Energy usage, conservation and the environment

[Flap]

Hey y'all,

Let's have a discussion where we talk about energy use and climate change/lack thereof.

Let's agree to only use peer-reviewed sources with large sample sizes, so that neither side can try to skew the narrative.

Let's agree to be nice to one another and have a real political discussion. I'm 100% willing to have my mind changed. It's already happened a time or two thanks to stuff I've read on here.

How does that sound?

I'll open with a question: Is it fundamentally bad to try to conserve the environment?

[~Rocktar~]

Peer review is meaningless in light of the current research into how often so called "Peer Reviewed" research was endorsed by people that never read or reviewed it and was illustrated in it's hilarity by James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian among others.

I an effort to establish a common starting point, from your question, "Is it fundamentally bad to try to conserve the environment?" define "bad", "conserve" and "the environment". Be specific and use non-subjective terms.

[Seran]

It is a highly subjective question and whether it's the Conservatives or the Liberals answering, you're going to get some wildly differently theories which may or may not be peer reviewed.

So how about you posit your own opinion on the matter, source your facts and folks who are interested can respond. Or fling poo, which is probably more likely.

[Wrathbringer]

Hey y'all,

Let's have a discussion where we talk about energy use and climate change/lack thereof.

Let's agree to only use peer-reviewed sources with large sample sizes, so that neither side can try to skew the narrative.

Let's agree to be nice to one another and have a real political discussion. I'm 100% willing to have my mind changed. It's already happened a time or two thanks to stuff I've read on here.

How does that sound?

I'll open with a question: Is it fundamentally bad to try to conserve the environment?

You're Back, aren't you. There are only a handful of people this retarded on PC, and my money is on Back.

[Wrathbringer]

It is a highly subjective question and whether it's the Conservatives or the Liberals answering, you're going to get some wildly differently theories which may or may not be peer reviewed.

So how about you posit your own opinion on the matter, source your facts and folks who are interested can respond. Or fling poo, which is probably more likely.

Don't worry, you're still more retarded than Fap.

[Flap]

Peer review is meaningless in light of the current research into how often so called "Peer Reviewed" research was endorsed by people that never read or reviewed it and was illustrated in it's hilarity by James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian among others.

I an effort to establish a common starting point, from your question, "Is it fundamentally bad to try to conserve the environment?" define "bad", "conserve" and "the environment". Be specific and use non-subjective terms.

So, you're saying that it's impossible follow the science? Because empirical evidence and peer review are kind of bedrock parts of it. I'm interested to know what's required for it to be meaningful to you.

I hope Merriam-Webster is an okay source, but these definitions are fine for our discussion:

Bad:


: morally objectionable : EVIL
bad men

: DISAGREEABLE, UNPLEASANT
bad news

: INJURIOUS, HARMFUL
a bad influence

Conserve:


to keep in a safe or sound state
He conserved his inheritance.
especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of
conserve natural resources
conserve our wildlife

The environment:


: the natural world
Pollution is bad for the environment.
protecting the (natural) environment

[Flap]

You're Back, aren't you. There are only a handful of people this retarded on PC, and my money is on Back.

???

[LOL BRIELUS]

we should conserve the environment. We can agree on that

[Flap]

It is a highly subjective question and whether it's the Conservatives or the Liberals answering, you're going to get some wildly differently theories which may or may not be peer reviewed.

So how about you posit your own opinion on the matter, source your facts and folks who are interested can respond. Or fling poo, which is probably more likely.

I suppose we shall see. I'll answer my own question and go ahead and lay my cards on the table for the topic: I think it's a very good thing to conserve the environment. However, I also think we may be past a tipping point for an environmental catastrophe that will cause global economic/societal collapse.

I don't have any documents to share yet on these opinions, just giving a little preview and stating my biases. I'm interested to know if anyone can proceed without calling me crazy or stupid. We've already got one disqualification:

I am engaging in PC tactic number two and calling you another person. Also slurs for disabled folks. I'm a real class act!

[Flap]

we should conserve the environment. We can agree on that

NICE

[LOL BRIELUS]

NICE

So now we just compel mandatory EV usage, use DPA to mandate solar and wind and take over China and India bc they pollute too much

[Flap]

So now we just compel mandatory EV usage, use DPA to mandate solar and wind and take over China and India bc they pollute too much

SSSHHHH Don't tell them the plan. Also you must construct additional pylons.