The Left is shameless

[G.T.]

When is the last time you took advise from a 17 year old and who sent her there?

Maybe you should. She seems much, much smarter than you.

That's a certainty

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

So you are saying the Democrats in Congress are looking to 17 year olds, not 12 year olds, for guidance on these issues. That's so much better.

I'm not saying that, no.

This is a publicity stunt, not looking for guidance on the issue. Anyone could deduce that.

So they're paid big bucks wasting time.

Yes, Capt. Obvious. That's pretty much a guarantee for Congress. Are you new here?

 

[G.T.]

"We don't ever heard the conservative viewpoint"...lolllllllllllllllll - he really thinks that - with a Republican controlled Government.

I honestly can't even describe how pathetic that is.

Obama put conservatives on C-Span for EIGHT fucking HOURS, voluntarily, to field their concerns with his dogshit Healthcare bill.

eight hours


on tv

 

[Votto]

Damn, took me literally 2 seconds on google to find conservatives testifying before congress, lots of um!!..something votto the whiny literally just said: When has a conservative perspective ever been brought before Congress to testify?

Can somebody explain to me the mental-faculties you have to possess to literally INVENT things to whine about?

Talk about snowflaking!

Link?

Earth to GT?

Where did he go?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

'This is science': Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg testifies before Congress

Not only will the Left drag out children out of class when they should be in school, to protest guns, they will also drag them before Congress to testify as a 12 year old girl speaks before Congress about the evils of global warming.

What's next? Gerry's kids dragged to protest a lack of abortion access, which is why they are still alive?

The Left love using children.

This is ‘science’ in Leftardia.

Yes, the Left loves children to death.

Maybe some day they will be able to abort children younger than this girl.


Naturally, only the stupid conservative ones should be aborted.

Comments like this assure me some of these Cult45 mouth breathers are nothing but spare parts. It's really amazing you've lived this long having to remind yourself to breathe and all... Are you potty trained?

 

[G.T.]

Damn, took me literally 2 seconds on google to find conservatives testifying before congress, lots of um!!..something votto the whiny literally just said: When has a conservative perspective ever been brought before Congress to testify?

Can somebody explain to me the mental-faculties you have to possess to literally INVENT things to whine about?

Talk about snowflaking!

Link?

Earth to GT?

Where did he go?

You need a link to prove that a conservative has ever testified before Congress, and you're saying earth to ME?

Okay, let me know the incentive - how are you going to deal with the results when your assertion that there hasn't been any is proven to be pulled directly out of your asshole?

Are you going to concede?

Are you going to retract?

What....what theeee actual fuck is the incentive for holding your little snowflake hand and walking you through this abundantly available information...on the same machine your ass is posting on this very website from?

 

[Votto]

Damn, took me literally 2 seconds on google to find conservatives testifying before congress, lots of um!!..something votto the whiny literally just said: When has a conservative perspective ever been brought before Congress to testify?

Can somebody explain to me the mental-faculties you have to possess to literally INVENT things to whine about?

Talk about snowflaking!

Link?

Earth to GT?

Where did he go?

You need a link to prove that a conservative has ever testified before Congress, and you're saying earth to ME?

Okay, let me know the incentive - how are you going to deal with the results when your assertion that there hasn't been any is proven to be pulled directly out of your asshole?

Are you going to concede?

Are you going to retract?

What....what theeee actual fuck is the incentive for holding your little snowflake hand and walking you through this abundantly available information...on the same machine your ass is posting on this very website from?

I want to know who it was and what it was about because I don't trust you on your views of what is a conservative issue.

Moreover, I want to analyze how much press it got compared to this story.

Again, testifying before Congress is a propaganda move. Those in Congress are only motivated by $$$$. So if the liberal press did not cover it, which is I suspect the case, the person in question may as well have been talking to a brick wall.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

'This is science': Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg testifies before Congress

Not only will the Left drag out children out of class when they should be in school, to protest guns, they will also drag them before Congress to testify as a 12 year old girl speaks before Congress about the evils of global warming.

What's next? Gerry's kids dragged to protest a lack of abortion access, which is why they are still alive?

The Left is exploiting naive people with man made global warming fear.
There are generations of young people who have been brainwashed with the global warming fear.
Man Made Global Warming is in reality a tool of fear that the Left is using to obtain and maintain their political power.

 

[G.T.]

Damn, took me literally 2 seconds on google to find conservatives testifying before congress, lots of um!!..something votto the whiny literally just said: When has a conservative perspective ever been brought before Congress to testify?

Can somebody explain to me the mental-faculties you have to possess to literally INVENT things to whine about?

Talk about snowflaking!

Link?

Earth to GT?

Where did he go?

