to nature-parcs, for what we have here is nature how we want it to be. That would also take away the false emotion some like to express.

I'm glad you agree that climate change is as old as the Earth, but I can't help wondering how an increase in average global temperature of just 1.5 Degrees C, over a 150-year period, can be a problem for adaption.

Everyone, wherever they live, experience far greater swings in temperature than 1.5 degrees, every day of their lives, unless they spend the whole day inside a building with controlled airconditioning set to one specific temperature for both day and night.

[Frans Waterlander]

I'm glad you agree that climate change is as old as the Earth, but I can't help wondering how an increase in average global temperature of just 1.5 Degrees C, over a 150-year period, can be a problem for adaption.

Everyone, wherever they live, experience far greater swings in temperature than 1.5 degrees, every day of their lives, unless they spend the whole day inside a building with controlled airconditioning set to one specific temperature for both day and night.

Ray, you're making way too much sense for this forum!

[Jonathan Cross]

I'm glad you agree that climate change is as old as the Earth, but I can't help wondering how an increase in average global temperature of just 1.5 Degrees C, over a 150-year period, can be a problem for adaption.

Everyone, wherever they live, experience far greater swings in temperature than 1.5 degrees, every day of their lives, unless they spend the whole day inside a building with controlled airconditioning set to one specific temperature for both day and night.

NASA has stats on CO2 concentration showing the increase in the atmosphere.

 https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121

CO2 is not transparent to infrared and so an increase hinders the earth's ability to balance energy input to the earth from the sun and from the earth by radiation.  Hence global warming, the consequences of which have been well documented by the world's scientific community and weather watchers.

Jonathan