Green New Deal

[Flopper]

DOGMA defines the AGW cult. What you promote is not science, but extremely primitive religion. It's just the volcano god scam.

Sorry, it is science.

Increased CO2 => Increased greenhouse gas effect => warming temperatures Proven science

Ohhh.

So then carbon dioxide is basically a thermostat we can turn up or down, right sploogy?

And CO2 is the most effective element for retarding long wave radiation dissipation, right?

Sort of. Within only the past century, the CO2 control knob has been turned sharply upward toward a much hotter global climate. We know how to turn it up, produce more greenhouse gases. Turning it down may be much more difficult because we don't know how to remove large volumes of CO2 and we're not sure if any natural effect would restore the balance. So even if we abolish the use of fossil fuels someday and stop the resulting climate change, the climate may not return to the state it was before heavy fossil fuel use. The following link describe the thermostatic effect.
NASA GISS: CO₂: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature

Not sort of. Water vapor is FAR more efficient.

{
Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky, not least because the absorption spectra of different greenhouse gases overlap.

At some of these overlaps, the atmosphere already absorbs 100% of radiation, meaning that adding more greenhouse gases cannot increase absorption at these specific frequencies. For other frequencies, only a small proportion is currently absorbed, so higher levels of greenhouse gases do make a difference.

This means that when it comes to the greenhouse effect, two plus two does not equal four. If it were possible to leave the clouds but remove all other water vapour from the atmosphere, only about 40% less infrared of all frequencies would be absorbed. Take away the clouds and all other greenhouses gases, however, and the water vapour alone would still absorb about 60% of the infrared now absorbed.

By contrast, if CO2 alone was removed from the atmosphere, only 15% less infrared would be absorbed. If CO2 was the only greenhouse gas, it would absorb 26% of the infrared currently absorbed by the atmosphere.

A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.}

Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas | New Scientist

Here we go with this shit again.

Learn the science or stop lying about it.

CO2 magnifies the effect of water vapor

I think you have it reversed. Water vapor increases the effect of greenhouse gases.

 

[Flopper]

Fracking impact on CO2 is a myth. See link.
Atmospheric CO2 is an actually measured using instruments such as an infrared CO2 sensor which determines the percentage of the air that is CO2.

Tons of carbon dioxide produced is calculated. We know how much carbon dioxide is produced by different fossil fuels when they burn. So we just determine how much is burned. The rest is just a calculation to convert tons.
How can carbon emissions be weighed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Data Loggers and Recorders
gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xobkL1t7nZ1B2NTCmWSHZTAlG0LmNljG72TgL_qkZh5_OpytQLxwexoCD4IQAvD_BwE
Fracking impact on CO2 cuts 'a myth'

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

Fracking has NOTHING to do with emissions.

We have been fracking for over 50 years.

The fracking process opens up pathways for oil or gas to flow to the borehole for extraction. It makes drilling more efficient.

If we burn a gazillion bbls of oil & cu ft of gas, it does not make a difference if fracking took place during production.

Sure it does because it created an abundance of natural gas. Which burns cleaner, gas or coal?

Yes, fracking has been going on for a long time, but new advancements in fracking allowed us to be an energy exporter instead of an importer. We get more product in one area in much less time than before. Supply and demand.

Natural Gas not produced by fracing is certain better than coal or oil. It emits 50% less green house gases than coal and 25% less than oil which is why it is in most plans to eliminate fossil fuel. The problem with fracking is it emits greenhouse gases. The process releases large amounts of natural gas which consists of both CO2 and methane directly into the atmosphere. In fact, fracking wells leak 40 to 60 per cent more methane than conventional natural gas wells. This happens when water is forced down into a fracking well in order to fracture the rock formations. Methane flows up the well and is released into the atmosphere before it can be captured. The result is natural gas from fracking is only slight better than coal and worse than fuel oil. There are methods that are cleaner but they are more expense.

