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
In 2006 a problem that was the power company's fault put 220 volts into our microwave and my computer. we got a whopping 125 dollars from the company as a "curtesy" because our stuff was deemed "obsolete" although it worked fine for us.
So 600 dollars later a new microwave was in the kitchen .It worked fine until 2 weeks ago, when the door latch failed ,with my shrimp inside. It took me a few minutes to find the special screw driver bit needed to get the machine open so I could trip the latch and get my food out .cold by then and had to cook it on the stove. BUT back to the complaint. Anyway ,the broken part is of course made of plastic . 21 dollars and about 10 minutes, it is fixed.
The sad truth is most people would have said, "Oh my, my microwave is broken, I must buy a new 1" and they would chunk the old 1 in the dump .now here's my complaint. Why make junk that has to be thrown away ,then complain about the environment? Make things durable and long lasting ,so the landfills and recycle centers aren't overflowing.
Don't you understand why microwaves are build to break, like everything?
CAPITALISM!!!! They want to sell you a new one, as soon as possible.
They don't give a fuck about waste or pollution, they care about MONEY!
It's staring you right in the face and you don't see it. Tragic!
Yes, you are correct, every concern about the environment coming from capitalists is just a charade. But you keep listening to these people, thinking they are telling you the truth. It's not the only thing they lie about. They don't care about what's true, they just care about making money. You know they are lying, so why do you keep believing them?
Ever heard of 'Right to repair' legislation?
That is regulation that promotes repairability practices throughout industries, including consumer technology. It doesn't allow companies to make it impossible to swap out a battery of a phone without destroying it, or selling replacement parts at a higher price than the product itself is worth. It prohibits producing, e.g. a vacuum cleaner that is completely glued together, so it's impossible to exchange the motor, when it breaks.
'Right to repair' will massively reduce the practice of 'made to break'.
But, I don't hear of many Republicans who support the 'Right to repair'.
That's exactly the 'regulation' that they would cut, because it 'hurts' companies.
Most regulation exists to protect consumers or the safety of workers
or prevent polluting the environment or protect trains from derailing, etc.
Republicans don't care about that, they only care about companies making more profit.
Almost everyone draws some line between profits and people.
It's up to people to decide where to draw that line, with their vote.
Why do you think 'Rich Men North of Richmond' was so popular?
I've been sellin' my soul, workin' all day
Overtime hours for bullshit pay
So I can sit out here and waste my life away
Drag back home and drown my troubles away
They just have a very confused idea of where the screwing comes from.
They know that they are getting screwed, but not how or why.
(which is fully confirmed in the rest of the song)
It's because they always side with the screwers and not the screwees,
unless it's them who are getting screwed, then they 'squeal like a stuck pig'.
If they only understood that we need to get together, to not get screwed.
But they don't like him much anymore, because he doesn't give a shit and
he scammed them with his stupid gathering at a non-union auto parts plant,
50 miles away from where workers are striking.
only registered users can see external links
he got personally trained by Kim Jong-un. They love each other.
--------------------------------------- added after 96 seconds
I don't know how to direct my post but it is for Ananas...
Alot of the tools-machines i have both hand tools ,power tools and such, were broken or worn out, free or bought cheap and refurbished. A couple of my older friends back when I was in my early 20's taught me the idea that getting and rebuilding old equipment would help me better understand it's operation and Maintenace.
only registered users can see external links
We've had something similar since 2021:
only registered users can see external links
Something to be proud of:
"The Right to Repair movement started in the US, specifically in the automotive industry. As a result, the Repair Association (TRA) was founded in 2013 to extend the same principles to encompass an extensive range of electronic products."
only registered users can see external links
So, the electric company was generous. In my neck of the woods, the electric company, FPL, would allow you to buy a comparable new unit and re-emburse you.
A company would not stay profitable if they couldn't have a steady stream of repeat business. A fridge will easily last 15 yrs. I've seen many stoves, both gas and electric that were 30 yr old and more. I have a MW in the cabin that's 22 yrs old. That last one I'm cheating because I had to fix it twice.
You are mixing the company's desire to make a profit with the need for mankind to conserve resources. They don't mix.
It worked out.
Another time our washing machine broke. It was 7 years old machine with a new value of $700. The replacement part was $230. That wasn't worth it, because other parts could have been defective or about to break, so I bought a $800 new washing machine.
Those replacement parts are not worth that much money, manufacturers are just compensation for their loss in profit, for you not buying a new product.
To me, the need for mankind to conserve resources is more important than the company's desire to make a profit. The only way to prioritize the need for mankind
to conserve resources is: REGULATION. It's not a dirty word.
Both the old one and the new one are made by Siemens, so I hope the repairability didn't get any worse.
I actually bought several pieces of wood working equipment for penny's on the dollar of their actual value at the scrap yard and rebuilt them with new bearings,belts ,motors and such. Have a set of equipment that would have been cost prohibitive at 6000 dollars or so had I wanted new. less than 1500 bucks! And the equipment is almost all American made.
our power bill was 160 last month,that is with electric heat, 3 fridges and a freezer and my shop stuff plus other items running.
only registered users can see external links
That is something that my parents taught me as soon as possible, DON'T waste food.
I watch people order a big plate of food, eat a 1/3 of it and the rest is thrown away. Just because you can AFFORD to waste, doesn't mean you should just to for all practical purposes brag about your financial status.
and that is what alot of it amounts to.
However, with age and a sitting job, that is not smart anymore.
We almost always have leftovers, that we give to a 80+ year old lady that we know.
She has rheumatism, so she has a hard time cooking for herself. Our leftovers makes what she eats much more interesting, than microwave meals. She did have some problems with the more spicy meals we eat, but I think she's getting used to it now.
We also have a food sharing habit with our neighbors.
We get interesting food from all over the world and my girlfriend shares her baking.
That saves me the trouble of eating all of it.
We do take care to not let expiration dates pass.
The best way to avoid it is not buying more than you can eat on time.
It is practical that we live within crawling distance of a supermarket though.
And about 10 others within at max a 10 minute bike-ride away.
I would say; get tiny bits from everything and eat very slowly, trying to enjoy the maximum of it. If you scoop a tiny sample from everything, you might have an appetite to go for seconds of the best sample.
My mother also eats just a tiny bit. The average guinea pig eats more.
She still always finishes last, because she eats very very slowly.
I kid you not, I can empty my plate in the time she finishes one spoonful.
She's mostly talking and tasting. Maybe it's a useful strategy for you.
. Ev's are NOT selling well. Gm and honda just quit their joint venture into ev's.
only registered users can see external links
My daughter-in-law’s brother, a very smart mechanical engineer, bought an EV for his personal use to go to work and generally use in the greater South Florida area. He gets about 320 miles per charge but, he says he just plugs it in during the weekend. He uses a gas powered car (the wife’s) for long trips. For him, it works out just fine
EVs do have these problems of range, cost, and batteries, but, GM and Honda didn’t stop their joint venture because of that. They stopped it because the market share wasn’t there at this time. It’s possible there will never be a profitable time when EVs will be a good commercial project. My take is that all problems can be fixed eventually.
The reason for the popularity of gas engined cars grew tremendously (as your own article states) was when the electric starter was developed. Gas cars in those days where notorious for being very hard to start and dangerous.
they have their place. local trips, local deliveries.
Climate science is the science of predicting trends globally.
Those trends are following the models way better, because it's an average
of decades of weather patterns in a region, and it changes much more slowly
than weather. Because of this, it's easier to predict climate than weather.
Climate science is basically just modeling the energy coming in from the sun,
compared with the heat radiation emitting back outwards into space
and the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb/retain the heat.
It's way more simple than predicting the weather, because to predict weather, the model has to predict every movement and interaction of atmospheric pressure, temperature, humidity, clouds, and interaction with the earth's surface beneath the atmosphere.
Lets compare weather and climate to the income of a Italian restaurant. The owner has a hard time predicting their turnover on any specific day, because it's dependent on factors like weather, traffic, sports games on TV or a supplier crashing their truckload of pasta.
However, predicting their yearly revenue is much easier. They might have a good year or a bad year, but mostly it all averages out. Then the number of customers shows the popularity of the restaurant. One bad cook can show a downward trend, over time.
One quiet evening tells the owner nothing.
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
They are hyping about it every 11 years. Are they already doing it now?
Sure, it can cause a lot of damage, when it's particularly bad.
I hope that electric grids and internet systems have some safeties.
If they do not, then maybe it should cause some big problems first.
Like with most preventable crisis, people deny it, until they live it.
There is no way to prevent a solar storm from happening, we can only prepare.
However, we can prevent the worst effects from climate change from happening.
It's caused by humanity, so humanity can solve it. We just need to want to.
Right now it looks like the weather patterns are changing faster than ever before. That is a major worldwide life changing problem. There are many people like you who, for some unknown reason, want to deny what seems to be. Just keep an open mind .
--------------------------------------- added after 52 seconds
Just like always
How cold was it in the winters, when you were young?
How warm was it in the summers, when you were young?
Were the leaves red and brown, when they fell from the trees, when you were young?
Aren't they falling down from the trees mostly green now?
Did grass and flowers dry up in the summer as often, when you were young?
Is your perception limited to just what you are describing?
Are you really telling me that you don't see any differences?
But, is that you admitting that you have noticed differences?
Because, I think we are living in very similar climates, and I have noticed many differences. I hardly need a winter coat these days, but in my youth, I froze my nuts of almost every winter. The summers used to be hot sometimes, but mostly it was raining a lot. We had never heard of water shortages before, EVER! This last decade, there are problems with drought and nature drying out, and the government asking us to not accidentally start wildfires and not use to much water, because we are running dry, almost every summer. That's a change from the past I remember and it's not OK.
But you like to deny reality, just to yank the chain of some Dutch socialist?
What's the point?
Do you think I'm saying what I'm saying just to upset some right-wingers?
I'm not saying it's not fun sometimes, but I'm not denying reality, to do it.
I just enjoy winding people up
Climate change can even feel great for people living in cold climates like Iceland.
However, there are not that many people who will benefit from the changes,
but there are hundreds of millions of people in hot climates now,
who are already very negatively affected by the changes now.
You think that you can isolate yourself from the rest of the world on your hill.
Maybe you can, but would it be fun? Personally, I like the world as it is/was.
It's nice to just go to the shop and buy products from all over the world
at prices that I can easily afford. When the global economy gets impacted
from areas of the world getting to hot, from climate change,
then everything will become very expensive or not available anymore.
Humanity has reached their peak development level some time ago. Products come from everywhere and most areas in the world are involved in the global production chain. This helps people out of poverty and conflict. It helps them to solve their own problems, like rampant population growth. The best way to solve those problems is progress. It's on the decline now, I think. That results in dwindling resources and migration. When an area doesn't support its population anymore, people want to leave. You may think you can hide behind a wall, but the US is just as dependent on the rest of the world, as my country, and as mostly any other country. Every product you sell in your garage is sourced from raw materials from all over the world.
You need people in all those places contributing to the global economy, or those products cannot be produced anymore. Before that happens the prices go up.
This is what you are all focusing on, but instead of understanding the reasons, you are blaming the other political party.
Maybe your political system was designed with this in mind. They give you two hyper-partisan parties that won't ever cooperate, so you can blame each other,
and neither party will ever have to function correctly and never really have to solve the problems. Some of you think the government can better be completely destroyed, so you can build something new, which will be better. It doesn't work that way. It's a return to absolute chaos, and the only medicine for chaos is tyranny.
To get back from tyranny to democracy is very difficult. As you know, many areas never progressed from tyranny to democracy in the first place. I agree that democracy isn't working perfect, SO FIX IT! If you think that it's easier to fix it,
by first destroying it, you're making a mistake. The frame is still strong.
Let's exam this a moment, First, greta has Asperger syndrome
Which according to google search, would prompt her to be Clumsy,perform uncoordinated movements, including difficulty with handwriting. Difficulty managing emotions, sometimes leading to verbal or behavioral outbursts, self-injurious behaviors or tantrums. Not understanding other peoples' feelings or perspectives. Hypersensitivity to lights, sounds and textures.
This would explain her "How dare you" outburst in front of people. But I think her true colors are shining thru.
only registered users can see external links
She is also making her self a little criminal record.
only registered users can see external links
I guess we will be reading about her glueing herself to a oil tanker next?
only registered users can see external links
“A 2021 study from Volvo Motors found that the production and manufacturing of its C40 Recharge electric model generates 70% more emissions than its gas vehicle counterpart, the XC40,” the Washington Examiner previously reported. “In particular, the massive batteries that power electric vehicles are carbon-intensive to make.”
vs the gas powered C40, before it makes up it's carbon investment?
If they don't tell you, it's a biassed article.
only registered users can see external links
Who would have thought HE would back off a bit on the climate bullshit?
The people who are exaggerating climate change is YOU,
by not understanding anything and then talking bullshit,
like Obama's house on the coast getting in danger of sea-levels.
The main dangers in the coming decades are not sea-levels,
it's extreme weather, causing droughts in one area and mud-slides
in another, destroying harvests. It's forest fires as a chain reaction.
It's countries near the equator becoming to hot for survival,
causing massive floods of immigrants looking for other places to live.
No way that Bill Gates denies that. You're just straw-manning him.
Humanity being its own worst enemy is exactly the problem I want to solve.
The solution is not listening to people like you, who don't want to solve problems.
What they are doing now is basically nothing. They are just spending tax-money
on subsidies, to encourage corporations to solve the problem for them, which is
the most expensive way to solve the problem.
The optimum method to solve this, is by public investments into renewable energy,
so the revenues go back into the treasury. That's how Iceland, Norway and Sweden are doing it. They hardly increased their debt, their people have cheap energy and they are turning into big energy exporters, making billions.
