Earth's Temperature

[Boom Boom]

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.

You claimed others don't know much about wind power.....then mansplained a windmill 101 spiel. Hilarious.

No energy system has the needed infrastructure until the infrastructure is built.

Inefficient compared to what?

4) this is why no one is proposing wind power provide 100% of electricity.

5.) Part of the cost, so mostly irrelevant.

Wind power is the best way to diversify our energy sources so as to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. It's not perfect (what is?), but it's a clear win for the US if we will just take it and not cede the industry to China.

 

[Dawgg]

Good you got it checked out. Too many men just ignore stuff until it won't be ignored.

In all honesty, the new wife was the one that encouraged me to get it checked out.

The ex-wife was good with me 'waiting it out'.

 

[patdog]

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?

Iowa is a place it definitely makes sense. Lot of plains & wind. But Iowa isn’t a huge electricity user overall.

 

[HRMSU]

Are you? It's Republicans who keep working to make that happen.

I don't care if it's either party's fault just that people realize the risks of green energy.

Going green is an easy warm and fuzzy surface level argument but when you look below the surface it's not so warm and fuzzy. Of course, low information partisans and useful idiots usually don't have any interest below the warm and fuzzy mantra ( not calling you one just generalizing the movement).

I mean anyone against green energy or saving the earth is evil and needs to be punished right? The movement reminds me of a freakin cult. This aspect pushes people away who want to honestly learn more and discuss details below the warm and fuzzy fear driven end of the world narrative.

 

[HRMSU]

muh gice stove!

Cleaner and cheaper than your electric. Prove me wrong.

 

[HRMSU]

I have a pair and like them very much

I have a cheap pair of Ariats but like them.

 

[WilCoDawg]

I see the gang is all here. Happy to have missed the circle-jerk session. I am in awe of their stamina though.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Cleaner and cheaper than your electric. Prove me wrong.

I have gas. I’m not giving it up. I also have not seen a single credible source that says anyone said they were taking it. I have seen from a credible source that this administration said of it got bad enough anything could be in the table based on a reporter asking about gas ovens. Then our politicians did what our politicians do. I’m also vaguely aware of some kind of talk in California. I’ll stay in MS and continue my relationship with Centex…

 

[Boom Boom]

I don't care if it's either party's fault just that people realize the risks of green energy.

Going green is an easy warm and fuzzy surface level argument but when you look below the surface it's not so warm and fuzzy. Of course, low information partisans and useful idiots usually don't have any interest below the warm and fuzzy mantra ( not calling you one just generalizing the movement).

I mean anyone against green energy or saving the earth is evil and needs to be punished right? The movement reminds me of a freakin cult. This aspect pushes people away who want to honestly learn more and discuss details below the warm and fuzzy fear driven end of the world narrative.

I really only see this type of argument from people that only get a surface view of the issues from partisan media. Yes, there are dumb partisans on both sides. Give yourself a gold star for figuring that one out. But the political reality is its really hard to pass liberal initiatives in this country, and mostly only the good ideas with ridiculously sound vetting even get considered. There are well-funded interests always on the lookout to kill any green initiatives. If that side has a valid argument, it gets trumpeted from the heavens. If there is any technical issues or middle ground, those sellouts are there to insist on them. The only cult I see are the people who think DC works to liberals favor.

 

[Boom Boom]

I see the gang is all here. Happy to have missed the circle-jerk session. I am in awe of their stamina though.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[WilCoDawg]

Thanks for sharing!

How do you type with one hand? Yet another impressive feat.

 

[Curby]

Like I’ve always said. Make China, India, Russia, etc get on board with reducing their carbon emissions (they won’t…ever) and then yes, by all means, let’s go full green new deal, by gosh.

