Earth's Temperature
- Thread starter Ranchdawg
- Start date
- Status
Completely agree. We have to make our energy cleaner & greener. But these lunatics are trying to force 50 years of progress into 10 years and are often backing things that hurt the clean energy cause rather then help it & oppose things that actually could help it at a reasonable cost.
I think ethanol is a great example. I'll qualify that I'm not remotely an expert on ethanol but there seem to be conflicting studies as to whether it does or does not increase carbon emissions. Which probably just means there needs to be additional research done on it. And this is a broad statement but sometimes taking the time to figure out you were wrong about something makes it easier to eventually find the right answer.
And I'll agree that if we realize an approach isn't working, we should be going in another direction. But a lot of this stuff is like the old adage of trying to turn a battleship. It doesn't happen instantly. A lot of things are enshrined in law and/or regulation and need to go through a process to be changed. And that's assuming everyone who is a stakeholder in whatever area we're looking at agrees that something isn't working. Which obviously isn't always the case since people/companies often have monetary interests involved.
So... I've had a small dull chest pain since my 20's. My doctor at the time chalked it up to inflammation and possibly a muscle tear because "25 year olds don't have heart conditions".
Well... I'm in my 40's now and decided to see a cardiologist because 43 year olds most certainly do have heart conditions and got hit with "I don't think it's your heart, but it's good for men your age to start having a relationship with a cardiologist in case something does happen in the future." by the 20 something nurse. They also put me on the treadmill with the wires stuck to me for a stress test. I've never felt more middle-age in my entire life.
Just saw this, very scary. The fires that are throughout Canada and parts of western US/Mexico are initiating at the same time as shown by this satellite video expert. He normally tracks earthquakes, but revealed how these fires are starting at the same time to destroy millions of acres. Many theories ranging from tectonic plate shifts to methane to Jewish space lasers. Reality, **** is going down.
YouTube video:
You can't deny reality
YouTube video:
You can't deny reality
Agree on most of this... I was really against the idea of climate change when it first became a mainstream issue in the early 2000s and mainly because it was being pushed by Al Gore. If I could go back in time, I'd tell whoever was in charge of all that to pick a different spokesman. It's just too hard to trust politicians.
As for who to trust, I generally trust scientists. My understanding is that something like 99% of legitimate climate scientists around the world are in general agreement that climate change is getting worse and that we really need to take proactive steps to address it. With the 30, 20, 10 years or whatever, I think the reality is that if we continue on our current trajectory, things like "the Florida coastal areas being underwater" are going to be a reality. It may not happen quite as fast as predicted but that doesn't mean it's not going to happen.
And I agree that politics shouldn't be involved in science and research but I want to clarify that I mean "elected officials" when I say that. Some of the top achievements in the history of this country - things like figuring out how to get to the moon - are the result of government-funded research. And despite what you hear from certain people, most government agencies like NASA and the EPA and NIH are very non-partisan and are full of people who are just generally trying to do the best job they can and who don't really care who is in the White House or who is sitting in Congress.
When I was in my teens and early 20's, I used to be on board with ethanol because on paper it made sense: corn is renewable, not running out, and should be cheaper to produce than gasoline from crude oil, and we wouldn't have to rely on foreign sources. Over the course of time, as I've seen more of the side effects (increased food costs, decreased food supply, increased pollution, engine damage, etc.) I've soured on ethanol and have come to the conclusion that if the two major political parties in this country didn't have their first primaries in Iowa, we'd have left ethanol behind a long time ago.
AOC, a technical expert, said a couple of years ago that we only had about 9 more years for life to exist on the earth. Now it's just 7 ....
I can’t speak for everyone, but when I use the term “scam”, I refer to the government forcing something on us and telling us it’s for our own good. I don’t know if the climate is changing enough to make a big enough difference in anything to the point I should be concerned. Maybe it is, maybe it’s not. The original spin was “global warming”. That terminology has been abandoned and the more ambiguous “climate change” is now the rage.
mad for specific items affecting our wallets, let’s start with ethanol. I’d really like to see a climate activist glue themselves to the Capital building until that atrocity is stopped.
you can also look to items such as windmills, no net positive there. Those subsidies are paid for via taxes. How about banning gas stoves? Gas is way more efficient than electric heat.
You might need some custom arch supports (they cover the entire shoe, actually called "ortheses" I think). Mine lift my arch about an inch, and cured my plantar fasciitis immediately. They're not cheap - $400 or so.
Put non-ethanol in your tank and run it out and then repeat with gasoline containing 10% ethanol in your tank. You’ll get 10% less gas mileage with the 10% added ethanol gas. Do the math and tell me how much the ethanol helps. If it helps, the government can give me a $50billion grant to do the math. I just want to help.
