Are all those who believe in global warming living a hypocritical life
Had a good discussion with a relative. She drives a large SUV and her husband owns a large pick-up truck. They fly for their work often. She and her family use quite a bit of fossil fuel during their daily lives. They are also strong believers in global warming. I told them I believe their lifestyle is hypocritical and contrary to their beliefs in the environmental crisis. I say if you are against the use of fossil fuels, then don't use them. When confronted they turn into victims saying “It's not our fault the world runs on fossil fuels and this is what we have to do to survive. We didn't make it this way.” I still say they're hypocrites. What I hear them saying is “I don't want to change my lifestyle, I want everyone around me to change their lifestyle and if they don't...I'm morally superior because I believe in global warming and they don't.” Puh-leeeeze! I can't take these people serious.I agree they are hypocrites. They just need to wake up to it.
Fortunately, plenty of other people make more contributions to the environment than them.Your relatives are a drop in the bucket to how those promoting global warming live (now called climate change because the science didn't match their theories–no one argues that climate changes).
The movement is about money and power, both being obtained by increasing the divide in a powerful class system fueled by money paid into by people who supply taxes to government and life styles to entertainers.
People want to "feel" good about themselves, "feel" noble in their own minds, so they get by with not paying attention...for the time being. They put no thought into the consequences of what it means for them or their children by being blind sheep to those who are working to create a socialistic society. They do not learn from history, but think they are special, that the rules are different for them.tsadjatko, Excellent links. It appears my cousin and her husband are not the only ones. I have to laugh when they lecture me about what is being done to the environment.
Unfortunately, it’s currently easier said than done to live without fossil fuels. Solar panels and electric cars help, as does turning down the central heating a notch or two.
We have all become accustomed to modern day conveniences. When I was a child in the post-WW2 years, I often woke up to find ice on the inside of the bedroom window and had my morning wash in cold water. We bathed once a week and rode bikes or walked when travelling short distances. Try persuading young people in the western world to adopt that lifestyle - they will be appalled.
Fundamentally, we are all burying our heads in the sand. We eat animals that have grazed on pastureland and which produce methane gasses that add to global warming, when that land would be more effectively used to grow crops for human consumption.
Many people fly in jet planes for holidays multiple times every year. Meanwhile,the U.K. government has authorised a further runway for the world’s busiest airport.
It would be very difficult to persuade people to change the habits of a lifetime. I am afraid that the answer lies in legislation."I am afraid that the answer lies in legislation"
That didn't go over too well in France. The yellow vest protests tell you all you need to know about using legislation.
I do all of that and will continue to do it. There is NO workable change to substitute fossil fuels. NONE. Nothing even comes close. Yes, they can yell and scream about climate change all they want, there is no realistic solution to this theoretical problem. That is reality.With all due respect, Yes there is. Solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power and nuclear power.
But we're tearing out dams to save the salmon, whining about bird kill with windmills, refusing to build nuke plants and everything but hydro power is considerably more expensive than fossil, which means we won't use them unless heavily subsidized. This is a problem, particularly as we increase usage every day.
The fact is that fossil fuel is a finite resource. One of my sons works in the offshore oil and gas industry, so he has a vested interest. But even he acknowledges that fossil fuels are not the way forward. It is estimated that North Sea gas will run out in 60 years. I won’t be around but my grandchildren will.
Unfortunately, according to the overwhelming majority of experts, if we fail to get aggressive about mitigating rapidly advancing climate change your grandchildren won't be around in 60 years: Progressive Democrats realize this extreme emergency and will do everything humanly possible to salvage our planet while CONservative republicans will always put GREED over everything, even the inevitable destruction of planet EARTH:
Care about your grandchildren? ALWAYS Vote for Democrats:That's fine, VOTE for Progressive Liberals
There are many geologists who believe that we will not run out of fossil fuels. The gas and oil industry has found many different ways to find and extract. Everything from shale oil to fracking and more will be supplying us with fossil fuel for hundreds of years.
"However, new technologies for oil and gas exploration and extraction have upended the notion of fossil fuel scarcity: The limiting factor on humans' fossil fuel use will not be the exhaustion of economically recoverable fossil fuels,"
https://www.livescience.com/37469-fuel-endures.htmlFracking can cause earth tremors. It happened not so long ago in England. And it scars the landscape, which we are mere custodians of for future generations.