If we are destroying the atmosphere then it’s a GLOBAL issue. What’s our multi-trillion dollar taxpayer expense going to fix ….if China is building new coal operations WEEKLY? (yes, it’s true)

The world is more sustainable than these (paid off) climate “scientists “ would have you believe. The experts that aren’t paid to promote the climate change agenda will tell you the truth, which is that climate is cyclical. Get back with me in 15 years, let’s see what has changed, other than the exploding national deficit due to throwing money at climate nazis and Ukraine

 

[patdog]

Like I’ve always said. Make China, India, Russia, etc get on board with reducing their carbon emissions (they won’t…ever) and then yes, by all means, let’s go full green new deal, by gosh.

If we are destroying the atmosphere then it’s a GLOBAL issue. What’s our multi-trillion dollar taxpayer expense going to fix ….if China is building new coal operations WEEKLY? (yes, it’s true)

The world is more sustainable than these (paid off) climate “scientists “ would have you believe. The experts that aren’t paid to promote the climate change agenda will tell you the truth, which is that climate is cyclical. Get back with me in 15 years, let’s see what has changed, other than the exploding national deficit due to throwing money at climate nazis and Ukraine

China is building more coal plants than the rest of the world combined. By a large margin. They pledge their fossil fuel plants will peak by 2030. As if anyone believes that.

 

[Wesson Bulldog]

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.

Been to a foot doctor in Brookhaven. Had an injection, a round of steroids and a custom arch. Stretching helps. I've had knee replacement and this hurts way worse

 

[FQDawg]

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.

I guess I should have been more clear. I don’t know a ton about actual windmills - what kind of grease they use, etc… But I know a fair amount about the electric utility industry and about how generation, transmission and distribution of electricity works. And I definitely know enough to know that your arguments here aren’t really accurate.

1. There are plenty of places offshore that can generate wind energy and then supply it to population centers along the coasts. We can get really into the weeds and talk about the need for an offshore transmission grid to make it easier to get wind power onshore but that’s a different conversation than “wind isn’t close to population centers.” Any issue around this is really just NIMBYism, which is not a reason not to pursue a project.

2. The existing transmission infrastructure in this country would definitely need some upgrades and expansion with any increase in wind production, whether onshore, offshore or both. But the existing transmission infrastructure in this country needs upgrades and expansion even if we weren’t trying to increase wind power production. Some of that infrastructure across the country is decades old. So, again, not a reason to not pursue wind energy.

3. Your third point doesn’t make any sense. High voltage transmission lines are high voltage transmission lines. They don’t know if they’re transporting electricity generated by renewable energy or by fossil fuels. And high voltage transmission lines are absolutely the most efficient way to transmit electricity across the country.

4. This point you’re not necessarily wrong about. But guess what else needs backup power sources? Fossil fuel plants. Every natural gas plant in south Louisiana (which are the ones I’m most familiar with) has diesel fuel backup in case there’s an interruption to the natural gas supply. Which happens almost anytime there’s a hurricane or strong tropical storm. And other places need redundancy in place for when plants are offline for repairs.

5. The fact that a piece of equipment needs to be maintained and occasionally replaced is not a reason to avoid investing in newer technology.

Wind power isn’t perfect. But there isn’t any form of electric power generation that is. It’s certainly not mostly a fraud.

 

[HRMSU]

I really only see this type of argument from people that only get a surface view of the issues from partisan media. Yes, there are dumb partisans on both sides. Give yourself a gold star for figuring that one out. But the political reality is its really hard to pass liberal initiatives in this country, and mostly only the good ideas with ridiculously sound vetting even get considered. There are well-funded interests always on the lookout to kill any green initiatives. If that side has a valid argument, it gets trumpeted from the heavens. If there is any technical issues or middle ground, those sellouts are there to insist on them. The only cult I see are the people who think DC works to liberals favor.

Ok, agree to disagree.

DC doesn't work for ANYBODY regardless of their beloved parties. Useful idiots serve both sides interest.

How gracious of you giving me a gold star.....comment reeks of an elitist attitude but to each their own.