Conservatives want a clean livable planet as much as Liberals. Liberals only solution is taxation, wealth transfer and victimization. The US is way down the list of the world’s polluters. Come up with a solution that doesn’t involve Carbon Credits, eating crickets and making America weaker economically. Biden and Bill Gate’s buddies in China do not give a flip about the climate and environment.
To me, the solution is to use Nuclear Energy and Natural Gas in conjunction to wind, solar, etc.
Longer growing seasons = more food. animal populations suffer more with colder winters.
It is the disaster predictions and fear mongering that is the lie. They have not been right yet.
Those are the folks I was alluding to in the post about Tequila being "bad". We definitely need to address climate change. I do think we need to prove measures that will work and have a reasonable and achievable timeframe to make those changes. Making huge changes and then branding anyone heretic of science that even suggests there may be problems with these changes effectively working or how to implement them is crazy.
Yes, that does look a little strange. No place in Africa gets very cold except at high altitudes. The southernmost latitude is just under 35 degrees South, which is equivalent to northern Alabama and Mississippi (the Tennessee southern border is 35N). Not sure how over a million people could have died from cold weather.
Everyone is falling short of the goals of the Paris Agreement. And this article doesn't even mention Africa which, of the additional 1.9 billion people projected to be born between 2020 and 2050, 1.2 billion will be added in Africa, 0.7 billion in Asia, and zero in the rest of the world. So there's a big conundrum coming, like it or not. Adaptation will be what we pivot to after prevention fails.
Not looking good
Not looking good
This is the kind of exaggerated fear mongerimg that hurts their case. All that does is give ammunition to the deniers.
I’ve wondered that as well. Outside of politics, if I’m conservative I want to play it safe. Financially, I’d want to make sound decisions based on long term projections. I would steward my resources to make sure I have something to pass down to my kids.
Political conservatives do seem to think that way when it comes to the deficit and our national debt. But with the environment, the mindset seems to be drive it like you stole it.
Again, what is government "forcing" on us? You seem to really have a thing against ethanol. Let's say you're right about it - and you very well could be for all I know - you don't have to buy it. I don't know if this site is legit or not but a quick google search seems to show you where you can buy non-ethanol gas in every state. I don't know a ton of people who are "climate cultists" or whatever the derogatory term is but I know a couple people who are extremely well educated on renewable technologies (as in it's what they do professionally) and I've never heard them mention ethanol as some sort of cure all. Or even mention it at all, really.
I also don't think you can broadly say "no net positives" on windmills. As for subsidies, those exist in almost every industry. I think the oil/gas industry is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in the country - if not THE most heavily subsidized. Those subsidies also come from taxes. That's just how subsidies work.
And as for the gas stoves thing. No one was ever trying to ban gas stoves. That was a comment taken out of context by conservative media who needed their next fix of outrage porn.
You do know there are trade offs to achieve that cartoon chart right? If freedom was one of the trade offs and you got everything on the cartoon chart are you in?
Yes. There are tradeoffs in almost every aspect of life.
This is such a nonsensical statement that I'm not sure how to respond. What freedom would we have to give up to work towards energy independence or cleaner water or air?
Again, ethanol in your gas has been forced on us. It’s horrible for your car, your wallet, and the environment. It’s the lowest hanging fruit out there. If the climate activists actually cared about the climate. They’d be screaming a lot louder than me.
Windmills are a huge failure. The amount of lubricant used on them which is derived from oil is more than the number of barrels of oil worth of energy they replace. That doesn’t even include the amount of materials (made from oil) used to build them which then ends up in a landfill because they need replacing often.
"Follow the money" is how to find the answer to so many of the things that the politicians have their people arguing about.
You seem to be very certain that ethanol is harmful but to repeat what I said earlier, there actually appear to be conflicting reports about whether it does or doesn't increase carbon emissions. But if you are absolutely sure, there are resources out there to help you buy non-ethanol gas. Get all your friends and family to join you. Like most everything else in this country, if enough people start paying for non-ethanol gas, companies will start producing less ethanol gas.
As for windmills, I'm not an expert but I've read plenty about them and this is literally the first time I've ever seen anyone mention any of those criticisms. I'm not saying you're wrong but they sound implausible. But I'm happy to read more about them and/or ask one of my friends who has worked with companies who have installed offshore windmills in Europe.
QUOTE="FQDawg, post: 17324882, member: 774940"]
Yes. There are tradeoffs in almost every aspect of life.
This is such a nonsensical statement that I'm not sure how to respond. What freedom would we have to give up to work towards energy independence or cleaner water or air?
[/QUOTE]
Are you serious? Gas stoves maybe? Gas automobiles perhaps? What green energy product is not a supply chain prisoner to China right now? The country who has the strongest most dependable energy sources will always be #1.....you don't want to live in a world where the US is #2 I can guarantee you that.
