"Now hiring!"

"I saw on a tabloid that xyz was suppose to happen and didn't. So I use that tabloid as a reason to reject all science!"

The issue is, when you talk about "what the news said" and then use that to not reject news, but to reject science, I'm not really sure what point you think you're making.

If you want to show me a peer reviewed research article from the 1990's that made a claim about something that would happen by the 2020's and it hasn't happened, go ahead. But if all you have is "bUt ThE nEwS sAiD!!!!!" I don't really care.

I get my science from peer review, not the news.

"I base my science exclusively on 80s articles of Discovery and the real estate decisions of a multimillionaire who will be dead long before any negative effects of climate change affect his real estate. I are SMRT!"

The US has emitted more than the entire EU combined.

Remember, the industrial revolution started around the time the US became a country.

Meanwhile, in reality, 50 year old models accurately predicted temperatures today:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp

Less than 50% is literally not the majority, it's a plurality.

Yes. I've literally pointed that out elsewhere.

I never said anything cancels out those emissions. Infact, it was you who said that some emissions cancel out a lack of emissions, am equally ridiculous claim.

If you think pointing out facts makes me a shill, I think you're just unable to admit when you're wrong.

Everyone is wrong from time to time, it's how you respond to being wrong that defines you.

>It doesn't matter what they're doing with renewables

Then why did you lie about what they are doing?

Instead of investing in renewable energy, they're doing everything they can to contribute to global warming.

If you hadn't lied about it, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

>by adding an additional 90 coal plants, you're really offsetting all that progress and it's pretty meaningless now.

China needs more power. They should not be building coal, but it's not fair to say that it's "cancelling out" anything.

They added 150GW of power between coal and renewables. Instead of it being 150GW of coal, it's 120GW of renewables and only 25GW of coal.

That cancels out a lot of coal emissions - and saying they're not investing in renewables is a lie. You lied.

>If they were serious they wouldn't be proceeding with new coal plants.

It's incredibly easy to criticize a country that is trying to develop itself, especially in areas that lack the technology and infrastructure to support more advanced power plants.

It's especially easy to do while you sit in a country that emitted far more emissions from coal than China ever has when it went through the same development cycle centuries ago.

Compared to the US or Europe, China is doing an incredible job of bringing power to millions of people while minimizing emissions.

EDIT:

To clarify, the US has emitted about 2x more emissions than China since the industrial revolution. And the EU has emitted about 1.5x more.

That doesn't excuse China, but it does make the idea that China isn't doing enough to limit emissions laughably ridiculous when it comes from the EU and US.

>Instead of investing in renewable energy, they're doing everything they can to contribute to global warming.

This isn't an accurate or fair claim by any measure.

China has issues, and it needs to address them, but straight up lying isn't helpful to the conversation.

In 2022, China added 26.8GW of new coal power capacity.

In the same year, China added 125GW of new solar and wind power.

While the US is investing about $141 billion in new renewable energy, China has invested a whopping $546 billion in 2022.

The idea that China isn't making efforts to build out a clean grid just isn't true. Yes, they are expanding coal power generation, and they are the nation with the leading CO2e emissions - and they do need to address both of those problems.

But to suggest that China isn't committed to building renewable energy just isn't accurate by any stretch of the imagination. They're doing more to expand renewable than the US and EU combined.

China is not emitting "the vast majority" - they're not even emitting the majority.

Words have meaning, and majority means more than half. China emits around 30% of the total CO2e emissions - not even remotely close to the majority.

The word you are looking for is plurality. China emits a plurality of CO2e. With the US being the only country remotely close behind at 14%. India, the third highest, emits about half of what the US emits, or less than a quarter of what China emits.

The three countries combined equal the majority of global emissions.

Because they're not.

Year over year, ice is declining.

It would be weird to see an article about something that's not happening.

There's so much misunderstanding of nuclear it's crazy.

I'm not opposed to nuclear in principal, but having read reports like these, and looking at the costs for design and construction, it just doesn't seem viable in the time frame we have.

There are plants started in the 70s that are still being constructed today.

So you're only straight because you're choosing to be straight?

I have news for you, you're probably gay.

I'm straight, but I didn't choose to be. Just don't find the same sex attractive.

People choose to join the KKK or wear Nazi paraphernalia.

People don't choose to be gay or their gender. These things are influenced by biology.

We grant protections to people based on things they can't control, like age, race, or where they were born.

Haunter of the Dark is my all time favorite Lovecraft story.

