Started by #485312 at 15,Dec,20 23:50
 | Fact or Fiction.... is it really happening???
what do you think contributes to it and what is being done to stop it? |
Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest 5.YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos)
What Happened 10 Years Later Is Shocking
only registered users can see external links
There are several regreening organizations at work.
They make their money from donations and views on YouTube.
Here are some that I know and watch:
Planet Wild: only registered users can see external links
Mossy Earth: only registered users can see external links
Leaf of Life: only registered users can see external links
Justdiggit: only registered users can see external links
Their videos are great. They give me some hope, with every video.
I'm thinking about donating to one of them, I just haven't decided which one,
how much, and if I want to get a paid subscription.
So why all the hate for cows in the green movement ,but bison are ok? Buffalo's and cows are very similar, similar enough that they are bred to each other.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
methane from buffalo
only registered users can see external links
Yes, buffalo belch (or burp—the terms are often used interchangeably for the same action of expelling gas from the stomach).
Buffalo are ruminants, a group of herbivores that includes cattle, sheep, goats, bison (often called American buffalo), and water buffalo. Ruminants have a specialized four-chambered stomach where microbes ferment plant material, producing large amounts of gas (mostly carbon dioxide and methane) as a byproduct. To release this gas and prevent dangerous bloating (a condition called bloat that can be fatal if belching stops), ruminants continually eructate—belching silently about once per minute, unlike the louder human version.
This applies to both major types of buffalo:
American bison (commonly called buffalo in North America): They eructate during specific rumen contractions, similar to cattle. Their belches contribute methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Water buffalo (Asian buffalo): As ruminants, they follow the same digestive process and belch regularly.
In short, belching is a normal, essential part of how buffalo (and all ruminants) digest food—without it, they'd swell up like a balloon and potentially die.
Yes, buffalo do fart. This includes both American bison (often called buffalo in North America) and other species like water buffalo. They are ruminants, meaning they have multi-chambered stomachs where microbes ferment plant material, producing gases like methane as a byproduct. While most of this gas is released through belching (eructation), some does exit as flatulence from the rear.
Scientific studies on bison herds have measured significant enteric methane emissions (from digestion), with per-animal outputs comparable to or sometimes higher than cattle, and flatulence is explicitly part of how this gas is released. Historic estimates suggest pre-colonial bison populations (tens of millions) produced methane equivalent to modern livestock, including through farts.
The "green movement" hates the BIO-INDUSTRY, not the cows.
It's not the differences between the animals that matters, it's the differences
between how they are living.
Bisons are a wild animal, that lives in harmony with nature. Did you even watch the video? They explained about what Bisons do, to improve nature, all over the video.
The modern cow is an over-engineered animal that ruins nature. It produces 10 times
the amount of milk, and therefore also emits much more waste.
Those Bisons are a few hundred individuals, in an incredibly large area, that has very few nutrients in the soil. Everything they drop and let fly gets absorbed by that area of nature, because it needs it. Cows live at best on a pasture that is saturated by nutrients, and they are living there in populations that are thousands of times denser.
The Netherlands has a problem with cows, because we have way too many of them for such a small country. That creates a massive pollution problem. Austria, for example,
a country famous for their Alp-milk, doesn't have the same problem with pollution from cows, because they have 1/8th the number of cows, in a country twice the size.
At that scale, nature is still able to process it.
Besides, if I was going to raise something for milk I would raise goats. Much better for you
Humanity should just learn to live within the means nature sets for us.
Most cows are not 'gene modified' directly, but are just the result of hundreds of years of selective breeding. It made them great milk and meat factories, but they would die off very quickly back in nature. If humans all disappeared one day, all the cows would die off very quickly. For some races, in 90% of the cases, if there is no vet to winch out the calf at birth, both the mother and the calf will die. They are bred that way.
Most people don't like goat milk and goat meat is even less popular, so I don't think society is going to shift away from cows, any day soon.
I'm not agreeing with many people on the left, that we should go back to a pasture with 1 cow per acre, because there are 8 billion people on Earth. What we need to do is find a balance between poisoning nature to death and starving ourselves, which prioritizes animal friendliness. We shouldn't be cruel to animals, but we should accept that it is impossible to live from nature, like we did 10,000 years ago, with 8 billion people.
I want progression and innovation to make society sustainable for the world. I don't want to go back to pre-historic times and I also fight against the denialism against the reality that we are destroying ourselves, by destroying the nature that supports us.
but a domesticated pig can?"
Cows are bred to give huge amounts of milk. No calf can ever drink that much.
A high-producing dairy cow would die within a few days to a week, if not milked.
Pigs are bred for meat, not milk. We only bred them to have large litters and grow fast. They can eat almost anything, so they are pretty successful in nature. Feral populations will actually establish fast, and can develop into an invasive species.
It's actually nature/evolution that is limiting the reproduction rate of e.g. wild boars, because an invasive species would kill nature, which would then kill itself.
You could say that we created cows to be losers and pigs to be winners.
However, too many winners will collapse the ecosystem.
(which is very much what humanity is doing too)
only registered users can see external links
There are forests all over the world, planted by people for wood and coal,
that have turned into a "green desert". Nothing lives there, besides trees.
and 10 Years Later It Changed Everything
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
A good example of solving multiple problems at once.
only registered users can see external links
Reality is starting to set in. electric truck range can't fulfill the needs of folks that actually USE trucks for their purposes.
The Rivians that Amazon uses are van that have a range of about 80 miles, and both drivers that deliver here tell me that they are on pins and needles that last few miles trying to get back to the warehouse.
Do understand that folks that actually USE trucks for their purposes,
are a tiny minority of truck users.
A study by Strategic Vision found that nearly 90 % of truck buyers said they never use their truck for business towing, mobile-office or worksites.
only registered users can see external links
Another summary shows:
Only about 7 % of pickup-truck owners frequently use their trucks to tow.
About 28 % frequently haul personal items; 47 % do so occasionally.
only registered users can see external links
According to a report by the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), only about 28 % of pickup owners say they see their truck as a “true work vehicle”.
only registered users can see external links
One statistic cited by an automotive-facts site: “Only 15 % of truck owners use their pickup trucks for work.”
only registered users can see external links
I don't own an electric car myself, because they don't provide me what I need for the price I am willing to pay. However, looking at the fast pace development of EV's, I'm confident that they will, when my current car has reached the end of it's economic repair lifetime.
only registered users can see external links
I bet if the cows are allowed to eat grass and natural grains they would be just fine.
Health nuts tell us humans all the time to stop eating processed foods but now we are feeding our meat and milk producers processed food? Does that make any sense?
✅ What is true
1. The feed additive Bovaer (active ingredient 3-nitrooxypropanol, 3-NOP) is being used in Denmark in dairy cattle feed as part of efforts to reduce methane emissions.
2. Denmark has put in place policies to reduce methane emissions from dairy farming — including subsidies/confidence for feed additives — as part of its climate / agricultural emissions strategy.
3. There are reports from Danish farmers of animal health problems (e.g., reduced milk output, cows „sluggish“, some rumen-failure, some culls) after the introduction of Bovaer in some herds.
4. The manufacturer (DSM‑Firmenich) and Danish authorities have acknowledged and are investigating the reports of problems (though they do not conclude causation yet).
⚠️ What is not (yet) clearly proven
1. While farmers report cows “collapsing” and being euthanized, I did not locate independent, peer-reviewed or official veterinary data that confirms widespread collapses/euthanization directly caused by the additive. The media reports and farmer complaints are there, but causality is not established.
2. The claim that the policy “after Jan. 1 2025” mandated the additive in “large dairy farms” and that cows “started giving less milk, collapsing and in some instances getting so ill that they need to be euthanized” is a strong version of the claim and appears to be more sensational than the evidence currently supports. For example:
- The requirement noted in Agriland: “Since January 1, 2025, all conventional dairy farmers in Denmark with more than 50 cows are required to reduce methane emissions by either adjusting feed (increasing fat) or adding Bovaer for 80 days a year.”
- The phrase “collapsing cows” appears in certain farmer-complaint articles and blogs,
but not in official statistical data indicating a systemic collapse across Danish dairy herds.
Also be aware: Some of the articles you quoted (and similar ones) come from outlets with strongly charged language (“cows drop like flies,” etc). These may amplify or interpret anecdotal reports without full vetting.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Feeding cows "processed food" has been going on for a long time, with the goal
of maximizing profits. Your mental image of cows grazing in the pasture is obsolete.
31% of cows in The Netherlands never comes outside, the rest only (a small) part
of the year.
When they are inside, they are eating processed feed. Most farmers have their own production pasture or grain field to grow ingredients for the feed, but almost all of them
add large scale produced feed and additives.
De Heus Animal Nutrition
only registered users can see external links
ForFarmers
only registered users can see external links
Agrifirm
only registered users can see external links
The animal feed industry in The Netherlands has an estimated annual revenue of approximately $16.5 Billion.
Cows are milk and meat factories and don't get treated as animals that can suffer.
It's your side of politics that created that, and it's NOT your side of politics that is
aiming to make farming less cruel to animals. You celebrate 'profit over people',
so why would you care that profit hurts animals?
Feed additives like Bovaer are an alternative for reducing cattle.
Denying the reality of climate change is not helping anyone.
At least in Denmark they are trying a compromise. You better hope it works,
or you can say goodbye to milk and beef altogether.
They don't care about the environment, they care about the MONEY!
only registered users can see external links
Listen carefully as this man explains what a group has done, and what they are actually doing, lawyer fees. Think about it, they are paid ABOVE any settlement amount.
So my theory is after watching this, who do you think gets a cut? The group that hired them to do the lawsuit.it is PROFIT driven. The lawyer fees do nothing for the air.
The kind of arguments that you are pushing are flat earth level arguments.
That doesn't compute, you cannot make money with bad investments.
only registered users can see external links
So much for all this criticism of America for not being tolerant of those that speak their minds. Europe is nothing but a large gathering of hostages of intense brain washing and hypocrites.
Throw yourself on your fainting couch for getting some hate back.
My side should stop being tolerant towards intolerance.
The side that you think is brainwashed, has science, facts and logic on its side.