Sorry, I have to disagree. Fracking is something that has been occurring around the world since the late 1800s. With the advancement in technology, it is very safe.
"natural gas can replace coal and "dirty diesel" at significant scale throughout the world, supporting economic growth while slashing carbon emissions. (When burned, natural gas emits about half the CO2 that coal does)."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmaho … 7977f62d25Glenis don't bother. I had a 17 forum page discussion with some of these guys who don't understand basic science and economics. Saying it's difficult or impossible to deal with is one thing, saying it doesn't exist, is a whole different ball game. I work with wind turbines and modeling of flow and know how these climate model predictions work, so kind of an expert in the field.
It is usually US citizens that are the science deniers because they seem to lack basic elementary education even when they have studied. I'm not making this up, for instance: here and on Reddit there are mainly Americans who believe that vaccinations can travel back in time and cause genetic issues such as Alzheimer's. They believe that solar farms take away sunlight from fields in the vicinity and therefore lead to crop failure. What kind of education system produces people like this? Something is seriously wrong with their education, let's not let it be exported to the rest of the world.
Wind, Solar, and even storage are cheaper than new coal power plants, especially considering new plants as the renewable sources fall in price and the new coal plants will not live up to their usual 25 years.
You don't have to change due to global warming, the mere economics makes it worthwhile. But, they will never see it because their vested interest lies in being right. Right wing that is. The funny thing is that a conservative politician, Margaret Thatcher was the one to bring this to the political forum with a strong voice.
The only reason it's sad is that the US is the biggest per capita polluter in the world. The others that follow: China, global shipping, the EU and India are making huge changes and are going green.
The good news though is that there are many bright minds in the US, most of them were quiet and they are now waking up. Wilderness on this forum, for instance, he's a smart American. He doesn't agree on everything, but he agrees on facts and science. That's one person you can have a fruitful discussion with. There are others here, but there are just shouting to create noise, they are not adding anything useful to a discussion.So, Brandon, tell me, do you still eat beef? Are you promoting cow flatulence that could ultimately destroy the planet? Are you still using petroleum products knowing you are destroying the atmosphere? Still flying in an airplane and driving is a car that uses fossil fuel? Oh, then there are those other things that are a biproduct of fossil fuel like roads, DVDs/CDs, plastic and even detergent and so many other things. Should all of those be eliminated? I wonder if you look at your computer and realize all of the petroleum products involved in its creation. So you talk the talk...do you walk the walk? Or is it something you want everyone else to do? Do you believe you should be exempt because you believe in global warming and that is enough?
I replied the reply to your walk the walk question below. What do you do? That's right, you don't care. A generation or two from now, people like you will be seen as genocidal maniacs and enemies of mankind. I know of many who already see you as such. I don't, not yet. But I still do say you folk are dumb. I'm gonna go out and say that again and again.
Brandon, you are not now, nor will you ever be...smart enough to predict or know what will happen in a generation or two. Maybe in a generation or two people will look at people like you and laugh. I think folks like you are naive and gullible. I think you'll believe anything that will make you feel good about yourself whether it is real or not. It's not about the science...it's about the good feelings of moral superiority.
I am a generation or two away from you, so it's not that far fetched lol. People will not look at people like me and laugh, you know why? Because cleaning up the environment to curb climate change has nothing but good outcomes. Cleaner air, healthier food, more bio diversity, etc.
I wonder which is worse, hypocrisy by some on the left or denial of proven science by many on the right.
So, do you do something to decrease your use of fossil fuels or are you a hypocrite who believes it is proven science?
I recycle everything, contribute to the Nature Conservancy, drive fuel efficient cars, have only LED lighting in my house, use only paper bags rather than plastic bags at the grocery store, etc.
What do you do to stop the destruction of the environment and the spread of propaganda paid for by the oil companies?That is it? That is all you do? How can the planet earth be saved if you still eat meat, drive a vehicle, no matter how efficient, that uses fossil fuel. Do you realize how many things depend on petroleum?