I grew up on one hill overlooking a valley and spent countless nights watching car lights and house lights on the other hill across the valley wondering what they were and where they were going.

Reading Haunter in the Dark made my hair stand up on end almost the whole way through. Turned fond childhood memories into nightmares (not really, but kind of).

It's fantastically well written and down right creepy.

Fun/scary fact: the Permian-Triassic extinction was caused in part by coal burning which increased atmospheric CO2.

I'm not sure you're understanding me.

Yes, mining effects the rotation of earth.

It will change it by a few nanoseconds. Not enough to impact the environment.

It's not physically possible for us to do more than that. Doing so would require millions of years worth of electricity. See the math above.

I mean, I did the math to show that mining causing any significant changes in the earth's orbit or rotation is complete nonsense.

It would take millions of years of effort, with all human energy going to this singular purpose, to make even a miniscule change.

Natural processes will dwarf anything humans do to alter the earth's orbit many times over.

If you believe in this mathematically impossible nonsense, there's nothing more to say. I've shown you the numbers. Humans can't alter these things. We just don't have the energy.

Re: sources for the math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy

The earth has 2.14 * 10^29 joules of kinetic energy in its rotation.

Reducing that by 0.5 seconds requires:

Fraction of total = 0.5 seconds per day / 86400 seconds per day = 0.00000578703

2.14 * 10^29 joules * 0.00000578703 = 1.24 * 10^24 joules.

1 joule = 1 watt second, so...

1.24 * 10^24 J = 344,007,202 terawatt hours.

Humans produce about 11,037 gigawatt hours of electricity per year, so:

344,007,202 TWh / 11.037 TWh / 1 year = 31,168,542 years

Thank you for asking me to double check my math, I forgot to convert GWh to TWh the first time.

It would take over 31 million years, not 40,000 - I was wrong.

This is complete nonsense.

We broke a record for earth's fastest rotation in 2022, it was 86399.99841 seconds instead of the "normal" 86400 seconds.

Let's say mining could have a significant effect on the earth's rotation. Let's say 0.5 seconds of change per day would be devastating.

It would require almost 400 MILLION terawatt hours of energy to slow the earth's rotation by 0.5 seconds per day.

If we dedicated 100% of all electrical power in the entire world solely to mining, and 100% of that energy went into slowing the earth, none was lost to heat or inefficiencies, it would take 40,000 years of mining to reach 0.5 seconds of change in earth's rotation.

I think you are grossly underestimating the raw materials needed for oil extraction, and vastly underestimating the billions of tons of of CO2 fossil fuels generate each year.

As of 2013, Alberta Canada reported that about 30 square miles (77 square kilometers) of land had been dedicated to tailing ponds for tar sand oil extraction.

That's 1 province in 1 country 10 years ago.

And let's be clear here, minerals extracted for green energy are permanently available when accounting for recycling. That tar sand oil is gone the moment you burn it. Want more? Another 30 square miles please...

No.

>Ok, where in that does it say the US was willing to accept conditions other then keep the emperor?

...[Conservatives] argued that giving Japan a respectable way out of the conflict would save lives and, at the same time, block Soviet ambitions in Asia.

This line follows statements specifically about unconditional surrender:

President Harry Truman believed unconditional surrender would keep the Soviet Union involved while reassuring American voters and soldiers that their sacrifices in a total war...

>Because Downfall by Frank says nearly the exact opposite of you.

Okay?

I'm not saying that this is the ONLY opinion that exists. I'm not arguing that this MUST be true and all other statements are false.

Read what I wrote:

"It's at least possible that it didn't."

Where does this even suggest that it could not be wrong?

>Japan's "Conditions" were No trials, no occupation, and keeping captured territory. In other words, letting Japan win.

I don't see the relevance of this statement. Even if it's agreed that this is 100% true, how does this refute my statement that it's possible the Soviet invasion had more to do with the surrender than the A-bombs?

I mean, let's be clear here, between August 9th and August 15th, there was no negotiation. The only thing Japan did during that time was agree to surrender unconditionally according to the Potsdam declaration.

It's tough to say that it was the A-bomb that made them change their mind, when we know that they didn't consider the first A-bomb sufficient to warrant unconditional surrender and were still exploring options to negotiate terms.

I'm happy to hear and discuss your criticisms.

But telling me that an article published on MIT is "garbage" with no further explanation isn't going to convince me of anything except that you have a bias and refuse to read anything that doesn't confirm your bias.

Care to try again?