ThomPete

24 ms·

271.
by ThomPete 5y ago
I would challenge that claim. Also a quick google search on meditation and perfect shows mostly claims and speculation nothing conclusive.
272.
by ThomPete 5y ago
pitch interval training is different yes, I can do that to a certain extent but absolute pitch is very different.
273.
by ThomPete 5y ago
you can learn relative pitch not absolute pitch. Absolute pitch is only possible before 3 years old or something like that.
274.
by ThomPete 5y ago
i don't think its possible at all to learn absolute pitch after the age of 3.
275.
by ThomPete 5y ago
more die from cold
276.
by ThomPete 5y ago
Thats great news. co2 is plant fodder. Its a way better trend than things getting colder. Not something we cant deal with.
277.
by ThomPete 5y ago
This is where you are wrong these are fundamental problems of physics, materials, chemistry and engineering before the even become economic issues
278.
by ThomPete 5y ago
electric grid based on renewables require fossil fuels to be both made and as backup to be reliable. Electricity is not going to solve the 80% of the energy needs, its not going to allow them to do manufacturing and agriculture at large sca
279.
by ThomPete 5y ago
I love nuclear but we are not going to deprecate fossil fuels. You can't build neither nuclear nor wind or solar without huge amounts of fossil fuels and again electricity is less than 20% of a country's energy consumption.
280.
by ThomPete 5y ago
i am a big proponent of nuclear but less than 20% of any country’s energy needs are electricity.
281.
by ThomPete 5y ago
It being unreliable is a hinderance to it's development. Furthermore you cant't even do any of this without heavy use of fossil fuel.
282.
by ThomPete 5y ago
If it can be built without the draconian regulation you see in the west perhaps. Fossil fuel is still required though.
283.
by ThomPete 5y ago
that require fossil fuels. Ever seen what goes into building a windmill? https://spectrum.ieee.org/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil?fbc... We are not even theoretically close to getting off oil, gas or coal.
284.
by ThomPete 5y ago
you cant leapfrog fossil fuels. Wind and solar require backup from either gas, oil, coal or nuclear or it wont be able to provide energy all the time. All you are doing is creating a much more expensive system and you are not getting rid of
285.
by ThomPete 5y ago
“may” yet another speculative newsmaking article.
286.
by ThomPete 5y ago
sure
287.
by ThomPete 5y ago
we are not wiping out the rest of the planet, we are manipulating it into better serving us through thd use of technology. We are potentially able to deal with ex. astroid impact which no other species is able to, in my book that counts for
288.
by ThomPete 5y ago
The number of dimensions we have improved life for humans in an environment which have always been hostile not only to humans but to the 99.9999% of all species ever existed it wiped out is quite a lot more staggering. Nature didn't gi
289.
by ThomPete 5y ago
They are not giving new argument (and it's mostly the same person) they are making the same claims that are not being backed up (i.e. scientifically demonstrated). We can speculate all we want that means nothing. With regards to doing
290.
by ThomPete 5y ago
I am denying your climate catastrophism claims for which there is no scientifically demonstrated base. You are engaging in speculation not science.
291.
by ThomPete 5y ago
how do you know that your choice of sources isnt the one thats biased? You dont. You are engaging in ideology not science. The very fact that you dont see this and just assume you have the right perspective illustrates my point. You are an
292.
by ThomPete 5y ago
china is already fully engaged in this https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-reaches-new...
293.
by ThomPete 5y ago
you are arguing against one type of bias by introducing another. This is not science this is ideology.
294.
by ThomPete 5y ago
climate change is NOT the largest threat no matter how many times you repeat it. Astroids, suns exploding, super vulcanos etc these are actual potential extinction level events. Things that have actually been demonstrated to happen without
295.
by ThomPete 5y ago
the will come over time, just not yet as its still to expensive and there is still too much generational baggage to force the change.
296.
by ThomPete 5y ago
these are not the certainties you think they are. You are confusing speculation with demonstration. Astroid hitting earth is a far bigger threat to humanity than any scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change. You are not on
297.
by ThomPete 5y ago
Climate change is always a risk but unlikely existential or at least to the extent it is we know how to handle it pretty well. So well that the number of climate related deaths have plummeted quite dramatically the last 100 years. We are co
298.
by ThomPete 5y ago
The internet IS a PBS
299.
by ThomPete 5y ago
You are assuming that you are on the right side of this. If you can't at least understand why people are opposed to the lockdown of course you think "boots on the neck" is a justified response. Most people luckily do know the
300.
by ThomPete 5y ago
If you are so successful why did you have to use military to coerce people into doing it? That's not success thats failure. If we can't agree on that I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

More ›