Your side has nothing besides conspiracy theories and projection.
because they are investing in “climate solutions”.
Using my facts to disprove the theories? Your theories? You don't have any.
There are thousands of scientists trying to prove climate science wrong.
That's how science works. Instead of proving it wrong, they end up confirming it,
with every attempt. None of your articles that are trying to debunk the science
of climate change are actually doing science. They are just doing propaganda.
if they invested in General Motors and then GM goes belly up,
when they have not been investing in electric cars, and then everyone
will start buying electric cars, because they became superior cars?
A retirees' fund can be held liable for wrong investments, particularly if the fund's fiduciaries have acted imprudently or breached their duties. Under laws like the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in the United States, fund managers and fiduciaries must act solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries, and carry out their duties with the care, skill, and diligence of
a "prudent person". Do you have evidence that these were wrong investments,
other than the fact that they lost money?
Maybe the CETF manager is a crook. If CalPERS had no reason to suspect that,
they are not liable for the loss.
I just told you that it's a loss of 0.06% of its total value.
Do you instead investments, at all? The principle is to spread the risk over many investments, because some will lose money. Their overal return is ~14.3%.
That's very good for a retirees fund.
only registered users can see external links
when you have a president who wants to destroy it?
Instead of investing in green energy, Trump is now trying to steal the oil of Venezuela.
If we are talking about bullshit, you are the one supporting it.
Alternative energy isn't bullshit, it's the cheapest least polluting energy.
It's California now, that is suffering from your ignorance, but soon it will be your whole country. You cannot win in global competition, by dragging your feet in innovation.
If you keep waging war and stealing shit, the rest of the world will shun you.
That will be the end of your empire, because global trade made you what you are.
When I bought my solar panels, they cost me about $6000.
I still made my money back in 3.5 years, because of high energy prices.
Now they are making me free electricity, every day, for the next 20-30 years.
That same amount of power on my roof would cost me about half of that today.
Explain what's bullshit about that.
As usual, Anannas or you didn't even react to the fact that retiree's are suffering because of the miss use of their retirement fund. I thought you folks cared SOME at least about the working class?
Solar, not terrible, but not cheaper or free. Take a few minutes to learn what is required if you decide to dispose of your solar panels and how much it will cost, then deduct that from your savings. Also,do that with windmills.
As of March 31, 2025, the remaining value of that fund (cash out + remaining investment value) was reported at about US $138.0 million, meaning a decline of approximately 71 % relative to the original commitment.
The fund paid at least US $22 million in fees/costs to private-equity managers despite the large loss.
CalPERS acknowledges the investment is from 2007 and asserts that this pre-dated its more current private-equity strategy and that they have since diversified and reduced fees.
The figure is derived from commitment vs remaining value (and cash out) in a private-equity context: private-equity valuations are less transparent and more illiquid than public-market assets. So the “71% loss” is based on CalPERS-reported values and not an immediately liquid market sale of all assets.
The loss is large in absolute terms (≈US $330 million), but relative to the entire CalPERS portfolio it is a small share.
CalPERS) currently manages approximately US $556.2 billion in assets under management. That means the loss is 0.06% of its total value.
CalPERS has made major commitments to “climate solution” investments: In 2024 they reported commitments exceeding US $53 billion in climate-focused investments (including infrastructure, energy transition, etc.).
Their overall latest annual return (for year ended June 2025) was ~11.6%.
Their private equity allocation (which may include climate/energy transition investments) reported ~14.3% return for that year.
That means that you are just parroting biassed information, to satisfy your own bias.
NO global demise of the human race after all?
Going broke there mr gates?
Putting your money where your mouth is costing to much??
only registered users can see external links
After all it is all about the money,
from climate change. Better think about yourself and people like you.
This is the actual post by Bill Gates:
only registered users can see external links
Here are some important statements:
"There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this:
In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us—just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature.
Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further."
"Although climate change will hurt poor people more than anyone else, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been. Understanding this will let us focus our limited resources on interventions that will have the greatest impact for the most vulnerable people."
"To be clear: Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems like malaria and malnutrition. Every tenth of a degree of heating that we prevent is hugely beneficial because a stable climate makes it easier to improve people’s lives."
"In short, climate change, disease, and poverty are all major problems. We should deal with them in proportion to the suffering they cause. And we should use data to maximize the impact of every action we take.
I believe that embracing the following three truths will help us do that."
Truth #1: Climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization.
"Even if the world takes only moderate action to curb climate change, the current consensus is that by 2100 the Earth’s average temperature will probably be between 2°C and 3°C higher than it was in 1850."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is referring to the “MODERATE ACTION” scenario, which is somewhat subjective; whether the world will indeed follow a moderate action path is uncertain. If action is weaker (or worse) the warming could exceed 3 °C.
At the moment Trump is refusing to do anything and he is ramping up fossil fuel consumption. Other countries are also not doing anything even close to reach that “moderate action” scenario. That means they are performing along the high emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5), of which the range is about 3.3–5.7 °C projected temperature increase.
That projection MIGHT not predict the complete end of civilization, but it will force billions
of people to move from the hottest places on Earth.
Still, there is the risk of a "Hothouse Earth" feedback loop.
The paper "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene", published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in 2018, explores how crossing certain tipping points could lead to a long-term temperature rise of 4–5°C even if human emissions cease, with devastating consequences like massive sea-level rise.
It describes conditions leading to "serious disruptions" and an environment "inhospitable to current human societies," suggesting such a trajectory would likely take the climate beyond human adaptation limits, making the planet "largely uninhabitable" and raising the specter of civilizational collapse.
Part of what's left of civilization could possibly survive on Greenland, which is why
your billionaires are interested in conquering it. They want their progeny to survive,
on Greenland (or on Mars), while everyone else suffers and dies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current temperature has increased by about 1.3 °C to 1.6 °C above 1850-1900 levels, with 2024 being the warmest year on record and exceeding the 1.5 °C threshold.
In the hottest regions on Earth, climate change is
intensifying existing threats and creating new ones, primarily through more frequent and severe heatwaves, water scarcity, and desertification. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is warming at twice the global average, providing a clear example of these accelerating impacts.
Extreme heat and health
The most immediate and life-threatening effect is the dramatic increase in the intensity, frequency, and duration of heatwaves.
Health crisis: Heat-related mortality is increasing, particularly among the elderly and outdoor workers. High temperatures also worsen existing health issues like cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
Threat to life: Some projections indicate that parts of the MENA region could experience heat and humidity levels that exceed the limits of human tolerance. In 2023, Al Hudaydah, a major city in Yemen, was projected to face over 300 days a year of unbearable heat if global warming continues at its current rate.
Urban heat island effect: Cities in hot regions trap and retain heat, making them significantly warmer than surrounding rural areas. This intensifies the effects of heatwaves for millions of urban residents.
Water scarcity and desertification
For regions already suffering from a lack of water, climate change is compounding a severe water crisis.
Accelerated water loss: Higher temperatures increase evaporation rates, drying out soil and reducing available water resources. The MENA region, with 12 of the world's 17 most water-stressed countries, is facing unprecedented water scarcity.
Desert expansion: Rising temperatures, less predictable rainfall, and land mismanagement are causing deserts to expand and consume fertile land. This process, known as desertification, reduces arable land and threatens food security.
Saltwater intrusion: In coastal areas like Egypt's Nile Delta, rising sea levels are causing saltwater to intrude into freshwater aquifers and farmland, poisoning the soil and displacing millions.
Food and agriculture
Agricultural systems are extremely vulnerable to heat and water stress, leading to a decline in food production.
Crop and livestock failure: High daytime and nighttime temperatures can damage crops and cause livestock to suffer from heat stress, resulting in reduced yields and productivity. Repeated droughts, such as those that contributed to the Syrian civil war, have devastated agricultural production in the Middle East.
Intensified food insecurity: Reduced crop yields and water scarcity are increasing food insecurity and malnutrition, especially in vulnerable communities.
Economic and social consequences
The environmental effects of climate change trigger a cascade of economic and social crises in the hottest areas.
Displacement and migration: Food and water shortages, combined with rising sea levels, are forcing people to flee their homes. Climate change adds another layer of pressure to already unstable regions, with millions projected to be displaced.
Infrastructure strain: Intense heat puts immense pressure on power grids and other infrastructure. Increased demand for air conditioning can cause energy shortages and blackouts, and heat can damage transport systems like railways.
Socioeconomic inequality: Those with the fewest resources suffer the most from climate change impacts. In hot areas, wealthier individuals can use air conditioning and migrate during heatwaves, while low-income workers, particularly those in outdoor jobs, face much higher risks.
Is this a religious war ?
The average Temperature about all over the world are getting higher. Sometimes some places are cooler, but trend is up.
I correlates with the concentration of some gasses in our atmosphere.
This year we had a very cool summer here, and people ask: what's up with global warming ? But That's not the definition of global warming. In Sum, this year the average global temperature was again higher than the years before.
I believe it is very hard to face dangerous thoughts about the future and even more uncomfortable when we feel helpless. But we have to, in every aspect of live. That's responsibility. No panic.
And surely, to do the necessary things It is even more uncomfortable. And worst, if you can't say your actions will lead to success.
Everyone believes what he wants to believe. Just look into yourself, what's the motivation to believe this or that.
You are responsible for your feelings, thought and belives.
If you say to the people, you eat very bad things. It will damage your body all over time. Like sweets, soft drinks amd so on.
Mostly the people react like: ahh, it is not that bad , and that's our way of life.
But time shows how fat, ugly and Ill people get. Just because they don't want to face an fact that is uncomfortable and changes are even more uncomfortable. And than they claiming about stupid doctor who can't help...
Sadly today it's very popular to ignore such "heavy" themes and even fighting against physical facts and science to protect our comfort zone.
So "let it run down the hill" it's easier. Our kids have to solve their problems than (or not, when many people die, the problem is also solved). We love our way of life more and don't want to mess up with things like responsibility.
Every moment we have a choice.
Sorry for my bad English.
only registered users can see external links
all just to save a little electricity.
What a third world country you live in.
We have LEDs in every natural color possible now.
Thomas Edison would love how innovation obsoleted his invention.