Converting to natural gas before fracking was considered to be a good first toward getting off fossil fuels. However with 60% of natural gas coming from fracking, that's not valid. If we can go to a better method of capturing greenhouse gases at the wells, then it might return as a good alternative.
https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/fracking-climate-change.pdf

You don't think the producers are trying to figure out a way to capture lost product?

Windmills and solar panels are not our future. Fracking is. We would have never become the worlds top exporter of energy with windmills and solar panels.

Look.........I don't care what you believe or don't believe. If you want to wait at bus stops the rest of your life, take trains across the country for your vacation, ride a bicycle or drive an electric car, I'm fine with that. But when you try to force the rest of us to comply with your concerns, of course we are going to take a stance against that because we don't subscribe to your ideology. We believe in something totally different.

And what is the incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fracking? It has been exempted from EPA regulations and with Trump in the White House that's not going to change. There is only two ways that greenhouse emissions are reduced, consumer pressure and regulations. Since the consumer has no way of knowing whether the natural gas he uses is the result of fracking, consumer pressure is out.

 

[Lesh]

Let's not be ridiculous.

That we have made a major move from coal to natural gas is a GOOD thing in terms of CO2 emissions...but it's not nearly enough to solve the problem.

It is however good to point out that old technologies can and should be updated.

 

[Flopper]

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

Fracking has NOTHING to do with emissions.

We have been fracking for over 50 years.

The fracking process opens up pathways for oil or gas to flow to the borehole for extraction. It makes drilling more efficient.

If we burn a gazillion bbls of oil & cu ft of gas, it does not make a difference if fracking took place during production.

Sure it does because it created an abundance of natural gas. Which burns cleaner, gas or coal?

Yes, fracking has been going on for a long time, but new advancements in fracking allowed us to be an energy exporter instead of an importer. We get more product in one area in much less time than before. Supply and demand.

Natural Gas not produced by fracing is certain better than coal or oil. It emits 50% less green house gases than coal and 25% less than oil which is why it is in most plans to eliminate fossil fuel. The problem with fracking is it emits greenhouse gases. The process releases large amounts of natural gas which consists of both CO2 and methane directly into the atmosphere. In fact, fracking wells leak 40 to 60 per cent more methane than conventional natural gas wells. This happens when water is forced down into a fracking well in order to fracture the rock formations. Methane flows up the well and is released into the atmosphere before it can be captured. The result is natural gas from fracking is only slight better than coal and worse than fuel oil. There are methods that are cleaner but they are more expense.

Converting to natural gas before fracking was considered to be a good first toward getting off fossil fuels. However with 60% of natural gas coming from fracking, that's not valid. If we can go to a better method of capturing greenhouse gases at the wells, then it might return as a good alternative.
https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/fracking-climate-change.pdf

You don't think the producers are trying to figure out a way to capture lost product?

Windmills and solar panels are not our future. Fracking is. We would have never become the worlds top exporter of energy with windmills and solar panels.

Look.........I don't care what you believe or don't believe. If you want to wait at bus stops the rest of your life, take trains across the country for your vacation, ride a bicycle or drive an electric car, I'm fine with that. But when you try to force the rest of us to comply with your concerns, of course we are going to take a stance against that because we don't subscribe to your ideology. We believe in something totally different.

When they talk about capturing gas at the wells, they are talking about oil wells that produce a little bit of gas they they sometimes burn off at the well.

No, there're addressing fracking. Fracking releases large amounts of natural gas which consists of both CO2 and methane directly into the atmosphere. In fact, fracking wells leak 40 to 60 per cent more methane than conventional natural gas wells. This happens when water is forced down into a fracking well in order to fracture the rock formations. Methane flows up the well and is released into the atmosphere before it can be captured.

A procedure known as a "green completion," in which special equipment traps the gas, has been shown to work. Regulators do not require that step, however, and the market price of methane is less than the cost of capturing it in that way, so drillers have no incentive to do so for economic reasons.
Fracking Would Emit Large Quantities of Greenhouse Gases

 

[Flopper]

I wish I could take a train to work. There isn't one close enough. I could sit back with my laptop and work, read the news, or simply sleep.

