
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
It is man. Ever think how much of your everyday life is accessible because of science and technology?That’s exactly what a pompous, publicly funded “expert” would say.
It is man. Ever think how much of your everyday life is accessible because of science and technology?That’s exactly what a pompous, publicly funded “expert” would say.
There’s a big difference between something like figuring out how to mine, distribute and utilize petroleum resources to better everyone’s life and accurately dating a 6 billion year old artifact.It is man. Ever think how much of your everyday life is accessible because of science and technology?
I’m talking about more than that. To stay on the topic of my OP, sometime look up “every day things invented by NASA”. That’s just one organizationThere’s a big difference between something like figuring out how to mine, distribute and utilize petroleum resources to better everyone’s life and accurately dating a 6 billion year old artifact.
Who uses the term "Fuck Bois" anyways ?To stay on the topic of my OP
There’s also a big difference between inventing Velcro and other useful products and carbon dating a 6 million year old ice core.I’m talking about more than that. To stay on the topic of my OP, sometime look up “every day things invented by NASA”. That’s just one organization
Not to be smug, but ice cores really only go back maybe a million years. Probably lessThere’s also a big difference between inventing Velcro and other useful products and carbon dating a 6 million year old ice core.
Not my point smartest guy in the room. ?Not to be smug, but ice cores really only go back maybe a million years. Probably less
But my point was science goes in to everything. How much research and development do you think went in to the rubber compound of the tires on your truck?Not my point smartest guy in the room. ?
Agreed - it's huge, significant and... coming off a ridiculously-low base, a base that itself is 1/10 of what it's been in the past. Currently 0.04% of the atmosphere.So I’ll just end with 100ppm is a lot when you compare it to previous levels. It’s a substantial percentage. Over 50% in a couple hundred years. That is staggering and anything but “natural”. And as I’ve preached, it’s important because humans can reverse it.
You too Brother Dan.Anyways, always a pleasure conversing with you
One of my fave EDM acts does - FEMM from Japan.Who uses the term "Fuck Bois" anyways ?
?
Those are things that can be proven. Because they exist and they work as intended. Tires are not a theory.But my point was science goes in to everything. How much research and development do you think went in to the rubber compound of the tires on your truck?
Science isn’t just vaccines and global warming.
And scientists are just Neil Degrasse Tyson
Agreed - it's huge, significant and... coming off a ridiculously-low base, a base that itself is 1/10 of what it's been in the past. Currently 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Couple that with the fact that it's the least-powerful GG and you have a double nothing burger.
You too Brother Dan.![]()
Those are things that can be proven. Because they exist and they work as intended. Tires are not a theory.
A couple hundred years is, again, the blink of an eye. Insignificant. And what, specifically, do you mean by “substantial”? Should we all drastically change our lives? You are waving this torch around pretty flamboyantly, what exactly is your point?So I’ll just end with 100ppm is a lot when you compare it to previous levels. It’s a substantial percentage. Over 50% in a couple hundred years.
A couple hundred years is, again, the blink of an eye. Insignificant. And what, specifically, do you mean by “substantial”? Should we all drastically change our lives? You seem to be waving this torch around, what exactly is your point?
My point is that the earth is warmer with more co2 in the atmosphere than if there were less co2 in the atmosphere
That’s neither specific nor exacting—again, what is your point?My point is that the earth is warmer with more co2 in the atmosphere than if there were less co2 in the atmosphere
That’s pretty much it. I’ve said it a bunch of timesThat’s neither specific nor exacting—again, what is your point?