Here is a list of 144 common products that depend on petroleum.
https://www.innovativewealth.com/inflat … -gasoline/
Until you are willing to give up driving on roads, using trash bags, detergents etc. that are made from petroleum? Are you are going to be in the hypocrite category?
Again, this is a hoax. Even if it is true, there is no practical solution to it. But, because I don't believe in it, I don't worry about it.
I'm also not a hypocrite. People who get crazy about it like my cousin and her husband make me laugh. It's now a political topic that provides emotionally needy people an illusion of being morally superior. I doubt anyone who believes in global warming could live without what petroleum provides in their life. It's like saying "I hate blood and I don't think any person should use it."
Now, if you eliminated ALL petroleum products from your life...I'd be impressed. I also would not see your response because petroleum is necessary for plastic, metal, and just about everything used to make your computer, probably used to generate your electricity and so on and so on.
I just can't take people who scream about this too serious. They all look pretty silly and hypocritical.You won't reply to me when I have something positive to say to you (like my top post).
But you get angry when I make a comment you don't like, even though I don't mention you at all.
Why is that?Insecurity. When you believe in something your entire life and you realize that you were wrong, that's what happens. I see the same symptoms in many who had blind faith in the Church as an institution and the way they deny that priests could be abusing people. They bounce off tangents and don't answer but get mad at you even though you say nothing wrong nor point at them.
Promisem..Sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention.
As always: Do you know how silly you sound? You may laugh at us, but you are the joke. Your family that you described is a joke too, they are hypocrites just like many religious followers.
Is it safe to assume they don't understand the science either and any basic high school science like those people who fear that wind turbines blow the clouds away and that solar takes away food from plants?
Also, has it ever occurred to you that they may be just like you: but left instead of right and they follow and believe everything their team throws at them without rational thought of their own. That's the difference between politics and fact. One is team based one is logic based.Brandon, you're funny. Do you know what conviction is? What occurs to me is you talks a lot, I wonder what action you take in your own life that coincide with your beliefs on global warming.
Are you really that blind? I pointed it out to you twice already, that I have replied to that point. Go to your bathroom and dab some water onto your eyes. You have a log in there that needs to be taken out. It's those splinters that you're seeing reflected in the eyes of others. Go on now.
Maybe the problem is YOU who can't comprehend how dependent you and everyone in this world is on petroleum products. They are many aspects of your daily life you don't realize. The reality of the situation is you CAN'T eliminate petroleum products from your life. The things you do have no real impact and only serve to make you have the fantasy you are doing something for the environment. It is just a fantasy.
I can see why it may be difficult for you to comprehend that every little drop makes an ocean.
Okaay Brandon, I am not even going to look that one up, (I am afraid of what I might find), but there really are people that are against wind turbines because they blow they the clouds away?
Don't bother proving it. It was too much fun just saying it.
But on a serious note... you should consider a seat at the table instead of a chair on the judge's podium.
GAYup, I linked to the one about solar panels taking away the sun from neighbor farms. The other is true too, but that I read a few months ago so don't have a link at hand.
Experts sit at the judge's table, usually, so that's where you will find me. Unless of course, you can find other experts to be at the judges table?
If you present a discussion, I will participate. Otherwise, I'm going to be judging and sending out links.
Btw. you find that funny? I wonder why. If you can explain the reason for yourself, it would be helpful. Because as dumb as you find that, I find the notion against scientifically proven climate change. So if you understand that and find that basic understanding, I find the latter to be basic too. This is in response to you saying I should join the table. I am not saying you deny anything. If you are willing to sit at the table with the people who say wind turbines blow clouds away and solar panels steal the sun from neighbouring farms, I too will sit at this table and not on the judges seat. I would not bother arguing if the title read : All those fighting for global warming living a hypocritical life.
EDIT: I did some quick searches to find some more: You can google with quotes to find them.
Yeah, but they're ugly and cause tornadoes. - my father
"Oh yeah? Well if there are so many wind turbines why these hurricanes happen if we're using so much wind!?" -Someone's real opinion.You read way too much into my comment Brandon. (except the judge's podium part)
As to why I found that funny is because it is funny. As a species there are idiots among us in every walk of life and every perspective of an issue. And they are funny.