Instead I have to deal with autofetishists like Ray.

Personally I can't wait for self driving cars.

Imagine the fuel savings if we had cars that were smart enough to NOT rubberneck and change lanes erratically or make last minute decisions to cross three lanes to exit a highway...

I use to ride a train to work everyday. It was great for me because I lived so close to the stop. The big problem I had was when I had to work late or go in very early because, the schedule was not good.

How different things would have been had we developed public transportation instead of the interstate highway system. In the early days of interstates, you could fly through cities and enjoy the real beauty of America in rural areas. Of course that all went to shit when 250 million vehicles hit the roads.

 

[Flopper]

Let's not be ridiculous.

That we have made a major move from coal to natural gas is a GOOD thing in terms of CO2 emissions...but it's not nearly enough to solve the problem.

It is however good to point out that old technologies can and should be updated.

There is another solution to the greenhouse problem. Removing carbon dioxide that is already in the air is seen as a potential way to combat global warming. There are various approaches, lumped together as “negative emissions technologies” to distinguish them from technologies that reduce or eliminate emissions from power plants and other sources.

In theory, reducing the concentration of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might be one way to keep the world under the two-degree Celsius target for warming established by the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But in practice, removing carbon dioxide is far from simple. There are major questions about scale, cost, speed and energy requirements. In most cases, the carbon dioxide that was removed would have to be buried underground indefinitely — and carbon storage technologies have only been deployed on a small scale so far.

We could always plant more forest which sounds like a great idea except that most of developing nations are destroying forest far faster than it's growing.

 

[Lesh]

Let's not be ridiculous.

That we have made a major move from coal to natural gas is a GOOD thing in terms of CO2 emissions...but it's not nearly enough to solve the problem.

It is however good to point out that old technologies can and should be updated.

There is another solution to the greenhouse problem. Removing carbon dioxide that is already in the air is seen as a potential way to combat global warming. There are various approaches, lumped together as “negative emissions technologies” to distinguish them from technologies that reduce or eliminate emissions from power plants and other sources.

In theory, reducing the concentration of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might be one way to keep the world under the two-degree Celsius target for warming established by the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But in practice, removing carbon dioxide is far from simple. There are major questions about scale, cost, speed and energy requirements. In most cases, the carbon dioxide that was removed would have to be buried underground indefinitely — and carbon storage technologies have only been deployed on a small scale so far.

We could always plant more forest which sounds like a great idea except that most of developing nations are destroying forest far faster than it's growing.

Which leaves reducing greenhouse emission dramatically and quickly

 

[RealDave]

Fracking has NOTHING to do with emissions.

We have been fracking for over 50 years.

The fracking process opens up pathways for oil or gas to flow to the borehole for extraction. It makes drilling more efficient.

If we burn a gazillion bbls of oil & cu ft of gas, it does not make a difference if fracking took place during production.

Sure it does because it created an abundance of natural gas. Which burns cleaner, gas or coal?

Yes, fracking has been going on for a long time, but new advancements in fracking allowed us to be an energy exporter instead of an importer. We get more product in one area in much less time than before. Supply and demand.

Natural Gas not produced by fracing is certain better than coal or oil. It emits 50% less green house gases than coal and 25% less than oil which is why it is in most plans to eliminate fossil fuel. The problem with fracking is it emits greenhouse gases. The process releases large amounts of natural gas which consists of both CO2 and methane directly into the atmosphere. In fact, fracking wells leak 40 to 60 per cent more methane than conventional natural gas wells. This happens when water is forced down into a fracking well in order to fracture the rock formations. Methane flows up the well and is released into the atmosphere before it can be captured. The result is natural gas from fracking is only slight better than coal and worse than fuel oil. There are methods that are cleaner but they are more expense.

Converting to natural gas before fracking was considered to be a good first toward getting off fossil fuels. However with 60% of natural gas coming from fracking, that's not valid. If we can go to a better method of capturing greenhouse gases at the wells, then it might return as a good alternative.
https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/fracking-climate-change.pdf

You don't think the producers are trying to figure out a way to capture lost product?