You need a link to prove that a conservative has ever testified before Congress, and you're saying earth to ME?

Okay, let me know the incentive - how are you going to deal with the results when your assertion that there hasn't been any is proven to be pulled directly out of your asshole?

Are you going to concede?

Are you going to retract?

What....what theeee actual fuck is the incentive for holding your little snowflake hand and walking you through this abundantly available information...on the same machine your ass is posting on this very website from?

I want to know who it was and what it was about because I don't trust you on your views of what is a conservative issue.

Moreover, I want to analyze how much press it got compared to this story.

Again, testifying before Congress is a propaganda move. Those in Congress are only motivated by $$$$. So if the liberal press did not cover it, which is I suspect the case, the person in question may as well have been talking to a brick wall.

I want to know why you DONT already know who testified on WHAT issues, before Congress - -

and question number 2. I want to know why you feel fit to sit your ass on the internet and whine about something you don't even KNOW...

Answer those, and then I'll hold your little hand and do the big boy work for ya.

 

[Nosmo King]

'This is science': Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg testifies before Congress

Not only will the Left drag out children out of class when they should be in school, to protest guns, they will also drag them before Congress to testify as a 12 year old girl speaks before Congress about the evils of global warming.

What's next? Gerry's kids dragged to protest a lack of abortion access, which is why they are still alive?

Here's what ya do...

The next time someone walks into a school with one of those bitchin' cool-ass AR-15s and shoots the place to pieces, get all those kids who slipped in puddles of blood and stepped over their classmate's bodies to tell congress how the assault rifle is too cool to ban. Let them tell you that the shooter's 2nd amendment rights should never be infringed. Get them to sing the virtues of a high capacity clip.

Or get a kid whose house just burned in a wildfire or was swept away by a flood to tell us how climate change is a Chinese hoax.

Or just tell the kids they, like minorities, have no power and should never even consider petitioning the government to redress their grievances.

The American Trumpian! Shooting down dissent for three years running!

All the children should hold signs, "Trump is Hitler, so give him our guns!"

Point


Missed completely.

 

[G.T.]

 

[toomuchtime_]

None of this has to do with legislation. It is all about the Democrats trying to boost their campaign issues. Thunberg was called to testify because she is an appealing personality who will not pin the Democrats down to any specific legislation. The fact is the Democrats have no rational approach to climate change.

That's cool.

So you think it's "cool" that the Democrats are using the committee to campaign rather than to try to pass legislation?

If that's what they're doing - I wouldn't put it past them - but I'm not going to pretend there's not viable alternatives/perspectives and get myself in a "GGGGRRRRR!!!" over something so small and ridiculous that both sides do on a fairly regular basis since before I was even born.

That would be retarded

The fact that something has been done before doesn't make it any less shameful when it's done again. The real problem is not just the waste of time or the unethical campaigning the Democrats are doing but that this time should have been spent interviewing people who have realistic, practical ideas on how to deal with climate change, but that almost never happens because the issue has become so politicized and so partisan.

Man, I can't help but wonder if you all don't just love hearing yourselves whine.

For example, do you really....REALLY (?!?!?!) know that they haven't interviewed experts regarding how to deal with climate change?

Quit smirking and answer...

reeaaaaaaaaaaallllly, bro?

Let's be honest. You don't have the first fuck of a clue who they've interviewed, met with, worked with or solicited regarding climate change.

But you somehow feel fit to sit here and pretend you know what they haven't done.

^that should cause you pause, and reflection, and to wonder if you're not just another mother fuckin sucker in this political hack us vs. them game

In fact, I do know they haven't interviewed anyone who has practical idea about how to deal with climate change, and if you were informed on the subject you would, too. There are new technologies for dealing with carbon emissions that have been developed at our universities in the last few years that make all proposals for dealing with this issue only on the basis of reducing our use of carbon based fuels ridiculous but the Congress doesn't interview the people who have developed them because for Democrats climate change is purely a political issue not a real one they should deal with.

Universities like Columbia, University of Chicago, Northwestern and Arizona State have already built built and tested machines they call artificial trees that they say are 1,000 times more effective than natural trees in removing CO2 from our atmosphere and in sufficient number could stop the accumulation of Co2 and ever reverse it, but you haven't seen any House hearings about using this technology because the Democrats are fully invested in using climate change as a political issue that will appeal the the various factions the Party wants to win and not at all interested in dealing with climate change in any way that would not bring political benefits to Democratic politicians.



Klaus Lackner, director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University, has come up with a technique that he thinks could solve the problem. Lackner has designed an artificial tree that passively soaks up carbon dioxide from the air using “leaves” that are 1,000 times more efficient than true leaves that use photosynthesis.