He would love how it lasted for more than 100 years too.
That's what scientists LIVE for. Progress!
Even the dimmers work perfectly. The only non-LED light-source I still have is in the shed, which is a CFL tube.
In the kitchen, we have a light fixture that required at least a 100W incandescent light bulb. I had lots of problems to replace that one, but now I use 20W LED grow lights for greenhouses from AliExpress, which cost less than a dollar per piece. The first few lasted about a year, but they are getting better. The current one is 2 years old now. It just requires a bit of soldering and screwing in place. That light is on for several hours per day. That's over $60 per year, cut to a 5th.
In the bathroom I had a fixture with 2 50W halogen bulbs. I replaced that one with a 8W LED module. It's now over 12 years old. No ugly blue light, but exactly what I wanted
in the bathroom.
I think blue light in general, from our led displays,tvs and bulbs is the issue, and there are wavelengths just off our scale that can also mess with us big time.
That's mainly caused by their smart-phone keeping them awake at night.
During the day, it's more healthy to have light with lots of blue in it.
People who sit in an office all day, like me, get too little daylight.
That can cause unhealthy sleep rhythm issues too.
The best solution is to have bright light with lots of blue during the day and less light without blue and lots of red in the evening. Incandescent lamps couldn't give us that, but LED has the potential to provide it. It's available right now, but it would be very expensive to have it throughout the house.
tax money.
only registered users can see external links
So when you think about investing tax money in some new scheme going around today, keep this in mind, i am sure there were people saying NO don't waste the money, only for it to come out years later they were right. But the people, won't get their tax money back, it is gone,forever.
“was successful, but unable to compete with rival photovoltaic solar technology,
such as rooftop panels, which have much lower capital and operating costs.”
It's solar that cannot compete with superior solar.
Still, PV solar cannot compete with onshore wind.
But, for areas with lots of sun and not much wind, it's better.
According to IRENA, in 2024 onshore wind had an average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of about US $0.034 per kWh.
Solar PV was next cheapest, averaging around US $0.043 per kWh globally.
the global average temperature obviously wasn't -5°F.
That would have caused a global mass extinction event.
The rest of what he is saying is pretty accurate.
He's just spreading too much doubt about what we DO know.
That's fuel on the fire of climate change denialism.
(Belief is accepting something as true in the absence of sufficient evidence.)
You are young enough to support the energy transition for yourself.
I commend you for not closing off your mind to the scientifically proven reality.
It's not a rosy picture to accept, but if more people support climate action,
our future will become less black.
If the world had denied that CFCs were destroying the ozone layer, we would have had double the incidence of skin cancer and cataracts in 2025. However, because the world acted, the ozone layer is recovering instead of depleting.
well, um, what do you make of that? every day that goes by a different side of the story comes out.
Of course he's going to support anti-climate change lies. That's his job.
It's what Trump did with all agencies; put someone in charge of it, to destroy it.
Your article doesn't contain any facts, just talking points.
we are tired of hearing the whining
only registered users can see external links
instead of depending on government to make changes, make the changes on a smaller scale
"Be the mayor that makes buses electric; be the CEO who ends fossil fuel dependence; be the school that puts (up) solar roofs," he said."
buses don't work but why not put solar panels on a school roof? why not the private companys that want change just do it themselves?
When something big needs to happen, private industry is never up to it.
When there is a war, you don't ask private industry to defend you.
Climate change will be more damaging than any war ever in history.
But we need everyone, to DEFEND humanity from climate change.
It's the most important priority that humanity has ever faced.
That's what government is DESIGNED for; do the things that people don't do
on their own, for the benefit of all people.
What would be the most important industry to not give away to private ownership?
AKA, what industry would you prefer to be owned and controlled by the government?
How about manufacturing weapons of war, that you don't want your enemies to have?
Lets say that climate change is the crisis that scientists tell you it is?
Why would you trust every business owner to prevent it from happening?
Do you understand what a conflict of interest that is to a business owner?
On the one side, they want to make the most profit as possible, but on the other side they need to plan for a future that threatens everyone, including their business. Meanwhile, they have to compete with other businesses. That gives an incentive
to go for the short-term profit, and delay planning for the oncoming threat.
The businesses who do start planning for the oncoming threat, are in a disadvantage against their competition, that don't. It's an incentive to delay the long-term thinking
as much as possible, like a game of chicken.
How about we let government create a 'level playing field', so there is no incentive
to delay the long-term thinking as much as possible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe is planning to invest an extra Ђ800 Billion into the defense industry. I'm incredibly annoyed that they are thinking about just giving away that money, to make it more advantageous for the wealthy to invest in it. Fuck that! They should buy public ownership of the military industrial complex, so it is under democratic control and not act as another cash cow for the wealthy, to become even more wealthy. The taxpayer pays for the military equipment, so stop enriching the wealthy with the taxpayer's money.
of course europe is pissed off they are being expected to pay for their own defense. it takes away money from their pet projects
you just sold us the weapons. That's not just by our choice, that's how you wanted it
for many decades.
How does our price of gas relate to this? That's a private industry in my country, just as much as in the US. The taxes on gas are used for investments in renewable energy and as an incentive for people to buy fuel economic cars.
We do pay for those weapons that go to Ukraine. What the US pays is mostly an imaginary value; you donated almost expired munition to the Ukrainians, and calculate it at full price. If would have cost you money to discard of it. Meanwhile, Europe does pay the full price. Even then, Europe committed around $198 billion and the US only around $175 billion. That's to protect ourselves from your worst enemy, after WWII. The United States played a leading role in the creation and development of NATO. Only very recently did you start reconsidering that arrangement. Of course you wanted us to spend more, mostly on weapons Made in America. We already spent 3 times more on defense than Russia. That should be enough. We are happy to pick up the tap for Ukraine, but the US doesn't want to deliver. Now we have to invest in our own military industrial complex. It's not just the money, but also the time.
It's not a smart strategy for you, because it will create another superpower, that doesn't do your bidding anymore.
But why don't you tell your side of the story. How did the US defend Europe?
What wars did you do to defend us, and were not intended to maintain your position as the worlds strongest superpower?
The US is the biggest supplier of arms in the world. You cannot just cut Europe off, from a 80 year old history of weapon manufacturing deals, and expect Europe to CATCH UP in a few years.
HOW can you not understand that?
Do you ever THINK, before you say something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ChatGPT:
1. U.S. Weapons Production Policy
- Domestic preference laws: The U.S. has longstanding policies like the Buy American Act and Defense Production Act prioritizing U.S. manufacturing for military needs.
- National security rationale: Ensures control over supply chains, reduces dependence on foreign suppliers, and protects sensitive technology.
- Major systems: Most advanced weapons (nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, stealth fighters) are entirely U.S.-built.
2. Allied Weapons Programs
- Export and joint programs: Allies like the UK, Australia, Japan, and NATO partners often buy U.S. systems (e.g., F‑35 fighter jet), but some parts are made jointly or domestically in partner countries.
- Offsets and licensing: Allies sometimes manufacture components locally under U.S. licenses (e.g., Israeli or Japanese modifications).
3. Exceptions and Foreign Inputs
- Certain subsystems or raw materials (e.g., rare earth elements, semiconductors) are sourced internationally.
- Some allies sell weapons to the U.S. (e.g., Sweden’s Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle) if they meet standards.
4. Military-Industrial Complex Influence
- The term refers to close ties between the Pentagon, defense contractors, and lawmakers, leading to:
- Lobbying for domestic production to protect U.S. jobs and congressional districts.
- Pressure on allies to buy U.S.-made systems for interoperability (e.g., NATO standardization).
Bottom Line:
- The U.S. strongly prefers and incentivizes domestic weapons production and export of U.S. systems to allies.
- But it does not absolutely forbid foreign-made weapons — though sensitive tech (e.g., stealth, nuclear) is tightly controlled.
- Many allied militaries use a mix of U.S. weapons and domestically developed systems.
It has been occurring for thousands of years, possibly since the Sun formed about
4.6 billion years ago. There is direct evidence for that existing the last few centuries
and indirect evidence going back millennia.
Scientists have been tracking and counting solar cycles accurately since 1749.
Solar cycle 1 began in 1755. Solar Cycle 25 (current cycle) began in December 2019,
with solar maximum officially reached around October 2024. Activity is expected to decline as we move toward the next solar minimum in the late 2020s. (11 x 25 = 275 years)
That's 25 accurately documented solar maximums, where all life on earth didn't end.
only registered users can see external links
Can you learn the difference between science and click bait?
Have you seen any real scientists warning about this?
Maybe some that warned to more closely monitor the power grid, to reduce damage.
No serious scientists predicted life on earth ending from the solar cycle, in 2025.
It's still possible that the sun will ever burb out a solar flare that ends all life, but life has persisted for about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years. The most powerful recorded solar flare is the Carrington Event of 1859, a massive solar storm that disrupted telegraphs and caused auroras worldwide. Even that event, far smaller than an extinction‑level event would need to be, did not cause biological harm on a global scale.
Earth’s cosmogenic isotope records (carbon‑14, beryllium‑10) show large solar particle events, around 774 CE and 993 CE (also called the Miyake events). These are the strongest known solar particle events in the last ~10,000 years, and there is evidence
they had measurable effects on Earth, but no evidence of mass biological harm or extinction‑level damage.
It would be an incredible coincidence if the sun ended all life on earth during our lifetimes. If all life on earth were to be wiped out in the coming 40 years, it would at least 99.99999% certain be human made.
only registered users can see external links
If you don't believe it, go find the evidence that shows he's wrong.
due to ananas's link, when 1 of these comes up used, um, 7k off? would be handy for sure.and easy to work on. so glad that concept is finally coming back to American thinking.
With many cities in Europe putting in emission zones, small start up companies
might be interested in something cheap to transport stuff around in those emission zones, since the big brand vans are still too expensive.
It's clear that your billionaires are worrying to completely miss the trend, but it will be
a tough competition against China.
If you keep putting up tariffs, Europe will do the same, and Amazon has no chance
to sell these electric trucks to Europe.