 

[HRMSU]

I have gas. I’m not giving it up. I also have not seen a single credible source that says anyone said they were taking it. I have seen from a credible source that this administration said of it got bad enough anything could be in the table based on a reporter asking about gas ovens. Then our politicians did what our politicians do. I’m also vaguely aware of some kind of talk in California. I’ll stay in MS and continue my relationship with Centex…

I'm going to leave this right here. The US is bigger than MS.

What gas' court win means for stove bans nationwide

www.politico.com

 

[jethreauxdawg]

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.

So to summarize, you admit ethanol being promoted as good for the environment is a farce, but that’s ok because it will eventually be replaced. And windmill negative affects on the environment can be ignored because they might not be as bad in the future. Did I get that right?

Again, I’m all for reducing pollution. I’d just like to see someone in the “climate cult” say, yeah what we’ve tried was actually worse than had we done nothing. We meant well, but we need to stop this “fix” right now if we care about the environment. Until that happens, our progress reducing pollution will be very inefficient, at best. Of course that would mean those people with political ties who profit off these scams will have to lose that money stream that flows back to the politicians, so nothing will change.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

I've grilled, farted, driven a gas powered car, and used a gas stove today. I predict temps will be near 100 by August.

 

[Cantdoitsal]

I reckon I'm just an old hippie who wants clean air and water along with Rainforest Preservation which nobody seems to give a 17 about anymore. Technology will eventually make clean renewables as cheap as FF's and I'll welcome that with open arms but forcing it on society before that is evil greed sold by deceptive alarmism which lowers the standard of living for everyone. FF's ain't killing the planet, they keep the planet from killing US.

 

[Curby]

I reckon I'm just an old hippie who wants clean air and water

Me too.
Clean river water is a concern of mine.
The city of Jackson MS pumped 4.7 billion gallons of wastewater into the Pearl. Can’t fish or swim in the river anywhere between Jackson and around Georgetown.

I hate Jackson with a passion. There’s no accountability for sh-t like that

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

I reckon I'm just an old hippie who wants clean air and water along with Rainforest Preservation which nobody seems to give a 17 about anymore. Technology will eventually make clean renewables as cheap as FF's and I'll welcome that with open arms but forcing it on society before that is evil greed sold by deceptive alarmism which lowers the standard of living for everyone. FF's ain't killing the planet, they keep the planet from killing US.

Saving the rainforest got shoved to the back of the bus because we have so many social and other global warmimg issues that need to be on the front seat. Sorry. Your call is important to us so hold please.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I'm going to leave this right here. The US is bigger than MS.

What gas' court win means for stove bans nationwide

www.politico.com

I literally said I’m aware of CA not worried about me in MS. That’s it. You then linked an article about CA.

 

[PRAVan1996]

Get back with me in 15 years, let’s see what has changed, other than the exploding national deficit due to throwing money at climate nazis and Ukraine

We generally spend less than 2% of the federal budget on initiatives that propose to fight climate change. If the deficit is exploding, it isn't because of "throwing money" at climate activists. Because we aren't throwing money at climate activists.

 

[blacklistedbully]

View attachment 351691

Ignoring all of the real harm done, including people dying as a result of climate alarmist policy implementation. Ignores what happens when we (USA) and other Western nations ruin their economies, their ability to field a military able to oppose the next oppressive regime (China anyone?), while China reaps tremendous advantage as they do not limit themselves, rather double-down on what they are doing as one of the 2 countries responsible for the vast majority of man-made pollutants.

Yeah, let's weaken ourselves to the point we can no longer protect ourselves without resorting to nuclear weapons, much less be able to support any allies in a potential WW3, etc,, etc.

And let's do this while it makes no appreciable difference whatsoever due to China & India not cooperating.

 

[PRAVan1996]

Ignoring all of the real harm done, including people dying as a result of climate alarmist policy implementation. Ignores what happens when we (USA) and other Western nations ruin their economies, their ability to field a military able to oppose the next oppressive regime (China anyone?), while China reaps tremendous advantage as they do not limit themselves, rather double-down on what they are doing as one of the 2 countries responsible for the vast majority of man-made pollutants.