"We don't need to expose the leaves to sunlight for photosynthesis like a real tree does," Lackner explains. "So our leaves can be much more closely spaced and overlapped – even configured in a honeycomb formation to make them more efficient."

The leaves look like sheets of papery plastic and are coated in a resin that contains sodium carbonate, which pulls carbon dioxide out of the air and stores it as a bicarbonate (baking soda) on the leaf. To remove the carbon dioxide, the leaves are rinsed in water vapour and can dry naturally in the wind, soaking up more carbon dioxide.

Lackner calculates that his tree can remove one tonne of carbon dioxide a day. Ten million of these trees could remove 3.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – equivalent to about 10% of our global annual carbon dioxide emissions. "Our total emissions could be removed with 100 million trees," he says, "whereas we would need 1,000 times that in real trees to have the same effect."

If the trees were mass produced they would each initially cost around $20,000 (then falling as production takes over), just below the price of the average family car in the United States, he says, pointing out that 70 million cars are produced each year. And each would fit on a truck to be positioned at sites around the world. "The great thing about the atmosphere is it's a good mixer, so carbon dioxide produced in an American city can be removed in Oman," he says.


Sucking CO2 from the skies with artificial trees

Instead of interviewing the scientists who have created this technology, the Democrats interview an appealing child who has nothing to say about how to deal with climate change.

 

[G.T.]

That's cool.

So you think it's "cool" that the Democrats are using the committee to campaign rather than to try to pass legislation?

If that's what they're doing - I wouldn't put it past them - but I'm not going to pretend there's not viable alternatives/perspectives and get myself in a "GGGGRRRRR!!!" over something so small and ridiculous that both sides do on a fairly regular basis since before I was even born.

That would be retarded

The fact that something has been done before doesn't make it any less shameful when it's done again. The real problem is not just the waste of time or the unethical campaigning the Democrats are doing but that this time should have been spent interviewing people who have realistic, practical ideas on how to deal with climate change, but that almost never happens because the issue has become so politicized and so partisan.

Man, I can't help but wonder if you all don't just love hearing yourselves whine.

For example, do you really....REALLY (?!?!?!) know that they haven't interviewed experts regarding how to deal with climate change?

Quit smirking and answer...

reeaaaaaaaaaaallllly, bro?

Let's be honest. You don't have the first fuck of a clue who they've interviewed, met with, worked with or solicited regarding climate change.

But you somehow feel fit to sit here and pretend you know what they haven't done.

^that should cause you pause, and reflection, and to wonder if you're not just another mother fuckin sucker in this political hack us vs. them game

In fact, I do know they haven't interviewed anyone who has practical idea about how to deal with climate change, and if you were informed on the subject you would, too. There are new technologies for dealing with carbon emissions that have been developed at our universities in the last few years that make all proposals for dealing with this issue only on the basis of reducing our use of carbon based fuels ridiculous but the Congress doesn't interview the people who have developed them because for Democrats climate change is purely a political issue not a real one they should deal with.

Universities like Columbia, University of Chicago, Northwestern and Arizona State have already built built and tested machines they call artificial trees that they say are 1,000 times more effective than natural trees in removing CO2 from our atmosphere and in sufficient number could stop the accumulation of Co2 and ever reverse it, but you haven't seen any House hearings about using this technology because the Democrats are fully invested in using climate change as a political issue that will appeal the the various factions the Party wants to win and not at all interested in dealing with climate change in any way that would not bring political benefits to Democratic politicians.



Klaus Lackner, director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University, has come up with a technique that he thinks could solve the problem. Lackner has designed an artificial tree that passively soaks up carbon dioxide from the air using “leaves” that are 1,000 times more efficient than true leaves that use photosynthesis.

"We don't need to expose the leaves to sunlight for photosynthesis like a real tree does," Lackner explains. "So our leaves can be much more closely spaced and overlapped – even configured in a honeycomb formation to make them more efficient."

The leaves look like sheets of papery plastic and are coated in a resin that contains sodium carbonate, which pulls carbon dioxide out of the air and stores it as a bicarbonate (baking soda) on the leaf. To remove the carbon dioxide, the leaves are rinsed in water vapour and can dry naturally in the wind, soaking up more carbon dioxide.

Lackner calculates that his tree can remove one tonne of carbon dioxide a day. Ten million of these trees could remove 3.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – equivalent to about 10% of our global annual carbon dioxide emissions. "Our total emissions could be removed with 100 million trees," he says, "whereas we would need 1,000 times that in real trees to have the same effect."