If you have a problem that gets progressively worse as long as you don't solve it,
you attack it straight on, as hard and as smart as you can, and get it behind you.
If humanity had started the energy transition 3 decades ago, it would have been
way easier, way cheaper, way more effective and prevented lots of damage.
Some seem to think batteries are going to save the human race, its fucking ridiculous.
At the end of the day there are to many fucking humans & we breed to fucking much, creating more consumers. Consumerism is what it cooking this planet from the pollution created to create our consumer products.
In todays modern world there are also more types of products to consume, I mean just take Halloween as one small example, I wonder how much pollution it creates with all the plastic garbage that is sold to celebrate it from China & now Halloween has spread to this country now & our stores are full of the shit.
Humans as a whole will never stop consuming shit.
Take myself as a example using my teenage daughter & the differences in consumerism over the years.
When I was her age, similar to when you were you were, I had a bicycle, my main form of transport & a few toys. The house hold had a single TV, a single phone bolted to the wall & a single motor car used for the whole family.
My daughters scenario, she has a bicycle but all that does is collect dust, she has more toys than you can poke a stick at including Xbox, has her own TV one of 2 in the property, but that not including gaming monitors, computer monitors another 2 Xbox's, also has her own computer amongst the other 2 in the property including the one I'm writing on now & 2 tablets. We no longer have a phone bolted to the wall, the wife, I & my daughter have our own cell phones. We have 3 serviceable on road motorcycles, purely for pleasure riding & 2 cars.
Are we going to reduce our consumerism to save the human race, fuck no, as with just about any modern family. Even the idiots that blubber on about batteries saving the human race would they change their consumerism to save all the other humans, no, they seem to think that powering their consumerism with batteries is going to save the ozone, its the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life.
The human race will continue to expand, we will continue to open up the ozone layer cooking this planet, humans will become extinct on this planet its just a matter of time.
Elon has the right idea though, lets all move to Mars & live in bubbles
Solar comes in handy, I can charge the battery on my camper without running a drop cord.
All this smog stuff on cars, a 1980's honda civic got 50mpg, try that now in a average car with all that smog crap on it, it's a struggle .and it is Still going to be a roller skate size car.
Electric pickup truck, put a load behind it, ride 75 miles ,wait HOURS to recharge, it would take 3 months to take a 3 week road trip at that rate.
I don't personally think we are looking at the end of the internal combustion engine, I have noticed some new hydra powered cars kicking around now. We used to have LPG gas over here for years, all the taxies used to run on the stuff, I had a duel fueled car at the time. I don't know all the statistic on burring LPG but from what I understand is much cleaner than gasoline.
The Toyota Hybrid killed that over here, Taxi all went those, it was cheaper per mile on gasoline than LPG was.
Also like I have seen you mention here a few times now, this Hybrid tec is old, many years being used in trains & big earth moving equipment so maybe more tec will put into that.
All our government busses over here in Brisbane at least, have all been converted to gas instead of Diesel as well.
What about a gas powered Hybrid 🤷♀️, who knows I am far from being a engineer
only registered users can see external links
clean air is actually allowing the planet to heat up! Nothing blocking the sun!!!
only registered users can see external links
1:28 - "The United Kingdom and France have nuclear capabilities and are obliged
by NATOs article 5 to defend the US..."
Understand there is no such thing as 'defending' anyone in that case.
It would just be retaliation and simultaneously making sure no one survives.
The best thing any country can do to 'defend' humanity is not launching any nukes,
even if other countries launch all their nukes at your country. I would prefer to just die without the guilt of having contributed to the eradication of humanity.
What countries dump nuclear waste in the ocean?
North-West Pacific Ocean dump sites of the Soviet Union, Japan, Russia, and Korea.
Remember Japan just dumped water from the nuclear plant built on a ground fault recently.No regard to the fish life or human life at all.
Locally we had a close call not many people knew of,cooling inlet line filter screen got clogged up with little fish.
But even then, you refuse to accept any responsibility of your own country.
AMERICA DID IT FIRST!
1946 First dumping operation at Northeast Pacific Ocean
(about 80 km off the coast of California).
only registered users can see external links
Still, I'm actually surprised that the US dumped less than 1:10th of the Russians.
Did you support Greenpeace when they protested that dumping?
Did you joined protests against nuclear energy or nuclear weapons?
Did you vote for politicians that are against nuclear energy and nuclear weapons?
Do you care about fish life or human life, when it's related to other topics?
If this is important to you, how does it affect your political decisions?
No i don't run around with a bunch of protesters looking like a fool.
i support the use of coal,gas, wind,solar,hydro and so on.NOT nuclear power
True. It would be irresponsible to unilaterally disarm, for the US.
However, a tiny country like mine can fully disarm.
There is no use to have a few nukes. It would only make us a target.
It would only take a few, to wipe us of the map and with the same number
we would not pose a threat to any of the big countries.
Why is walking around with a bunch of protesters, looking like a fool?
That must be some deep resentment they indoctrinated you with.
It's a democratic right to make your voice heard by protesting.
I never heard you say that about the Jan 6th capital rioters. Were they fools?
If they hadn't used violence, I would have supported their right all the way,
even if they were all delusional from believing Trump's lies.
I don't support nuclear power either. It's an energy loan on the future.
It's irresponsible, dangerous and very expensive.
Had they stood on the steps by the 1000's blocking access the building without violence ,or perhaps cut power to the building, no harm done and would get the point across.
I know a man and his wife that attended and saw his videos on his phone that he took and some of other members of his church group. Police moved barricades so the folks could go up the steps ,they were not prevented to go up the steps as they want you overseas to believe. I saw raw footage of it. thats why i don't agree with what is on the media.
I know you feel like your few nukes are of no value, but I doubt you will ever be invaded like Ukraine as long as you have them. That is the deterrent function of the weapon, it can be rusting in the corner ,and still be doing it's job. Protecting you and your country from outside threats.
But, it would help if we agreed on the questions.
This green stuff, is not that green.
We have had Big Oil for decades supposedly running the show.
It will be Big Lithium before long.
We will watch lithium go up and our cars and tools will be very expensive to operate, disposing of the battery's will be costly .and just as the tires for reefs program in florida in the 70's has turned out to be a bad idea, about 2050 the folks will be like "Oh my, these battery's are causing cancer when disposed of. and the grand kids everyone claims to be so concerned about their futures, will be faced with a similar big scam of some sort that is better than lithium. and the show will go on until the big fire ball and the nuclear winter wipes us all away like a dead bug on a windshield.
what's the last thing that goes thru a bugs mind when he hits the windshield of a truck?
tic
toc
tic
toc,
OH come on man, You know it's his ASS!
Unfortunatley it doesn't look like that's going to happen until it's too late.
is going on. That's why Republicans came up with their trillion trees idea.
Republican voters are easily distracted with nonsense of course,
so that will never convince anyone else, but it's a sign.
You should see all the trees i have all mixed hardwoods it would be worth a fortune to timber it out and not to mention the rock but I love my trees and I take care of them by cutting the dead ones out and the brush so the new saplings have room to grow
And it’s less of a fire hazard
so many trees, for places to live and for agriculture to feed us all.
If they manage to plant trees in empty deserts, that would be awesome though.
--------------------------------------- added after 15 hours
You might need to calculate how big of a workforce would be needed
to care for a trillion tree production forest, by cutting the dead ones out
and the brush, so it’s less of a fire hazard.
while Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and friends are looking down amused
onto the dying Earth's population, from their space station hideout.
from the first time in human history that atmospheric CO2 exceeded 300 ppm,
around the time the Titanic sank in the North Atlantic Ocean.
The last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably
in the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 million and 5.3 million years ago.
That's something happening in 111 years, that didn't happen the last
2.6 - 5.3 million years, a period of 23,423 - 47,748 times longer.
Another scientific reality is that CO2 absorbs heat radiation from the sun.
You are the knucklehead, for not putting those two FACTS together
to accept REALITY, that humanity is causing the atmosphere to heat up.
What you spend your time on is parroting the same dumb arguments,
that don't explain anything, over and over again.
I agree with you 100% Maxwell_93 lithium storage of energy that these environmental people seem to thing is the answer causes more destruction creating their a ledged more ozone friendly alterative then burning shit.
So once the destruction to the ozone layer has been created by producing these lilium power cells (that's the new green term "powered cells", they are fucking batteries ffs),where do they get their energy from, from burning shit mostly ffs.
You are also exactly correct that the company's that burn shit for power are laughing at these a ledged environmentalist idiots faces, all the way to the bank with hands full of cash from the profits they have made from burning shit to power their environmentally friendly batteries 🤷♀️
I have never heard of it.
"Lithium can be described as the non-renewable mineral that makes renewable energy possible - often touted as the next oil."
Someone else comparing it to oil besides me,
only registered users can see external links
My goodness Ananas, just think of the deiseal smoke from 1 off road dump truck hauling material away from a mine. Sure the truck is powered by electric motors at the wheels but a huge diesel generator is running the show, similar to a locomotive.
I know that mining causes pollution. So does fossil fuel extraction!
"Lithium can be described as the non-renewable mineral that makes renewable energy possible"
Lithium can still be recycled, when you burn oil, coal or natural gas,
it's CO2 and you cannot recycle that, back to fossil fuels.
I am aware of EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING. There are no free rides.
What we SHOULD DO is just stop using fossil fuels now.
We don't do that, because people rely on energy to survive.
So the next less damaging alternative to that is renewable energy.
It has its problems too, but it emits WAY LESS CO2 in the atmosphere.
only registered users can see external links
It's electric cars isn't it?
How about we say; "No more cars!!"?
Then we wouldn't need that lithium anymore, right?
The only reason to use that lithium, is because people want cars. Me too!
I'm not doing away with my small fuel economical car, because you lot kept voting
for selfish bastards, who kept denying reality for the last many decades, and let
the rich make the problem worse, while we knew that change was needed.
Electric cars do not solve the problem, but it makes rich people look like they care about climate change and make guys like Elon Musk very wealthy.
Cars are only responsible for 7% of global CO2 emissions. Making that the top discussion subject is just another distraction for the other 93% of the problem.
There are probably less damaging ways to store the energy of for electric cars,
but now we have Tesla and all the others using lithium batteries.
It's a bit better than petrol and diesel cars, but it's still bad.
It's what corporations invented as a pacifier. It's not saving humanity.
Just like LED-bulbs and putting the thermostat lower isn't saving humanity.
It helps, but it will only reduce and delay the damage.
We cannot save the world, the capitalist way.
gee, never saw that coming?
only registered users can see external links
Old joe says,you are making me look good.
REALLY? HUM
"In 2021, Congress appropriated more than $5.5 billion for eco-friendly buses under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill.
At the time, President Joe Biden conducted a virtual tour of tax-supported Proterra.
“The fact is, you’re making me look good,” Biden said at the time.
In August, Proterra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Since 2012, there are 1.414 electric busses in my country.
That's only 16% of the busses, but at least it's growing.
Not counted are the trolley-busses. They have overhead lines.
We had them since the sixties. More expensive than busses,
but cheaper and more flexible than trams (streetcars).
Germans used to take pride in what they built and their cars were built to last a lifetime.
I almost bought 1 like the red convertable on this webpage in 2008.
only registered users can see external links
I would figure the bankruptcy issue for the bus company was similar to Rivian , miss management of funds and over promotion before the company got off the ground.
to innovate. That's when Chinese, German, Japanese and Korean car-companies
take over the market that could have been yours. Those countries aren't afraid
to spend some government tax dollars to stimulate their industry.
Unfortunately, my government did not help our Solar Electric Vehicle startup Lightyear.
They should have just bought up Lightyear, bought up VDL NedCar and started mass-producing these solar-cars ASAP, for an affordable price. Now Lightyear is bankrupt and cut-up and VDL NedCar's BMW manufacturing contract of the Mini runs out.
As of November 1, more than 1,800 of Nedcar's 3,950 employees will lose their jobs.
Our fucking loser right-wing government didn't Make Dutch Carbuilding Great Again.
Sad thing is GM had the EV-1 that everyone loved back years ago, and scrapped them, google it, not a bad looking car and reliable alot of innovation has took place but there are more sides to it than having a finished vehicle . Toyotas hybrid work and their new battery tech will hit the market and blow the doors off the other stuff soon.
only registered users can see external links
I've seen the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?", from 2006, years ago.
only registered users can see external links
Here's an alternative documentary:
"How General Motors Killed the First Modern Electric Car"
only registered users can see external links
No sign of global warming here
The climate is a global system. Still, just looking at Pennsylvania, you can see the changes. Summers have become hotter with longer heat waves and winters are milder and wetter. However, Pennsylvania is a very northern state. It will take longer before heat and droughts will become a problem in your state.
only registered users can see external links
The southern states are already suffering from heat and droughts. Farming is becoming impossible there and watering agriculture lands is becoming unaffordable.
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
My country is even to the north of Pennsylvania. Except for a few very hot days, I could have said: "Climate Change isn't real, I'm fine over here!". But I watch the news and see people dying and fleeing forest fires and suffering record heat waves all over the world.
Even looking at the changes in my own country, I know it's happening. Instead of freezing in the winter for months in my youth, I hardly need a winter coat these days. I could even consider that a bonus.
However, it doesn't require sympathy for the suffering people, to be worried. I can be worried for purely selfish reasons, even while living in a mild climate. Drought affecting agriculture in hotter climates is affecting food prices today. People are fleeing the hottest climates, because survival is becoming impossible there. Climate change could push more than 200 million people to leave their homes in the next three decades. Italy and Greece are already overwhelmed by migration. As one of the most densely populated countries in the world, my country cannot handle many more immigrants either. Instead of thinking of stupid solutions, like building a wall, I prefer to look at the root cause of the problem, which increasingly is climate change. It's a problem that humanity can solve, but it's not made easier with people like you digging their heels in the sand.
