Musk dismisses predictions from scientist on climate change. Says we have 20 years to fix the world.

See for yourself, he aims to reduce emissions and ends up increasing emissions - what a genius :auiqs.jpg:

But you respect failure so knock yourself out.

View attachment 1052838

99.9% of life on this planet uses CO2 the way we use O2.
And we O2 users need them to use that CO2.
CO2 is not pollution, that's another lie from the science fraudsters.
400 ppm is barely enough to sustain life on this planet.
 
No such thing as anthropogenic climate change.


Well, if we fired every nuke missile we have at Antarctica, we would cause ACC...

Careful with words, you are right, don't get wordsmithed.
 
Enviro-nazis use "climate change" as code for 'humans need to reduce CO2, emissions and total amount'.


Let them be science invalid morons.

That does not justify our side being the same....
 
Oh look ... another thread will all the same arguments ... DemoNazis vs. ConservaMorons ...

Which side is producing carbon dioxide to argue against producing carbon dioxide? ...

too funny
 
99.9% of life on this planet uses CO2 the way we use O2.
And we O2 users need them to use that CO2.
CO2 is not pollution, that's another lie from the science fraudsters.
400 ppm is barely enough to sustain life on this planet.
CO2 is polluting when it exceeds a certain threshold, that is to say it is harmful to life. Here's what a proper encyclopedia says about this:
Pollution occurs when an amount of any substance or any form of energy is put into the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed or safely stored. The term pollution can refer to both artificial and natural materials that are created, consumed, and discarded in an unsustainable manner.


Why do you regard this basic scientific definition as "fraud"?
 
We have a lot of them in Illinois. Never caused a problem.
1734017217635.webp


 
Any energy source can be dangerous if not handled properly.
The US Navy has been using Nuclear energy for about seven decades now with no major mishap.
You qualified your claim with "major" which was wise. The Navy are unlikely to talk about accidents too.

1734017486704.webp
 
99.9% of life on this planet uses CO2 the way we use O2.
And we O2 users need them to use that CO2.
CO2 is not pollution, that's another lie from the science fraudsters.
400 ppm is barely enough to sustain life on this planet.
1734017926308.png


 
View attachment 1053039


Sounds serious!
How many more nuclear power plants should we build?
 

Well, Elon...we are about to lose 4 years with your good pal in charge. So, we actually have far less time, and since you are not a scientist and I am tired of hearing your stupid predictions...you only say what you think maga wants to hear. Face it, trump is going to screw over the economy, the environment, and everything else he gets his grubby little hands on.
Whatever happens, a lot of people will never believe your lies anymore. And unfortunately, sometime in the future we may suffer for it in other issues as the element of trust will be negated.
 
My water is from Lake Michigan. No tritium.
There is tritium in lake Michigan why do you say there isn't? I know why, you're a piece of white trash science denier, get your rocks off pretending you're an informed member of society but you're a dunce and probably an incel too like most Trump worshipping males.
 

Well, Elon...we are about to lose 4 years with your good pal in charge. So, we actually have far less time, and since you are not a scientist and I am tired of hearing your stupid predictions...you only say what you think maga wants to hear. Face it, trump is going to screw over the economy, the environment, and everything else he gets his grubby little hands on.
Now trump rules that billionaires will be exempt from environmental rules. Billionaires are running the country.
 
So human activity has zero influence over the climate, is that your proposition?
Influence is not the same as change.
Influence on climate from human activity is on scale of less than one percent.
Human activity is not enough to be a major (or minor) factor in climate change.
 
CO2 is polluting when it exceeds a certain threshold, that is to say it is harmful to life. Here's what a proper encyclopedia says about this:



Why do you regard this basic scientific definition as "fraud"?
I don't regard it as fraud.
That is the illogical extrapolation your sick mind made.

What part of all flora life(@99+%) on Earth requires CO2 do you fail to grasp?
When flora on average require at least @300ppm to be healthy (not struggling) why do you think 400 PPM is pollution?
Current CO2 levels are @ 0.0004% (1/2500) of total, non-water vapor, atmosphere content. O2 is about 21%. Do you consider that level of O2 as pollution?
Are you capable of reading and understanding this chart/graph?
iu
 
Back
Top Bottom