If the trees were mass produced they would each initially cost around $20,000 (then falling as production takes over), just below the price of the average family car in the United States, he says, pointing out that 70 million cars are produced each year. And each would fit on a truck to be positioned at sites around the world. "The great thing about the atmosphere is it's a good mixer, so carbon dioxide produced in an American city can be removed in Oman," he says.


Sucking CO2 from the skies with artificial trees

Instead of interviewing the scientists who have created this technology, the Democrats interview an appealing child who has nothing to say about how to deal with climate change.

So when I can spend 5 seconds on google and find out that scientists have, in fact ...and quite regularly, been testifying before them on Climate Change...

What are you going to do?

What's my incentive?

You just typed a book-long rant about something you didn't even bother to do a cursory search to see if you were wrong, first, like the dunce Votto - - - and now I have to go pick up the pieces from your rant?

How about fuck you pay me...?

Where the hell do you whiny little weirdos come from.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So you think it's "cool" that the Democrats are using the committee to campaign rather than to try to pass legislation?

If that's what they're doing - I wouldn't put it past them - but I'm not going to pretend there's not viable alternatives/perspectives and get myself in a "GGGGRRRRR!!!" over something so small and ridiculous that both sides do on a fairly regular basis since before I was even born.

That would be retarded

The fact that something has been done before doesn't make it any less shameful when it's done again. The real problem is not just the waste of time or the unethical campaigning the Democrats are doing but that this time should have been spent interviewing people who have realistic, practical ideas on how to deal with climate change, but that almost never happens because the issue has become so politicized and so partisan.

Man, I can't help but wonder if you all don't just love hearing yourselves whine.

For example, do you really....REALLY (?!?!?!) know that they haven't interviewed experts regarding how to deal with climate change?

Quit smirking and answer...

reeaaaaaaaaaaallllly, bro?

Let's be honest. You don't have the first fuck of a clue who they've interviewed, met with, worked with or solicited regarding climate change.

But you somehow feel fit to sit here and pretend you know what they haven't done.

^that should cause you pause, and reflection, and to wonder if you're not just another mother fuckin sucker in this political hack us vs. them game

In fact, I do know they haven't interviewed anyone who has practical idea about how to deal with climate change, and if you were informed on the subject you would, too. There are new technologies for dealing with carbon emissions that have been developed at our universities in the last few years that make all proposals for dealing with this issue only on the basis of reducing our use of carbon based fuels ridiculous but the Congress doesn't interview the people who have developed them because for Democrats climate change is purely a political issue not a real one they should deal with.

Universities like Columbia, University of Chicago, Northwestern and Arizona State have already built built and tested machines they call artificial trees that they say are 1,000 times more effective than natural trees in removing CO2 from our atmosphere and in sufficient number could stop the accumulation of Co2 and ever reverse it, but you haven't seen any House hearings about using this technology because the Democrats are fully invested in using climate change as a political issue that will appeal the the various factions the Party wants to win and not at all interested in dealing with climate change in any way that would not bring political benefits to Democratic politicians.



Klaus Lackner, director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University, has come up with a technique that he thinks could solve the problem. Lackner has designed an artificial tree that passively soaks up carbon dioxide from the air using “leaves” that are 1,000 times more efficient than true leaves that use photosynthesis.

"We don't need to expose the leaves to sunlight for photosynthesis like a real tree does," Lackner explains. "So our leaves can be much more closely spaced and overlapped – even configured in a honeycomb formation to make them more efficient."

The leaves look like sheets of papery plastic and are coated in a resin that contains sodium carbonate, which pulls carbon dioxide out of the air and stores it as a bicarbonate (baking soda) on the leaf. To remove the carbon dioxide, the leaves are rinsed in water vapour and can dry naturally in the wind, soaking up more carbon dioxide.

Lackner calculates that his tree can remove one tonne of carbon dioxide a day. Ten million of these trees could remove 3.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – equivalent to about 10% of our global annual carbon dioxide emissions. "Our total emissions could be removed with 100 million trees," he says, "whereas we would need 1,000 times that in real trees to have the same effect."

If the trees were mass produced they would each initially cost around $20,000 (then falling as production takes over), just below the price of the average family car in the United States, he says, pointing out that 70 million cars are produced each year. And each would fit on a truck to be positioned at sites around the world. "The great thing about the atmosphere is it's a good mixer, so carbon dioxide produced in an American city can be removed in Oman," he says.


Sucking CO2 from the skies with artificial trees

Instead of interviewing the scientists who have created this technology, the Democrats interview an appealing child who has nothing to say about how to deal with climate change.

So when I can spend 5 seconds on google and find out that scientists have, in fact ...and quite regularly, been testifying before them on Climate Change...

What are you going to do?

What's my incentive?