Yeah, let's weaken ourselves to the point we can no longer protect ourselves without resorting to nuclear weapons, much less be able to support any allies in a potential WW3, etc,, etc.

And let's do this while it makes no appreciable difference whatsoever due to China & India not cooperating.

Just a few follow up questions:

What exact "real harm" has been done by U.S. climate policy?

Who exactly has been dying as a result of U.S. climate policy?

How exactly has climate policy ruined the economy?

Has U.S. climate policy actually hampered our ability to field a military? If so, how?

 

[Cantdoitsal]

We generally spend less than 2% of the federal budget on initiatives that propose to fight climate change. If the deficit is exploding, it isn't because of "throwing money" at climate activists. Because we aren't throwing money at climate activists.

Wrong. China and Russia's throwing money at American Gretas too in order to weaken our country while strengthening their own.

 

[PRAVan1996]

Wrong. China and Russia's throwing money at American Gretas too in order to weaken our country while strengthening their own.

I don't know what China and Russia are doing but we do not spend nearly as much on climate mitigation as we should. Thankfully we are increasing that spending over the next decade but we're way short of where we need to be.

 

[AstroDog]

Earth was created by God in 6 days. He rested on his 7th day. Thing is......God works in a different realm than man. Bible clearly states that One (1) of Gods days equals 1000 days for man. Thus, in our time, it took God about 6,000 days or a little over 16 years to create Earth. Makes more sense now. And as far as the Big Bang Theories.......I can imagine as God created and formed the Earth, there were quite a few Big Bangs. So, no need to worry about climate changes or temp swings.......I think God's got this.

 

[mstateglfr]

Earth was created by God in 6 days. He rested on his 7th day. Thing is......God works in a different realm than man. Bible clearly states that One (1) of Gods days equals 1000 days for man. Thus, in our time, it took God about 6,000 days or a little over 16 years to create Earth. Makes more sense now. And as far as the Big Bang Theories.......I can imagine as God created and formed the Earth, there were quite a few Big Bangs. So, no need to worry about climate changes or temp swings.......I think God's got this.

And now we have gotten to the 'don't worry, God has a plan' claim.
We all can just do whatever the 17 we want to the planet, it's cool since God created it in 16 years and will swoop in and intervene.

This is so disconnected from reality it is difficult to even respond to.
Oh, and did you really just post that while the earth was created in 16 days, multiple big bangs took place? What?!

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Bible clearly states that One (1) of Gods days equals 1000 days for man.

You got a reference for this?

I think God's got this.

Agreed

 

[thekimmer]

View attachment 351651

This is what I find intriguing. Atheistic science that rejects the the notion of a creator, would tell you that all species tend to exhibit predictable behavior that is just part of their nature, but then they turn around and treat humans like they are some kind of alien invader that is not part of nature and is actually at war with 'the natural world' instead of a part of it. If you accept their precepts then why aren't humans just a part of the same natural system in which the same rules apply? Human behavior is thus also as just as predictable as any other species and thus, no matter how it manifests itself, that behavior, and the consequences of it, are just as much a part of nature, and the earth's evolution, as any anything else. Regarding the predictability of human behavior, I'd say history also tends to support this notion.

Oddly enough, the manner in which atheistic science views humans as as this separate, unique, entity that has a bent toward evil and self destruction, is actually closer to how religion and particularly Christianity views humans.

 

[thekimmer]

I can only speak for myself. I'm not a registered member of any party. I tend to hold conservative ideas, and especially conservationist ideals as a former outdoorsman and Eagle Scout. The simple answer is what someone alluded to earlier, I don't know who to trust. Politics should never get involved in science and research. I posted a video in another thread talking about the lack of transparency and double blind studies in Environmental Research. ****, now politics are even into Medical Science which is even more ludicrous.


ETA: Super rich celebrities and politicians preaching to me about my carbon footprint while jet-setting around the world can get bent.