U.S. Port Collapse: 50,000 Containers COLLAPSE –
America’s Supply Chain Is BREAKING
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
at 20 years old, she needs to be either looking for a education or getting a job or getting married so someone can keep her up.
but no, she is out breaking the law.and aint learning her lessons from the punishment either. next time i hope she gets the 6 months in jail. maybe she will start her college course s in there or something productive
They are getting arrested almost every time.
She's doing exactly what she professed to believe in.
If she had quit her cause, you would call her a sell-out.
Instead she shows that she's committed, which you don't like.
On 9 June 2023, Thunberg graduated from high school. In 2023, the University of British Columbia awarded her an honorary Doctor of Laws degree, and the University of Helsinki conferred upon her an honorary Doctorate of Theology.
She is currently enrolled at Stockholm University, pursuing a bachelor's degree in Global Development.
She is doing exactly one of your options; continue her education.
And she didn't pick a subject that would discredit her convictions.
She obviously wants to be a global protest leader for climate action.
A few arrests during protests on her rйsumй is not a problem for that career.
Since when is the effort to save humanity not "something productive"?
22% of Americans are doing jobs that they self describe as meaningless.
Go talk to them.
only registered users can see external links
Some people care about other things than money.
There is no future in supporting that society.
She can be a little cog in the grinding machine, or she can try to make a difference.
I think she's making a courageous choice.
True, she might be sacrificing her own prosperity, in the goal of preventing
climate catastrophe, and great suffering for many people.
What is the definition of courage, in your opinion?
Isn't it something like; sacrificing, and doing something hard, for a good cause?
why not work a good paying job creating alternative energy sources or similar? be prosperous and contribute towards your goals?
I worry more about America, out of control of anyone.
There are people protesting the actions of China and America too,
but it isn't such a clear problem, with such clear solutions, which clearly isn't addressed enough.
It's nowhere near an "obvious lost cause", it's JUST a political choice.
One individual cannot nearly achieve anything important on her goals, by just working a good paying job creating alternative energy. It's very much debatable
if joining Extinction Rebellion does ANYTHING AT ALL, but she's pretty famous
and is inspiring people. She's also angering lots of people, so I don't know if she's
a net positive, but she's aspiring to be better than just a angry teen. I think she understands that. That's obviously why she's pursuing the bachelor's degree in Global Development. She already has fame, if she combines it with actual skills,
she might very well be that net positive.
Some people are born to lead, others are born to follow. She wants to lead.
Why don't you ask your "leaders" why they do what they do?
Is it maybe because you understand that they're only serving themselves?
less than 7 years and done. millions wasted by citys all over the US
only registered users can see external links
PLEASE note, the bankruptcy was filed in 2023. 3 years after Trump, 1 year before Trump so whos fault>?, not Trumps
No one ever denied that. It's not an economical choice, it's a sustainable choice.
chances are they are also very complicated to work on.
electric vehicles used to be very simple but now they add computers where none are needed
The only reason for why these busses are expensive and less reliable are the batteries.
Trams and trains are extremely reliable electric vehicles.
Electric busses with batteries will become more reliable too.
That requires investments and testing, which is why I support projects like that.
That might be more expensive and problematic at first, but it will be solved.
If you see what's needed to make an electric lawnmower, than I agree
that they are more complicated. To me, that's just problems to be solved.
Gas powered cars broke down all the time too, early in their development.
EV's are still early in their development, so it is to be expected of them.
That's no reason to not do that. Humanity needs to get of fossil fuels ASAP.
Do you know the YouTube channel "Aging Wheels"?
The presenter (Robert Dunn) is very entertaining.
He is who I am referring to for electric lawnmowers being complicated.
"This Electric Mower is Great! Until it Isn't..."
only registered users can see external links
"Spent $1500 to Fix Ryobi's Mistake"
only registered users can see external links
"This was Bugging Me So I Fixed It"
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 7 minutes
Liver transplants weren't always successful, but advancements in medicine have significantly improved outcomes over time. While the initial success of liver transplants was limited, advancements in surgical techniques, immunosuppressant drugs, and patient care have dramatically increased the survival rate and quality of life for transplant recipients.
Now, they practically warranty that the patient will live at least 5 yrs and many live a full life.
The moral is don’t give up. The end results are what matters.
BTW, why are you so against replacing internal combustion engines?
let the person who earns their wages buy what they wish with their money. and a city or state or government should be good stewards of the money they take from the people. it should be invested in what is reliable ,long lasting and quality built. not someone's science experiment.
the ford 300 inline 6 engine will easily go 400,000 miles with some Maintenace. that's why ups ran them for decades. why is it the governments have to invest in junk?
your lithium mining employees children and pollutes the ground water and is difficult to recycle.kinda like that nuclear waste you are so fond of.
only registered users can see external links
why should i want to glow in the dark so you can put coal miners out of a job?
As far as you wanting to drive a polluting hunk of iron, there's nothing I can do about it. Nor do I like anything that endangers mankind.
Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste
A major environmental concern related to nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. These materials can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years.
Fossil fuels have significant negative environmental impacts, including contributing to climate change, air and water pollution, and resource depletion. Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, leading to global warming and extreme weather events. They also cause air pollution with harmful pollutants like particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, impacting public health. Extraction and transportation can damage ecosystems, contaminate water, and disrupt habitats.
The environmental impacts of human sexual activity are multifaceted, ranging from waste generated by contraceptives and sexual health products
1. Waste Generation:
Contraceptives, including condoms, and other sexual health products like lubricants, generate packaging waste that ends up in landfills.
Longer-term contraceptive options like IUDs and implants can have less waste, but still come with their own risks and potential for environmental impact.
so uh, it may be best for you to stp having sex and walk everywhere you go if you don't want to endanger mankind.
into a negative for humanity.
If I thought that nuclear power would have enough benefits towards the survival of humanity, I would take the downsides of the nuclear waste for granted, but I think it's not the smartest direction to take. It's not renewable, it's also a fossil fuel, it's very expensive and dangerous, and most importantly, it doesn't combine with the irregular supply of solar and wind well. I prefer to invest money wisely, and investing in nuclear energy is not. It will only make the energy transition more expensive, slower and cause more downsides.
The argument that ..... is ending up in landfills is never a good one.
The basis for everything should be recycling. If they are making stuff that isn't recycled properly, then that should be priority one. Circularity is part of sustainability.
The number one issue with fossil fuels is that it's not recycled at all; we use it and then it's gone. The only thing we are doing is trying to find new sources that are not gone yet, which is increasingly more difficult.
I think CAT is at a stage when contraceptives are not needed anymore.
I didn't think I also needed to give you sexual education, phart.
protection is not just to prevent babies in modern times. it also prevents those things that ajax and sandpaper won't remove.
as for energy, i would rather see time and money spent on geothermal. nothing to recycle. Recycling cost alot of money and creates pollution during material transport and reforming.
just 55 degree air that can assist in heating or cooling of anything from rooms on up.
How can that ever be better than extracting the useful resources out of waste
and re-using it? All useful resources would just be depleted very soon.
In most cases, recycling costs much less energy and creates much less pollution than making the materials from scratch.
In The Netherlands we are recycling glass since 1972. Organized recycling of paper started around 1916, but in the 70s the national system was introduced. Cans were removed from waste starting in the 80s. In the 90s aluminum recycling was improved and currently about 75% of all aluminum is extracted from our waste.
rebuild a engine or electric motor instead of grinding and melting and repouring metal.
geoengineering
is this even ethical?
It's solving a problem by reducing the symptoms,
instead of eliminating the root cause.
Ethical? What do you think we have done to the world?
What makes meddling with nature ethical or not?
We meddled with nature to get to this point,
so when is ethics at risk if we try to reverse it?
Geoengineering isn't unethical in my opinion, it's just a waste of resources
to focus on symptom control. It's only a delay, which requires more resources,
to eventually fix the root cause. It's not "bad", it's just not smart.
instead of curing cancer, we treat it,
Still, your health care system is causing too many people to die of cancer, who could be saved. Most of them die because they don't have the money to pay for what they need. Many die of untreatable cancer, because they didn't go to the doctor when their first symptoms were showing, because you don't go to a doctor for mild symptoms in a system like yours where everything is expensive.
If you think that health care providers are treating people, instead of curing people, for a money incentive, that's your own fault for supporting a system with a money incentive.
Returning to climate change. Yes, that's exactly what geoengineering is: treating symptoms, instead of curing the cause. The cause is our dependence on fossil fuels
and YOUR reluctance to cure that dependence. Renewable energy is the cure.
Partial remission: The cancer is still there, but it's smaller or less active.
Complete remission: No signs of cancer can be detected.
When a patient enjoys many years of "complete remission", they can be considered "cured".
What you might refer to is that they need regular checkups for the rest of their lives. That's because the cancer itself might be completely gone, but the very likely predisposition for the specific type of cancer is in their DNA for ever. Those people are just one mutation in one cell away, from the cancer re-emerging.
--------------------------------------- added after 12 minutes
While a cancer patient may be considered cured after 5 years or more of complete remission, meaning no signs of cancer are detected, it's not impossible that some cancer cells could still remain in the body. These cells may be dormant, too small to be detected by current testing methods, or have developed a resistance to treatment. The possibility of future recurrence, even years later, is why the term "cured" is often avoided, and doctors instead use terms like "remission" or "no evidence of disease".
Cancer cells aren't normally present in everyone's body, all the time. However, cell mutations that could lead to cancer happen fairly often in our bodies. Cells are constantly dividing, and during this process, DNA mistakes (mutations) can occur.
We all experience mutations and possibly the beginnings of cancer frequently,
but a healthy immune system and good DNA repair usually stop it; when these defenses fail — due to genetics, environment, aging, or random chance —
cancer can develop.
Most of these mutations are harmless or are repaired immediately by the body’s repair systems.
Some mutated cells might start behaving abnormally, but they usually don't reach the point of becoming full cancer unless ADDITIONAL mutations accumulate.
The immune system is constantly monitoring for abnormal cells — this is called immune surveillance.
When an abnormal or precancerous cell is detected, immune cells (like natural killer cells and T-cells) will usually destroy it.
Some mutated cells might temporarily evade detection and survive, but without enough harmful changes (mutations in key genes like tumor suppressors and oncogenes), they typically don't cause serious problems.