But you are right that it wasn't hot in Pennsylvania. It was hot and dry in other parts and very wet in your region.
Record number of billion-dollar disasters have struck the nation so far this year:
"Arizona, Idaho and Minnesota each had their third-driest July on record, while California and New Mexico had one of their top-10 driest Julys on record. Connecticut and Vermont experienced their second-wettest July on record. Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island all had a July ranking among top-10 wettest on record."
only registered users can see external links
How about all the years before and how about in the rest of your country?
How about in the rest of the world? How about those glaciers?
How about the North Pole? How about all those temperature records?
How about you look a bit further in time and space, than this year on your hill?
How about you understanding that you have to search hard for anything that confirms your ideas and that you deny anything that contradicts your ideas?
And that you don't just do it for climate change.
I will make a deal with you when you get other countries to care then so will I
Think of when that zombie apocalypse finally comes, will you say:
"Why should we do something? China and Japan aren't doing what is needed!"?
OK, have fun being a zombie then. At least you have enough guns to defend your hill, but do you have 330 million bullets?
It sucks, but the US wanted to be the world's most powerful superpower.
That comes with some responsibility. Like not looking away when humanity is destroying itself.
China is doing better than the US actually. Meanwhile Trump is crying that all the electric vehicles will be build by China soon. Yes, that's very likely. If your country refuses to innovate and progress, other countries will take your place. They will take full advantage of your procrastination.
The predications are for a cold hard winter this year.Not looking forward to it, the last big snow we had really wore me down trying to keep things going around here
The average global temperature in June, July and August was 16.77 degrees Celsius, smashing the previous 2019 record. 2023 is likely to be the hottest year in human history, and global temperatures during the Northern Hemisphere summer were the warmest on record.
(Why the 'Northern Hemisphere summer'? only registered users can see external links )
Sure, in part. But a bigger part is now CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
Climate science takes into account all the effects from the earths position around the sun, fluctuations in sun activity, volcano's, geysers, forest fires and all the other things you have ever mentioned as a reason for you to deny reality. They are not as stupid as you make them. To believe what you believe, you have to believe in a global conspiracy of people 'spreading lies' and 'withholding the truth', just like flat-earthers do. And actually, they have more elaborate delusions than you have. You keep repeating the same feeble arguments. Could climate change only be real if there were no volcanoes? My side is not denying that the earth's position around the sun and the sun's activity fluctuates. WE KNOW, so it's not an argument. There were volcanoes too, when in my youth, I froze my balls of every winter. So come up with better arguments. Try to understand this topic better. Don't you think it's important enough to try?
Even if you're right, you should do better. Because then the scientists are obviously being more convincing at selling their 'lies' than you are at selling the 'truth'.
Or has Texas solved the downsides of their 'energy independence' now?
In any case, after that winter, you can expect new heat records, new terrible heatwaves, new droughts, new floods, new hurricanes, new wildfires, probably starting in May 2024. Some will be worse than in 2023. Maybe you'll be lucky one year, but the overal costs of the damages will become higher and higher and higher, in general.
All those people freezing, made no sense. When it is winter, you prepare for winter, with wood for heat, a generator for power, much of the same stuff they should already have for hurricane prepardness.
With all the oil in Texas.. there is no reason for Texans to freeze.
Then you say they need to personally prepare for winter; "wood for heat, a generator for power, much of the same stuff they should already have for hurricane prepardness."
WHY????
Doesn't Texas have a power grid? That's what power companies are for.
There wasn't some horrible natural disaster in Texas, it was just very cold.
It was just as cold in my country on Jan. 30th 2012. That was a very cold period. However, no one died in their own home.
2012 was cold, but it wasn't even cold enough to hold our beloved 'eleven cities tour', which is a skating marathon, over eleven cities, of close to 125 miles.
The last time we had the 'eleven cities tour' was in 1997. The ice has to be at least 6 inches thick everywhere. In my lifetime, there have been three of them. It was way colder then, than in Texas last year. I have never heard of anyone dying of cold in their own home, in my lifetime. People just turned up the heat and live comfortably.
We did have increased natural gas prices since Russia attacked Ukraine, but not the crazy prices that Texas had, because power companies were not allowed to increase their prices over a certain government set limit. In the winter, the government banned power companies from shutting off people who couldn't afford their power bills. We did have a natural gas shortage then, but our government prioritized people's use to heat their homes over companies use of natural gas.
No Dutch person was left without the ability to heat their home, even though many had problems affording it. The government spent 30 billion euros to compensate people for their power bills. If Texas had the same consumer protections that we do, no one would have died.
I will admit,there is no reason for citizens to freeze in the US.Plenty of firewood ,plenty of oil,plenty of electric,
There is also no excuse for walls and pipes not being insolated to prevent water line freezing and to hold in heat. Insolation during a hot texas summer will help keep a house COOL also.
BUT in the case of those folks in texas,alot of it was just plain to fucking lazy to cut some wood or get in the damn truck and drive somewhere warmer or look into other options. People are getting lazy here in the US. Men don't want to work,they want to get paid to push buttons and "Think" but not actually run a oil rig or other LABOR>
Then why do Iceland (86.87% green energy shit) and
Norway (71.56% green energy shit) not have that problem?
Both are way colder areas by the way.
What happened in Texas is that greedy power companies failed their customers.
My country experienced something similar, but no one got killed (yet).
However, while you keep supporting that greed, most Dutch people understand that they were screwed by the government, when they privatizing the energy providers. So now there is massive support for my parties initiative to demand winding back of the privatization. More than half of the Dutch public supports full nationalization. As a start, there are now THREE socialized province-controlled power companies, because of my parties initiatives.
Instead of people's money and taxes going to foreign shareholders, the money will flow back into the provinces finances, so they can invest in the power grid, insulating houses and more green energy. That's good shit!
3 , wow,competing for your bussiness, that means cheaper prices for you.
Sure, we can pick between on 30-60 power companies, dependent on where we live, but they are all making profits, that do not return to the general public. Instead of re-investing that money, to improve the grid, it's siphoned off.
The stupid thing is that some of those energy providers are private companies in my country, while they are public energy providers in their own country. Vattenfall is a Swedish multinational power company owned by the Swedish state. The profits they make in my country go to the Swedish state.
My government sold all their ownership to private companies, for a discount, and now the people are paying to make their shareholders rich. Some of those shareholders are other countries, but they are being fully capitalists in my country. At least we get to choose which shareholders we enrich.
In the past years, we had Eneco, Essent, Greenchoice, Oxxio, E.on, Vandebron, Innova and Coolblue Energy, but there are many others.
Every year, I check which company provides the best renewable energy
at the best price and set the price in a new contract.
That contract always ended in december, but this June, I terminated the contract, because in december the prices are always higher. I paid some penalty for that, but I think I will recuperate that soon enough.
What you have is forced monopolies of private companies. At least when
my government forces people into capitalism, it's REAL capitalism.
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 7 hours
only registered users can see external links
How the fuck are you going to win a war with a dead battery?
The NEXT ICE AGE!
only registered users can see external links
Now help me out here, will the ice age come before or after the polar ice caps melt??
Make up your minds people, you can't have a ice age global cooling and a melt down at the same time.
Watch this movie if you have time.It is about the country freezing over and everyone going to mexico to get away from the ice.
only registered users can see external links
to understand what scientists have been trying to tell you, the last decades,
with increasing confidence, but it takes an effort.
It's either true, which means your way of living is in danger,
or it's really a lie, in which case there is a massive global conspiracy.
Do you think that's not worth investigating, not worth knowing?
That means that you inform yourself on what scientists have proposed
and with an unbiased mind you try to find the errors in it.
That's the 'scientific method'. Science works by creating hypotheses for observations, creating models to reject or confirm those hypotheses with evidence and than other scientist trying to invalidate those models with counter evidence. That process has resulted in a very confident confirmation that climate change is happening, is man-made and is the biggest threat to humanity we faced, since the last ice age.
So stop reading what people are just saying, without any good justification, like what you are repeating here, and dive into the data, the methods, the evidence, the discussions and the logic.
You can keep doing
Do you even understand the difference?
And that was a documentary,not a entertainment episode.Nimoy was a liberal that was a save the whales type. He would not have done that documentary had he thought it to be bullshit at that time.
There were some scientists back then who saw an ice age as a possibility.
Science fiction is often based on possibilities proposed by science.
That doesn't mean that this video was a documentary on scientific consensus.
That's just you, trying to discredit science with very childish arguments.
I've tried to explain before that science has progressed since you were
in primary school. Don't you have some time to update your knowledge?
Or is your mind limited to primary school level?
What would that 'anything credible' look like?
We cannot change the fact that the climate has fluctuated in the past 3.7 billion years, that life has existed on our planet, so what will convince you, that this current 'fluctuation' is more extreme, way faster and caused by humanity emitting green house gasses?
In about 100 years, humanity has burned a big part of hydrocarbons, that were formed from ancient plants and animals during the Carboniferous period approximately 362-286 million years ago. That enormous amount of hydrocarbons could only form at that period in time, and not later, because the bacteria that eat rotting plants and animals hadn't evolved yet, and later were. The CO2 concentration was 6,000 ppm 500 million years ago, until plants evolved, that started converting CO2 to O2. That reduced the global temperature a lot. However, the sun was putting out less heat 500 million years ago, so the global temperature was only about 10 degrees warmer at first. By the way, the atmosphere back then was unbreathable for humans (10 to 15 percent oxygen).
For every CO2 concentrations rise by 10 ppm (parts per million), the mean global temperature increases by 0.1 °C. At 6,000 ppm CO2, today, the global temperature would be 55.85 °C higher, which would be 160 °F.
What took many tens of millions of years to form can be completely consumed in about another 100 years. You would say 'not my problem', but there are problems that will affect you, in your lifetime. When fossil fuels are getting more scarce and more difficult to extract, they become ever more EXPENSIVE. You at least see that happening, right? The second problem is pollution. Your water resources are polluted by fossil fuel extraction. Because extracting those fossil fuels have become more difficult, they need FRACKING, for two-thirds the oil produced in the US. That will go up, poisoning more water sources and making oil more expensive.
The third problem is climate change. CO2 absorbs infrared light from the sun, elevating the temperature of the atmosphere. Because the effects of that physical fact are more complicated than just global warming, they changed the term to climate change. Whatever we call it, it's a fact. Humanity disturbs the balance of nature and we are facing the effects. Those effects can be reduced, when humanity stops disturbing the balance of nature or at least drastically reduces it.
What part of that is not credible to you?
But strangly, much to bidens belly ache,I think i saw 8 on the hwy just yesterday,on I77 and I85
‘put champagne on ice’ as he sees the ultimate EV victory.
only registered users can see external links
Elon doesn't seem to agree with you that those strikes were bad.
Do you want Biden to stimulate Tesla? How about Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which invests $7.5 billion in EV charging? Elon can't sell his cars without those.
I will use dgraff , purely as an example, you & I live 2 totally different worlds in our real lives, but the more I get to know you we share many of the same ideals.
So old mate dgraff has decided to use solar energy, why is that ?
To reduce his power bill simple as that, he has no interest in "saving the world", & good luck to him, he is only wanting to make his little part of the world easier to live in much similar as all the humans on this planet strive for.
The tree "hugging hippies", would say, "oh look at dgraff he is reducing his carbon foot print on the earth going solar", not so.
Why do you ask 🤷♀️
The solar panels that are going to get bolted to his roof create more pollution in their creation & within their life span create more pollution to provide the same amount of power, way more than if he was to continue to pay higher bills for burning focal fuels to generate his power requirements.
I to am like him, I wish to decrease my power bills by installing panels to my roof, but my roof needs restoration before doing so, causing more pollution & although my power bill would go down, the "tree hugging hippies", would go "look at this guy he is doing his part to reduce green house emissions", but in actual fact to these fucking wankers I would be increasing my carbon footprint on the world, but would have a much lower power bill 🤷♀️
I have mentioned this on a few occasions, peering in from a window to degraf profile, he is a guy that would live in a style that would be minimal to his carbon footprint on the Earth, from what I can see he lives a happy existence with few commodities that people like myself have.
If we all lived a happier simple life like degrah the pollution issue would drop exponentially very quickly.
Also from other mentions he has made. he doesn't breed, the biggest fucking issue there are to many people, I myself am guilty of that I have 4 of the fucking things 🤣.
So although he doesn't have died hair or have metal shit hanging out of his face, guys like degrah are defenders of the Earths pollution problem, they don't even need to think about it, nor do they care, but if many more of us were like him the pollution problem would be fuck all 🤷♀️
I can provide evidence that this in not true, but it's your claim, so you should support it with evidence, to show you're not just assuming this, because of your bias.
Do you know about oil spills and pollution from fracking?
Do you know how much fossil fuel energy gets wasted from the drilling process, transportation and refining?
The labor to install them ,and remove them cost alot.
The land being useless for crops is forever.
the disposal will be expensive.
Replacement ,will be even more money than the first install.
Deisel fuel was used for that 6 months to drive the post. Deisel fuel brought in all the materials and ran the cranes to set them
It is similar to the game of guess which cup the marble is under. It is just moving things around. Instead of smoke you can see it is stuff going in the ground.
There is no free ride. Energy cost. If a greenie really wants to save the earth, they need to go jump off the edge of it, since they probably think it's flat
You are denying or understating the pollution involved with fossil fuels and you are inventing or overstating pollution involved with solar power.
My solar panels have compensated the cost of their purchase and installation in 4 years, because of the high energy prices. It will cost me absolutely nothing to discard them. If the aluminum frames, cables and micro-inverters are still intact, I can replace the panels much more easy and cheaper than it cost me to install them. Probably, I can do it myself.