You just typed a book-long rant about something you didn't even bother to do a cursory search to see if you were wrong, first, like the dunce Votto - - - and now I have to go pick up the pieces from your rant?

How about fuck you pay me...?

Where the hell do you whiny little weirdos come from.

View attachment 279868

Do you wake up this stupid in the morning or do you have to work at it. The only scientists the Democrats interview are those who will be politically useful to them, that is, those who advocate draconian measures to fight climate change, and not scientists who have developed a much cheaper and much less politically valuable way of controlling climate change.

 

[G.T.]

If that's what they're doing - I wouldn't put it past them - but I'm not going to pretend there's not viable alternatives/perspectives and get myself in a "GGGGRRRRR!!!" over something so small and ridiculous that both sides do on a fairly regular basis since before I was even born.

That would be retarded

The fact that something has been done before doesn't make it any less shameful when it's done again. The real problem is not just the waste of time or the unethical campaigning the Democrats are doing but that this time should have been spent interviewing people who have realistic, practical ideas on how to deal with climate change, but that almost never happens because the issue has become so politicized and so partisan.

Man, I can't help but wonder if you all don't just love hearing yourselves whine.

For example, do you really....REALLY (?!?!?!) know that they haven't interviewed experts regarding how to deal with climate change?

Quit smirking and answer...

reeaaaaaaaaaaallllly, bro?

Let's be honest. You don't have the first fuck of a clue who they've interviewed, met with, worked with or solicited regarding climate change.

But you somehow feel fit to sit here and pretend you know what they haven't done.

^that should cause you pause, and reflection, and to wonder if you're not just another mother fuckin sucker in this political hack us vs. them game

In fact, I do know they haven't interviewed anyone who has practical idea about how to deal with climate change, and if you were informed on the subject you would, too. There are new technologies for dealing with carbon emissions that have been developed at our universities in the last few years that make all proposals for dealing with this issue only on the basis of reducing our use of carbon based fuels ridiculous but the Congress doesn't interview the people who have developed them because for Democrats climate change is purely a political issue not a real one they should deal with.

Universities like Columbia, University of Chicago, Northwestern and Arizona State have already built built and tested machines they call artificial trees that they say are 1,000 times more effective than natural trees in removing CO2 from our atmosphere and in sufficient number could stop the accumulation of Co2 and ever reverse it, but you haven't seen any House hearings about using this technology because the Democrats are fully invested in using climate change as a political issue that will appeal the the various factions the Party wants to win and not at all interested in dealing with climate change in any way that would not bring political benefits to Democratic politicians.



Klaus Lackner, director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University, has come up with a technique that he thinks could solve the problem. Lackner has designed an artificial tree that passively soaks up carbon dioxide from the air using “leaves” that are 1,000 times more efficient than true leaves that use photosynthesis.

"We don't need to expose the leaves to sunlight for photosynthesis like a real tree does," Lackner explains. "So our leaves can be much more closely spaced and overlapped – even configured in a honeycomb formation to make them more efficient."

The leaves look like sheets of papery plastic and are coated in a resin that contains sodium carbonate, which pulls carbon dioxide out of the air and stores it as a bicarbonate (baking soda) on the leaf. To remove the carbon dioxide, the leaves are rinsed in water vapour and can dry naturally in the wind, soaking up more carbon dioxide.

Lackner calculates that his tree can remove one tonne of carbon dioxide a day. Ten million of these trees could remove 3.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – equivalent to about 10% of our global annual carbon dioxide emissions. "Our total emissions could be removed with 100 million trees," he says, "whereas we would need 1,000 times that in real trees to have the same effect."

If the trees were mass produced they would each initially cost around $20,000 (then falling as production takes over), just below the price of the average family car in the United States, he says, pointing out that 70 million cars are produced each year. And each would fit on a truck to be positioned at sites around the world. "The great thing about the atmosphere is it's a good mixer, so carbon dioxide produced in an American city can be removed in Oman," he says.


Sucking CO2 from the skies with artificial trees

Instead of interviewing the scientists who have created this technology, the Democrats interview an appealing child who has nothing to say about how to deal with climate change.

So when I can spend 5 seconds on google and find out that scientists have, in fact ...and quite regularly, been testifying before them on Climate Change...

What are you going to do?

What's my incentive?

You just typed a book-long rant about something you didn't even bother to do a cursory search to see if you were wrong, first, like the dunce Votto - - - and now I have to go pick up the pieces from your rant?

How about fuck you pay me...?

Where the hell do you whiny little weirdos come from.

View attachment 279868

Do you wake up this stupid in the morning or do you have to work at it. The only scientists the Democrats interview are those who will be politically useful to them, that is, those who advocate draconian measures to fight climate change, and not scientists who have developed a much cheaper and much less politically valuable way of controlling climate change.

whooooaaa...so it goes from they dont interview scientists to...

only interviewing ones politically useful?