There is some evidence that very early cancers can exist "silently" for years and either stay dormant, regress, or eventually progress, depending on complex factors like immune strength, environment, and genetics.
Why do some people get cancer and others don't?
This happens because of a complex interaction of several factors:
- Genetics: Some people inherit mutations (like BRCA mutations) that make cancer much more likely.
- Environment: Exposure to carcinogens (like smoking, radiation, UV light, certain viruses) increases mutation rates.
- Aging: As we age, DNA repair mechanisms become less efficient, and mutations accumulate over time.
- Immune system health: A weaker immune system (due to age, illness, or certain medications) may be less able to catch and destroy abnormal cells.
- Random chance: Even without clear risk factors, random mutations during cell division can sometimes just add up the wrong way.
Of course it's not a cure for everything, it's just absolutely vital to prevent
major climate catastrophe.
It's not even clear if it would be enough to completely transition to renewable energy within the absolutely minimum possible time-frame, starting today. It's possible that humanity has already condemned itself, by acting too slowly.
It's like waiting a year before you start the chemotherapy.
It could be too late, no matter how aggressive you attack the cancer.
um, a rich man that liberals hate backed this company. let's see how it works out.
20,000 after tax breaks, might be feasible for the average suburban dweller
So the earth is farting and killing it's self
Methane emissions are called one of the "climate tipping points".
It's a temperature increase to a certain level, that results in a release of stored carbon dioxide or methane, or resulting in a process that releases carbon dioxide or methane into the atmosphere, resulting in more climate change, without direct emissions from humanity.
One example is wild-fires. Climate change increases the odds of drought in many parts
of the world. Drought often results in wild-fires, releasing massive amounts of stored CO2 into the atmosphere, resulting in more climate change, increasing the odds of drought, increasing the risk of wild-fires, etc..
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
It turns out the chance of that is 0.0017%. It will get lower, with more accuracy.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I guess you forgot, because you were distracted by the next fear inducing story.
That's the media distracting you from real problems, with outrage and panic 24/7.
Scientists were not panicking, the media was. Their intent is to lower your confidence
in science, for when scientists are actually sounding the alarms, ..... which they are!
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Where's it going to land no one knows!
It just requires more science to determine the actual size and the the actual risk.
It's 7 years away. That's more than enough time to plan a mission to change the trajectory, if that's needed. They will know more certain if it's needed, in a few years time.
A risk of hitting Earth of 2.3% is still very low. Then there's still a 70% chance it hits water. This rock is pretty big, but not so big that it will cause very destructive tsunamis. It can also just hit a desert or a forest. Unless it hits a populated area, the damage is manageable. They could calculate what would cost more, the mission to change the trajectory or the maximum damage it can possibly cause. What would it cost to rebuild, if it, by a ridiculously small chance, hits Monaco, Hong Kong, Singapore, London, Amsterdam or New York. That would only be material damage, because they can calculate exactly where it hits, enough time upfront to evacuate the area.
Of course the value of the destruction of a highly developed areas isn't just financial. People losing their homes, even when they are rebuild, is a human disaster. There would always be irreplaceable losses. Humanity should never choose to let a meteorite hit, if they chance of it hitting is very high, just to save some money. If the chance goes up, humanity should come together to fund the mission to prevent it.
Then there is a third consideration; this asteroid is still small enough to consider the damage of the impact acceptable. But, at any time in the future could we discover an asteroid that would cause massive or global devastation. Then humanity has no choice but to prevent collision with Earth. The experience from deflecting this smaller rock from hitting could be vital for the future.
By the way, this has almost no relation with climate change, other than that
it's a big problem that science could prevent.
The one you were talking about would have an impact of about 15 megatons of TNT.
A difference by a factor of 5 million smaller.
Not fun to have it land on your head, but not a planet-killer either.
If it's one with an iron core, you can forget about that.
It would require landing on it and drilling into it.
It's way more reliable to just nudge it into anther trajectory.
only registered users can see external links
(and mass, if it has the same density as Earth).
Additionally, that will nudge the Earth out of it's stable orbit around the Sun,
probably on a collision course with Mars or Venus. Or if we don't hit any other planets, either move the Earth away from the Sun altogether or burn up in the Sun.
If you want to push the Earth North or South, we might move outside the ecliptic plane around the Sun, possibly into the orbits of lots of comets. It would also make Elon Musk unhappy, because it would make it more difficult to reach Mars.
Even if you expected to break again after we avoided that space rock, the energy needed to do even a fraction of what you proposed would be way more than all the energy stored in all the reserves on Earth and even all carbon stored in life on Earth. It would be more lethal to life than the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs.
And how do you want to do it? Fly a rocket with a tow rope into space and pull
the Earth away? If you are doing it in atmosphere, you're pushing against the air,
which is also in orbit around the Sun. It's like pushing a truck, with a propeller,
from the inside of the container.
I hope you were joking.
if you watch the movie,they build rocket engines in antartica and tap into the natural gas and oil to burn to move the earth a bit, we loose the moon, but we are saved from the space rock. it's mostly meant to be a joke that i mentioned it.
We might need to directly tap into the energy of the sun, with a Dyson Sphere,
to even have the energy to move Earth any significant distance. It has a mass of 1.31664252Ч10^25 pounds. When we could do that, we would be able to move asteroids of that size like ping-pong balls. We are talking about 2032, not 3032.
Seeing how you lot are running things, you can forget about those scifi ideas, because you need humanity to still be around for that and organized as a big global civilization. A hand-full survivors on Greenland are not going to cut it.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Scientists understood "the greenhouse effect" very well 40 years ago.
when that didn't pan out it became global warming, now it is climate change, so rather or not if it is snowing or scorching outside your door they are covered in their little charade.
And it wasn't about CO2, but about aerosol air pollution, which is actually causing an about 0.7° F (0.4 °C) lower global average temperature, than otherwise would be.
That effect is just completely obliterated by the global warming from the CO2.
Climate change IS global warming, but with the secondary effects included, which are much more than just warming. It's a term for people who don't understand why a few degrees higher GLOBAL AVERAGE temperature would matter.
You still have never explained the record high CO2 concentration.
A higher CO2 concentration will increase the temperature of a planet, that's just physics.
Without greenhouse gasses, Earth would have an average surface temperature of 0°F.
Humanity would be fucked without CO2 and with too much CO2.
That's nature; it requires a careful balance or it goes astray.
--------------------------------------- added after 14 hours
Aerosol particles also shape the climate as they circulate in the atmosphere. Some of these particles can reflect sunlight, helping to cool the atmosphere. Other aerosol particles absorb heat from sunlight, causing the atmosphere to warm.
Aerosol particles affect the Earth's climate by acting as the seeds on which clouds form. Clouds reflect sunlight, helping to cool the atmosphere. More aerosol particles can lead to more, but smaller, cloud droplets. This may reduce the rain that falls from that cloud.
All of these effects make climate change more difficult to predict accurately, but that doesn't retract from the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared light, which results in heat being trapped in the atmosphere instead of it being emitted back into space.
“ I see more people sitting at home, cranking up the air conditioners. no one seems to be able to stand 1 degree of discomfort anymore, this is what I see... all these protesters gluing them selves to the street don't really get the message across, only that theyre a bunch of disruptive uni students trying to get their faces on the tele... the world on a whole is so wasteful when using its finite resources and not a great deal is invested in making things from recycled materials to stop waste..
every generation blames the one before and no one wants to pick up the tab of cleaning it up and stopping it from happening.. crikey, grown educated humans still cant sort waste from recyclables in bins ... yet they can claim fame to being the most intelligent generation of all time??? how is this so??? *Lix*‘
I agree, but what do you think it would take, to make our politicians listen to them?
I carry my own garbage to the dump because the 3 different trucks that come by operated by the same company won't take a occasional tire or a few pieces of wood or whatever but 1 day a year. 3 truck come by,1 company has the contract, a monopoly, charge way to much and won't take everything you need to chunk. plastic bottles in 1 can, paper in can, and other in the other can. 3 trucks .and if you follow them to the dump, 2 go into the landfill as it is cheaper to just bury the shit that recycle it. tax money only goes so far in cost .and when county officials can vote themselves raises, no money left to melt the plastic.
Now,with that 1 problem of plastic bottles, a simple affordable idea is to reuse containers made of GLASS that returned to the store and credited to your bill. No extra fuel to haul them, no melting the shit and remaking a object, just a simple haul it back to where it came from,wash it,refill it. a empty truck goes back to the dairy or the drink company, it could haul the emptys back.
Oh, I am sorry, we used that idea for decades and some dumbass thought it was easier to melt plastic and stink up the air!
that's a example of why people like me don't pay folks that glue themselves to the street any attention. Alot of good ideas have been pushed aside by their kind and replaced with "recycle" instead of reuse,rebuild,refurbish,
Computers work fine long after the "software" is out of date, that should stop. imagine having to build new cars and buses every 10 years because the roads suddenly are no longer maintained and supported? stupid.
Affordable is relative. If the alternative is death, any price is affordable.
That's also a reference to your healthcare costs, which are the highest in the world, because you leave it up to the market to decide how much profit you can make on desperate people.
I also think a lot of people get further away from listening to a message, if it's given by people who annoy people who just want to get to work. That's why I would not join such actions. My party does political activism a lot, but we always make sure to bother the people who create the problem and not the rest of the public. It's politicians who are not doing anything, so it's politicians who should be bothered every single day, until they start listening.
Think of this; if they really think inaction is going to kill everyone, than why are they still doing nonviolent protesting? You can say about MAGA whatever you want, but they are not afraid of using violence. "You won't have a country anymore!" is enough persuasion to get them up in arms. It wasn't even true, but they scared the pants off
all politicians. Luigi Maggioni alone showed insurance CEO's that people are fed up.
Did Extinction Rebellion learn something from that? Just saying. Your side is not the only side who has 2nd amendment rights. Is your side really willing to step in front of
a bullet, to defend Exxon mobile and Shell executives or oil lobbyists?
As for wealthy oil execs and such, they can afford security. And should have the right to protect themselves.
This is where Extinction Rebellion is effective, and why they do it this way,
but I don't think their attention is motivating people to listen.