You understand there is no free ride and every form of energy, requires energy as an investment.
The way to determine what type of energy technology is the most efficient and the lest polluting, is by COMPARING the advantages and disadvantages of multiple energy technologies WITH ANOTHER. You are not doing that. You are only trying to find disadvantages of renewable energy. You're not looking at the advantages, and you're not looking at all at the disadvantages and advantages of fossil fuels.
--------------------------------------- added after 98 seconds
It will be nice receiving a check each month from met-Ed instead of paying them each month
I have seen some figures from Americans on what you guys pay for power it seems really expensive, I pay roughly $100 a month for a house that has roughly 2.5 people living in it a week, a smaller house no to dissimilar to the house your in from what I can make out.
We use electricity for most of our power requirements, except the BBQ that is on bottled gas, dead animals need to be cooked on a open grill, it is law in my house & a good majority of cooking is done on the BBQ lol
We have many resources in Australia but iron ore & coal are a couple of our biggest, so burring coal for power has been a big thing for us, we have some hydro power & some solar farms but that is just small fry stuff.
In recent times though they are switching to burning natural gas for power, less emissions & blah blah, causing our electricity bills to sky rocket, I haven't had the latest bill yet but it will be interesting to see how much that will be.
Sure there have been a few disasters from fuckwits not doing things right, but why we do not use nuclear power is beyond me, sure there is the waist issue, but we have stable bedrock in our country, our government is stable, there were even plans made up by one of our prior governments of making catacombs in the dead centre of this country where nuclear waist could be stored, the plan was all countries could store waist here, Australia would get a lot of money form it, but oh no the tree hugging hippies put a stop to that.
We have had a nuclear reactor in Australia for fucking years, if memory serves correctly it was built back in the 60's, I could google the facts & figures like a lot of the wankers do here & do a huge copy paste but I work on my real life experiences.
My step farther used to work there as a storeman, packing radio active isotope to be shipped of to hospitals & stuff for the use of x-raying & shit.
We have never had a issue with our reactor because it is managed correctly & isn't built on a faut line or something stupid like that 🤷♀️
My kid has a duel motored Tesla 3, nice car, fuck its like a rocket when you drop the pedal to the floor.
I look after her insurance & stuff for her & I thought, well with all of its safety features it would be cheap to insure, sure you see a lot of stuff seeing Tesla smashing up doing shit & things do go wrong with them, but shit does go wrong with heaps of shit, but people like to focus on Tesla cause its a new thing I get that.
The insurance on the fucking thing is over double my modern Mazda 3 & this is why.
If I have a decent smash in my Mazda it can be repaired, not so the Tesla, its construction is more or less a high tensile steel frame surrounded by high tensile alloy panels, no cunt knows how to repair the fucking thing, so in a half decent smash, the thing is written off & your given a new one.
So in its creation & the destruction to the Earth especially in the creation of its power cells, let alone instead of using iron for its panels but using high tensile alloys & all the other electronics that are in the fucking thing the tree hugging hippies go "look at you your doing such a good thing for the environment", dumb ass fuckwits.
Stop breeding you cunts
Treehugger, a noun used in a derisive way to describe someone who is regarded as foolish or annoying because of being too concerned about protecting trees, animals, and other parts of the natural world from pollution and other threats. Imagine that, someone like that is regarded as foolish or annoying.
Trees provide a scrubbing of the air we breathe. They take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. They do more but, that alone should make everyone be concerned when whole forests disappear. Of course, that is not so important. These days it’s more important to make fun of those that care that the Amazon Forest is being destroyed for a few dollars more than the FACT that an area the size of Europe, that provides so much needed oxygen, is slowly being obliterated.
There’s not much that a single person can do to make a difference, but, that’s just it. If we ALL make a little effort, collectively, we would make a huge difference. I gave up my Tahoe for a Nissan Rogue because the gas mileage was so much better. All our cars are always tuned. I’m willing to bet that many people with gas ranges don’t have it regulated correctly for propane. Same with the bbq. Mine are.
The state of Florida had inspections on cars until the late ‘70s. I remember making long lines to get that “sticker”. More internal combustion was produced by those lines than any benefit derived from it. I don’t try to cram electric cars down anyone’s throat. That type of car is made for a certain type of use. I travel to central Florida all the time. It’s 320 miles from my house. An electric car can’t make it.
My Dad was Russian Orthodox Catholic. Very few could or would give him lip, yet, this man believed in family. He also believed a shake of the hands was enough to seal a deal or give someone his friendship. He had 4 children. 3 sons and one daughter. He taught all of us that WE were in charge of our lives. We grew up knowing that everyone had the right to do with his life as he chose, but, not to waste it. My Christian God said to be fruitful and multiply. My brothers and I and my children did just that. If you didn’t want that, what can I say other than that is your choice.
It’s true, I don’t like guns and I believe they should be severely restricted. As of Aug. 1, at least 25,198 people have died from gun violence in the U.S. this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive – which is an average of roughly 118 deaths each day. Of those who died, 879 were teens and 170 were children. These statistics are repeated every year. You can come up with all the cliches and other reasons why guns are good, but, you will never convince me OR THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY.
I congratulate you on your decision to get “solar”. I won’t delude myself that your choice was anything more than a profitable one. You are too old and obtuse to believe that this planet of ours will one day kick us in the ass. However, I would have done so sooner except I just found out about it. It might be useful to find out if a foot of snow will keep you from using your computer. 🤣😈
Low gas prices
Way lower food prices
Lower taxes
No wokeness spewed about
No riots
No bickering and fighting only from the democrats
No transvestites on tv
None of the nonsense we have today
Get cockled
Consider a poll of a panel of economists conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. The 41 panel members were asked whether they agreed with the following statement: “Changes in U.S. gasoline prices over the past 20 years have predominantly been due to market factors rather than U.S. federal economic or energy policies.” Not a single member of the panel disagreed with the statement.
Here is why: Oil is a global market in which America is a big consumer but a small supplier. We consume about 20 percent of the world’s oil but hold only 2 percent of the oil reserves. That means we are, in economics jargon, “price takers.” Domestic production has increased during the Obama administration, but it has had minimal effects on global prices because, as producers, we are just too small to matter much. And even if domestic oil companies further increased production, THEY WOULD SELL TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER.
If you’re not convinced by economic theory or the opinions of economists, consider some recent history. Presumably, no one would call President George W. Bush unfriendly to the oil industry. Yet the price of gasoline rose steadily during most of his administration. In February 2001, just after Mr. Bush took office, the average price of regular gasoline was $1.45 a gallon. By June 2008, that price had risen to $4.05. Still think presidents and oil-friendly policies can determine oil prices?
only registered users can see external links
The best thing for the US to do is get out of Opec and use our own resources and work towards alternatives in the mean time.
Although in many gas stations, what you guys call them, we call them servo's 🤭 fast charge stations are pooping up everywhere. So if you were to go for a long drive, you stop for breaks, coffee something to eat a piss stop & whilst your doing that you can hook the car to a fast charge to keep it toped up, charging is slower than tipping guzzalene into the tank, sure, but there are other ways around keeping a electric car fueled.
I have noticed now that there are some Hydrogen powered cars kicking around now, so this electric car thing may end up being a thing of the past, who knows only time will tell. Their power cells are a shit of a thing to the world to produce & to get rid off once they are done so I don't really think they are the ultimate answer to reduce green house gas as far as the humble auto mobile goes 🤷♀️
What do you think the rest of us do? Sit on our thumbs? I personally don't care how eco-friendly solar panels are, but, I see them on the roofs of many homes and they don't spew black smoke, don't produce black lung decease on those that work on them, continue to provide power and economic benefits for many years, and does not turn mountain ranges into slush.
All of that I saw with my own eyes. I didn't have to be a Google wanker for that, nor did I have to copy/paste anything either.
I could have. I could have posted chapter and verse from different scientific sources to prove my point, but why? In this world there are two types of people, the "blokes" that won't give aan effort to bring a solution a fair shake. Quoting statistics that came out of some loudmouth's ass, and then there's the"wankers" that like to hear or learn the truth. "Google" is an electronic encyclopedia. What's in it can be very educational. The only requirement is the smarts to read and understand what it says. Copy/paste is just a way to transfer information from one place in the net to another. It's very similar to posting dick or pussy pics witch, incidentally, are also on the net.
This "wanker" can't understand why the use of facts, Google or copy/paste twists men's balls into a knot. That's assuming there are balls there to begin with.
🤣👿
So just because you don't see the pollution that your existence creates that's all good & gives you a warm inner glow.
I know in Australia & I'm fairly sure in America as well our emissions are coming down, but Chinas emissions are rising.
So why is that I wonder 🤷♀️, that because industry in Australia & America is now for a big part done in China, but that's ok for the pollution to be there., at least we cant see or smell the pollution over in China.
In actual fact the Tesla cars we get in Australia are actually manufactured in China, the Tesla car in the US are built there.
Your Tesla story is troubling, but, the problems are caused by the manufacturer and it’s way of producing this car. Does that mean no one else should try to create a GOOD electric car? I think not.
China has the market on manufacturing, but, it’s not their fault. It’s all the countries that allowed factories to be moved there FOR LABOR SAVINGS. In other words, greed. Several months ago, a Chinese spy balloon drifted over the USA. It was carried by air currents. I would think pollution would be too expensive. Here, in Florida, we have Saharan dust that blows on the winds across the Atlantic. Shouldn’t every person in this world of ours be concerned with pollution? Borders are lines on a map.
With this new battery tech I just read about,the foundation of your house can be used to store energy.A super capacitor they call it.
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 6 minutes
A very interesting read
Expensive to tear down the house to replace the footings. But if it last for decades, may well be a plausible idea. and little to no extra cost.
Natural gas in a big one almost 40% coal almost 20% renewables a bit over 20%.
America also has the biggest number of nukes than any other country in the world so its clear that it is a thing there so I sort of wondered why it was not adapted to be the main power source.
Seem it comes down to cost, in the 60's it was one of the cheapest ways to generate power, today its the most expensive. There are other things like public opinion on safety & mining uranium.
I looked up why we don't have any here & its Illegal, simple as that more or less, its typical of a lot of Australian thinking, very backward on many things.
We have the biggest uranium deposit in the word & plenty of space to store waste, a good part of the country is desert & inhabitable, with stable bedrock to bury the shit in.
Besides the now seems higher cost to set up for electricity supply it would be a no brainier for Australia to adopt nuke power.
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 56 minutes
We do have a lot of coal & gas as well so that may well be a contributing factor
One of the things I noticed on out visit to LA & NYC in March was the lack of, or almost non existence of maintenance on the roadways, especially in LA.
We have some shitty roads over here as well, but our highways are in quite good shape for the most part, especially the Hwy between Sydney & Brisbane, maybe because a lot of our freight is transport by road would be my guess.
We went to Universal Studios in LA & most of the population was Hispanic, a small portion of whites & even less black, we found that as a bit of a surprise but then have come to understanding that LA was originally part of Mexico so that sort of makes sense.
In NYC only seen very few black guys but they were obviously well to do types in suits & stuff, often walking the streets early evening where we were, with family's, we stayed only a few blocks up from ground zero. That was a humbling place to visit, seeing it on social media & stuff you really cant experience the enormity of that disaster until visiting the site & the lower catacombs that are now the museum of that disaster.
Getting into the Empire State building & being able to look over the river into the, is it the bonks, I'm not sure but the image of, I don't even know how to explain it really, but a site of total poverty & despair in concrete towers is a image I will never forget 😢
--------------------------------------- added after 7 minutes
Not to far from the right of the Brooklyn Bridge bridge
And if you start dividing up that number as to elderly, children, women ,men, college educated and so on, the numbers get real small as to who is qualified to work certain jobs and so on.
It's fucking expensive and you're stuck with the waste for 100,000 years.
And they still keep melting down and making the world more radioactive.
It makes a nice target for terrorism too. KaBlam!, 'Now you get cancer, Haha!'
There are many better, cheaper and safer solutions.
Fighting 1 version of the "end" with something that will create another version of the "end" is spinning your wheels.
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
The name of the plant was three mile island and yes I’m a nuke survivor and my skin glows green at night
He brought home 1200 a week in 1979!
This damn site deleted 2 paragraphs,
Nuclear is very expsensive. It took up to 1 month for a crew of 12 to weld 1 joint in a 4 inch pipe.and if it failed inspection it had to be cut apart and rewelded the next month.welders could only stay in the area to weld about 10 minutes at the time. took forever to use 3 welding rods
There is not even even enough viable uranium in the world to make a significant dent in global energy consumption.
"At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years." (A calculation from 12 years ago)
only registered users can see external links
However, oil and natural gas are also getting more and more expensive,
while wind and solar power keep getting cheaper and better.
Time to get AI in there? That's just handing it over to hackers.
No keeping things secure will require humans to continue to innovate to prevent that from happening.
Although I really feel like AI will bring alot of positive changes, it would be nice if there was a equal effort to expand Real intelligence.
Just for this topic, right?
Give Americans a CHOICE.
only registered users can see external links
But I agree with giving people a choice. Electric cars should become
so cheap and attractive, that even you will want one.
If they cannot make that happen soon enough, they should
switch cars to bio-fuels. It's about a $1000 conversion.
The challenge is producing the bio-fuels, so they better get at it.
Maybe you'll like this video. Simone Giertz bought a CityCar.
only registered users can see external links
She's a 'maker' of funny but totally useless inventions.
only registered users can see external links
You would also need to rewind the motor ,with a finer gauge of wire for more turns in the armature and install better bearings.
Making With Mihir - Simplest EV Conversion under $3000
Convert Your Car in 3 Days!
only registered users can see external links
72 volts,that kept cost down a good bit to as motors are more common at that voltage.
