Want a bigger penis? Enlarge it At Home Using Just Your Hands! | Male Multiple Orgasm Discover your full Abilities! | Laughably Small Penis? Enlarge it At Home Using Just Your Hands! | Stay Hard as Steel!!! |
Started by #485312 at 15,Dec,20 23:50
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 New CommentComments: |
only registered users can see external links
"Simply put, these huge industrial sites – we simply must stop using the friendly-sounding term “farms” to describe them – create all manner of negative consequences for local communities. Consequences like loud noise from wind turbines, hundreds of dead birds and bats sprinkled across the countryside, thousands of acres of productive farm or ranchlands taken out of production for many years if not permanently, spoiled views, enormous “graveyards” filled with 150-foot blades and solar panels popping up all over the place, and impacts to local wind and weather patterns that are only now beginning to be understood."
Not as much is green about "Green Energy" as the promoters claim.
only registered users can see external links
Hard to believe they take them out of service so quickly anyway Should be made of lightweight pvc anyway or aluminum. something easily recyclable.
Apparently these folks that like fiberglass windmill blades have never had the loose fibers get into their skin and lungs ,say from cutting or scraping them.
Yes, the birds are important, so prohibit all domestic cats and kill all feral cats?
Than we can expand the number of wind turbines by a factor of 10,256,
without killing more birds, than cats do now.
solar has it's draw backs to.It can cause warming.
What are the negatives of hydropower?
Pros and Cons of Hydroelectric Energy - Kiwi Energy
Here are a few of the main disadvantages of hydroelectric energy.
It Has an Environmental Impact. Perhaps the largest disadvantage of hydroelectric energy is the impact it can have on the environment. ...
It Displaces People. ...
It's Expensive. ...
There are Limited Reservoirs. ...
There are Droughts. ...
It's Not Always Safe.
No, we conservatives are just sticks in the mud according to liberals. Plow horses wore blinders so they would not be distracted by things around them.
liberals wear blinders because they only focus on the "new idea" and not the reason the "old Idea" hasn't been changed.
but only fossil fuels are the ones threatening humanity now.
Hydropower is the cheapest power generation technology we have.
Please do some research before you say something.
There's just one problem with it; climate change brings long periods of drought, which is creating problems for hydropower in many areas in the world.
That's one of the reasons for China is doing more coal power now. Record-breaking drought has caused some rivers in China, including parts of the Yangtze, to dry up, affecting hydropower.
You're not sticks in the mud to me, you're roadblocks on the way to progress.
Your road leads to a canyon, but like Thelma and Louise, you're speeding ahead.
But, it's not just you in that car, it's the sensible people too. And that's not fair.
how can solar or hydro bring large cargo ship loads of goods to your country from ours or vice versa? it takes fossil fuels.
electric mining equipment, works but the electricity comes from somewhere. The amperage needed for 1 excavator digging out material for battery's would be far more than a windmill could make.
We either find a solution to prevent the worst of it or die off.
I have told you about technologies before that can power large cargo ships
on solar, hydro, bio or wind power. Understand that about 40% of the mass transported with those ships consists of fossil fuels. And maybe we could ship
a bit less shit from China?
If combustion engines are indispensable for a certain task, then they can run on hydrogen, alcohol or bio-fuel. The problem is however never the combustion engine itself, because electric motors are much stronger for their size. It's indeed the energy storage that is the problem. However, energy storage is not limited to batteries. There are several chemical solutions to efficiently store energy in a liquid or solid, with high density, which can easily be refilled in a short time, just like tanking fossil fuels. Electric energy storage also gets better by the day. High capacity capacitors can be recharged with many times the speed of batteries. At the moment they can hold a bit less energy than batteries, but it's the time unit of charging per time unit of operation that counts. A minute of charging for an hour of operation is acceptable. We do not have to kill humanity to avoid that minor inconvenience.
But, I like seeing them squirm and bend into impossible positions,
trying to defend their illogical ideas. And, it might help other people.