The best non-violent activism is what gets people to laugh or like you.
Then of course you need to follow it up with a clear message.
But you should see the reactions that Maggioni has encouraged. Most people acknowledge what he did was wrong, but a large majority shows hate towards the insurance industry and the people leading it to screw people over for profit.
Just today I saw someone calling him The Punisher on Facebook. And don't think those are just lefties and they are certainly not liberals. I think most of them voted
for Trump in this election. I'm sure you are meeting people who are even openly supportive of Maggioni or the idea of killing some of those robber barons.
People are angry, they just don't understand who they need to be angry with.
Of course execs have the right to protect themselves. But if they think they are safe, if the pitchforks are coming, they are kidding themselves. The fact that people are even considering a type like Trump shows that. They think he will destroy the system, but once they recognize he is also just a robber baron and his administration is filled with robber barons, who are just looking out for themselves, watch out, because the fuse is lit and that powder keg will explode. Most people want a better life for themselves and their children, they don't want to be serfs to a king, like you think they want. You know the biggest issue that people were saying made them vote for Trump, was inflation and the ability afford groceries. Even you said so. If Trump ends up screwing them, and makes them suffer even more, and it's looking like he will, people will turn on him, like you've never seen. See that anger flip the other way.
Trump is playing with fire. It can burn down the country and it can burn him.
If people haven't heard about climate change by now, they are deaf,dead or under a very heavy rock.
only registered users can see external links
Tossed out of court. New york was just looking to gouge the big oil companys out of some money
It's true that those oil companies are paying for the propaganda that you gobble up like candy though. Forcing them to pay for some of the damage they are doing wouldn't be that bad. If you still don't accept climate change, at least accept that Texans are breathing toxic air and many people cannot drink the tap water because it's pure poison. You need to suffer a lot for that oil and gas, while the alternatives are so much less polluting and cheaper.
And the water in mexico has been bad for decades, so it is not wonder the water in texas is bad because there is just a invisible line between the 2 spots.
Their water is still poisonous. In some American cities, the tap water was even flammable. only registered users can see external links
"Numerous studies link childhood lead exposure to a range of cognitive and behavioral deficits, including low IQ, impulsivity, juvenile delinquency, and criminal behavior in adolescence and early adulthood."
only registered users can see external links
The price of PV is now 29% lower than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative.
You don't have that cheapest fossil fuel alternative; you need fracking.
Michigan has a law requiring the replacement of lead service lines in homes across the state. This law was passed in 2018 in response to the Flint Water Crisis, a public health crisis that contaminated drinking water with lead.
but it was the fracking that turned the water acidic, devolving the lead.
Oh, by the way, that's a clear example of failing Republican policies.
Pollution from fracking and failing to replace lead pipes are not forces of nature.
Wildfires, because of a drought, in the middle of winter, with 100 mph storms,
are not failing policies. They 'raked the forests' like crazy, but nature cannot
be tamed, especially not with climate change making it more extreme.
California under Newsom invested $2.5 billion to ramp up and implement the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan. At some point forest management and crisis readiness is not going to cut it anymore. You will need corridors of 10 miles between every patch of trees and they will still all burn downs spontaneously. The only way to prevent wildfires would be to cut down all the forests.
Everything is possible in relation to the start of those wildfires, but a fact is that California was BONE DRY this year, while last year they even had floods.
That's nature, if you accept climate change or not. There is no amount of forest management, that can prevent forest fires, when it's bone dry. There is no fire fighting force that can stop wildfires all over the place, during droughts combined with 100 mph storms.
Next time some red states get leveled by a record hurricane, do you want me to say "Fuck them, they should have built stronger houses!"?
When Florida was in trouble they all came to help. You were crying that they weren't doing enough, which was a lie too. Now you are lying to find a reason
to do nothing for California.
So... You can't build houses in Florida no more?
How about Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. Those are all states that can get leveled by a hurricane.
Maybe even next summer.
If people cannot rely on the government anymore, when a huge 'natural' disaster destroys their homes, they all want to move to places with less risk of 'natural' disasters. What do you think will happen to those states, if there is a mass exodus? And what would happen to those safer states, where all those people want to live? Think of what it would mean to your country.
only registered users can see external links
10 times, hell, they never have to paint or update their plumbing or anything, when it gets old it gets washed away and the gov comes back and makes it new, in the same damn spot???
Even the Bible speaks of not building your castles in the sand but here it shows how folks can get permits to rebuild right back on the OCEAN FRONT. WHY??Just WHY would you invest your life savings into a house that will fall like a deck of cards to water and wind in the sand?'
only registered users can see external links
The current fires in california, they really need to look at their landscape,the chance of more wind, and rebuild accordingly if at all in the same spot. wouldn't you think it would be wiser to move to a area with adequate water and build a house to withstand fires and earthquakes ?
And you can build houses in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi, as long as they're hurricane proof and flood-proof.
That's all getting very expensive. And that's just the houses and other buildings. That ancient power grid of yours is very vulnerable to wildfires
and hurricanes too. Who's going to pay for that?
When I told you about renewable energy, to reduce carbon emissions,
to keep climate change from getting worse and worse and worse,
you worried about the costs. I told you not doing it would become
more expensive. Is that already sinking in a bit?
By that time, some middle easterner that woke up with his goat missing and will blast a bunch of nukes or something for revenge against the thief and climate change won't matter any more. besides, the materials to build a more fire proof house, are not that much more exspensive, concrete walls instead of wood, steel roof instead of shingles, steel beams driven into the ground for support instead of concrete footings. wouldn't really be that much of a transition.
I'm moving up North!".
"Reducing carbon emissions is not going to reduce the amount of storms
we have or anything else more than likely, and if it did,it would be years!" Probably decades or longer, depending on how much we reduce carbon emission. At the moment, the world is still INCREASING carbon emissions. That WILL increase storms and everything else.
True, if we nuke ourselves to extinction, climate change won't matter any more. There are many more ways for humanity to destroy itself. It's also possible aliens blow up Earth tomorrow. That's no reason to guarantee our extinction, just because oil companies want to keep making profits. Billionaires can make profits from renewable energy too, if you're more worried about them than humanity itself.
check back again next week ,perhaps we will have some more educational content!
So to what stage of climate denialism will you go in your inevitable reaction?
Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists
Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause
Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem
Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It
Stage 5: It's too Late
only registered users can see external links
You think a cow farts less than a human, even a vegan eating nothing but beans?
A single cow produces between 154 to 264 pounds of methane gas per year.
I don't want to be around the person who beats that.
The feed to meat ratio for cows is between 8-12 pound per pound (or kg/kg).
That means a person needs to fart 8 to 12 times more per pound (or kg) of
plant-based food, than a cow does, to make up for the vegetarian who farts
more than a meat-eater. You're funny, but your math sucks.
There are 1.55 billion cows in the world. You can be sure that they fart a lot more than the 8.2 billion people alive today, even if we all switch to nothing but beans.
Methane is 28 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The current CO2 concentration is 423.30 ppm (parts per million).
The current CH4 concentration is 1932.24 ppb (parts per billion).
That's 1.93224 ppm (factor 1:1000).
That makes CO2 a bigger contributor to climate change, because there is 219 times less CH4 than CO2 in the atmosphere. Even though CH4 is 28 times more potent,
it contributes 7.8 times ( 219/28 ) LESS to global warming.
Scientists have replaced the term "global warming" with the term "climate change", because of all the side effects of higher temperatures, like more extreme weather events (storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, showers, hailstorms, lightning strikes, droughts, heat-waves and even more extreme local cold spells), causing secondary effects like floods, mudslides, wildfires, melting of snow and ice on the oceans and land and rising sea levels (expanding water and melting land ice), dried up rivers
and lakes, desalination of the oceans -> reducing the thermohaline circulation.
"Yes, human-produced methane is significantly harming the climate, as methane is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes considerably to global warming. Therefore reducing human-produced methane is crucial for mitigating climate change. "
So stop farting!NOW.
Those cows are not wild animals, they are our food.
Methane is indeed a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The CH4 molecule (methane) has more bonds between atoms than CO2 molecule (carbon dioxide), and that means it can twist and vibrate in more ways, while absorbing infrared light, on its way in and out of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Absorbing infrared light -> increasing temperature. It's just plain physics.
In any case; yes every fart you let go is increasing climate change a bit.
The problem is that there's 8.2 billion people farting.
Farting is just not at all the biggest contributor to climate change.
It's the burning of fossil fuels that's the issue, and increasingly; wildfires.
"According to Cathy Whitlock at Montana State University, it "offers us a window into past conditions at high elevations since you won't see Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) growing at this elevation today - that's because the climate was warmer back when these trees grew".
Uh warmer 6000 years ago than it is NOW??? Um, OH, further down it explains VOLCANOS spewed stuff into the air preventing the sun from coming in and cooled off the earth! So i guess climate change activist will be seeding volcanos to make them erupt to cool down the earth next??
at about +0.6°C and slowly decreased to the +0.0°C around 2000 years ago.
That was at least 5000 years for that snow and ice to come back.
We have now seen an increase of the global average temperature between 1.5°C
and 2.0°C IN 50 YEARS!! That's a higher increase, in 1:100 of the time.
The last ice age was at it's lowest temperature -7°C (relative to pre-industrial global average, which is actually 13.7°C (56.7°F) -> 6.7°C (44.1°F)), 17,600 years ago.
At that time, it snowed in the SUMMER, in as far south as Dallas or Chicago.
only registered users can see external links
Average global temperatures in 2024 ranked highest in the 145-year record,
1.54°C (2.77°F) above the early industrial (1881-1910) baseline average.
The reason: The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane continued to increase and reached record annual levels in 2024, at 422 parts per million (ppm) and 1897 parts per billion (ppb) respectively. The last time Earth's CO2 levels have been so high was roughly 3 million years ago. They have beaten the levels of the intermediate warm periods between the last 5 ice ages, in the last 450,000 years.
NOAA is giving a 4% chance that 2025 will surpass 2024 as the hottest year on record and a 96% chance that it will be a top-five hottest year.
You would think barry would be trying to unload his property if the shit were true. Thousand years, who gives a shit about that. I think others will come of with better ideas in that time.
