Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMethinks Coke Jr is actually Meth Jr
Link to tweet
Tweet text:
Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦
@RonFilipkowski
·
Follow
Junior tonight says he read somewhere that Leftists want a nuclear war because it will help solve global warming.
Watch on Twitter
6:14 PM · Oct 6, 2022
Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦
@RonFilipkowski
·
Follow
Junior tonight says he read somewhere that Leftists want a nuclear war because it will help solve global warming.
Watch on Twitter
6:14 PM · Oct 6, 2022
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
23 replies, 2173 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
23 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Methinks Coke Jr is actually Meth Jr (Original Post)
Nevilledog
Oct 2022
OP
A spaceship full of aliens needs to come and save the planet and do what they will
Eliot Rosewater
Oct 2022
#2
Someone smarter than Junior told him nuclear winter would solve global warming. It won't.
Marcuse
Oct 2022
#13
Your mind might think its flying, baby on those little pills but you ought to know it's dying,
Hermit-The-Prog
Oct 2022
#20
onecaliberal
(32,916 posts)1. I've long thought that.
Nevilledog
(51,210 posts)3. With a side of bath salts
GoCubsGo
(32,095 posts)8. I'm thinking he got into his dad's Adderall stash.
Or, the European Sudafed.
Tickle
(2,555 posts)22. European Sudafed?
What makes it different or are you kidding 😂
GoCubsGo
(32,095 posts)23. The stuff sold in the UK and Ireland has a slightly different formulation.
Apparently, it's more of a stimulant than the stuff sold here. Some of the staff members on "The Apprentice" said he ate it like candy, when he wasn't snorting Adderall.
onecaliberal
(32,916 posts)15. and just enough lysol or bleach to "clean it right out"
Eliot Rosewater
(31,125 posts)2. A spaceship full of aliens needs to come and save the planet and do what they will
with us.
We have proven we have no business at all being on this beautiful planet.
2naSalit
(86,822 posts)17. +1
lame54
(35,328 posts)4. Somewhere - they're a solid source
Grokenstein
(5,727 posts)19. "Somewhere" might be Futurama
dflprincess
(28,086 posts)5. The most shocking thing in this video
is that junior claims he read something.
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,808 posts)6. This is NOT normal behavior.
Jr. is clearly on something addictive.
Blue Owl
(50,523 posts)7. Jankin' and skankin'
Celerity
(43,579 posts)9. he is so full of shit
On Top of Everything Else, Nuclear War Would Be a Climate Problem
Even a minor skirmish would wreck the planet.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/03/nuclear-war-would-ravage-the-planets-climate/627005/
https://archive.ph/XaihV
When we talk about what causes climate change, we usually talk about oil and gas, coal and cars, andjust generallyenergy policy. Theres a good reason for this. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which enters the atmosphere, warms the climate, and you know the drill. The more fossil fuels you burn, the worse climate change gets. Thats why, a couple of years ago, I spent a lot of time covering the Trump administrations attempt to weaken the countrys fuel-economy standards. It was an awful policy, one that would have led to more oil consumption for decades to come. If pressed, I would have said that it had a single-digit-percentage chance of creating an uninhabitable climate system.
But energy is not the only domain that has a direct bearing on whether we have a livable climate or not. So does foreign policyspecifically, nuclear war. Since Russia invaded Ukraine two weeks ago, that threat has become a lot more real: Many Americans, including artists, climate-concerned progressives, and even a few lawmakers, have come out in support of a no-fly zone. But despite its euphemistic name, a no-fly zone means that NATO and the United States issue a credible threat that they will shoot down any enemy plane in Ukrainian territory. This Link to tweet
" target="_blank">would require U.S. bombing runs into Russian territory to eliminate air defenses, bringing the U.S. and Russia into open war, and it would have a reasonable chance of prompting a nuclear exchange. And it would be worse for the climate than any energy policy that Donald Trump ever proposed.
When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
I mean this quite literally. If you are worried about rapid, catastrophic changes to the planets climate, then you must be worried about nuclear war. That is because, on top of killing tens of millions of people, even a relatively minor exchange of nuclear weapons would wreck the planets climate in enormous and long-lasting ways.