I believe climate change is real. Is it permanent? I don't know. Florida was supposed to be underwater 30 yrs ago, then 20, then 10. You have alarmist who've completely flip-flopped their messages on their "sandwich boards" because all they want is attention.

Nothing is permanent. Even if anthropomorphic climate change is real, by science's view of the earth, it CANNOT be permanent. By the same viewpoint humanity CANNOT be permanent as species have appeared and disappeared thousands of times over the meganna. In fact, why don't evolutionists view the rise of and eventual disappearance of humans to be a very natural process? That perhaps the evolution of ultra intelligence in humans will turn out to be the thing that selects them for extinction as it allows them to become too successful and eventually unsustainable?

 

[Dawgzilla2]

I'm a fence sitter. The world is certainly getting warmer, but I have no idea how much humans are causing that. On the other hand, I do think it's possible human's are causing it, and I will push back against claims it is all a hoax. Does Al Gore's hockey stick graph show that carbon dioxide is causing temperatures to rise, or do rising temperatures cause our oceans to release more Corbin dioxide?

Anyway, there are a lot of posts on board claiming this is a waste of time without China on board. That is outdated thinking, because China IS on board . China has committed to the Paris Accord. China leads the world in alternative energy research, and is also the World's leader in EV production and consumption.

Yes, China is still producing coal burning electrical plants. That is because China has a lot of coal. And EVs are in China's best interest because it does not have its own oil.

But they have stopped building coal plants in other countries, which is very significant. They have passed legislation to really crack down on the use of fossil fuels, and their commitment to stop building coal fueled power plants is real. China was late to the party, but is now on board.

India, OTOH, is holding out for money, and I think they will get it. India's position is the World's economic leaders built their positions in fossil fuels, and it is unfare to ask developing countries to sacrifice that energy source. They want financial assistance.

I'm not even worried about Russia. They are rapidly becoming a Third World nation, and their economy is collapsing. They won't be able to pollute much before too long.

 

[ChE1997]

View attachment 351651

Ok Here is why we have global warming:

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere, increases the Global Temperature.
CO2, Methane, and ozone Absorb Infrared Radiation (heat).

Therefore, MORE of those in the atmosphere means more heat.


Since Humans started burning Coal, Petroleum, and natural gas on a large scale, We have been taking carbon that was locked away in the earth crust for up to 560 million years.

The reason the OP's chart goes from VERY hot 560 million years ago to cold so quickly is because trees were first formed then. But, the mold that breaks down lignin and cellulose did not exist until 250 million years ago. all of that time trees and woody plants that died, didn't decay. They made coal.

Oil and gas deposits are defined by when in the past they oil layers were formed. Permian basin, 300 million years ago to 250 million years ago. Paleogene 66 million years ago and 23 Mya. Eocene 56 million years ago - 33.9 million years ago. Miocene 23.03 to 5.333 Mya.

Humans came along about 800,000 to 300,000 years ago.

Now to the chart above. During the time when all that carbon was trapped, was the earth much warmer?

We are releasing Carbon that was trapped away for millions to 100's of millions of years. and when it was captured before the earth was hotter. Why do you not think it will be hotter when we put it back into the atmosphere?

 

[dorndawg]

Ok Here is why we have global warming:

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere, increases the Global Temperature.
CO2, Methane, and ozone Absorb Infrared Radiation (heat).

Therefore, MORE of those in the atmosphere means more heat.


Since Humans started burning Coal, Petroleum, and natural gas on a large scale, We have been taking carbon that was locked away in the earth crust for up to 560 million years.

The reason the OP's chart goes from VERY hot 560 million years ago to cold so quickly is because trees were first formed then. But, the mold that breaks down lignin and cellulose did not exist until 250 million years ago. all of that time trees and woody plants that died, didn't decay. They made coal.

Oil and gas deposits are defined by when in the past they oil layers were formed. Permian basin, 300 million years ago to 250 million years ago. Paleogene 66 million years ago and 23 Mya. Eocene 56 million years ago - 33.9 million years ago. Miocene 23.03 to 5.333 Mya.