You have a lot of nerve calling someone stupid, dude.

You're a little snowflake whining about imaginary shit on the internet that you were proven wholly wrong about...

while calling people stupid.

The internet!

 

[toomuchtime_]

The fact that something has been done before doesn't make it any less shameful when it's done again. The real problem is not just the waste of time or the unethical campaigning the Democrats are doing but that this time should have been spent interviewing people who have realistic, practical ideas on how to deal with climate change, but that almost never happens because the issue has become so politicized and so partisan.

Man, I can't help but wonder if you all don't just love hearing yourselves whine.

For example, do you really....REALLY (?!?!?!) know that they haven't interviewed experts regarding how to deal with climate change?

Quit smirking and answer...

reeaaaaaaaaaaallllly, bro?

Let's be honest. You don't have the first fuck of a clue who they've interviewed, met with, worked with or solicited regarding climate change.

But you somehow feel fit to sit here and pretend you know what they haven't done.

^that should cause you pause, and reflection, and to wonder if you're not just another mother fuckin sucker in this political hack us vs. them game

In fact, I do know they haven't interviewed anyone who has practical idea about how to deal with climate change, and if you were informed on the subject you would, too. There are new technologies for dealing with carbon emissions that have been developed at our universities in the last few years that make all proposals for dealing with this issue only on the basis of reducing our use of carbon based fuels ridiculous but the Congress doesn't interview the people who have developed them because for Democrats climate change is purely a political issue not a real one they should deal with.

Universities like Columbia, University of Chicago, Northwestern and Arizona State have already built built and tested machines they call artificial trees that they say are 1,000 times more effective than natural trees in removing CO2 from our atmosphere and in sufficient number could stop the accumulation of Co2 and ever reverse it, but you haven't seen any House hearings about using this technology because the Democrats are fully invested in using climate change as a political issue that will appeal the the various factions the Party wants to win and not at all interested in dealing with climate change in any way that would not bring political benefits to Democratic politicians.



Klaus Lackner, director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University, has come up with a technique that he thinks could solve the problem. Lackner has designed an artificial tree that passively soaks up carbon dioxide from the air using “leaves” that are 1,000 times more efficient than true leaves that use photosynthesis.

"We don't need to expose the leaves to sunlight for photosynthesis like a real tree does," Lackner explains. "So our leaves can be much more closely spaced and overlapped – even configured in a honeycomb formation to make them more efficient."

The leaves look like sheets of papery plastic and are coated in a resin that contains sodium carbonate, which pulls carbon dioxide out of the air and stores it as a bicarbonate (baking soda) on the leaf. To remove the carbon dioxide, the leaves are rinsed in water vapour and can dry naturally in the wind, soaking up more carbon dioxide.

Lackner calculates that his tree can remove one tonne of carbon dioxide a day. Ten million of these trees could remove 3.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – equivalent to about 10% of our global annual carbon dioxide emissions. "Our total emissions could be removed with 100 million trees," he says, "whereas we would need 1,000 times that in real trees to have the same effect."

If the trees were mass produced they would each initially cost around $20,000 (then falling as production takes over), just below the price of the average family car in the United States, he says, pointing out that 70 million cars are produced each year. And each would fit on a truck to be positioned at sites around the world. "The great thing about the atmosphere is it's a good mixer, so carbon dioxide produced in an American city can be removed in Oman," he says.


Sucking CO2 from the skies with artificial trees

Instead of interviewing the scientists who have created this technology, the Democrats interview an appealing child who has nothing to say about how to deal with climate change.

So when I can spend 5 seconds on google and find out that scientists have, in fact ...and quite regularly, been testifying before them on Climate Change...

What are you going to do?

What's my incentive?

You just typed a book-long rant about something you didn't even bother to do a cursory search to see if you were wrong, first, like the dunce Votto - - - and now I have to go pick up the pieces from your rant?

How about fuck you pay me...?

Where the hell do you whiny little weirdos come from.

View attachment 279868

Do you wake up this stupid in the morning or do you have to work at it. The only scientists the Democrats interview are those who will be politically useful to them, that is, those who advocate draconian measures to fight climate change, and not scientists who have developed a much cheaper and much less politically valuable way of controlling climate change.

whooooaaa...so it goes from they dont interview scientists to...

only interviewing ones politically useful?

You have a lot of nerve calling someone stupid, dude.

You're a little snowflake whining about imaginary shit on the internet that you were proven wholly wrong about...

while calling people stupid.

The internet!