Google is NOT a good search engine when you want unbiased facts.
Duckduck go is less biased and will provide more into than you find on google.
our lives are so controlled by al gore rhythm's. The insurance exc that got shot the other day, had put into service a al gore rhythm to deny care to sick people.
Notice i stretched the word algorithm and miss spelled to reinforce my statement? Al gore, he has pushed this climate change crap and now you seldom see any thing of him.
The proof is on my page
As greenhouse gas emissions blanket the Earth, they trap the
sun's heat. This leads to global warming and climate change.
The world is now warming faster than at any point in recorded
history. Warmer temperatures over time are changing weather
patterns and disrupting the usual balance of nature.
only registered users can see external links
Global warming is not about the temperatures at the poles.
It's about the heating of the atmosphere causing melts in
areas where the averages might still be below 0* C (32* F) but
there's a longer time or higher temperature on the plus side of
the mean curve.
This causes glaciers to melt faster and, due to warmer ocean
currents under the ice caps to melt to the point of breaking off.
All that ice in liquid or solid form is what's making the ocean
levels to rise. Not by feet but by inches.
But, all people see and, may I add, in a very short sided way,
is that it the coastline stays fairly the same.
That is not the main immediate problem with global warming.
It's the other effects. As ocean waters become warmer, more
intense are the cyclonic storms. Also, those semi arid areas like the southwestern parts of the United States, are becoming dryer
and in drought.
But, let's get back to the rise in ocean levels.
A two-inch rise in ocean level would likely result in more
frequent and severe coastal flooding, particularly during
high tides, leading to increased erosion of beaches, inundation
of low-lying areas, and potential damage to infrastructure,
especially in vulnerable coastal communities; even a small
rise can significantly impact coastal ecosystems and displace
wildlife due to the increased saltwater intrusion.
This is exactly what's taking place, RIGHT NOW, in Miami Beach
and all the barrier islands from the Key West to Maine and beyond.
I don't have to remind you how severe and frequent hurricanes
have been in the last twenty years.
Yes, Brian_Mansion, if you look at an ice cube in the
freezer it will stay the same, but, you take that ice cube
and place it on a plate inside the refrigerator, where the
temperature is just a few degrees above freezing, and it
will melt in hours.
Freezers don't have climate changes.
Bottom line is this. You don't have to believe in global warming.
It occurs still and, because mankind is accelerating the process
by our release of chemicals into the atmosphere, future generations
will see the changes sooner.
Ancient Greeks believe in the existence of the atom,
but it wasn't until two hundred plus years ago that we
formally recognized what an atom is. Global warming is the same.
You, guys, don't trust Google, but it's not about trust. It's about
fact checking what Google brings to the table. Google is just a search
engine. There are many more. I believe that because search
engines don't agree with your views, views that are based on
personal experience and not in scientific facts, you put down
the search engine instead of your own beliefs.
😈
Fucking 17 degrees outside and you are still pushing global warming.
But, even so, the search engine part is still reliable with a few caviats.
Your comprehension of global warming doesn't make sense. It's not going to give balmy weather in winter. But the average temperature for this time of the year over a few years might go from 17* F to 19* F. It's still f..ing cold. Just not that cold. Those two degrees difference in the average temperature makes a huge difference in the natural order of weather related events.
You are thinking "Right here, right now". It doesn't work like that.
You do notice I get to the point fairly quickly without the word salad.
Reality is actually following the worst case predictions. Every single one of the nine years from 2015 to 2023 are the warmest nine years on record. In November, they already confirmed that 2024 was certain to be the hottest year on record.
We have already passed the +1.5°C global temperature increase that the Paris Agreement of 2015 intended to prevent.
Your stupidity will be the death of us all. The only consolation for me, is that you will suffer and die much sooner than I, because you live in a warmer climate, in a country with the selfish wealthy people in full control, who you will allow to eat you to survive.
You know nothing, you want to know nothing, which means being ignorant.
You are unable to communicate any coherent thought, which means being stupid.
+1.4 degrees in damn near 200 years and their screaming bloody murder.
What a sad state we are currently living through when SO many have virtually ZERO common sense.
That +1.4 degrees is massively increasing the frequency of extreme weather events, like heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, floods and secondary effects like wildfires, because it's an AVERAGE!!!
It's also enough to melt most land ice in the summer and not have it refilled in the winter, which will dry up many rivers and desalinate the oceans. That is already slowing and in the future stopping the thermohaline circulation (global ocean current), which transfers heat from warm areas to cold areas. That's why the warm areas are becoming even hotter, while the cold areas are not warming up or even getting colder.
In global Earth history, a few degrees lower or higher isn't much, but humanity has only been occupying all of the Earth for a few hundred years. 7,000 years ago there were 5 million people. The last Ice age ended 13,000 years ago. When the climate acted up, humanity just moved to a better climate. And we just died, A LOT.
Now humanity has surpassed 8 BILLION! Every piece of land is occupied or used
for farming, to feed the population. If the climate acts up now, there is nowhere to go for BILLIONS OF PEOPLE. The people who used to migrate/flee to other areas then,
are now IMMIGRANTS. Temperature changes that are tiny on a geological scale are devastating to such a huge population. People will fight for food and a place to live. It's already becoming too hot for human survival in many areas. My Pakistani neighbors don't have the luxury to be ignorant about climate change, like you, because they see it clearly, when they visit their family. And that's only half way
to the equator. Billions of people will flee for their lives. It has only just begun.
Nearing 200 years and it's increased by 1.4 degrees.
Which is absolutely true. Good job pointing that out. 👏
Your conveniently leaving out the fact that the temps around the poles are consistently -73 to -68 degrees. Let's deduct that 1.4 increase and guess what moron... ITS STILL WAAAAAY BELOW FREEZING! Gotdamn your stupid! In other words... MELTING! Cannot occur until +33 degrees at minimum. Someone find him his dunce cap, please!
If you don't understand that, you're not qualified to debate it.
During the last ICE AGE, the global yearly average temperature was only 5°C colder than today. The Earth is warmer now than any time in the last 100,000 years.
How about basic personal observation? When I was young, I froze my nuts off every winter. I played in hills of snow, just in our backyard, making walls of ice for snowball fights. I could skate and ride my sleigh, almost every winter. I remember many winters, when there were icicles growing from the gutter and ice flowers on the windows.
In recent winters, I hardly need a winter coat. I've only seen some wet snow, at best,
for years now. How do you explain that, with your "common sense"?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
All you are doing is referring to someone writing a paper with some half-assed speculation, that no serious scientists ever supported. I hope you know there are also many papers describing a flat earth model and a magnetic or static electric universe as an alternative for gravity. Those are loons, not scientists.
However, you support the 0.1% loons, who don't agree with the 99.9% serious scientists, who confirm climate change is real and will cause huge devastation,
just like flat-earthers who point to their papers full of BS, to justify their belief.
The Y2K bug wasn't a hoax, IT-guys just worked hard to fix it.
It wasn't that difficult, just add 2 digits to every date,
starting with the most critical systems.
As someone who has some technical knowledge, I expected you
to understand the issue and the possible implications,
but they told you it was a hoax, so you just parrot that.
No independent thinking whatsoever, even about something you know.
I wouldn't say it's the simplest science, but it isn't quantum physics.
If you just understand the physics behind it, it's undeniable.
"What makes no sense is scientist tell us there was a ice age, and there was only
1 big continent and then it all separated and so on."
Really? These are all theories supported by an incredible amount of evidence, from several fields of science. You're basically at the level of doubting that electricity exists. It isn't far removed from being a flat-earther. You're now dismissing ALL SCIENCE. How do you thing civilization even progressed to the level we have reached today? Did they read the answers in the bible?
IT WAS ALL SCIENCE!!! It's not a few experts who you need to pick sides with,
it's a process of everyone who contributes to it complementing and checking each other, with facts and logic. The tiny side that you want to believe is completely refuted, by all the others who have checked them and refute their arguments,
with facts and logic. You keep using arguments that have been completely refuted (myth busted) decades ago.
Taxing you to oblivion is just stupid propaganda. That's what the wealthy tell you, because they don't want to pay a cent to save humanity. They rather spend trillions of your tax dollars to escape to Mars. That's why Elon bought Trump.
If Putin starts nuclear war, it's all over. Do you want to make sure
humanity is decimated or ended, even if Putin doesn't do that?
What do we do, give Putin everything he wants, because he has nukes?
Do you think Putin's demands will stop after we give him Ukraine?
Will he stop, after we showed him that we are all cowering for his power?
It's called the "Peak of Mount Stupid".
Strange how someone who works in an air-conditioned office cares more
about workers dying from heat stroke than those workers themselves.
It has been like that for hundreds of years.
You lot fuck up the world, and then people with brains
have to fix your damage again.
Well, maybe this time you win, and we cannot fix it anymore.
Apparently those with brains are just practicing.
Your air conditioner is doing alot of harm to the environment because of it's freon and energy usage. plus it is making a pussy out of you physically. So do you really have the "brains" in this scenario?
When are you going to understand that those people only care about themselves?
They want you to believe we cannot organize humanity, without all serving THEM!
1) Why would the "rich folks stop providing jobs"?
Their wealth is dependent on people working for them.
You think they are so smart, but it's all the people working for them who actually CREATE the value, not those 'rich folks'. They just TAKE the value.
2) We can replace the money from those 'rich folks I hate', with PUBLIC money that is DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED. Instead of working on things that further increase the wealth of those 'rich folks I hate', we can all work on what benefits US ALL. That 'life saving technology' is not saving enough lives, because it's also mostly serving to further increase the wealth of those 'rich folks I hate'.
I KNOW poor people can't afford my salary and benefits. But we can afford
MUCH MORE THAN THEM, if we all work TOGETHER. If that money is not controlled by a few selfish assholes, but by EVERYONE DEMOCRATICALLY.
Sadly, you won't even give this a second thought, because those selfish assholes paid for your media to indoctrinate you, from birth, 24/7.
Democratic control is the difference between a big government controlling
its people and people controlling their government.
Who owns and controls "everything industrial" in your country?
What do YOU PERSONALLY own and control?
only registered users can see external links
Why do you want to die of pollution so badly?