"The 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in the past decade. In fact, the average global temperature for 2023 exceeded the pre-industrial (1850–1900) average by 2.43 degrees F (1.35 degrees C).
Looking ahead, there is a one-in-three chance that 2024 will be warmer than 2023, and a 99% chance that 2024 will rank among the top five warmest years"
What do I believe? Would it help if I believed that the Earth is flat?
what did the dinosaurs do to the enviroment to prompt their death?
Why is there old trees under the ice in greenland? why is there citys under water from 1000's of years ago?
only registered users can see external links
Some are man made but others are under water for far longer than your Citroens have been roaming the pathways of europe.
the center of the planet is still molten,like concrete in the center of the hoover damn that is not cured to this day.
now those changes take decades.
Those trees under the ice of of greenland are about 400,000 years old.
The CO2 concentration then was 280 ppm. During the last 400,000 years,
the CO2 concentration didn't rise above 300 ppm once. We are at 421.83 ppm today.
In 1970, the CO2 concentration still was at 325 ppm.
The global average temperature was 53.6°F/12°C 400,000 years ago
and didn't rise above that for 400,000 years. The global average temperature
right now is at 57.99°F/14.44°C. It just takes a while for all the ice to melt away.
Yonaguni Jima is NOT under water because of the sea level rising,
but because of tectonic activity causing it to sink below the sea level.
Find some arguments that cannot be debunked in 5 minutes of Googling.
If you don't think: "OMG, I was wrong!" from those arguments, then you are either
not smart enough to understand them or you are gaslighting yourself.
only registered users can see external links
These folks claim to be concerned about the enviroment but then set FIRE to things, that makes poisonous smoke,and powers ELECTRIC car factory so they can travel without the smog from cars.
What do these idiots want? Caveman lifestyle?
I've told you before that electric cars will not save the climate or humanity,
they will only save the car. Maybe! If you don't support any more changes than that, the option of electric cars goes away. In the end, humanity will do anything to save itself, when they eventually accept that it's the only way, which by then has turned to reality. The sooner we act, the less extreme the sacrifices will need to be.
I don't want to live the 'caveman lifestyle', so please get your act together.
But women were easier to get back then, you just find 1 and Wack her on the head and drag her to your cave and bring her dead bears and deer to cook and make clothes out of!
Sorry, but their are not enough caves, wild animals and berries, for 8 billion people. Going back to nature is not an option, when humanity has destroyed most nature.
That might have worked a few hundred years ago, when there still was most nature and way less of us.
We cannot save humanity by rejecting technology, only by using our technological knowledge to the fullest. That's why I don't agree with the "Vulkangruppe" or you,
or whoever else thinks we have to go back to the 'caveman lifestyle'.
Saving humanity starts with cutting the useless wasteful consumerism. It starts with rethinking the economy from the ground up. Not making useless crap, that is designed to break, filling landfills. No more unhealthy food, that makes people sick, while polluting nature and emitting greenhouse gasses, just to enrich some selfish assholes.
Instead, use our maximum scientific knowledge to provide everyone with a place to live, healthy food, clothes to wear and some basic luxuries, without polluting nature and emitting greenhouse gasses.
They have told you that this is impossible, but that's just propaganda from the rich selfish assholes, who would rather destroy nature and humanity, than accept that
we won't be serving them anymore. We should serve humanity.
So perhaps there is a logical reason for the warming that is NOT human related?
only registered users can see external links
"Furthermore, the release of sufficient methane from the protective frozen barrier could hinder efforts to limit global temperature increases to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels."
OH yea, aint read the details yet but ol john kerry is leaving the biden administration. I guess maybe he has enough under the table money he don't need to work anymore
Fairy 🧚♀️ Kerry hell I thought he died
Methane is an 80x - 120x stronger 'greenhouse gas' than carbon dioxide.
What don't you understand about it? It's all relatively simple science.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
alot of sewer treatment plants heat the interior spaces with methane ,offices and such, because it is free fuel as a biproduct.
edit,
here is something to think about,and there is PLENTY of methane, just go to any nations capital, the politicians are full of it.
only registered users can see external links
The methane that is emitted by farm animals and rotting melted permafrost is useless to us, but very harmful.
