Tesla is fast

Apr 13, 2022 Last reply: 3 years ago 626 Replies

68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1 million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the state where there's not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.

At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome close.

formatting link

Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It's not global warming, it's weight!

I wouldn't take advice from an alligator, asshole, or fire insurer, on climate effects; the IPCC is suited to its purpose. Words from Stalin are... a quaint detour through history.

formatting link
He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you never can tell. At least you didn't make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda though. Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?

I hope you're joking. Most yanks don't know where their own country is.

formatting link

I'd be upset if iodine were that high (and if it were too low, I'd have a goiter). Plants routinely drop leaves and get zero CO2 for months at a time, they seem to be OK with that.

Nonsense. CO2 is belched from volcanoes, and the carbon becomes carbonate minerals or plankton/ocean-bottom ooze while the oxygen builds up to breathable levels.

Life evolved for the oxygen and CO2 atmospheric levels we had a century ago.

Dimwit alert! It's not the carbon in the soil that matters, it's the CO2 in the atmosphere that is out of control.

Warm is why I have heaters. Cold is why I have refrigerators. Neither is 'good', but being able to control temperature IS good. Greenhouse gasses put heating out of control on a global scale. I'm calling that bad, and I've got real criteria to judge by.

Fantasies again; greatness in those days included a complete absence of bombast from John Larkin.

I'll admit on being hazy on Africa. First, most of the countries there have changed since my school days. Second, who really gives a damn?

Agreed, although the guy who thought South Africa was in the West....

And really, name ANY country, and they don't think of er.... America?

There was a certain degree of unbelievability... Most US residents can find the US on a map. The states are another story. Other than out congress critters I doubt many in DC could find Montana on a map -- and we like it that way.

I can tell you where Scotland, England, Wales, and Ireland are. But not the counties (which is the closest thing to states we have here). Well actually Scotland is more like your states, but going by numbers, counties.

Until we find otherwise. Remember, it used to be thought we couldn't travel over about 40mph without damaging our bodies.

Indeed, we're not even attacking Russia for using cluster bombs. We're just tutting, that's all "civilised" countries do nowadays.

When was that? You can fire up Google Earth today, and examine a polar icecap through a decade or three, if you cared to do so. The appearances were subtle three decades ago, but not nowadays.

Unwillingness to consult with experts is not a good social skill.

Kermit loses to a GIRL!

formatting link

What on earth makes you disagree with any of the points made by John above?

And you'd survive on low oxygen and a lack of food too, you wouldn't produce much meat on you though. We prefer our crops to thrive. That requires CO2.

But plants could do so much better if they could breathe more easily.

WTF? We're moving it from the soil to the air, where it used to be before it was moved from the air to the soil.

Oooh a whole centigrade or two!

No, a scientific fact.

And water, and nitrates, and phosphates. Give plants more CO2 and their leaves have fewer stomata so they can get all the CO2 thye nedd while losing less water.

Not remotely true. John Larkin recycling idiotic denialist propaganda.

Twaddle.

Commander Kinsey isn't very bright.

So far. And that enough for more frequent extreme weather events, which are already killing people.

But not one that means what you and John Larkin would like it to mean.

Problem is, there's just not enough thinking going around these days.

So, this is a simple-minded 'more is better' argument?

That's the CO2 cycle, independent of human modification. The CO2 source (vulcanism) never stops; our plants will always have CO2. The 'more is better' theme is weak, because 'more is pollution' is at least equally true.

Yeah, we're altering the CO2 cycle in alarming ways. We need to REGULATE our effect, or live with the unnatural consequences. Greta Thunberg has a preference. It's her future, let her have a good one.

Indeed, people just copy everyone else. It used to be just clothes fashion, now it's everything.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required