Windmills and solar panels are not our future. Fracking is. We would have never become the worlds top exporter of energy with windmills and solar panels.

Look.........I don't care what you believe or don't believe. If you want to wait at bus stops the rest of your life, take trains across the country for your vacation, ride a bicycle or drive an electric car, I'm fine with that. But when you try to force the rest of us to comply with your concerns, of course we are going to take a stance against that because we don't subscribe to your ideology. We believe in something totally different.

When they talk about capturing gas at the wells, they are talking about oil wells that produce a little bit of gas they they sometimes burn off at the well.

No, there're addressing fracking. Fracking releases large amounts of natural gas which consists of both CO2 and methane directly into the atmosphere. In fact, fracking wells leak 40 to 60 per cent more methane than conventional natural gas wells. This happens when water is forced down into a fracking well in order to fracture the rock formations. Methane flows up the well and is released into the atmosphere before it can be captured.

A procedure known as a "green completion," in which special equipment traps the gas, has been shown to work. Regulators do not require that step, however, and the market price of methane is less than the cost of capturing it in that way, so drillers have no incentive to do so for economic reasons.
Fracking Would Emit Large Quantities of Greenhouse Gases

I just fon't see it to be as big as a concern as your link says. When drilling a conventional gas well, there is a oeriod of tomr between the completion of the drilling & capping the well. With racking you would have the same effect but add in time for some of the frack fluid to return to the surface.


I contend that the expected overall release would be more because without fracking, you nred to drill more holes - i.e. more wells to leak that methane after completion.

The issue is less drilling due to less demand. Until then, fracking is the best avenue.

 

[RealDave]

Preliminary cost estimates are in, $7 Trillion. As with all government programs that estimate, no doubt, will double or triple.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a Green New Deal as the 'moonshot' of our generation. Here's everything we know about it so far.

It's worth it.

Instead of extreme weather disasters, famines and wars over natural resources, the Green New Deal envisions a future in which our nation overcomes its addiction to oil, gas and coal. The federal government would need so many workers to deploy renewable energy, retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient and construct more durable infrastructure that it could guarantee a job to every American who wants one. Those jobs would pay well and offer union protections. And because climate change touches on every facet of life, the transition away from fossil fuels would happen alongside a rapid expansion of safeguards for Americans already suffering the ill effects of dirty energy, from poisoned waterways to the coal industry’s monopolistic domination of entire regional economies.

Yup, I'm sure you feel it's worth it considering you want to use everybody else's money. What seems for you loons to have difficulty with is knowing that ALL countries would need to jump on that bandwagon for it to be worthwhile....and that ain't gonna happen.

Pairs Accord. Until President Assfuck pulled us out.

 

[RealDave]

Preliminary cost estimates are in, $7 Trillion. As with all government programs that estimate, no doubt, will double or triple.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a Green New Deal as the 'moonshot' of our generation. Here's everything we know about it so far.

It's worth it.

Instead of extreme weather disasters, famines and wars over natural resources, the Green New Deal envisions a future in which our nation overcomes its addiction to oil, gas and coal. The federal government would need so many workers to deploy renewable energy, retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient and construct more durable infrastructure that it could guarantee a job to every American who wants one. Those jobs would pay well and offer union protections. And because climate change touches on every facet of life, the transition away from fossil fuels would happen alongside a rapid expansion of safeguards for Americans already suffering the ill effects of dirty energy, from poisoned waterways to the coal industry’s monopolistic domination of entire regional economies.

Yup, I'm sure you feel it's worth it considering you want to use everybody else's money. What seems for you loons to have difficulty with is knowing that ALL countries would need to jump on that bandwagon for it to be worthwhile....and that ain't gonna happen.

And cheap ass you wants someone else to pay to fight it.

Face it, you can't possibly be so stupid to deny AGW & deny emissions is not not the major cause. I mean really, who can really be that dumb. reduce the effects of global warming. You use it as an excuse to fuck over your own family.