In other words, you have no interest at all in the issues, but only in bickering about politics. You are stupid and shamelessly unprincipled, that is, you're a Democrat.

 

[G.T.]

Man, I can't help but wonder if you all don't just love hearing yourselves whine.

For example, do you really....REALLY (?!?!?!) know that they haven't interviewed experts regarding how to deal with climate change?

Quit smirking and answer...

reeaaaaaaaaaaallllly, bro?

Let's be honest. You don't have the first fuck of a clue who they've interviewed, met with, worked with or solicited regarding climate change.

But you somehow feel fit to sit here and pretend you know what they haven't done.

^that should cause you pause, and reflection, and to wonder if you're not just another mother fuckin sucker in this political hack us vs. them game

In fact, I do know they haven't interviewed anyone who has practical idea about how to deal with climate change, and if you were informed on the subject you would, too. There are new technologies for dealing with carbon emissions that have been developed at our universities in the last few years that make all proposals for dealing with this issue only on the basis of reducing our use of carbon based fuels ridiculous but the Congress doesn't interview the people who have developed them because for Democrats climate change is purely a political issue not a real one they should deal with.

Universities like Columbia, University of Chicago, Northwestern and Arizona State have already built built and tested machines they call artificial trees that they say are 1,000 times more effective than natural trees in removing CO2 from our atmosphere and in sufficient number could stop the accumulation of Co2 and ever reverse it, but you haven't seen any House hearings about using this technology because the Democrats are fully invested in using climate change as a political issue that will appeal the the various factions the Party wants to win and not at all interested in dealing with climate change in any way that would not bring political benefits to Democratic politicians.



Klaus Lackner, director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University, has come up with a technique that he thinks could solve the problem. Lackner has designed an artificial tree that passively soaks up carbon dioxide from the air using “leaves” that are 1,000 times more efficient than true leaves that use photosynthesis.

"We don't need to expose the leaves to sunlight for photosynthesis like a real tree does," Lackner explains. "So our leaves can be much more closely spaced and overlapped – even configured in a honeycomb formation to make them more efficient."

The leaves look like sheets of papery plastic and are coated in a resin that contains sodium carbonate, which pulls carbon dioxide out of the air and stores it as a bicarbonate (baking soda) on the leaf. To remove the carbon dioxide, the leaves are rinsed in water vapour and can dry naturally in the wind, soaking up more carbon dioxide.

Lackner calculates that his tree can remove one tonne of carbon dioxide a day. Ten million of these trees could remove 3.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – equivalent to about 10% of our global annual carbon dioxide emissions. "Our total emissions could be removed with 100 million trees," he says, "whereas we would need 1,000 times that in real trees to have the same effect."

If the trees were mass produced they would each initially cost around $20,000 (then falling as production takes over), just below the price of the average family car in the United States, he says, pointing out that 70 million cars are produced each year. And each would fit on a truck to be positioned at sites around the world. "The great thing about the atmosphere is it's a good mixer, so carbon dioxide produced in an American city can be removed in Oman," he says.


Sucking CO2 from the skies with artificial trees

Instead of interviewing the scientists who have created this technology, the Democrats interview an appealing child who has nothing to say about how to deal with climate change.

So when I can spend 5 seconds on google and find out that scientists have, in fact ...and quite regularly, been testifying before them on Climate Change...

What are you going to do?

What's my incentive?

You just typed a book-long rant about something you didn't even bother to do a cursory search to see if you were wrong, first, like the dunce Votto - - - and now I have to go pick up the pieces from your rant?

How about fuck you pay me...?

Where the hell do you whiny little weirdos come from.

View attachment 279868

Do you wake up this stupid in the morning or do you have to work at it. The only scientists the Democrats interview are those who will be politically useful to them, that is, those who advocate draconian measures to fight climate change, and not scientists who have developed a much cheaper and much less politically valuable way of controlling climate change.

whooooaaa...so it goes from they dont interview scientists to...

only interviewing ones politically useful?

You have a lot of nerve calling someone stupid, dude.

You're a little snowflake whining about imaginary shit on the internet that you were proven wholly wrong about...

while calling people stupid.

The internet!

In other words, you have no interest at all in the issues, but only in bickering about politics. You are stupid and shamelessly unprincipled, that is, you're a Democrat.

Im not in the game, thankfully ...

the one where you went from "no actual scientists have testified on climate change"


to...

"theyre not the scientists who told me what i want to hear, because its not the political team im on"


Give it a fuckin break, dude.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In fact, I do know they haven't interviewed anyone who has practical idea about how to deal with climate change, and if you were informed on the subject you would, too. There are new technologies for dealing with carbon emissions that have been developed at our universities in the last few years that make all proposals for dealing with this issue only on the basis of reducing our use of carbon based fuels ridiculous but the Congress doesn't interview the people who have developed them because for Democrats climate change is purely a political issue not a real one they should deal with.

