🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

Huddle up.

We gotta get word out to teachers that @skypeascientist.bsky.social is a FREE program that matches their classrooms with scientists.

During recruitment season we try to make sure we hit every US State. We're in 39 so far!

Here's where we DON'T have classrooms yet this fall:
AL
AR
MT
NN
NM
ND
SD
UT
VT
WY

Spread the word!
https://www.skypeascientist.com/sign-up.html

I love how that if you apply Carolina Reaper in just the right way, it can make a meal for 4 into a meal for 1.

@freepeoplesfreepress

The difference between bigotry and "true discrimination" as you say lies in the key word "obstinate"... So long as you are willing to accept that your hatred towards a particular group (in this case bigots) may be misplaced and wrong, and you are willing to hear criticisms to your bigotry and earnestly consider it... then you arent a bigot... to be a bigot you must be stubborn in your stance of hate, even if the target of that hate is deserving of that hate.

@TruthSandwich @admitsWrongIfProven

@bonifartius

> with fossil energy you release the carbon of millions of years, i can follow you that there might be a problem there.
>
> with wood - mind that i argued for planting more than used - it's decades, with shrubbery and grass its years or single seasons. carbon is captured and released as CO2 in these time spans with those. other pollutants like CO can very likely disregarded with a well controlled oxidation. particles might be a problem, but that's a solved problem iirc.

Why does it matter if its decades or millions of years... burning fossil fuel vs plant material release the same set of pollutants more or less, so burning one or the other in and of itself is no more or less harmful.

What your pointing out, rightfully so, is that i can plant a tree and capture carbon dioxide first, having a positive impact, and then burning some portion of that having a negative impact. The idea being that the positive is bigger than the negative.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with what you burn... If fossil fuels release lets say 1 ton of CO2, then why not plant enough trees to capture 1 ton of CO2 then instead of chopping them down for fuel you chop them down and bury it in a deep pit somewhere... Now you did the same thing, you captured as much CO2 as you were going to release. You just choose a different source to release it from... it is all the same.

But just because you can capture the CO2 first before releasing it, doesnt make it any more green... I can capture CO2 countless ways to offset my waste, it doesnt really matter, nor does it change it.

> i just really don't see the difference between energy captured by solar panels or wind power (which is sun energy as well) and energy captured by photosynthesis given it's happening in our epoch and not millions of years ago like with coal or oil.

The difference is huge. and it comes down to efficiency... trees are 6% efficient at turning sunlight into stored energy.Solar panels are 15%-29% efficient depending on how cutting-edge you go with the tech. Thats at least 3x more effecient.

That efficiency means you get more power per unit land (significantly so). And since you arent constantly cutting down trees and disrupting animals and insects and their home, and the panels are usually placed in already developed areas (leaving our forrests untouched)... that leaves for a significantly superior situation that using trees, especially considering the forrests keep doing their thing along side the panels.