Consider a one-megaton nuke, reportedly the size of a warhead on a modern Russian intercontinental ballistic missile. (Warheads on U.S. ICBMs can be even larger.) A detonation of a bomb that size would, within about a four-mile radius, produce winds equal to those in a Category 5 hurricane, immediately flattening buildings, knocking down power lines, and triggering gas leaks. Anyone within seven miles of the detonation would suffer third-degree burns, the kind that sear and blister flesh. These conditionsand note that I have left out the organ-destroying effects of radiationwould rapidly turn an eight-mile blast radius into a zone of total human misery. But only at this moment of the war do the climate consequences truly begin.
snip
Even a minor skirmish would wreck the planet.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/03/nuclear-war-would-ravage-the-planets-climate/627005/
https://archive.ph/XaihV
When we talk about what causes climate change, we usually talk about oil and gas, coal and cars, andjust generallyenergy policy. Theres a good reason for this. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which enters the atmosphere, warms the climate, and you know the drill. The more fossil fuels you burn, the worse climate change gets. Thats why, a couple of years ago, I spent a lot of time covering the Trump administrations attempt to weaken the countrys fuel-economy standards. It was an awful policy, one that would have led to more oil consumption for decades to come. If pressed, I would have said that it had a single-digit-percentage chance of creating an uninhabitable climate system.
But energy is not the only domain that has a direct bearing on whether we have a livable climate or not. So does foreign policyspecifically, nuclear war. Since Russia invaded Ukraine two weeks ago, that threat has become a lot more real: Many Americans, including artists, climate-concerned progressives, and even a few lawmakers, have come out in support of a no-fly zone. But despite its euphemistic name, a no-fly zone means that NATO and the United States issue a credible threat that they will shoot down any enemy plane in Ukrainian territory. This Link to tweet
" target="_blank">would require U.S. bombing runs into Russian territory to eliminate air defenses, bringing the U.S. and Russia into open war, and it would have a reasonable chance of prompting a nuclear exchange. And it would be worse for the climate than any energy policy that Donald Trump ever proposed.
Link to tweet
When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
I mean this quite literally. If you are worried about rapid, catastrophic changes to the planets climate, then you must be worried about nuclear war. That is because, on top of killing tens of millions of people, even a relatively minor exchange of nuclear weapons would wreck the planets climate in enormous and long-lasting ways.
Consider a one-megaton nuke, reportedly the size of a warhead on a modern Russian intercontinental ballistic missile. (Warheads on U.S. ICBMs can be even larger.) A detonation of a bomb that size would, within about a four-mile radius, produce winds equal to those in a Category 5 hurricane, immediately flattening buildings, knocking down power lines, and triggering gas leaks. Anyone within seven miles of the detonation would suffer third-degree burns, the kind that sear and blister flesh. These conditionsand note that I have left out the organ-destroying effects of radiationwould rapidly turn an eight-mile blast radius into a zone of total human misery. But only at this moment of the war do the climate consequences truly begin.
snip
yonder
(9,679 posts)10. Cranking it.
OAITW r.2.0
(24,656 posts)11. Idiocracy, personified. nt
purr-rat beauty
(543 posts)12. I'm guessing he's getting it all in before....
....he's put away
Marcuse
(7,522 posts)13. Someone smarter than Junior told him nuclear winter would solve global warming. It won't.
Normally, science is at its best when we can run a real experiment and measure the results, rather than simply relying on models. In the words of Grace Hopper, One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions. Unfortunately, short of creating gigantic firestorms with nuclear weapons, such experimentation is out of the question.
Following the models, within a decade or two, any cooling effect from lofted soot would likely have passed, while humanity would be left with huge swathes of burned-out areas for its trouble and likely a not-negligible contribution to CO2 levels from the multiple firestorms. Along the way, if the effect was overdone, excess cooling would still cause trouble for agriculture which could lead to widespread starvation.
The answer to the question of which catastrophe would win out is: short term, nuclear winter; long term, global warming.
[link:https://hackaday.com/2022/01/25/would-nuclear-winter-cancel-out-global-warming/|
Following the models, within a decade or two, any cooling effect from lofted soot would likely have passed, while humanity would be left with huge swathes of burned-out areas for its trouble and likely a not-negligible contribution to CO2 levels from the multiple firestorms. Along the way, if the effect was overdone, excess cooling would still cause trouble for agriculture which could lead to widespread starvation.
The answer to the question of which catastrophe would win out is: short term, nuclear winter; long term, global warming.
[link:https://hackaday.com/2022/01/25/would-nuclear-winter-cancel-out-global-warming/|
jmowreader
(50,566 posts)14. Junior is proof positive...
...that having no brain whatsoever is not necessarily a life-threatening condition.
tblue37
(65,490 posts)16. His finger quotes get more and more frantic.
2naSalit
(86,822 posts)18. I think he blends the two.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,467 posts)20. Your mind might think its flying, baby on those little pills but you ought to know it's dying,
keep_left
(1,792 posts)21. Well, he's gonna be Dead Jr if he doesn't start laying off the blow...
...or whatever else he might be using. Don Jr also looks like he's aging badly, which isn't too surprising since he's been burning the candle at both ends for a long time now.