Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kagus]

He's written a thing, albeit for the Daily Signal as opposed to a news organization.

Wait... Is he arguing against anthropogenic climate change by... Agreeing with anthropogenic climate change?

This is next level.

[Hanslanda]

I think it's one step closer to getting them to start working on climate change.

[Kagus]

I think it's one step closer to getting them to start working on climate change.

By throwing babies at it, yes.

[wierd]

You know.  This is ripe for a parody about how that political group is so stridently pro life, pro big business, and refuses to accept that perpetual growth is unsustainable;

They are 1%ers that cannot fathom a society who's cogs are not greased by throwing millions of disadvantaged people into the works. 

So, naturally, you GOTTA save all those fetuses, those women that refuse to carry them to term are literally undermining the providence of the society, AND-- There is no problem that big industry cannot solve with enough human lives shoveled into its furnaces-- So the problem with global climate change is literally solvable with babies. 

It's kinda disturbing how well that caricature fits here.

[Cyroth]

How much carbon does the average baby bind?

If you make enough of them and then bury them underground you can put all that carbon that was released from burning fossil fuel back into the earth.
And if you do it deep enough and in large enough quantities it'll maybe turn to oil in a ten thousand years.

Literal baby oil.

[Hanslanda]

Well this got dark in a hurry.

[Frumple]

Y'know, I actually asked that question somewhere else. Didn't get an answer for babies specifically, but the rough average for an adult is something like 17 and a bit kg worth of carbon, which ties down like 50kg of CO2. It's apparently theoretically possible for an adult in a fully renewable powered society to have a carbon footprint low enough to make burying them deep a net gain in terms of sequestering.

... it's just stupidly inefficient compared to other available methods.

[Trekkin]

So the problem with global climate change is literally solvable with babies. 

When I read the title of the article, I thought that might be his actual argument: physically using babies to deal with the climate.

Rising sea levels? Babies float.

Loss of biodiversity? Babies have mutations.

Need to reduce insolation? Our babies shall blot out the Sun!

[LordBaal]

Why close the border if the people going in illegally most likely pass by tunnels and other methods but the border checkpoint.

And if he really wants the wall,  liberate Venezuela, we'll not only pay the darn thing, we'll go there to build it. No like is going to actually works but he'll be happy and we'll be supper happy.

[Frumple]

Of all the things I'd imagine you wouldn't end up happy with, USA intervention south of the border is like... the first one. Especially under a GOP POTUS. Our record on that front isn't exactly good, and having a(nother) go under a blantantly racist commander in chief that's specifically been targetting south/central americans with their vitriol isn't what you'd call good conditions for a new try

As for closing the border, it's just fuckstupid fuckstupidity. If you're looking for a good reason you're not going to find it. If you're expecting it to substantially effect the undocumented immigration rate you're barking up the wrong, xenophobic, increasingly senile tree. If you're thinking it would hurt everyone involved, the US very much included, for little to no gain and pretty certainly significant net loss, well, you'd be right. Welcome to the GOP.

[Dunamisdeos]

I mean, there's also the perception of the left as thinking that life isn't worth living if you're doing it with manual labor with no avocado toast. The caricature that you can't have babies on the off chance they might have to do physical labor is apparently applicable too. Why have babies if they can't be guaranteed a post-scarcity utopia?

I jest, mostly. Also, that Republican is arguing that climate change is 100% real and 100% needs to be addressed, but finds the ways that the Green Deal proposes to do it unacceptable. He, a Republican, advocated a move away from coal into nuclear energy. Are we seriously going to go against that just because HeS a RePuBLiCaN??? When did we start opposing climate change bases on party lines, I thought that was their thing.

EDIT: According to wikipedia's composition of the human body, an average 6-pound baby contains about .9 lbs of carbon.

[Il Palazzo]

According to wikipedia's composition of the human body, an average 6-pound baby contains about .9 lbs of carbon.

So, I'm guessing retooling the fuel economy to baby oil wouldn't solve global warming?

[Dunamisdeos]

According to wikipedia's composition of the human body, an average 6-pound baby contains about .9 lbs of carbon.

So, I'm guessing retooling the fuel economy to baby oil wouldn't solve global warming?

The internet seems to think that approximately one pound of coal produces one kwh. Coal contains on average 35-45% carbon. So one baby is equal to around 2 lb of coal, for simplicity's sake, or 2 kwh. The average American home uses around 7200 kwh a year. It would therefore take a ballpark estimate of 459,324,000,000 babies to power all of the homes in the United States.

This seems like an untenable energy solution. Also if you read the last sentence of the above paragraph while looking at my avatar the effect is profound.

[smjjames]

There's a Europol thread? I thought that was locked about a year ago (or the Brexit one was, if that's different), never to be mentioned again.

Eh? You've posted in there only to realize now? Though I guess the confusion is understandable given how Brexit tends to dominate that thread.

Why close the border if the people going in illegally most likely pass by tunnels and other methods but the border checkpoint.

And if he really wants the wall,  liberate Venezuela, we'll not only pay the darn thing, we'll go there to build it. No like is going to actually works but he'll be happy and we'll be supper happy.

Because he's an idiot.

[Starver]

Eh? You've posted in there only to realize now? Though I guess the confusion is understandable given how Brexit tends to dominate that thread.

There's no Europol thread ever showing up on my "Show new replies to my posts" link, as it would if I had ever posted there, so anywhere I posted in (from memory, at least three Brexit and/or EU threads that got retired, but the searching of my historic posts is a somewhat ungainly and lossy process) is therefore not the current one. Which I don't see from any cursory scan.


'Nough of that, though. I really want to address the very serious issue of what closing the border would mean regarding Wolverine managing to get Dr Xavier's medication to him. Or, for the less sympathetically minded, with how you would build an Adamantium Claw-proof fence?