But why do you hate public investments so much?
The Scandinavian countries have become incredibly rich from their public investments in fossil fuel investments the last many decades and now they are reinvesting that public capital in renewable energy. They not only have the highest percentages in renewable energy, it has created a social security capital of incredible value for their citizens, their national debt is very low, and they're becoming energy exporters, with the Swedish national energy company Vattenfall making big profits selling their great value electricity on the privatized markets of the other European countries.
Private investments make money for billionaires, public investments make money
for the citizens. It's easy to understand. It's COMMON SENSE!!!
You are describing PRIVATE investments.
The military, fire department and police are publicly funded.
Corporations, companies and mom and pop shops are privately funded.
Do you think Sweden's renewable energy is funded by; 1 person investing a million, another investing $450 and a third investing $10?
Or are you a million years old, and it's personal observation?
Now the owners of all these homes with government paid for insolation, can't sell them because the banks won't lend money on them. Government approved work, warrantied work , but still ,won't loan money on the house. so the folks are having to try scrap the shit back out of their attics themselves or face a huge labor bill to do it.
There are many ways to insulate a house, that do not have this problem.
Spray foam insulation has it's uses, but it's dumb to use it everywhere.
That's not the fault of "do gooder government programs", that's the fault of stupid people using cheap crap or bad building companies selling people cheap crap.
Maybe these people were warned against it, did it anyway, and are now crying foul.
A friend discussed having his cavity walls filled with spray foam insulation. I advised against it, unless he found a company with a very good track record, and he wasn't going to skimp on the price. Some bad companies have been poisoning people with cheap foam and some houses have been damaged by the walls getting dislocated from the foam expanding too strongly. I've advised him to insulate his floors and roof instead,
but I would never advise anyone to use spray foam for that.
His house also has the worst double glazing that was ever sold and his windows and balcony door don't close properly. My brother will fix those problems for a tight budget,
as soon as he has time available. Improving a house with insulation requires a brain.
If you just have some company spray foam everything, you might ruin your house.
Just because some people were dumb, doesn't mean insulating houses is a bad idea
or the government is bad for incentivizing it. Don't abuse some anecdote to forward
your propaganda. Insulation reduces energy costs and increases the value of a house.
But, like with everything else, if you are doing it wrong, you will mess it up.
I know it exists, but I have heard of no one who used spray foam insulation for their floor or roof in my country. Maybe Americans are more cheap and lazy than Dutch people.
If that is your claim, you need to show the evidence for that.
Did your government pay for it completely? Total reimbursement?
Or was it a subsidy or a tax deductible?
Why? To incentivize insulating homes, of course.
We have the same system. We can get subsidies or tax deductibles for solar panels, double glazing and home insulation. It helps people reduce their carbon emissions, reduce costs and increase their quality of living.
They don't of course intentionally spend money to damage people's houses.
If you think that, right-wing propaganda messed-up your brain.
Either someone in the government fucked up or companies are taking money from the government, try to make the most money from it and don't care that it hurts people.
Government officials often make bad decisions, because they don't know shit and never listen to anyone who does know. This is exactly the type of officials Trump wants to fill the government with. They will all be stupid as fuck, because Trump only cares that they are loyal to him, so better get used to it becoming much worse.
The Green Homes Grant scheme, which ran in England, saw installations completely subsidised for those on certain benefits.
I think this means the UK government paid for this to be done to 250,000 houses!
It looks like a lot of people got money from the government to insulate their houses.
I guess that very much angers you. You seem to think only wealthy people should
get money from the government.
only registered users can see external links
The following insulation measures were covered by the voucher:
solid wall insulation (internal or external)
cavity wall insulation
under-floor insulation (solid floor, suspended floor)
loft insulation
flat roof insulation
pitched roof insulation
room in roof insulation
insulating a park home
I see no obligation to use spray foam insulation. However, cavity wall insulation,
that's usually some kind of foam insulation, because there is no other way to insulate a hollow space trough a small hole.
In any case, I watch a lot of home makeover TV shows. On the American and Canadian shows, like Love It or List It, Fixer Upper and Celebrity IOU, I've seen them use spray foam insulation several times. I've NEVER seen it on Dutch home makeover TV shows. I can also not remember it ever being used in my favorite British home makeover TV show; DIY SOS.
Trump is going to destroy The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
That's an agency which has the sole purpose of protecting consumers from...
"fraud type things".
How do you protect people from getting defrauded by businesses like that?
REGULATION! And things like quality marks. And giving people access to the
court system and equal justice, instead of corrupt judges who are put in by Trump, to favor big business. And laws that make it illegal to scam people, which would e.g. send Vivek Ramasmarmy to jail, for scamming investors.
Trump will give businesses full rein to scam you, steal from you and destroy your property, if they can make money doing it.
1 of these big universities that had safe spaces for the students after Trump won the election, that the very folks that would allow themselves to be indoctrinated into driving electric cars, is now saying don't charge them at night.
Like when the hell do you charge it if not during off peak hours from industrial demand????
only registered users can see external links
So now we are going to have "water nuts" trying to put water back in the ground to retilt the earth? Or do we just tax water? that's it,a tax will fix it, fixes everything else right?
What you should care about is completely using up all the ground water, because then you cannot use it anymore. A lot of American agriculture is depended on that ground water, and when it's gone, that agriculture becomes impossible or economically not-viable. In any case, the prices for groceries you pay now will be dirt cheap in comparison.
Chicken little was alive and well way back when!
only registered users can see external links
Aoc said we had 12 years in 2019 so um.
AOC said we have 12 years to DO something, NOT 12 years to LIVE, dumb-ass.
We had 12 years to reduce the carbon emissions by a lot, because at some point,
which was then estimated to be around 12 years from then, chain reactions make it
very difficult and much more expensive to stop climate change.
When forests turn into deserts, because areas are getting too hot for trees, or they
get destroyed by wildfires, that's a chain reaction. It doesn't mean we all die right then,
it just means the worst of climate change becomes inevitable or it requires the total collapse of civilization to save humanity.
You worry that climate action will return us to the middle ages. If humanity had started doing more a few decades ago, that wouldn't have been necessary at all. Most of the energy would have already been coming from renewable sources. However, the longer humanity waits with the energy transition, the more drastic measures will be necessary. You're supporting the culture that results in humanity having to return to the middle ages.
If humanity doesn't do anything, the climate disasters will make the middle ages feel like
a walk in the park.
Some of the points of no return are already flipping. Many of the predictions have been proven too be too optimistic and instead of following the mean predictors, the reality actually follows more the worst case predictors.
Either you don't understand it or you are straw-manning.
only registered users can see external links
if it is this simple,why don't we all just bring our mirrors out of the bath room and put them out in the yard to reflect the sun back to it's self??
It's all funded by the fossil fuel industry, so they can keep polluting the Earth.
Just as the campaign "Protecting Our Planet Starts with You".
All funded by the fossil fuel industry, to shift the responsibility away.
By the way, I don't want to breath diamond particles into my lungs.
I don't think that's particularly healthy.
only registered users can see external links
Do you think everyone is still using the same thermometers as 100 years ago?
We have seen the fastest temperature rise in the past few decades, when the technology of measuring basic shit like temperature has been the most accurate ever.
This is at a level of flat earth 'science' ridiculous. You're kidding right?
How about the measurements of the CO2 concentration rising?
How about all the glaciers disappearing?
How about just basic human observation, that it is getting fucking hot more often
in summer and way less cold in winter?
now just who subsidized this project, and who will have to cough up repair cost?
Now tell me, how many coal plants were damaged in the hurricane?
have a flood? Kill the officials in charge
Hurricane Helene is flooding many parts over there.
And how about South Carolina? Mass flooding over there too.
With at least 25 killed in South Carolina, Helene is the deadliest tropical cyclone
for the state since Hurricane Hugo killed 35 people, in 1989.
you might like that way of Trump being "the boss" too. Trump
Seeing the ocean was at record high temperatures, every meteorologist predicted
a heavy hurricane season. It's not good that it happened, but to be expected.
It's just going to get worse.
I can't get it to open as i don't pay for the service but there is a new article out now about climate change.
only registered users can see external links
"why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?"
No idea how they claimed it then, but it's certainly wrong now:
only registered users can see external links
Your second link refers to Bjшrn Lomborg as a scientist, but he is not a CLIMATE scientist or PHYSICS scientist, he has a PhD in POLITICAL science. His environmental economics research is based around the claim that climate action will be more expensive than the effects of climate change. To support his claims, he has widely underestimating the effects. He wrote about the global warming "hiatus", in the 2010s, which were shown to be based on faulty statistics. He predicted that the earth would have stopped warming by now, but instead the earth is warming up faster now, than in the 2010s. He was wrong then and he is wrong now.
The guy comes from Denmark, a country which is running on 81.4% electricity from renewable sources. Their government debt accounts for 34.0% of the country's Nominal GDP. Their living standards are among the highest in the world. Obviously, their climate action has not damaged their country. His own country is proving him wrong.
That Newsmax article starts with "Polar bears are thriving.."
That's a lie, about 26,000 animals of one species is not "thriving",
that's at best a lower risk of them going extinct soon.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
so the globe doesn't care about US, it cares about the plants
Most humans at least care about themselves, but even that is not unanimous.
In any case, I think it's in my own best interest to care about humanity and the world.
I'd like humanity to be humane and the world to keep being hospitable.
I can do two things at the same time; I concentrate on what improves my own life,
while also doing my part in improving humanity and the world, because they AFFECT my own life.
Focusing on making more money is futile, if the world around me turns to shit.
I cannot buy a ticket to a better world. Elon Musk seems to think he can (Mars),
but he is stupid that way. We would need to completely destroy Earth, for Mars
to suck less.
You don't practice what you preach. You are focusing on the world around you more than me. You are always talking about how you want to shape your country to make lazy people work and to keep out immigrants. The difference between you and me is that your priorities for the world are shaped by learned animosity towards other poor and powerless people, who are just trying to survive under difficult circumstances, while my priorities for the world are focusing on the wealthy and powerful people,
who actually have a choice in the circumstances they create, for themselves and EVERYONE ELSE.