Maybe they find an energy efficient method to extract it from the atmosphere.
Then we could use it. At the moment it's more energy and cost effective to reduce methane emissions.
Whatever gas you can extract from politicians will be more worthwhile,
than what you've been asking from them. Go for it!
This is also an American invention. In 2000, President Bush asked Berkeley Lab
to think of the energy solutions of the future. It was called the FreedomFuel Initiative.
They actually came up with this; energy storage in the form of Sodium Borohydride (NaBH4), but they couldn't get it to work correctly.
A few guys in a shed in The Nederlands found the solution. It has now grown from a
start-up, to a mature scale-up. The company is called H2 FUEL only registered users can see external links.
It can be stored until there is not enough sun and wind or transported from places with much more solar, wind or hydro energy to places where there is not much more solar, wind or hydro energy. It has a 50% higher energy density than coal (36 MJ/kg vs 24 MJ/kg).
Well,
- production of hydrogen by electrolysis is extremely inefficient. The energy content of the hydrogen produced is a bit under 20% of the energy you put in (if I recollect correctly).
- and then there will be the further energy loss in using it in a power plant (presumably via some sort of ICE)
- the electrolysis process requires catalysts, mainly gold and platinum atm and the amounts needed were this a mainstream industry may be not be available / would be prohibitively expensive.
So, interesting for sure and certainly sounds like a good storage solution for hydrogen. BUT I cannot see how hydrogen produced by electrolysis can be a major part of the energy economy given its inefficiency.
it's a loss of 20%, that's an efficiency of 80%.
How efficient do you think fossil fuels are? Just to get them out of the ground costs more energy every year, because all the easy sources are mostly depleted.
Oil extraction by fracking is such an energy inefficient process that 45% of the energy in the oil is wasted by extraction. That's BEFORE the refining process.
The Canadian tar sand mining costs almost just as much energy as it produces.
The average efficiencies of power generation are 35% for coal, 45% for natural gas and 38% for oil-fired power generation.
There are new improvements that can raise the efficiency of electrolysis to 95%.
"Record-breaking hydrogen electrolyzer claims 95% efficiency"
only registered users can see external links
However, you're thinking about it wrong; in renewable energy, the energy efficiency is not that important, the cost per Watt is important and the required area per Watt is important.
The wind and the sun are free, the equipment to harness that energy and the piece of the earth you put it on are not.
That's why you need to think in $/J, $/Watt and in $/kg H2.
"Renewables are the cheapest form of power today."
only registered users can see external links
Gold and platinum are not catalysts, but the electrolyzers, just the anode and cathode. The process is not burning gold or platinum, it's not destroyed. After a long period of use, they just end up as oxides in some filter and can be reconstituted. However, they are expensive, so that's why they are doing research into alternative electrolyzers:
only registered users can see external links
And of course you only use energy storage for when it's needed. All the electricity of renewables that can be used immediately are the cheapest. We have a long way to go, to just do that efficiently. At this moment, most of the electricity that is used during the day, when there is enough solar and wind energy available is still mostly produced by burning fossil fuels. That's a waste of money and resources and it should stop.
While it is not important, the precious metals do act as catalysers. It also seems iridium (VERY rare on earth) is also involved. I agree that they are not consumed but we have shortages of them.
Wind and solar ARE NOT CHEAP EVEN BEFORE THE 50% ROUNDTRIP COST. If you look at the recent UK auctions for wind, the strike price had to be increased by 66% as there were no bidders in the last auction...... And wind power was expensive before the increase compared to normal prices though not the peak fossil fuel prices of 2021. The UN headline you quote is just simple deception as it references to these inflated commodity prices and not historic or current prices. It may have briefly been cheaper for a short period but it certainly was not before and is not now.
There are reasons to move towards greener energy but is currently is and will continue to be more expensive. Hydrogen is not going to help at all - you could use it to be greener, but only at prohibitive cost.
