ThomPete

44 ms·

511.
by ThomPete 6y ago
That talks about countries contributing relative to each other NOT relative to natural. Please point to the number. It's not there because it doesn't exist because we don't know. And let me put it like this. If you know the n
512.
by ThomPete 6y ago
yet we dont have a ballpark number that says how much is human made and how much is natural. It doesent exist even in the IPCC report. You are welcome to prove me wrong.
513.
by ThomPete 6y ago
Neither have i seen disagreement there. The point is that the graph is used to claim that we will get to these levels and that combustion is the reason we will reach them in 2100 and that the solution is to reduce fossil fuel combustion.
514.
by ThomPete 6y ago
I am claiming that the research paper is not about cognitive capabilities (as that is taken for granted in the headline) but about fossil fuels effect on CO2 hence the title of the paper. "Fossil Fuel Combustion Is Driving Indoor CO2 T
515.
by ThomPete 6y ago
I don't think I am. The causality of the article is. Outdoor CO2 might be rising dramatically > dramatically rising outdoor CO2 leads to dramatically rising indoor CO2 > too high a concentration of indoor CO2 might have an impact
516.
by ThomPete 6y ago
That's not my point. The point is that the article claim that rising CO2 levels are likely based on the graph which will lead to increased indoor co2 which might lead to impaired cognition at the end of the century. Thats one hell of a
517.
by ThomPete 6y ago
It actually has a lot given that they are saying IF CO2 levels goes up to a certain level at the end of the century. They are using that graph as one of the reasons for why it's likely to go up. This is their conclusion "We conclu
518.
by ThomPete 6y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but that graph they show compares averaged numbers over hundreds of years or even thousands of years, with year over year numbers once we started measuring this regularly the last +100 years. This seems just str
519.
by ThomPete 6y ago
I think this is missing the point. We don't have access to China exactly because they keep us out and force our technology on their hands to get in there.
520.
by ThomPete 6y ago
I dont think you have to show that in court if its national interest then all you need is congressional approval no? You cant have a court hearing on intelligence information or am i missing sonething?
521.
by ThomPete 6y ago
i dont think they want them to stop, they want thrm to focus on the job not take advantage of their well payed and flexible jobs to be activist.
522.
by ThomPete 6y ago
he actually just bends to peoples opinions. There are plenty of people he dont agree with.
523.
by ThomPete 6y ago
There is not a single piece of scientific base for any cataclysmic damage, on the contrary fossil fuel have made the world safer for those who use it.
524.
by ThomPete 6y ago
It IS distributed into a billion tiny pieces. Do you know if your computer is using oil from BP? Do you know if your car is running on gasoline from BP? The manufactorers of plastic straw aren't responsible for the disposal of them tha
525.
by ThomPete 6y ago
Cramer recently said he was getting out of fossil fuel investments. Not because they are not great businesses but because the perception of them have changed so much which affects the market. There is nothing controversial in energy executi
526.
by ThomPete 6y ago
they lease it
527.
by ThomPete 6y ago
square the software company uses square enix domain.
528.
by ThomPete 6y ago
neither is Square.com owned by Square.
529.
by ThomPete 6y ago
That article is mostly an opinion piece not really about the nuts and bolts of US intelligence concerns. I love FT and I subscribe to the paper but I see more anti-trump sentiment than an actual argument there.
530.
by ThomPete 6y ago
thats not the concern of the US government in the case of tiktok though
531.
by ThomPete 6y ago
Livepass| Multiple positions | REMOTE (US and EU), FULL-TIME | https://www.livepass.io Livepass is a New York and Copenhagen based startup who is building an end to end live video workflow that allows anyone to create their own
532.
by ThomPete 6y ago
I am not taking about the data I am taking about access to the data and the devices. This is G5 controversy all over again. It's a trojan horse which can be used by the CCP. There is no ability to take them to court for misuse, no opp
533.
by ThomPete 6y ago
That's not the point. In the US we have rule of law, we have rights. There is no rule of law in china only rule of the party. FB and Twitter er scrutinized, this would never happen in China. That's the very very very big differenc
534.
by ThomPete 6y ago
Oh they care. A lot. They care about anything that gives them access to western data so that's just wrong. They care quite a lot about TikTok as it provides a potential backdoor (given that the CCP defacto owns bytedance) That's t
535.
by ThomPete 6y ago
It's not about fake news it's about data access.
536.
by ThomPete 6y ago
Thats not really why they are worried about TikTok, it comes back to the issue of the CCP and and that China defacto owns TikTok which means that information can be harvested. This is G5 controversy all over. The brainwashing part is just n
537.
by ThomPete 6y ago
no they look small because they are small.
538.
by ThomPete 6y ago
no they wont as they will need their energy from coal, gas, oil and nuclear to be able to be charged
539.
by ThomPete 6y ago
I am not sure whether you are serious or not, but yo do know that only a fraction of humans can do what you are propsing rigt?
540.
by ThomPete 6y ago
You are confusing energy with electricity. It's a common mistake and it's used by the "green" energy companies to paint a rosy but unrealistic picture of renewables. Why do you think california is having their issues. El

More ›