What is it that you think you will have to pay??? Using alternative HVAC will save you money. Driving EV or hybrids will save you money.

Not having to pay to rebuild our coastal cities, ports, miitsry bases because of rising oceans will save you money.

Not paying for higher food costs will save you money.

You are just a short sighted, ignorant, fool





Youi deny it only as an excuse to not help

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Preliminary cost estimates are in, $7 Trillion. As with all government programs that estimate, no doubt, will double or triple.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a Green New Deal as the 'moonshot' of our generation. Here's everything we know about it so far.

It's worth it.

Instead of extreme weather disasters, famines and wars over natural resources, the Green New Deal envisions a future in which our nation overcomes its addiction to oil, gas and coal. The federal government would need so many workers to deploy renewable energy, retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient and construct more durable infrastructure that it could guarantee a job to every American who wants one. Those jobs would pay well and offer union protections. And because climate change touches on every facet of life, the transition away from fossil fuels would happen alongside a rapid expansion of safeguards for Americans already suffering the ill effects of dirty energy, from poisoned waterways to the coal industry’s monopolistic domination of entire regional economies.

And then we'd all be paying three times more for fuel than what we are paying today. No thank you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wish I could take a train to work. There isn't one close enough. I could sit back with my laptop and work, read the news, or simply sleep.

Instead I have to deal with autofetishists like Ray.

Personally I can't wait for self driving cars.

Imagine the fuel savings if we had cars that were smart enough to NOT rubberneck and change lanes erratically or make last minute decisions to cross three lanes to exit a highway...

Imagine how much better my job would be. Now if you really want to save fuel, write to your representative and tell them we need to move our country to a four day work week. We would work an extra two hours a day and most of us would have a three day weekend every week. One less day of rush hour means we save 52 days a year of gasoline.

A few of our customers are on a four day work week. So far, I haven’t met an employee who didn’t love it.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

I've worked that four day week and it was a joke.

Very little got done in those extra two hours a day and getting home 2 hours later BITES

So what you're saying is you will do anything to make our country greener except work two extra hours a day.......figures.

 

[RealDave]

Preliminary cost estimates are in, $7 Trillion. As with all government programs that estimate, no doubt, will double or triple.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a Green New Deal as the 'moonshot' of our generation. Here's everything we know about it so far.

It's worth it.

Instead of extreme weather disasters, famines and wars over natural resources, the Green New Deal envisions a future in which our nation overcomes its addiction to oil, gas and coal. The federal government would need so many workers to deploy renewable energy, retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient and construct more durable infrastructure that it could guarantee a job to every American who wants one. Those jobs would pay well and offer union protections. And because climate change touches on every facet of life, the transition away from fossil fuels would happen alongside a rapid expansion of safeguards for Americans already suffering the ill effects of dirty energy, from poisoned waterways to the coal industry’s monopolistic domination of entire regional economies.

And then we'd all be paying three times more for fuel than what we are paying today. No thank you.

EVs & hybrids cheaper to run.

 

[basquebromance]

"I'm glad the Green Big Deal has invigorated talk about bold action on climate change. Great example of activists and elected leaders pushing the envelope. But I'm also a little disappointed in the vagueness of the policy, how it avoids challenging real entrenched power." - Lee Fang

 

[Lesh]

And then we'd all be paying three times more for fuel than what we are paying today. No thank you.

Wind and solar are CHEAPER

 

[sealybobo]

Preliminary cost estimates are in, $7 Trillion. As with all government programs that estimate, no doubt, will double or triple.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a Green New Deal as the 'moonshot' of our generation. Here's everything we know about it so far.

It's worth it.

Instead of extreme weather disasters, famines and wars over natural resources, the Green New Deal envisions a future in which our nation overcomes its addiction to oil, gas and coal. The federal government would need so many workers to deploy renewable energy, retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient and construct more durable infrastructure that it could guarantee a job to every American who wants one. Those jobs would pay well and offer union protections. And because climate change touches on every facet of life, the transition away from fossil fuels would happen alongside a rapid expansion of safeguards for Americans already suffering the ill effects of dirty energy, from poisoned waterways to the coal industry’s monopolistic domination of entire regional economies.