And you can bet who ever controls the source of energy,be it hydrogen or lithium ,etc, will have alot of control of the economy just as big oil is now.
Everything you want to do costs money, every choice you make has consequences.
Denying a problem doesn't make it go away, it will only escalate,
which will result in worse damages.
Humanity cannot keep polluting the earth, without consequences; no free rides!
The better route is to use ALL energy sources in the areas they perform the best. And allow consumers a choice.
A electric car may work for 1 person and not another,where as a electric lawntractor would work fine for either.
Because our expanding population needs places to live and grow our food.
I would love to plant those billion trees, but where?
For me, at this time, an electric car is a useless purchase.
I drive way not enough to make it affordable at all.
However, for most commuters, an electric car is already cheaper.
But, I keep repeating that electric cars will not save humanity,
electric cars will save the car. If we don't replace them, we will be forced
to stop driving cars all together, to save ourselves.
only registered users can see external links
You don't NEED Iridium for electrolysis of water to hydrogen.
Maybe it works better, but it will not be used, unless it's cost effective.
It's of course very inefficient to convert all electricity from renewable sources to hydrogen. That's only a solution for when you need to store electricity, as an alternative to batteries, or when other solutions do not fit a local problem.
Higher efficiencies can be achieved with hydrozine energy storage.
And I just referred to the Sodium Borohydride (NaBH4) method.
Understand that energy efficiency is not important, when the energy itself costs nothing. A solar panel that is a bit less efficient, but costs half as much, can be more cost effective. If Sodium Borohydride or hydrozine energy storage can make solar panels in a country with lots of useless desert feasible, then they can export cheap energy. That's easier than building thousands of miles of electricity poles from Africa to Europe and Asia.
And maybe you don't know, but fossil fuels are also very inefficient. A loss of 50% of the energy is not an exception for the process of extraction, transportation, refining, transportation and storage. The worst is Canada's oil sands mining. It uses up almost as much energy as it produces.
only registered users can see external links
You mean like cocaine
Ask Hunter Biden he knows all the places to get that stuff
Did you ever see any recording of Donald Trump Jr.? He's coked-up 24/7.
He's just a coward and a hypocrite and doesn't admit it.
--------------------------------------- added after 69 seconds
All rich people use cocaine
He's just the son of the president and nothing more.
Meanwhile, Donald Jr. puts his face on TV, the internet and GOP fundraisers
and sold you the same bullshit his father does. He was also completely immersed
in his fathers corruption and crimes.
Trumps whole family was involved in his politics and his private profiteering from it.
As senior advisor, his son in law traveled many times to Saudi Arabia to 'represent your country', but the only thing he did was arrange a $2 Billion deal for himself.
Your side would never accept what Trump did with his businesses, while in office,
from a Democrat. It's all a million times more corrupt than putting on your resume
that your father was the Vice President, to get a nice job.
All natural and sustainable. (as long as we still consume animal proteins)
What would lix know about global warming she lived in a dust bowl i do think about her from time to time i wonder if she is dead
But think of this; if a company who does care about selling EVs can just buy up a company that does not want to sell EVs, maybe the company that sells EVs is smarter. Isn't that your idea of capitalism; that the smartest companies outlive the dumber ones?
only registered users can see external links
Steven Spielberg would have trouble coming up with stuff this good.
only registered users can see external links
Cold as hell in that state and they are going to try to run buses off of Battery's??
Liberals say push for public transit, well bus's are public transit,then liberals push for electric bus's. people that ride the bus need to get places,or they wouldn't be on the bus,yet the wheels on the bus don't go round and round and leave them looking for a way to get where they are going.
I guess the city needs to buy everyone shoes?
It is Way past time for folks to realize electric was the thing BEFORE gas cars and diesel buses and it proved to be impractical then, and it is proving to be impractical again.
Refuse to learn history, repeat it.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Gee,what killed those fish?
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 or you can work to increase your knowledge.
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