Humans came along about 800,000 to 300,000 years ago.

Now to the chart above. During the time when all that carbon was trapped, was the earth much warmer?

We are releasing Carbon that was trapped away for millions to 100's of millions of years. and when it was captured before the earth was hotter. Why do you not think it will be hotter when we put it back into the atmosphere?

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

Ok Here is why we have global warming:

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere, increases the Global Temperature.
CO2, Methane, and ozone Absorb Infrared Radiation (heat).

Therefore, MORE of those in the atmosphere means more heat.


Since Humans started burning Coal, Petroleum, and natural gas on a large scale, We have been taking carbon that was locked away in the earth crust for up to 560 million years.

The reason the OP's chart goes from VERY hot 560 million years ago to cold so quickly is because trees were first formed then. But, the mold that breaks down lignin and cellulose did not exist until 250 million years ago. all of that time trees and woody plants that died, didn't decay. They made coal.

Oil and gas deposits are defined by when in the past they oil layers were formed. Permian basin, 300 million years ago to 250 million years ago. Paleogene 66 million years ago and 23 Mya. Eocene 56 million years ago - 33.9 million years ago. Miocene 23.03 to 5.333 Mya.

Humans came along about 800,000 to 300,000 years ago.

Now to the chart above. During the time when all that carbon was trapped, was the earth much warmer?

We are releasing Carbon that was trapped away for millions to 100's of millions of years. and when it was captured before the earth was hotter. Why do you not think it will be hotter when we put it back into the atmosphere?

Why is hotter a bad thing? That is the question. There was life on earth for many of those years you talk about that were hotter.

As I said it is the disaster apocalypse that is the issue. Why do we believe all the disaster talk where there is no verifiable proof that any of that is going to occur. That is kinda like if you don't follow Jesus you are going to hell crowd.

 

[mstateglfr]

I'm not even worried about Russia. They are rapidly becoming a Third World nation, and their economy is collapsing. They won't be able to pollute much before too long.

Its the 3rd world countries(not in the classic coldwar sense, but in the modern 'that is an undeveloped/underdeveloped country' sense) that seem to pollute at a really high % per person rate.
- lower income countries typically have more relaxed air quality and vehicle emissions laws.
- lower income countries burn more wood for fuel, heat, etc.
- lower income countries often have power plants that lack the level of air pollution controls that are in higher income country power plants.
- lower income countries often have poor waste management infrastructure. Physical garbage, industrial waste, human waste- all are often not managed as well and destroy rivers, lakes, and air quality.


And yet as a counter to what I just posted, which is info based on actual reality, there is this from PBS- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...mate-vulnerable-heres-what-they-want-at-cop27


No real point to me posting this, your comment just made me think about how each situation is different. India is different from DRC which is different from Haiti which is different from Russia which is different from Australia.
As for if Russia really is collapsing...I have no idea. I cant sort out what is actually happening vs what people hope will happen. Sanctions have hurt Russia, but weapons production has helped Russia. Apparently unemployment is at its lowest point in years there too. But then there is the reality that what can we actually trust when it comes to Russian info? Is Russia lying about their economy? Do economists not have the full scope of Russia's economy and they are essentially working with bad data?
I have no idea.

 

[FQDawg]

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.

Here you go... Biden told Iowa corn farmers he'd allow for an increase in the sale of ethanol-based gas last summer and environmentalists were unhappy about it. Just based on this article, it seems like climate activists are coming around to the idea that ethanol is bad. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention.

 

[dorndawg]

Why is hotter a bad thing? That is the question. There was life on earth for many of those years you talk about that were hotter.

As I said it is the disaster apocalypse that is the issue. Why do we believe all the disaster talk where there is no verifiable proof that any of that is going to occur. That is kinda like if you don't follow Jesus you are going to hell crowd.

It's already occurring, Bruce. Merely one example is the intensity of rainfall in hurricanes due to oceans being warmer.