If you are talking about recycling, teaching your kids to be good stewards of the environment, being conscious of your personal impact, buy/upgrade to more energy efficient products, do your own part, etc. then
agree.
Yes. There are tradeoffs in almost every aspect of life.
This is such a nonsensical statement that I'm not sure how to respond. What freedom would we have to give up to work towards energy independence or cleaner water or air?
[/QUOTE]
Are you serious? Gas stoves maybe? Gas automobiles perhaps? What green energy product is not a supply chain prisoner to China right now? The country who has the strongest most dependable energy sources will always be #1.....you don't want to live in a world where the US is #2 I can guarantee you that.
If you are talking about recycling, teaching your kids to be good stewards of the environment, being conscious of your personal impact, buy/upgrade to more energy efficient products, do your own part, etc. then
agree.
It's the leaders of the government agencies no matter how they politically identify who have become more partisan over the last few decades. I think you are right rank and file do the best they can but fear speaking up. If you think whistleblowers don't face retaliation then your just living in an alt universe. Not saying you said that just stating a fact about why people tend to stay silent.
For the 1000th time.....China owns the Green energy supply chain. Are you comfortable with that?
You really don’t know much about ethanol or windmills. Sure non-ethanol gasoline is available, but it’s priced so high fee would buy it in any real quantity. A few problems with windmills:
1. The places where they can generate much electricity are generally far from the places that need the electricity.
2. we don’t have the infrastructure to transport that much electricity over those distances.
3. Even if we did make the huge investment to build that infrastructure, it’s pretty inefficient at moving electricity over those distances.
4. the supply of wind to power the windmills is extremely variable, so you still need a backup source of electricity.
5. the places that supply the kind of wind to generate much electricity tend to have such high winds that it damages the windmills from time to time.
wind power is mostly a fraud.
First time long time. Work in the decarbonization industry so for many here that would put me in the Climate cult or whatever folks on here call it (interesting considering my company includes a pretty diverse set of political viewpoints). The ethanol question is kind of a non issue looking forward since the long term goal is to power most transportation by electricity or green hydrogen. Bigger chunks of the carbon pie can be removed with these strategies by removing all of the gas burned in the vehicle rather than quibbling over that 10% of ethanol in the gas. I too think ethanol for transportation is questionable at best and probably set this conversation back a decade or more unfortunately.
Regarding windmills, folks are working on green lubricants so oil and lubricant leaks don’t harm local soil. That said - as for the carbon impact implications you aren’t burning it so it is not putting carbon into the atmosphere post production. Not to mention your general statements on the levels of usage are a bit dubious.
Promise to keep most of my posts to sports and more light hearted matters but it’s disheartening to me to see some of the info added around this topic on this message board.
The gif is the your first sentence. If your sentence were true, I wouldnt have to still read about and listen to people who identify on the right side of politics straight up claim that climate change is not real or that X business isnt polluting the 17 out of a lake/river/valley.
If your first sentence were true, across the country in states that are run by R Govs and R Legislatures, there would be increased laws focused on clean water, clean air, clean undisturbed land, etc. Instead, you consistently see the opposite- a reduction in laws restricting pollution and other damaging environmental behaviors.
Ok so with that said, I agree with most everything else you typed. Seriously.
A lot of the solutions I see coming from the left and 17ing head scratching. I dont think many will be effective.
Carbon Credits is a 17ing joke. I dont even have the patience to listen to someone talk about them anymore without rolling my eyes(i am not a good poker player).
The US could stop creating carbon and the world would still be 17ed because of all the other countries.
With all that said, even if we cant reverse all this damage at the global level, reducing pollution in the air and waters at the domestic level will make for a lot better quality of life- less disease, fewer allergies, etc. Seriously- this would happen. We would have a healthier population.
Also, I am on board with nuclear power. I get that its a scary thing and we dont have a place to safely dispose of the waste, but launch it into space and deal with any repercussions in 19.83 million years from now when it eventually goes thru a worm hole and gets spit back out in the direction of Earth.
Good you got it checked out. Too many men just ignore stuff until it won't be ignored.
I will chime in and say that if it is mostly a fraud, then Iowa is the exception. As of last year, it led the country in % of power created by wind. Its not a fraud here, it is real.
Perhaps its the exception to the rule?
At least they wised up. At one time, it was global cooling. Then it was global warming. Now it’s climate change because the climate is, of course, always changing. So every time the climate changes, which is always, those politicians can push to increase those burdens on the average working man in order to line the pockets of said politicians.
It was never "Global cooling". That was just some idiocy that the media ran with very briefly in the 70s without any real scientific support, then cons resurrected decades later to fool the gullible.
- Status