Yup, I'm sure you feel it's worth it considering you want to use everybody else's money. What seems for you loons to have difficulty with is knowing that ALL countries would need to jump on that bandwagon for it to be worthwhile....and that ain't gonna happen.

Actually every other country is on board.

And you nailed it why corporations don't want to go green. It's not because global warming isn't real. It's because it's going to cost them to go green. Corporations don't want to do anything that's not for profit.

And yes, since they do most of the polluting, they should pay to go green.

But remember stupid, corporations don't ever pay ANYTHING remember? Don't you remember that the cost will get passed on to consumers? Did you forget that important right wing talking point stupid?

So the reality is I am going to pay for it. I'm a fucking consumer you dolt.

 

[sealybobo]

Preliminary cost estimates are in, $7 Trillion. As with all government programs that estimate, no doubt, will double or triple.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a Green New Deal as the 'moonshot' of our generation. Here's everything we know about it so far.

It's worth it.

Instead of extreme weather disasters, famines and wars over natural resources, the Green New Deal envisions a future in which our nation overcomes its addiction to oil, gas and coal. The federal government would need so many workers to deploy renewable energy, retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient and construct more durable infrastructure that it could guarantee a job to every American who wants one. Those jobs would pay well and offer union protections. And because climate change touches on every facet of life, the transition away from fossil fuels would happen alongside a rapid expansion of safeguards for Americans already suffering the ill effects of dirty energy, from poisoned waterways to the coal industry’s monopolistic domination of entire regional economies.

And then we'd all be paying three times more for fuel than what we are paying today. No thank you.

That's the exact argument you guys made for hiring illegals.

I wouldn't mind paying 3 times more for a gallon of gas if a gallon got me 90 miles to the gallon. Ever think of that?

 

[Lesh]

So what you're saying is you will do anything to make our country greener except work two extra hours a day.......figures.

What a twit. What do you think those workers are doing with that extra day off?

Yes moron. USing the same amount of energy they would otherwise...heating/cooling their homes...travelling..

Dumass

 

[sealybobo]

I wish I could take a train to work. There isn't one close enough. I could sit back with my laptop and work, read the news, or simply sleep.

Instead I have to deal with autofetishists like Ray.

Personally I can't wait for self driving cars.

Imagine the fuel savings if we had cars that were smart enough to NOT rubberneck and change lanes erratically or make last minute decisions to cross three lanes to exit a highway...

Imagine how much better my job would be. Now if you really want to save fuel, write to your representative and tell them we need to move our country to a four day work week. We would work an extra two hours a day and most of us would have a three day weekend every week. One less day of rush hour means we save 52 days a year of gasoline.

A few of our customers are on a four day work week. So far, I haven’t met an employee who didn’t love it.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

I've worked that four day week and it was a joke.

Very little got done in those extra two hours a day and getting home 2 hours later BITES

So what you're saying is you will do anything to make our country greener except work two extra hours a day.......figures.

I think 4 day work weeks is a great idea.

 

[jc456]

Having dominion means to rule over or have dominance over. That does not mean God created the earth for man to ravage. The earth belongs to God not man.
"The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." (Psalm 24:1)

Yes, the earth does belong to God and not man. So why do you insist man controls it and not God?

Oh My God. Now you promote the stupid idea that God created the Earth & puny man can;t change it?

Not if God doesn't want it changed. There are things we can do, but we cannot destroy this planet.

The hell we can't and we came damn close to doing so in the mid 20th century. Maybe God was on side but the means to destroy it was in our hands.

No, you can destroy the people, but not the planet. Even if we killed every living thing here, in enough time and God's will, life will slowly be restored. In fact, some claim that's already happened. We were once so advanced in the past that we did destroy mankind, but mankind came back and began to multiply again.

Evidence is dinosaurs