The massive funding is from those *against* taking action - oil companies and the many rich people who have a lot to lose by converting to a low emission life style.
Climate deniers are being fooled by propaganda and false science produced by these wealthy businesses and billionaires. As I've said before, you only have to open your eyes, and take an interest in wildlife and the plight of millions of people across the world who are already suffering from climate change. You can see the truth.
You have got it all the wrong way round if you think that mainstream climate science is all a big con for someone to make money. That's just silly. The massive action needed to be able to deal with climate change will require a lot of changes in the short and medium term, some of which are quite disruptive and will harm the earnings of the wealthy. But if it is done right it could save nature and humanity as we know it in the longer term.
This is not about making money, it's about saving the surface of the planet as we know it. A lot of very rich people are trying to discredit this but are failing because it's all very obvious, if you open your eyes (and reinforced if you do some research - and I don't mean looking up stupid conspiracy theories promoted by rich people).
Take for example wind mills "so called clean engergy" But nobody talks about the toxic greenhouse gas FS6 thats leaking. (that gas isn't allowed in tennis bals anymore). Anyway windmills can't deliver enough energy and isn't that reliable. Wonder who can pay future energy bills to pay for all those windmills. Think we better plant some trees and keep energy on coal or nuclear as long as we need to. Till we find better solutions.
I know CO2 is greenhouse gas but from all gases thats 0,04% mostly 0,038 prodused by nature. Nature and our crops needs CO2.
I simply can't understand how thats a problem.
I see you're going back to planting trees and burning coal. I'll try to explain again why burning coal and other fossil fuels is bad and planting trees is very temporary. It's a copy of my previous message. I'm a chemist myself so if you don't understand something just ask.
A healthy forest absorbs CO2 and stores it in itself. Even if we don't cut it and let it grow till it dies, after its' death the microorganisms will most likely digest it and transform it into CO2 so the end result of burning it and letting it grow --> die --> rot is nearly the same. It gets transformed into CO2 and then some time later goes back to being tree again (cellulose and what not, basically some form of hydrocarbon). Because of this, there is a cycle so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere stays stable.
Now lets think about fossil fuels. The carbon that is in fossil fuels is deep underground. After 100s, 1000s and so on years it will still be underground so the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is not influenced by fossil fuels. Now when we start digging it up and burning, the carbon that was supposed to be deep underground, is being released into the atmosphere and it enters the cycle mentioned above. As it can't go back underground (over a short period of time, not talking about millions of years), it stays in the atmosphere and thus the amount of CO2 increases. As CO2 increases, the earth gets hotter because CO2 absorbs some IR radiation that would otherwise escape to space.
E: Regarding the "small" ammount of CO2 (~0.04%) - it might seem small but it is approx. 30% more than it was in pre-industrial times. Also, even if the increase is small, on a global scale it does make a difference.
I had the chance to try a VR headset a while back (an FPS game, not LFS) and turned it down - I'm scared that as soon as I've experienced it, it'll lessen my ability to get immersion on a monitor setup. I ain't taking that risk until I can afford to get one for myself
@scawen @Sobis Yes I'm not an scientist so I think let our scientist fight it out. But I'm MSN Sceptic and I hate the framing. "U only get to hear what fits the story" I hate it and it makes it impossible to debate
BTW IPCC allready said it's not just CO2. And I think why act as coverments as long as we not sure. IPCC claimed it would be much worse years ago now they are leveling and ajusting.
Just reading that article Scawen I believe it just fits the IPCC propagenda.
"The planet has an organized intelligence, dedicated to killing your spirit. Your journey is almost over. We are all travelling backwards, so we don’t have to deal with the reality. We are doomed. If the sun wouldn’t rise up this morning, you wouldn’t know it until it was too late. It’s afternoon and the nervous system can’t take much more of this. The cosmic egg is cracking. You are blocking out the voices with television, with alcohol, with electronic games. Your time is now. Try to live. If you can’t, try to cry. The global human population is metastasizing. We have risen to technological heights in order to destroy ourselves. You are reading the book of last chances and have lost your place and are falling asleep. Soon it will be game over." https://journeyism.wordpress.com/
What do I judge? What if the VR enthusiasts actually are the ones going completely out of mind and judging that 2D is something from the past? Television makers already made that mistake by introducing 3D some years ago. Nobody wants to sit with colored glasses in front of their televisions at home. Let alone complete helmets!
But I like the idea of VR180 though and I follow whats going on with those 360 camera's, but, still.. I do not want to get infected with that helmet virus. Microsoft was doing something useful with this hololens thing/idea but overall VR news became very very quiet lately.. So, why not ask the ultra VR fans the question if something innovative is coming up because for the outsiders like me it appears to have stalled.
edit: searched myself now.. Version 2 was released this month. $3500, are they on drugs or what? Lol
Are you serious? Do you have any idea what kind of R&D is going into this? Any idea what the hardware costs? Also did you know it's not meant for consumers right now?
There seem to be plenty of people that are willing to wear these VR helmets for an epic experience. I don't see why you're so negative about it. 3D didn't really take of because of the flawed implementation and limited material and effectiveness, not because no one wanted to wear those glasses (no they weren't coloured).
Hehe almost... But real racing (even the cheapest classes) are still a lot more expensive. And we can enjoy racing at the comfort of our chairs inside our warm house.
"And we can enjoy racing at the comfort of our chairs inside our warm house."
This is the part which makes the sim-racing maybe too soft on the people, sometimes I wish it would exercise me a bit more. Because then sometimes i manage to get on real track (not often enough, sadly), and I'm sore for another 3-5 days... (and yes, I'm too lazy to exercise periodically, my bad). Then again being sore after every session on computer... doesn't sound that attractive either.
I'm knackered after an hour of banger racing on Friday night (not so much "normal" racing, but still a little). Maybe it's the 200% FFB strength, but I do like my cars to fight back Warm house is also a problem, I need a fan on me from about 10 minutes in if my wife has been anywhere near the thermostat.
Yes, but that's like 1/3 or 1/2 of what it is in real race, the extra G forces in every corner are really taxing, it somehow accumulates and the body needs at least a day or two to recover. When I was still doing endurance running, I went for some public run races next day after karting race, and I was always about +30s per 1km slower than what was my regular performance at that time, without any particular reason, just the body was exhausted. But it's kinda funny, because I didn't feel like that. Just a bit sore from the seat here and there, but generally I felt like I should be able to run close to my regular performance, like +5s per km max, but however hard I tried, the +30s was real penalty (or more, if I tried too hard to push over it) for the previous day on track.
And to simulate that at home you need rig which costs ... a lot.