Possible 90% REDUCTION in CO2 emmissions by 2035?

Happy to break the news to ya!

Right! We will never know from where you got that absurd idea that cows will not be slaughtered.

 

So what I'm getting here is that you and I both oppose the tyranny of the majority and favor democracy. It also seems that you and I have different ideas of which policies are tyranny and which other policies are fair and just.

 

These two statements by you and the OP are false. I’ve provided peer reviewed studies showing they are false statements.

My “claims” are just peer reviewed science of which I’m the messenger. You say I have a track record that is unreliable. Please substantiate that claim with an example of where something I’ve posted on climate science is shown to conflict with science. Go ahead. You won’t because you can’t. It’s more falsehoods from you.

I agree climate change provides great opportunity. I’ve been profiting from a warming climate for a couple decades. You are as well. It’s made your food and many other consumer items I produce raw materials for more affordable and accessible. The fact you deny the science doesn’t change the fact you benefit from climate change.

I presented a peer reviewed study that reports on the state of the industry. It conflicts with the OP claim above that you echoed. Please show the error of the peer reviewed study as it is not my claim. Go ahead.

 

Why create beef alternatives?

The alternatives are simple. Beef cattle tend to reproduce once per year. If they are not slaughtered, they will multiply exponentially. If they are being slaughtered, why create beef alternatives?

 

Peer-reviewed studies show that a statement speculating about technology to be developed in the future, is false?

Hilarious!

My initial instincts were right. Just take any statement YOU make and assume the OPPOSITE.... and one is more likely to be right.

 

At this point it is probably worth repeating that the dreaded Carbon Dioxide , which is necessary for life even to exist on this planet, makes up 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere! Put this in perspective, and make of this what you will -- but at least be logical....

Source: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. Link: https://www.ucar.edu/

 

No. The OP claim is false. He didn’t speculate.

He either didn’t watch his linked video or he is lying. You echoed the false statement. Peer reviewed research shows the claims you and the OP made are false.

It’s amusing you support disinformation.


What have I posted that is incorrect? Be specific. And provide evidence I’m incorrect. Like I’ve provided evidence the OP statement you echoed is incorrect. Go ahead Golem.

 

The government is a customer for military science, not a provider of it. Dolphins mating habits are a ridiculous thing for federal government to fund even with things the way they are. It is political corruption.

The general welfare is a great goal for federal government as long as it doesn't go beyond the enumerated powers. Nothing in the statement of general welfare gives government the power to leave it lane. Giving every American citizen a million dollars would benefit the general welfare but I can't think of a person who thinks it would be a good idea. In fact it would make those dollars along with all the other dollars be worth a lot less.

So everybody understands that the general welfare is a good goal for federal government but it must remain within federal government's lane. Everything else belongs in the states where the general welfare is also a good goal.

 

No. It was intended to get you thinking more deeply into the subject.

Of course. I was referring to opinions

Projection? It was advice. Ignoring it is fine. Attacking it is pointless.

 

Unfortunately the current definition of conspiracy theory has become a truth the governing powers don't want you to know. Or just a slightly more complicated way of screaming, "Oh look a squirrel" at the top of your lungs.

 

And one should also note that the general welfare cannot be promoted by robbing Peter and paying Paul

 

I’ve been pointing out stuff in the OP that is completely made up. Are you saying the OP is MAGA? LOL

 

Doesn’t inspire confidence, does it?

 

Being logical, I can understand that small concentration can have signficant effects. After all, we see that in the wrold around us, over and over. To deny it would be to deny reality.

Why would anyone be so irrational as to think otherwise? Saying "a small concentration must always be irrelevent" defies all logic. Anyone making such an argument can't be taken seriously on any topic, as it would indicate that they let poltical propaganda override common sense.

 

I didn't say to disregard the fact that CO2 makes up a mere 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere, @mamooth , but I asked that the reader put this fact in "perspective"... remember? Too many people take the scattered 'bread crumbs' of information tossed around by the mainstream media and magnify them in their imaginations to ridiculous, unscientific proportions.

Too much CO2 is not a good thing, unless you're a plant. Too little CO2 and life as we know it cannot even exist on this planet....

. "Give me Carbon Dioxide or give me death!"