I would have thought a motor with dual output shafts would have been more practical.
72 volts is a bit low too. 400 volts would be a lot more compatible with
charging stations. You would need to be very careful during your DIY project.
Had 1 battery explode because of a internal short, shot me and the seat up, my head hit the roof of the cart. Had a hell of a time getting the battery replaced under warranty, they tried to say I had it wired wrong, Strange, as I drove it AFTER the battery exploded to the nearest garden hose so I could use baking soda and water to clean the mechanicals before corrosion set in from the acid.
I watch videos that are way longer and some are even a bigger waste of time.
This video is still more useful than the things you watch.
Cut-up videos from Biden making him look worse than he is
and partisan hacks lying about evidence that doesn't exist.
If they cannot show you the complete video and if they cannot
specify the evidence, then they are lying to you.
What do you think you learn from listening to people lying?
I listen to people who don't show 10 seconds of video, misrepresenting
what actually happened or what was actually said.
If I would see such videos, I wouldn't accept them as true.
I only value sources that do specify the evidence and that use
logical argumentation, without fallacies.
If I find any signs of dishonesty, I stop watching.
Most videos from Simone Giertz are also more useful.
What she makes is mostly useless, but she does teach some skills
and she shows extraordinary creativity, which I think is inspiring.
I do not just watch videos from makers like Simone Giertz, Adam Savage, Nerdforge and Laura Kampf, who are making thinks, showing skills and creativity, I even watch game streams, which are even less useful. And that still leaves me time to do some gaming myself.
I do have a lot of time to waste. I have a 40 hour/week job and 90% of it
I can do from home. Life is good in this socialist hellhole, which you think
my country is. I work to live, instead of live to work.
Bet you are one of those that think they should continue to work at home all the time. What if everyone thought that way, then how the hell are you going to get packages delivered to your door and you get them while in your PJs.
That handshake video was cut-up. A few seconds before you see why he extends his hand.
That latest video where Biden stands up, according to Fox'News' during the interview, clearly was the end of the interview, if you see the few minutes before.
Not 'all the time', when I need to be at work, I go to work.
and I spend it in many ways, that I like. YouTube is just one.
The videos that I watch bring me inspiration or knowledge or both,
the videos that you watch bring you misdirected outrage.
You are correcting your own problem; directing your outrage to the wrong people, will allow the wealthy to cuck you further and make you work even harder and longer, for less. No more time to watch your videos. Problem solved.
Unless they start to show you their propaganda at work, while you are toiling on that assembly line. It's an image they used, to fearmonger about communism,
but they stopped doing that, because capitalism is getting way too close to that.
It's your laziest flip ever.
only registered users can see external links
We have been running out of oil since we started pumping it!
only registered users can see external links
The ice age is coming,the ice age is coming!
only registered users can see external links
1863 the sea level was rising!
This lady seems to agree that climate change is bs
More interesting reading.
only registered users can see external links
Something near the end of the page caught my eye. And it makes sense with the censorship of the liberal media.
"ob Starkey | August 29, 2023 at 12:27 pm |
Jim writes
‘But now the internet is a means of centralization and control.”
As a specific example of this practically speaking try looking up studies written prior to 2001 on sea level rise. Google and Bing will take you to more recent papers affirming the current notion that sea level has only been rising at the current rate for 175 years or so. Older papers suggested the rise has been happening for hundreds of years."
UM, sound familar ,sounds like something we conservatives have been hinting at for a while now. Climate change is not new, and information to try to show a different viewpoint is censored by making it difficult to find.
Here's My take on climate change after alot thinking.
Liberal retards, that won't work, are jealous of the success's of those folks that do. Such as nice cars and homes. So instead of trying to succeed on thier own,and achieve goals in their own lives, they have found a way to demonize the working mans rewards for his work by claiming it hurts the enviroment.
Climate science doesn't deny that the climates change and that climates have been different in the past. They don't just look at the effects of climates changing, like sea levels, they look at the basis; solar radiation coming in and the earth's and atmosphere's ability to absorb that solar radiation.
The atmosphere's ability to absorb solar radiation is fully dependent on the composition of the atmosphere. This is a physical absolute. Do you refute that?
Humanity has emitted CO2 and NH4 more than any natural source. The consumption of fossil fuels emits 20 times more CO2 than the yearly record of all wildfires globally.
Do you refute that?
Humanity has destroyed a large part of the forests, that recycle and absorb CO2.
Do you refute that?
The CO2 levels have been rising from an average of 295 parts per million in 1900,
to an average of 417.06 parts per million in 2022. Do you refute that?
Do you refute the relationship between the average temperature of the earth and human CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and deforestation?
So, even if there was any truth to your last claim, how does it refute climate change?
And what evidence do you have that liberals are not working?
And if there was jealousy towards 'successful people', and liberals would want to take their stuff, or whatever you are implying, why would climate change be an effective method to do that?
Why would those liberals propose solutions to mitigate that climate change, which provide lots of chances for smart people to make money and be successful, if they want to hurt successful people?
Those successful people are now all driving Teslas, placed solar panels on their roofs, lowered their energy expenses, and their lives continue like nothing is happening.
So, how are even the majority of successful people being hurt at all?
This was not something I learned in a published book or some science magazine. This was something I saw with my own eyes, and if you visit Miami Beach, especially, the are known as South Beach, you can see it too, daily.
Your take on climate change is wrong on two counts. The first is not believing it’s on a fast pace. The second is thinking, (how did you put it?) liberal retards, that don’t work, etc, etc, etc. listen, Phart, those liberals, as you call them, are working people who work in their respective science field, and they contribute way more than you or me or Trump to the betterment of the world.
The last time the sea level was higher than today was during the Eemian,
about 125,000 years ago. Humans were still living only in Africa then.
Were you there when the northern ice cap reached into Southern Europe? And you can't be right because Scripture says that the world was conceived in 7 days approximately 10 thousand years ago. Those shells are probably from when your area flooded about 25 years into the last century.🤣😈
--------------------------------------- added after 4 minutes
Our cabin in Central Florida is at a 98' elevation and it's nowhere the highest elevation in Florida.
Someone is afraid apparently of the truth, regardless of what it is.
That's just another bullshit story, posing for the fact that the claim has been completely debunked.
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
Even Fox 'News' called it a hoax:
only registered users can see external links
It's such a silly claim, that most scientists don't even take the time to dismiss it. They have better things to do than study people's delusions.
If there was a global flood, within the last 10,000 years, there would be evidence of it EVERYWHERE. There would be sea shells on every mountain side and not just the one 40 miles from your house. When there are sea shells, high up on mountain sides, they are incredibly old. Some mountain sides were see floor once. They rose up through plate tectonics over many millions of years.
The only possibility to accept Noah's Ark is by BELIEVING IT.
It's ridiculously impossible in about a thousand ways.
There are even scientists who took the time to debunk it in science papers,
but if you want to hear the reasons presented in a consumable manor,
just search for 'Noah's Ark debunked' on YouTube.
He's just a short one: only registered users can see external links
Pay attention here,
Just how green is "going green"?
Not very green actually according to your neighbors in the UK>
only registered users can see external links
So we give up oil, to save the world,only to poison the water and Kill everything.
“Attempts to explain attitudes to climate change, and the refusal of large parts of society to accept the idea of an imminent catastrophe, have largely foundered. This ground breaking book overturns the existing literature, developing a powerful new model of public attitudes based on the interaction of traditional religion and a new culture – a new faith – of climate catastrophism, which is instinctively accepted or rejected. At its centre is a series of measurements of public opinion, culled from major international polls, which make a strong case that society is now in the grip of a major new religion. That case is made still more powerful because the model is able to predict real-world outcomes, such as the deployment of renewables and the prevalence of climate protest groups in different countries.
So in short, non religous people that are jumping on the climate change bandwagon are joining a religion after all!@ AHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAAAAAHAAAAA
These concept are all the products of religion or religion is the product of those ideas, that were conceived by people who didn't understand anything about reality and just tried to explain things, based on no knowledge at all.
You may no believe all of these ideas, but you have claimed to believe some.
That's you having religious beliefs, while you now laugh very hard about people being convinced of the truth of claims in a religious way. So please explain that.
Does that mean that you accept that there is a difference between the religious way to be convinced of 'truth' and the scientific method, to acquire knowledge?
Science claims there is knowledge that is so thoroughly confirmed and even proven, after so many attempts to disprove, that they are accepted as theory, which is the term of knowledge that approaches absolute certainty. The basic principle or physics equations that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena theories are called laws.
Here are some of them:
- Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
- Newton's Laws of Motion
- Universal Law of Gravitation
- Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
- Laws of Thermodynamics
- Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
- The theory of electricity
- The caloric theory
- The particle (or kinetic) theory of matter
- Corpuscular theory of light
- The quantum theory of the emission and absorption of radiation
- Rutherford's and Soddy's 'emanation theory' of radioactive decay
- Chemical theory
- Theory of plate tectonics
- Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
- Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
- Theory of General Relativity
- Germ theory of disease
When you laugh at religious beliefs, that means you understand that there is a difference between them and scientific knowledge. Correct?
Then why do you not accept the 'Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection'? This theory is based on just as much or even more evidence than the theories I listed above.
There is no evidence of a creator, that is a religious idea, which you seem to believe.
So why do you refuse to accept a scientific theory of a religious claim?
If you are not convinced of any evidence, your position should be: "I don't know!".
That's what religion is all about; accepting ideas as truth, while there is no evidence for that truth. I think it's unwise to accept ideas without evidence. You do that all the time,
but to my surprise, now you even laugh about it.
There is a lot of evidence for climate change. The concept itself is based on the 'quantum theory of the emission and absorption of radiation'. CO2 absorbs radiation of the sun and turns it into heat. Climate change is based on observations and scientific confirmation. I don't hold it to be true, because some people say so, but because I've accepted the evidence. Many scientists have tried to refute the evidence and failed.
The difference between you and me, is that I will change my mind immediately, when I'm confronted with evidence against a proposition, which is stronger than the evidence that supports a proposition.
Since you laugh so hard about the idea that climate change is somehow similar with religion, you must have very good reason to reject the evidence provided by scientists or evidence against it. I would be very interested in those, because so far, you have only provided ignorant arguments.
That Archimedes guy, he got several good men killed in WW2. Did you know that? I can't find the exact article I read a few years ago.
With his "Buoyancy Principle"
only registered users can see external links
or WHO is the person behind the evidence or proof. It doesn't.
I don't care WHO Archimedes was or what he did besides his work,
to determine if I want to trust any of his scientific discoveries.
Newton was brilliant, but it seems like he was a very unpleasant person.
It doesn't matter, because these people only discovered some facts of reality,
while all the other scientists tried hard to disprove them, but couldn't,
This is the scientific method, and is just as important as the discoverers.
Any discovery is valuable, but it only turns into science when it's challenged.
I'm not talking about Fox'News' asking questions, I'm talking about real skeptics honestly trying to unravel the logic of a proposition and trying to find mistakes.
Many honest hypotheses die this way, many dishonest hypotheses too.
The ones that survive for decades and get confirmed by other studies,
can make it to theory. A theory is the pinnacle of knowledge. Not because scientists trust the discoverer, but because they didn't succeed in disproving the evidence.
It might get the name of the discoverer, but all of science is responsible.
And what is your reason for saying that climate activists are becoming part of a religious movement? Someone said it!
It's an opinion that you like and therefore you think it's true. There is no logic or evidence supporting that opinion, but you don't care. Just as you don't care about any logic or evidence supporting your position against climate change. A few ignorant arguments or a few people claiming to be honest scientists, telling you that it's all a big conspiracy, without any consistent explanation of its goal, is good enough for you, to keep believing that everyone else is lying or crazy. That's a religion.
The who that says or finds something means a lot. Just as you discredit Judge Joe brown because he says something you don't like and has had a brush with the law himself, I discredit alot of the people pushing climate change, who fly to their meetings in private jets, have their little sail boat hauled to within a couple miles of their destination so they can make a grand entrance and so on.
crediablity matters if you want to really gain support for your ideas.
Science isn't one person, it's a process of lots of people trying to shoot holes in the evidence and arguments of one or a few people.
If there is just one claim, made by one person, first, you should consider their evidence and arguments over the source. The problem is that most of your sources don't provide any evidence or arguments, but only opinions. Then there is nothing left to determine the truth of their claims, by considering the trackrecord of that person.
I asked you for any arguments that judge Joe Brown might have made.
That's me saying that I don't see him as a source spending my time on,
but if you think he provides any value to the discussion, you might learn something, when you listen to him, paying attention to evidence and arguments.
I doubt you will get anything useful from him. If it gets you any arguments,
then that's your time well spent.
There is truth in your claim that credibility matters. That's why all the climate change deniers are spending their time trying to discredit the climate scientists and not their evidence and arguments. That fools people like you, who think credibility matters more, than evidence and arguments. That still wouldn't be much of a problem,
if you had a better judge of character and credibility.
only registered users can see external links
I am not the only 1 that is potentially manipulated. YOU ARe MUCH MORE susceptible than I am.
only registered users can see external links
It's about the same guy!
His statements about wildfires doesn't refute climate change.
only registered users can see external links
Their article explains how the science of Patrick Brown got over-hyped and that his findings did "found, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that climate change has in fact increased wildfire risk in the recent past and will increase it even more in the near future. The paper is well-reasoned, not obviously overhyped, and peer-reviewed. It echoes many other recent studies with similar findings. Brown even stands by it." Note that the science isn't overhyping anything, but the article writing about it did overhype his science. It doesn't say what they say it says. That's why you should read the articles itself and not trust anyone's opinion on them.