Universities like Columbia, University of Chicago, Northwestern and Arizona State have already built built and tested machines they call artificial trees that they say are 1,000 times more effective than natural trees in removing CO2 from our atmosphere and in sufficient number could stop the accumulation of Co2 and ever reverse it, but you haven't seen any House hearings about using this technology because the Democrats are fully invested in using climate change as a political issue that will appeal the the various factions the Party wants to win and not at all interested in dealing with climate change in any way that would not bring political benefits to Democratic politicians.



Klaus Lackner, director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University, has come up with a technique that he thinks could solve the problem. Lackner has designed an artificial tree that passively soaks up carbon dioxide from the air using “leaves” that are 1,000 times more efficient than true leaves that use photosynthesis.

"We don't need to expose the leaves to sunlight for photosynthesis like a real tree does," Lackner explains. "So our leaves can be much more closely spaced and overlapped – even configured in a honeycomb formation to make them more efficient."

The leaves look like sheets of papery plastic and are coated in a resin that contains sodium carbonate, which pulls carbon dioxide out of the air and stores it as a bicarbonate (baking soda) on the leaf. To remove the carbon dioxide, the leaves are rinsed in water vapour and can dry naturally in the wind, soaking up more carbon dioxide.

Lackner calculates that his tree can remove one tonne of carbon dioxide a day. Ten million of these trees could remove 3.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – equivalent to about 10% of our global annual carbon dioxide emissions. "Our total emissions could be removed with 100 million trees," he says, "whereas we would need 1,000 times that in real trees to have the same effect."

If the trees were mass produced they would each initially cost around $20,000 (then falling as production takes over), just below the price of the average family car in the United States, he says, pointing out that 70 million cars are produced each year. And each would fit on a truck to be positioned at sites around the world. "The great thing about the atmosphere is it's a good mixer, so carbon dioxide produced in an American city can be removed in Oman," he says.


Sucking CO2 from the skies with artificial trees

Instead of interviewing the scientists who have created this technology, the Democrats interview an appealing child who has nothing to say about how to deal with climate change.

So when I can spend 5 seconds on google and find out that scientists have, in fact ...and quite regularly, been testifying before them on Climate Change...

What are you going to do?

What's my incentive?

You just typed a book-long rant about something you didn't even bother to do a cursory search to see if you were wrong, first, like the dunce Votto - - - and now I have to go pick up the pieces from your rant?

How about fuck you pay me...?

Where the hell do you whiny little weirdos come from.

View attachment 279868

Do you wake up this stupid in the morning or do you have to work at it. The only scientists the Democrats interview are those who will be politically useful to them, that is, those who advocate draconian measures to fight climate change, and not scientists who have developed a much cheaper and much less politically valuable way of controlling climate change.

whooooaaa...so it goes from they dont interview scientists to...

only interviewing ones politically useful?

You have a lot of nerve calling someone stupid, dude.

You're a little snowflake whining about imaginary shit on the internet that you were proven wholly wrong about...

while calling people stupid.

The internet!

In other words, you have no interest at all in the issues, but only in bickering about politics. You are stupid and shamelessly unprincipled, that is, you're a Democrat.

Im not in the game, thankfully ...

the one where you went from "no actual scientists have testified on climate change"


to...

"theyre not the scientists who told me what i wsnt to hear, because its not the political team im on"


Give it a fuckin break, dude.

There you've said it all: you're only interested in the politics and not the issues.

 

[karpenter]

She Needs To Testify
That Children Allowed To Live The Vegan Lifestyle
Is Child Abuse By Mom And Papa Stimpy

She Is Malnourished And Grossly Under Developed
Due To Her Stupid Dietary Choices
That Her Parents Should Have Been Making

AND
Her Carbonless Excursion Wasn't Just A Total Farce
All The Logistics Around It Was A Carbon Soggy Lie
Let Her Be Cross-Examined On That

 

[JusticeHammer]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

Ok, so someone who is STILL not of legal age to consent to a wide variety of activity is being sent to Washington to give their opinions on something?


Why exactly? When is the last time you took advise from a 17 year old and who sent her there?

And yes, she looks to be 12 to me.

The Legal age of consent in Sweden is 15...Mr. Shameless.

Damn, you really love your straw-men to whine about dumb-shit. The girl cares about the Planet, and believes in the Science and you, a grown ass man who is right-leaning and therefore by all means has to be against the science tooth and nail, are sitting on your internet to whine.

17yr old swedish girl >>> votto, on the internet

Then she should worry about Sweden not the U.S.