 

You claim that you quoted a peer-reviewed study that "proves" that creating protein that doesn't require as many cows is not possible.

That kinda puts a nail on your credibility when you say that ANYTHING is "false"

 

No. I never claimed any such thing. I’ve never claimed creating a protein that doesn’t require as many cows is not possible. You are making that up as a fallacious argument.

I simply pointed out the statement by the OP is FALSE and supplied evidence showing it’s false in the form of a peer reviewed study.

You are welcome, in fact encouraged, to point out (by quoting it) anything I’ve posted that is not factual. You are encouraged to provide evidence I’m incorrect in any statement I’ve made. Like I provided peer reviewed research showing the statement by the OP is false.

Stop making things up and use the PF quote function to provide a statement I’ve made that is incorrect and show evidence it’s incorrect.

Oh, you can’t! Because I’m correct and you and the OP either didn’t do you research or you are both intentionally supplying disinformation.

 

That defines equity which is the opposite of equality and equality was a founding principle of our nation. We seem to have lost our way in that regard.

 

Isn’t it interesting the climate nutters have to make things up and post fallacy when confronted with actual science and facts? Why do they have to lie? It just destroys their credibility when they make false accusations and misrepresent their own linked sources.

 

Well... that's what I referenced. And you responded that this had been proven false by a "peer-reviewed study". Therefore... you DID claim that.

Whatever beef you have with the OP is between you and the OP. You did MORE than that. You claimed that MY statement was false AND that it had been proven false by a peer-reviewed study. You are more than welcome to retract. But that's where we are until you do.

Ok

Now... again you force me to do YOUR research for you. The next step is either you RETRACT... or NOT retract. The latter would mean you DID claim that my reference (I made no statement, only referenced the one specific prediction described in the OP) to creating protein that would not require as many cows had been debunked by some... "peer reviewed studies".

 

No. The OP made this false statement.

You made this false statement.

The peer reviewed study I provided confirms the technology is not new. It confirms the product is not cheaper than beef. It confirms no scaled commercial product exists that is equivalent to beef. The entire statement by the OP I quoted is false.

Your statement is false because there is no cheaper alternative to “cow meat” as he claimed. Both of your statements are false. Period.

You are welcome to critique the peer reviewed study and show its errors. But you won’t.

I have no beef with the OP. I’m simply pointing out his thread is full of disinformation and misinformation. Your statement I again quoted above is false. You claim the OP provided an alternative that is less expensive than cow meat. He didn’t. He can’t because none exists. Thus nobody can claim he provided a less expensive alternative. He can’t provide something that doesn’t exist.

Your statement can not be true. It is false as evidence from peer reviewed research shows what you claim the OP provided does not exist.

I’ve done your research for you and the OP. You both made false statements that I have corrected with peer reviewed research. Both your statements are false. Nothing I’ve claimed is false.

You have claimed I’ve made false statements. Go ahead and provide evidence anything I’ve posted is incorrect. Or retract your false accusations. I’ve provided evidence that the OP and yourself have made false statements. Both conflict with supplied peer reviewed research.

Nobody has provided any evidence any of my posts conflict with science or known facts. You won’t because no such evidence exists. All you have is endless fallacies and rejection of science.

 

NOT false. An alternative that is less expensive than cow meat IS possible and HAS been predicted to become a cheaper alternative to cow meat. And most certainly NO "peer-reviewed study" has shown it to be false.

Huh? Now you're telling us that you were complaining about how "new" the technology was?

I can't believe it. Never mind!

 

Yes, the OP statement is false. He claimed a thing exists that doesn’t exist. You claimed he provided something peer reviewed research says doesn’t exist.

You are both either uninformed or intentionally being dishonest.

Actually the OP brought up the “newness” of the technology in a later post complaining about my post. He correctly claimed in a later post the technology is not new. But in the OP statement I quoted he incorrectly claimed it is new technology. He has claimed it is new and that it is not new. Basically he has no idea what he’s talking about. And neither do you because you claimed he provided a thing that does not exist according to peer reviewed research.

SMH.

 

That's MAGA.

 

I haven't read any of your posts.
The OP title is possible reductions of CO2. That's not a conspiracy theory. That's a goal. Possibly.