Here is what Patrick Brown says about it himself (the most trustworthy sourse):
only registered users can see external links
Other source provide another answer to the narrative that climate scientists are manipulating their data.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
So, you've got one scientist, that refutes himself what was said about him.
I've got him and every other scientist on my side. I've told you before that secondary climate change effects are harder to substantiate. That's because other factors are obviously acting upon them. Wildfires are indeed dependent on preventative measures and stupid people who set fire to forests unfortunately exist. Those are factors in research like Brown's, looking further in the chain of causality
(CO2 increase -> temperature increase -> droughts -> wildfires).
Here is Patrick Brown explaining his research.
only registered users can see external links
Starting from 9:00, he explains that wildfires are multi-causal events and everything he explains afterwards is completely consistent with the claims of climate change,
that all other serious climate scientists support.
That was you being susceptible to the lying media. They claimed something
that you liked, but it turned out that they were twisting a science article to claim
something it doesn't claim, and that scientist himself is refuting them.
So tell me,why is it, that it is perfectly ok for wealthy democrats to out to the desert and BURN all kinds of stuff in a towering inferno leave their literal SHIT in the desert, but then, want cow farts caught in jars to save the environment?
is hypocrisy a good word to use for this?
Get some information from honest sources sometimes.
It's corporate media. Have I ever told you to trust corporate media?
I always clearly state that you can trust the liberal corporate media about 50%
of the time and be sure that right-wing corporate media lie at least 90% of the time.
Also, MSN is just reposting 'news' from other sources.
This was a Daily Mail article, which is clearly right-wing biased media.
Now, that doesn’t mean the average global temperature won’t stagnate or even drop for several years. But when the data collected is observed over the lengths of decades, it will still be warming over all.
It’s just like stocks. The average of good stocks just don’t rise and rise and rise. The drop at times and recover.
So, as the species that has contributed to the accelerationnof the natural warming trend the Earth is already undergoing, we owe it to ourselves to always look into and develop ways to reduce our impact.
No matter what our best efforts result in, and no matter if everything we’ve built could disappear in a split second, the Earths climate will continue to grow warmer on average.
Even if we make an impact after spending trillions of dollars to achieve a small dent in the problem, a super-volcanic eruption or a space-borne impactor strike would efase our efforts like they weren’t even there.
But don’t ever expect me to buy an electric vehicle. I’d rather walk. And I’ll be 63 in a few weeks.
Were you there?
No, scientists told you. So, how do you decide when to accept science and when not?
What data and models did you use to convince yourself that they are wrong?
Or have you just decided that they must be wrong, because you don't like it?
Your data has no more credibility than scientific data that does NOT support the climate narrative
Check the link
Are YOU sure you are getting the WHOLE truth?
only registered users can see external links
But, of course you believe an article with just another anecdote,
that is not refuting any of the facts. How does this convince you?
Just blame it on 'poor fire management' and not the heat records
that get broken every single year. Hear is some of that 'data':
only registered users can see external links
Clear enough? If not, why not?
To manage that Canadian forest, they need every single Canadian.
About 10 hectares per man, woman and child, sounds manageable, right?
A bit difficult for the parts that are 100 miles away from civilization though.
You see the whole world baking, burning and drowning and you believe them saying "Don't believe your lying eyes!".
How many 'natural' disasters do you need to see, before you start to understand?
Just as you imply we can fix the climate with a tax and a bicycle, I am implying the people can manage their resources like the forest and not LOOSE them totally..
California is a good example of lost woodlands due to greenie weenie Sierra club types not wanting to cut a tree limb.
The cause of that is of course not natural, but of human origin.
That's why I put it between quotation marks, as you surely noticed.
But you didn't answer the question, how many record heatwaves, droughts, floods, mudslides and wildfires does it take, for you to recognize that it isn't caused by just natural processes anymore?
only registered users can see external links
Sure, a house on the coast can get blown apart by a hurricane and it will be under water in 50-100 years. No one says that the sea level will rise that high in 10 years.
If you actually READ what science is claiming, you would know that.
only registered users can see external links
It's around the year 2100 that the sea level will start to become a problem, for them.
However for countries like mine, The Netherlands, which is mostly under sea level,
it demands costly investments in strengthening coastal protection, already today.
Meanwhile, the coast is a nice place to be, when it's fucking 120 °F outside.
The wealthy can buy 100 or 1000 of those houses. They don't have to care about
where they buy one of them, to live there in the summer, unlike YOU.
And if the house survives, they can always sell that house again, to some Texan,
fleeing Texas heat, who doesn't believe in climate change.
They cannot take their wealth with them in the grave, just like you.
But unlike you, they can waste money, to live where they want, when they want.
And because it doesn't affect them, the wealthy who make their money from oil,
are spreading lies for you, that their business doesn't affect YOU.
A cheap solution to pollution? for starters, find a fuel that burns that won't make holes in the atmosphere over florida and anywhere else rockets are launched.
A country like Norway just invests into renewable energy PUBLICLY, resulting in government control over abundant cheap green energy, which they can sell to the rest of Europe. This already gives them a massive return on investment. The question is; does that require taxing their people to bankruptcy? In Norway, the average single worker faced a net average tax rate of 27.3% in 2022. The US average tax rate is 30.5%. Guess not!
Norway also increased the national debt, to pay for these investments, but they still kept it under 40% of GDP (less than a third the debt/GDP of the USA). They had a very low debt, because Norway didn't just give away their oil resources to oil companies, to enrich their owners. They kept it under public ownership, providing state income and a massive pension investment fund, worth $ 1444 billion, for its people. Now the massive green energy infrastructure is paying off their debt again and providing lots of jobs. They are the 7th richest country in the world, while producing 98% of its electricity from renewables.
A fuel that burns cleanly is natural gas. It doesn't make holes in the atmosphere, but it keeps adding carbon dioxide to the climate change problem. In the US, now 95% of the natural gas production requires fracking. That requires lots of acidic chemicals and those are polluting lots of your water sources. For example, together with their lead pipes, which get corroded from that acid, that caused the Flint Michigan water crisis, which I hope you heard about.
are absolutely your worst choice.
--------------------------------------- added after 11 hours
Read the story of Flint and tell me where the Democrats are involved.
They mostly blame Republican Governor Rick Snyder and his administration for this.
only registered users can see external links
If you don't want to pay taxes, or only use it for the military, than the government doesn't have money to replace lead water pipes, which are ancient history in my country. The whole world used lead pipes, but modern countries spend money to replace old plumbing (plumbum is latin for lead).
If you deregulate and cut funding to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), than they cannot enforcer the local governments to invest in the infrastructure and other things you need for safe drinking water.
Did you agree with the Democrats' Infrastructure bill? No, you didn't.
You are angry for the government not doing their jobs, but you are also angry about the government requiring money for that.
Now you found one area with one problem, caused by a Republican, but you disregard the problems being caused all over America, by Republican priorities of low taxes, cutting spending, deregulation and privatization of public utilities.
Why would the left want to scare you?
I wouldn't want to spend money on solar panels and wind turbines, if there was
no problem. It will be very expensive for me to electrify my home and my car.
I would prefer to spend my money on fun things, but I choose to spend it on this
very important thing. And I accept higher taxes for that same important thing.
What 'socialist' purpose would be served, by doing that?
I want free education, free healthcare, a living wage, affordable housing, affordable food, a fulfilling work-life balance and lots of other stuff that improves people's lives.
None of these goals are served, by inventing some problem and then spending money on solving that fictional problem, instead of spending that money on serving my goals.
So why?
Like I've said, "ostrich"
I do believe I was stating my opinon Ananas2xLekker. I need no government or corporation to think for me unlike you.
We don't see libtards doing illegal shit, we see Trump break the law daily,
ten times before breakfast, and then we see Republicans coping, by denial,
conspiracy theories and weak whataboutisms, which fall flat every time.
There was a real Republican conspiracy to steal the election that Biden won,
and finally the law is catching up to them. All those traitors should go to prison
for a long long time.
Every single idea in your head originates from right-wing pundits, who's only job
is to lie to you, so you'll keep voting in favor of corporate interests.
only registered users can see external links
Climate change happened ALONG time ago.
This is no longer a crackpot idea brought forth in the last half of the twentieth century. Now there concrete proof that the climate is changing at a rate not seen before. Why question it?
A couple friends came by yesterday and we were discussing this subject and they compared the climate change thing being pushed by kerry,biden and others to be like Y2K. Remember that scam. The government and private industry had the whole country scared to death the world was going just implode at midnight december 31. I was pumping gas in my car at 12:04 january 1st 2000. Very little if anything happened.
That is part of the reason why alot of us don't follow this climate thing.we simply don't trust the government or the folks pushing this narrative.
same type people pushing it.
Remember a short time ago if you were antivax you were the lowest of the low? Well now it is slowly coming out that the "vaccine" was bad ,just as we thought it was
BTW. Y2K was brought to the world's attention by the banking and investment industry as every date notation like 01/01/00 (January 1, 2000) would, perhaps, shut down the system. Now we use four digits for the year. I remember the government said, at the time, that everything would work out. Of course, people didn't believe the government. Hmmm, reminds me of someone.
What would you expect to see, if climate change was man-made?
Do you accept that humans have almost caused the extinction of the white rhinoceros?
Why? Have no species gone extinct ever before?
Is no fire ever arson, because fires can happen 'naturally'?
Live and live well and by the time the end comes, it will be some dumb sumbitch with a nuke.
Kinda like when I got hit by a truck It didn't matter if I had been eating well and jogging 3 miles a day or not ,I still got hit by a fucking truck. The climate is going to change, the earth is going to explode .And you still aint told me if the ice age will be before or after the warming?
I remember the global cooling thing when i was in school.
Then after college it became global warming.
Now it is climate change.
They use that term because Regardless of what happens, it is changing! So they pegged it!
I think you should get out of your house more often.
Oh, I am sure you forgot about that fairy tale
The second tipping point noted in the research would occur once 2,500 gigatons of carbon emissions have been released into the atmosphere, at which point the whole Greenland Ice Sheet will melt and sea level rise would rise by 6.9 meters, or 22.6 feet.
WHEN THE GREENLAND ICE MELTS THEN THE SEA WILL RISE BY 23 FEET EVERYWHERE ON THIS PLANET!
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Here is a page from a group I am sure you will put all your stock in regarding china's new coal plants.
only registered users can see external links
How this is relevant to the situation is this.A little thing called the Jet stream.
only registered users can see external links
Now, please explain to me how driving a electric car or farting in a jar is going to counter act all that?
Nothing to do with racism, nothing to do with politics, physics.
They burn shit ,it floats over here. Half the issues california has with smog is from CHINA not their own.
But the Citizens of the state suffer for it anyway financially.
You stated in the past that you want that state to seperate from the US.
If a independent truck driver takes a hauling job here in my state and takes it to california, if his engine in his truck is over a certain age, he can not enter the state. Thus his load has to be shifted over to another truck, increasing cost of shipping. just 1 example, there are many more.
That state is full of fruits and nuts and needs to be on it's own.
Video here only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Red areas will be under water
only registered users can see external links
Risk maps provided by the USA government here:
only registered users can see external links
How many environmentalist do you see wearing clothes? They were made somewhere out of something, and that created pollution. They got where they are somehow, that created pollution.
A environmentalist should be naked and starving and living in a tree ,and not shitting or farting. because anything that clothes them or feeds them besides a few twigs and berrys is polluting.
Today a few things have changed, they look like their heads have been shoved in a tackle box with all the metal shit they have in their faces, that shit don't grow on trees, it is manufactured.
All the hair dye they use is also made out of non environmentally friendly chemicals.
Their mostly all on welfare so workers like you & I have to be involved with expanding more industry to support the bludgers.
They breed like rabbits.
I bet they are all on their iPhones communicating with the world about their plight creating more pollution.
Then like in the City I live closed of roads with demonstrations, causing workers that support these cunts to sit in traffic, motors running causing more un-necessary pollution.
They are also part of the problem these fuckwits 🤷♀️
Both less damaging to the environment than polyester.
We don't have to cook, we could adapt and eat everything raw or sun dried.
Doesn't sound like you are giving up anything to save the planet. I doubt anyone here dumps shit and burnt oil on the ground or in the river.
If you really want to make a difference, you have to make serious changes that will severely crimp your life style.
How much do you see people willing to 'give up things' for their beliefs, around you?
Are Christians not 'giving up things', for their beliefs?
E.g. just financially; many pay 10% of their income to the church.
Then look at the claim of climate change; the world is getting hotter and areas are becoming inhospitable to life. It is already affecting most of the people on earth now and it will only get worse in the near and especially more distant future. It will, at the very least, affect young people living today, in a very harmful way.
IF YOU ACCEPTED THAT (I repeat IF), would you NOT be willing to 'give up things'
to prevent it?
Without discussing the truth right now, can you at least accept that thinking?
Then about the next idea, if you think this is a 'belief':
Climate change is caused by carbon dioxide emissions, and it's possible to reduce those emissions by changing to alternative forms of energy generation, instead of using the dwindling fossil fuel resources. It requires investments, but the alternative technology provides cheap abundant power.
IF you accepted that as true, why would you be against it?
Show that you are able to do a little thought experiment like this.
If you want, you can propose a similar thought experiment to me; a true 'believer'.
No one forces you to give 10% to the church. But if you want a car, you are forced pay for a catalytic convertor and related shit that the car does not need to run.
That is forcing beliefs ,or theory's or just plain bullshit on the people.
If a cars emissions system fails inspection ,it cost alot of money to fix it .We are FORCED to make repairs or replace or do what ever to be able to travel. Unlike the 10% we can give the church if we want to .
What if you were forced to pay fees for hwy repairs and you only used the side walk?
The question was if people are WILLING to give up things for their beliefs.
Can you understand that people are willing to give up things,
WHEN they are convinced that the alternative is as proposed?
Your example is not comparable. Are you not living in this world?
perhaps The very fact we have fossil fuels in the first place is because of climate changing to a point dino's couldn't live anymore.
DUH.
I can believe this, because it is happening now.
Volcanic eruptions that caused large-scale climate change may also have been involved, together with more gradual changes to Earth's climate that happened over millions of years.
Smoke and shit came all the way over here from Mt Saint Helens.
Even if there was no pollution created, the Earth is going to warm & there is nothing anyone can do about that
only registered users can see external links
Because of climate change, forests are now regularly bone-dry.
How many people do you need to constantly 'rake' a million square miles?
Approximately half of Canada is covered by forest. They have 36% more forest area than the USA, but only 11.5% of your population. You're not succeeding in preventing wildfires.
only registered users can see external links
Maybe you're doing better this year, but next year you might have all the wildfires again.
If you don't succeed, don't blame people with 12x more forest per capita, for failing too.
Did Trump raise any wildfire prevention funds? No, he even tried to gut those funds
for California, and you lot seem to like it when their forests burn.
Are Californian forest burning to embers more cleanly?
Even if they are stupid Democrats, their efforts still require money.
But you're only interested in supporting your 'team', instead of solving problems.
So what's your story now? Oh, I know; Blame Canada!
only registered users can see external links
If a fire of that size were here, myself and my nieghbors would be actually doing something ourselves if it was nothing but walking around with a shovel to snuff out hot spots.
And companies here do try to prevent the type fires that happen in california. The right of ways around power lines are cleared to a point a tractor or off road truck can access the entire line. Limbs and trees overhanging ,are CUT down.
Not pretty, but looks better than charred earth and lost homes.
Just understand the enormous challenge of protecting such huge areas.
They have increased the budgets for this, but it's just not enough.
They should clear very wide lanes between areas of forests, but when it's really dry it just starts burning everywhere at the same time. It only takes one piece of glass or a shiny can bottom or a lightning strike or someone throwing a cigarette out of the car window or a campfire or whatever of a hundred possible causes.
Look at the data, it's hundreds of wildfires everywhere. You would need to identify every fire in minutes and have firefighting aircraft ready for take-off at many locations, to get there immediately or it will already be too big.
Not that expensive. Cheaper than the negative affects high lumber prices will have on the economy.
Lumber is already a lot more expensive than before, but at least you understand how all these things are connected.
Only minutes ago, I explained to tecsan that to stop providing Ukraine with the weapons to push back the Russians, will not just result in 'maybe a little scuffle', but the complete annexation of Ukraine, a country which is called 'The granary of Europe'. That would result in Russia controlling the largest grain producing area in the world (see below). They can (and surely will) use that as leverage against the rest of the world: "Suck up to us, or you'll starve!".
Russia is blocking what's left of Ukraine's grain export. That causes food shortages and high prices, which are especially damaging to developing countries. Half the countries in the world have joined together to demand from Putin to stop blocking the grain exports from Ukraine.
You see high food prices and just say: "Biden's fault". That's usually where your thinking stops, mainly because your media doesn't talk about ANY OF THIS, either. But, if you are able to understand fires affecting lumber prices, you might be able to progress beyond the mind-numbingly low information and logic level of the right-wing media. That fills me with hope.
"Ukraine has the world's 25% black soil and highly developed agricultural production that accounts for more than 10% of its gross domestic production (GDP) in 2021. Both Ukraine and Russia are large grain exporters, accounting for 40% of the world's grain exports."
Then we see if you are consistent on this narrative.
Stop being so fucking dependant on others and take care of your own needs.
Your country is sitting pretty right now,plenty of food ,plenty of income,just to many people,stop reproducing!
The plague that spreads the Earth, Humans, are simply speeding up the current natural process of global warming, basically from destroying nature & melting the the ozone layer from pollution created from industry processes.
It really is as simple as that, the more we breed, the more industry there is & further destruction of of the Earth in our hunger for recourses to supply industry.
The Amazon for one of many examples is continuously eaten away for farming land to produce plant based oils that are used mostly in cosmetics to fuel the west in their hunger for beauty.
Poor 3rd world nation, that live in this area get paid lots of money for this resource, so why not cut down a few more trees for more farming land to get more money from the west.
The Amazon is the lungs of the Earth, but once it is all gone, we wont have any air to breath, but at least we will look perdy gasping for our last breath of air.
but at least you understand some of the problems.
We are all guilty of it, even you & I chatting here right now, with the tec we are using that has caused damage to create, let alone all the other destructive things to the ozone that just this simple conversation contributes to 🤷♀️
--------------------------------------- added after 6 minutes
& there are million or billions of people causing destruction just simply chatting over the internet right now & that really isn't even the tip of the "Iceberg"
--------------------------------------- added after 10 minutes
What we are doing as a species, anyone that cannot & or recognise the destruction we are causing really only have their head in the sand 🤷♀️
But sure they hang onto global warming is a natural process, I agree 100%, but as a species we are speeding that up a shit tone 🤷♀️
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
Why should I care about what could happen 100 years from now or more I won’t be here to see it
I'm not sure if your a breeder or not, looking in from a window into your profile I could only guess not (not saying anything negative, only a observation).
I feel for my kids & more so my grandkids, I don't have any yet but I'm sure they will be along in coming years, its my grandkids that I will know before I'm gone & I am sure they will be facing many struggles. But that generation will have to change, if they don't, who knows what will happen from there 🤷♀️
it will turn out to be true very quickly.
I'm not that worried about 100 years from now.
It's already getting pretty bad NOW.
You might not be living in the worst place, and I don't either,
but it will get to us both, with a vengeance, soon enough.
You keep worrying about food prices, remember? It's not Biden.
A big part of that is Ukraine, but it's also climate change already.
but it's heating up faster now than in the last 100,000 years (ice core records),
and it happened in decades, while normally in thousands of years.
A factor of 100 faster, IS NOT NATURAL.
Our parents & to a lesser extent theirs were the start of it, damn Henry Ford developing the production line, its all his fault lol
Our generation can't change a fucking thing, in the past or present, I agree with dgraff, our generation though is still trying to fix it with this renewable energy shit that creates more pollution to create the stuff than burning focal fuels ever did, but gives every one a warm fuzzy feeling in the tummy with the label of renewable energy, lets save the Earth together.
There are to many humans, we breed to much that's the issue its math 101 & no one seems to mention that, oh but that would mean less voters/tax payers, less money & round & around it goes 🤷♀️
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
I bet Henry Ford is rolling over in his grave over the plastic junk they call cars of today
No one has regrets over not working enough, on their deathbed.
That's not the same as living each day as it’s your last,
but as always, there is that sensible middle ground.
We call them "chrome bumpers" the old cars over here & old farts like us love them, I guess as something that reminds us of our past, they had their faults though & many of them ,but seeing a as new one getting around today near gives me a hard on, even those shit-box Holdens (Chev), obviously I'm a Ford guy but love the old Valliant's as well (Mopar).
Getting back to Henry though he was a innovator, he used more or less iron back in the early days because that was the only material available to him back then.
I think if if old Henry was to stand up out of his grave, go to a modern production line of modern car manufacturing he would be proud that his innovative idea of production line had advanced so far, also with advancement of modern cars today.
Although while driving the poor old cunt around in my modern motor car, if he spotted a chrome bumper, I'm sure it would give him a hard on, even if it was a Holden (Chev) or Mopar
I don't know why people have allowed themselves to be forced to drive roller skates.
People wonder why trucks are popular now.SIZE,wheel base, = comfort and safety.
And yes,over populations is part of the worlds problems.
I remember as a little kid the ad's on tv wanting people to send money to feed the little children in africa.Sad sights to see,kids with flys all over them.Well pumping money into it didn't fix the problem.THe people still aint figured out to STOP FUCKING or at least use a rubber or a pill. Ukraines grain is being blocked, and so now there will be even MORE starvation.
their wage still sucks and they have massive student loan debts.
That's not some force of nature, that's the choices our generation made.
Who actually benefited from that industrial explosion? Workers?
Look at the auto industry; starting worker wage is less than in 2007,
and that's not inflation corrected. They would need to make $10/hour more,
just to have kept up with inflation. That's not just in the car industry.
Henry Ford gave his workers a great wage for the time, so they could buy a car.
People are getting screwed, they just lie to people, about who's doing it.
You're right, there is not much that we can do individually, but every bit helps.
You can even save a buck, by investing in solar panels and insulation, if you have the money, and I believe you have.
This is a global effort. The first priority is forcing the 100 companies that emit 70% of the CO2, to reduce their emissions as much as possible. Simultaneously, all countries should transition their electricity generation to renewable energy ASAP. The next priority is electrifying the heat generation of houses and insulating houses way better. Only then do we get to transportation. Hard to electrify large transport should run on bio-fuels. Electrifying cars helps, but it helps more if their electricity renewable. That's probably enough, if we succeed in keeping the forests alive and plant some more trees.
There might be some smart geo-engineering solutions that can help.
The best way to contribute, is to vote for politicians who at least recognize the problem, instead of denying it. Mostly, stop voting for corrupt assholes, who take money from the fossil fuel industry. They are going to kill you, before you die at a respectable age. The local elections and primaries are more important than the presidential elections. The lesser evil is not going to help anyone.
You specifically, can make your garage more electric car friendly.
Most of their owners are loaded, so take advantage of their wallets.
It doesn't help much now, but the demand that first electric cars create,
helps the rest of the people afford electric cars and make them more useful.
That works the same for the whole country. Oil and natural gas
are getting expensive as fuck, if you didn't notice.
That's because it gets harder to get it out of the ground,
when all the easy sources have dried up.
doing whatever you want, and YOU don't believe that either.
Freedom, up to the point that you are affecting other people
directly in a negative way.
Your right to keep emitting carbon dioxide as much as you want,
is affecting the rights of other people, to a future.
We are the second largest agricultural exporter in the world,
directly after the US, but our country is 235 times smaller.
All that cow and pig shit is destroying what's left of our nature.
That 'starving' narrative is just bullshit propaganda, for idiots. We have enough.
About 75% of our products are exported, while also 66% of the profits leaves our borders. So fuck those foreign investors, who are destroying our nature.
If the rest of the world wants us to export food, stop exploiting our country.
Also, half of our country is used up by agriculture land, while we have no more places to live. Housing is almost unaffordable, because of scarcity. That's why I want some of those shit producing farms bought out and use their land to build houses for people.
Makes no sense why you want to go backwards.
well let 1 scientist say something against the grain of the climate change mob and he gets canceled like a air line flight in snowy weather.
only registered users can see external links
If he doesn't understand that, than his physics degree should be revoked.
He said that he didn't 'believe' in climate change. He said:
“I don’t believe there is a climate crisis,” Clauser explained. “The world we live in today is filled with misinformation. It is up to each of you to serve as judges, distinguishing truth from falsehood based on accurate observations of phenomena.”
That means it isn't his scientific opinion, because a scientist would DEMONSTRATE
that the science isn't correct, by writing and publishing a paper on it. He didn't do that,
he just gave his ignorant opinion. That's not his JOB, his job is TO DO SCIENCE!
He hasn't done his own research, he's just referring to one article. It's one of those articles where cherry picked data is analyzed so they can muddy the waters. It's being demolished by real scientist. It took me only a few minutes to see the errors in that article and another few minutes to find scientists refuting it.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Still, it's true that not all extreme weather events can be linked to climate change (yet). However, the occurrence of heat waves, has been demonstrated to increase significantly. The increase of the CO2 concentration and global temperatures is irrefutably demonstrated. That's why studies like your article are referring to are ignoring that data.
You could inform yourself about these things, but your 'research' stops at one MSN story.
We are asked to believe the science by folks all the time. But as I said, let 1 scientist say anything out of line with the narrative and he is trashed. Why would I believe 1 over the other unless I can go to my lab and PROVE 1 way or the other is correct.
Atheist think it is crazy to have religious faith of any sort, but they, like you, have unbreakable unwavering faith in scientist.
And the next fly by night scientist will come along with something else and you will ditch 1 science God for the new 1.
Science doesn't operate on BELIEVES.
You investigate the EVIDENCE and accept or rejects it on it's merits.
Only math can PROVE anything. When you talk about proof, in the case of subjects like climate change, you are showing that you have no idea how science works.
Science provides PROBABILITIES. If the probability is 100%, then you have certainty. Unfortunately, in science, certainty is most often impossible. Still, science is the best method to obtain the most reliable information and knowledge.
Most importantly, science is not dishonestly claiming certainty, like religion does.
They just tell you, that all the evidence combined, provides a five sigma probability,
that man-made global warming is true. That's a 0.00003% likelihood of it being just a statistical error. That's a 1 in 3.3 million chance, of it not being true.
People who believe, for instance in a god, they THINK they have certainty, but they have also been completely wrong on many things, they used to belief were certain.
As an atheist, I think it's DELUSIONAL to have religious faith.
It doesn't provide any knowledge, it only provides the feeling of knowing.
To me that's useless. I'd rather be unsure, or not know, than know incorrectly.
The alternative is not to BELIEVE in science, the alternative is to study the evidence and either accept it, reject it, or be agnostic on it, BASED ON LOGICAL REASONING.
What YOU do, is listen to politicians and the media, while you simultaneously say they are all liars. Then you demonstrate full confidence on the answer to the question of climate change. THAT'S FAITH!
Scientists expect other scientists to NOT speak from ignorance. That's their job.
Dr. John Clauser spoke from ignorance, using ignorant argumentation, at primary school level insight. That's harming science and that's why scientists disapprove
of his irresponsibility.
only registered users can see external links
They are spending more and more on wildfire protection.
only registered users can see external links
Besides, there is tar sand under those trees. That's fuel for your V8's.
Let those trees burn, so there is no reason for lefties to cry about forests.
And the lumber prices will go up because instead of cutting and replanting our own trees we buy from up there.
Again,depending on others for what we have plenty of at home.
California learned it's forest practices from canada.
You have to keep fire lanes open, keep under brush cleaned up and so on or you loose millions of acres of trees.
Besides that, the smoke is making us sick way down here.
They claim they care about climate change but then smoke half the USA out.If they gave a damn,their inmates would be raking the forest clean, the power line right of ways would be clean an etc.
Oil companies don't want to replant, because that would make tar sands not economically interesting. It's just a thin layer of almost useless tar, that can only
be turned into a profit, by r@ping nature.
As you remember, the US has it's share of wildfires. The best way to prevent them is preventing climate change. 'Raking the forest clean' is just a dumb idea from your idiot, twice impeached, twice indicted, failed ex-president. In weeks of 100+ °F heat, that is now the new normal, forests will just start burning from almost nothing. It WILL require more preventative measures, to not let all the forest just burn away, but that is just symptom control. It will turn more and more expensive and it will do nothing about
the real CAUSE.
You are comparing billions of years to what's happening in a few DECADES.
Historical periods of climate change took many thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. There is a factor of a hundreds to tens of thousands of difference there.
The CO2 concentration is higher than in the last 100,000 years.
And it changed from a normal concentration to that record in 50 years.
Because humans are burning oil that took millions of years to form, in only decades,
and because humans have destroyed 35% of all forest area in the world.
We are killing mother nature and we are killing humanity.
Nature is not purging itself, humanity is purging itself.
And how do you know that climate change has been happening for billions of years?
Because climate scientists are telling you.
The same ones you don't believe, when they tell you it's man-made now.
most of that has been in the industrial age, when the human population quadrupled in the last 100 years.
Well, maybe the Chicxulub meteorite, that killed off the dinosaurs, caused damage on a scale like ours, but then the climate of earth took several tens of thousands of years to recover. At least 75 percent of the species on our planet, both in the seas and on the continents, were extinguished forever. But, we can beat that...
China has 5 times the number of people.
Per capita, they are emitting half of Americans.
only registered users can see external links
to counter President Joe Biden's efforts to declare a climate emergency.
only registered users can see external links
That requires an area as big as the total American continent.
And it would still not be enough to keep using fossil fuels, and survive.
It's a smokescreen. But, if they even plant 100,000 trees, I'll like it.
A cycle that works.
It's them, and soon the rest of you, being on the way to excepting a science fact,
that the rest of us have accepted for decades. Accepting that the problem is real alone,
is not going to help save humanity, if you're not also understanding the reality of what's needed to even flatten the curve.
What's needed is not going back to the stone-age, but it's moving forward into the renewable-age. The energy coming in from the sun is more than enough than what we need to power everything to our heart's content. We will just need to switch from using that solar power that is fixed as fossil fuels in the ground over billions of years, to using what comes in more directly. That could be 100% energy from lumber, with a forest of a trillion trees, but we would need to return a lot of area, that we now use for living and food production. THEN, we would need to force everyone to be vegetarian, like right-wingers are always fearmongering about. Luckily, us lefties have invented better ways.
All the bullshit they are telling you, comes directly from the oil companies that are trying to protect their bottom line. Fuck them, before they completely fuck everyone.
Every single advancement of technology in history was involved with companies shutting their doors and employees needing to find new jobs.
It always created new opportunities, for new companies and new and better jobs. Renewable energy is already doing that. It's creating millions of good paying jobs
and massive profits for companies that are driving innovation.
If changes happen, just because of capitalism, you don't give a fuck.
If changes need to happen, for humanity to save itself, then you really care.
I really don't understand that warped thinking.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Solar panels, great eh?
only registered users can see external links
My concern is the mounting structures coatings and disposal.
Wind mills, great eh?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
On the right we have a large mountain that is saying, "hold my rocks" as it is set to demonstrate how viable ,life altering climate change actually happens.
only registered users can see external links
If these are the new tactics of climate activists, I endorse it. They have been a nuisance to average people too much. That's not helpful to the cause. They should be a nuisance to the wealthy, because the wealthy are the ones who are responsible for humanity not preventing its own demise. The wealthy are also responsible for you believing lies, by funding the right-wing grifters you call news.
Massive volcanoes do have the potential to change the climate. Just like a meteor can.
At the moment there is no way to prevent volcanoes from massively erupting. We could however predict and prevent a big meteor from crashing into the earth. However, there is no evidence of a volcano ever changing the climate in a long-term, destructive way.
The last time real climate disaster was caused by a meteor was 60 million years ago.
Those risks are therefore not a priority over preventing climate change from human carbon emissions. Humanity can either choose to act, to solve its own problems, or face catastrophe. If we don't, there is a 100% certainty for the destruction to become worse every decade. There is also a 0.000000001% that volcano eruption or a big meteor kills us all, in a year. If you worry about that, that's like worrying to be killed by lightning, while you're driving your motorcycle, without a helmet and motorcycle suit, at 150 mph, through New York traffic, at rush hour.
only registered users can see external links
How can you condone vandalism of property?
That is unlawful,and cost insurance companies millions a year.
I want them to be annoying and irritating as fuck, without breaking any laws.
And not to the general public, but to the people who are creating the problems.
Just because you found some examples of motorcyclists being struck by lightning, doesn't make it something to be worried about. Of course you shouldn't be out on your bike in a lightning storm, but that wasn't what I was talking about. Driving your motorcycle, without a helmet and motorcycle suit, at 150 mph, through New York traffic, at rush hour, is still much more dangerous. I would say it's about a 100% assurance that you're gonna get hurt or killed.
Meanwhile, humanity is already taking lots of damage from climate change. There are heatwaves killing people, more droughts killing crops and livestock, food shortages, more hurricanes, more wildfires, more floods. And that will result in higher damages, higher insurance rates, costs to the taxpayer, damages to the global economy, higher food prices, lots of people in hot climates fleeing to countries with milder climates and just life being fucking miserable in the summer. That will get worse and worse and worse, every year, for the rest of our lives. You have expressed worries about inflation, but this is just the start. Unless humanity stops or greatly reduces emitting CO2, climate change will get worse. And every year of delay will make the necessary changes only more difficult.
only registered users can see external links
This kind of thing is why climate activist don't get any respect and don't deserve any.
I can't imagine what it will cost to make repairs that meet code for aircraft because of these punks. They should be held accountable and forced to pay for the damages.
As for the droughts, may I direct you to this for your consideration. This is before the politicans started trying to make us think we can clean the air by paying more taxes,'
only registered users can see external links
that it requires some cleaning.
It doesn't deserve any respect to vandalize the capital over Trump's lies that the election was stolen. Climate activists are trying to save humanity from destroying itself. That's much more respectful than trying to keep a lying selfish president in office, against the will of the people.
"clean the air by paying more taxes"? What are you on about?
First of all, clean air or polluted air are something different than climate change. Even if you don't believe in climate change, do you want to get cancer from a factory near you polluting the air? Second; why do you think that is solved by tax dollars? That's just solved with regulation that prevents companies from polluting the air.
Third; sure, the energy transition costs money. Oil and natural gas also costs money, but that's a dwindling resource. All the easy sources are already depleted. It requires more effort, energy and harmful chemicals to get the oil and natural gas out of the ground. It's polluting many of your drinking water sources. It's costing people dearly and at some point it costs more to get the oil and natural gas out of the ground than it's worth. Renewable energy is endless. It's now cheaper than oil and natural gas and it just requires to stop spending money on fossil fuels and start investing in renewables, to make your energy cheaper and stop killing nature and humanity.
The only reason to not do it, is because oligarchs don't want you to.
Without the factorys, there would be no products, there is no free ride,the by products have to go somewhere.
We would have to back track to the stone age before FIRE to live clean.
Are you willing to go back to living in a cave?
If it takes some jetting around, to convince world leaders to do something to ameliorate climate change, than that has an advantageous effect.
He's not telling people to walk, he's asking for the ENERGY TRANSITION.
But, if dumb-asses like you keep delaying, at some point walking will be our only recourse to save humanity. You're just making the necessary changes harder.
Factories don't need to exhaust harmful chemicals giving you cancer to make stuff. They only do that, to make more profit. There are always clean(er) methods to produce. You know that, because it's being done all over the world.
If backwards people like you keep fighting progress, you're only hurting your own innovation strength and you'll lose to the competition. You'd better 'buy American', because no one else will want your shit. You'll be living in a ramshackle shed, unless there is a cave near you, but the smart people will have progressed to a sustainable, comfortable life.
But, I am indeed willing to sacrifice some luxuries, to assure humanity has a future.
Just yesterday dgraff said: "Well congratulations my friend you just learned that government of any kind doesn’t work it should be every man and woman for them selves only the strong survive living off the land".
So, who's asking for the stone age again???
There are no free rides. There are by products of any process. You eat beans, you leave a pile of shit. You make a tire, you leave some by products,it is normal.
but the stone age is not on the table. It's a stupid idea that we are not able
to make anything, without destroying nature and humanity.
Also, it doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better.
But, that's the problem; people like you can only think in absolutes.
YOU sacrifice a lot in your life, for the stupid ideas that you hold.
Your capitalism sacrificed your health, for the profit of your employer.
All over the world, better employers show that they can make stuff, safely,
without exploiting their employees and without pollution.
Your ideas just keep them choosing maximum profits over humanity.
That can be changed, but not with dumb-asses like you, who sacrifice
their humanity, to make a few already wealthy people even more wealthy.
Another sacrifice you make is because of your fear that people might hurt you.
It keeps you locked away from people who could improve or enrich your life.
But then I think people and relations with them are more important than stuff.
I don't go to crowded malls, perhaps if I do go to the mall I go during the early hours when the criminal types are in the bed.
People can be of a benefit of course. But I would not benefit from being around people who carry signs blocking traffic, or people that believe my very breathing is a hazard to the earth worms. ,stretch but you get my point ,enviro types.
If not, that's the sacrifice you make, for your 2nd amendment rights.
Still, even in America, life is not that dangerous, that you need to hide away.
I understand being careful, but unless you live in a very rough neighborhood, or you walk around with pounds of gold around your neck and a Rolex around your wrist, the change of getting mugged is very low. And even though the number of random shootings is way higher in the US than in the whole rest of modern society, you still need to be very unlucky to get murdered.
This is not something I have to worry about here. I've been all over Europe, walking around clearly as a tourist and never have to think about being in danger. I've also joined in with protests and ringing peoples doorbell for the Socialist Party. Because the group has been peaceful and polite, we only encountered civilized reactions. The worst we got was a 'sorry, not interested', which we reply with a 'no problem, have a nice day'.
I follow an American couple, Eric and Tammy, on YouTube, who has been living as expats in The Netherlands, for the past 2 years.
only registered users can see external links
They just talked about what they have gotten used to, since living in The Netherlands. One thing was that unknown people can just start talking to you on the street, without them out to get you, scam you, shoot you or mug you. They are just being nice.
Starting @ 7:34: only registered users can see external links
You are not dumb, and since you think a product can be made without pollution, let's set a example.
Lets make a pair of shoes without polution.
Ok first,we decide do we want leather? Yes, ok we go get a cow,we have to haul that cow in a truck and or trailer to a slaughter house. We have to kill the cow, drain it's fliuds and etc. we then have to remove the hide, and tan it, all the while these items have to be transported from 1 faciltiy to another.
We get a good piece of leather, then we have to sew the leather or otherwise attach it to other parts. Gee ,we have to make those other parts don't we? We have to transport those other parts.
So let's skip a few steps and say we have the pair of shoes finished. Ok, then we have to get them from the factory to the store, then get them to YOU on your feet. again, that requires transport.
And then,you have to have MONEY to buy the shoes. So we have to make the money out of something, even making the money from raw materials creates by products such as smoke.
Now you look at each process that is required to put a pair of shoes on your feet and tell me how that can be done without Any harm to the environment. You might reduce it here and there,but you will never make any similar process perfectly emissions free.
IT'S NOT ALL OR NOTHING!
There are lots of solutions to clean waste water with bacteria. Most of our chemical plants have that. But biological waste like those fluids are easy to break down. It can even be used as raw material for biological processes like making bio-ethanol or bio-gas. There are much more environmentally friendly methods to do leather tanning too.
only registered users can see external links
But mostly it's just a process of recycling.
Just reprocessing the waste to new raw materials.
Then there are ways to design a whole process of production, where every step considers the end life of the product, the materials and the waste stream. That's called end-to-end supply chain sustainability. Often it even creates cost benefits.
It's just a way of thinking, while you are engineering a process.
In my company, we use a lot of plastic. But, we have eliminated lots of waste that needs to be burned and maximized the waste that can be recycled, by choosing the right products and even cooperating with suppliers to make our disposables much easier to recycle. We are not yet at 100% recyclability, but we are working to approach it. We also use a lot of electricity. There are solar panels on all the roofs, but of course that's not enough, so we just have a contract for green energy. That's all renewable without any trouble.
I've been in several projects to improve things like that.
Don't tell me it's all impossible, because we're doing it.
It is my understanding they do very little in canada to prevent forest fires and now it has sadly caught up with them.
20 million acres it is now that is lost? 1 acre is to much.
OF course liberals blame this or that or "climate change" for the issue but the simple fact is if you clean the undergrowth from the forest and keep fire lines clear so equipment can get into remote areas, you can gain control of the situation.
only registered users can see external links
Scientists say there has been 3 or 4 mass extinctions, and the earth has been a ball of ice at least once.
In the American/Canadian plains, 20,000 years ago we were covered with a huge sheet of ice.
Who the hell knows our future.
Her predictions were kinda like the Myan calender