GAYou got that right. And I find Mikes comments here funny. You probably don't understand why, but it's the same way you find those people to be idiots, I find some others to be idiots.
Isn't it interesting. The criteria for being identified an idiot varies so, from individual to individual. And being called an idiot goes over some heads. I think that's what makes the forums so entertaining.
Denying that global warming is happening. Not vaccinating your children for measles because you're afraid they might get autism.
Does believing those two things qualify somebody has an idiot?
I watched an 18-year-old who defied his parents and got vaccinated respond to that very question. He said he didn't think his mother was an idiot, just misinformed, scared by the anti-vax message.
So perhaps these people are not idiots (clearly, the many people on these forms who don't believe in global warming aren't dumb), just simply misinformed.You are misinformed if you don't know facts. Facts have been presented. They are not misinformed.
"Facts have been presented."
They certainly have! Including that the world will end in 12 years if we don't spend a gazillion dollars building windmills and padding the pockets of the greenies.
And here I thought you were respectful. You seem to be just like Mike right now. The fact I am referring to is that global warming is happening and it's mainly man-made right now. The facts are there. What you do with it is up to you.
Also, no one in their right mind said the world will end. There's a difference between the world will end and the world as we know it will end.The point was that far too many of those "facts" being touted are not facts at all, but political rhetoric designed to gain power and money for the people making them.
Just as the claim that the world "as we know it" will end. Life, including human life, has endured on this ball of dirt through far more radical changes that we're going to see from a few degrees rise in temperature.
Lobo, I accept the earth is warming. I accept that man plays a part in that, if not the near total cause the greenies promote as "fact". What I don't accept is the dire consequences being predicted; not after the ones already predicted all failed to come about. Follow the money trail; it will always lead somewhere, and in this case it leads to a gross exaggeration of what the future holds.Why would NASA lie? Them talking about climate change is risking their funding. They have already gotten threats by the government. You are right in saying follow the money trail, that's where the oil lobby is.
But even people in oil say they know it's bad.
Also whenever I say facts, I never refer to political statements. Politics is almost always opinion and never really facts. People have opinions on political matters.Why would the people behind the latest round of green garbage lie? If NASA gets funds to study the problem, and disagree with what the politicians want, their funding will dry up. Just as those politicians with the green proposal will lose power if it stops.
But beyond those things, you and I both know there have been some pretty big whoppers told about global warming. We both know fraud is rampant, just as it is everywhere else. And we both know there is big money - BIG money - to be made selling green "solutions".
And there has yet to see a prediction of over a decade come even close to being true. Some are errors, yes, but some of them are no more than jumping on the bandwagon to get grants, and we both know that, too.Regarding predictions. The weathermen can't even get the weather right, for the next day, in a specific area no less.
Go around the forums I have explained the difference between climate and weather. They are not the same thing, at all. Not even close.
I was referring to predictions in general. Dog race winners, lottery. Etc. Predictions are guessing what the future may hold.
Are you concerned about people freezing to death during the Maunder Minimum? Undeniable science. Any comment on "hoaxes", are they factual?Google the difference between the word prediction and guess/luck.
Have you Goofled Maunder Minimum yet? I see.
If we are going to predict, guess or just in general prognosticating, why not Nuclear Holocaust, asteroid or comet strike, super volcano or pandemic? Global warming is chic?Simple:
Nuclear Holocaust: That depends on the action of man, not physics or chemistry or something that can be controlled.
Comets and Asteroids: Because the probability of that happening is again a game of chance and not dependent on what man does on the planet Earth.
Super Volcanoes: Same thing. Not in any way controlled by man.
Global warming though: 100% in man's control, because if it were not for man, the Earth should be heading towards the next ice age and not the opposite as we see.
Simple, really.Simple contradictions, you mean? One minute a "nuclear holocaust depends on the actions of man" .. Global warming ? 100% in mans control..
Any luck googlin the mini ice age due to Maunder Minimum during our current interglacial period?How is it a contradiction. One depends on one man going crazy the other is what mankind is doing.
Are you implying that the higher temps are due to more solar flares and sun spots? If yes the upper atmosphere would be heating too. It isn't. It's pretty stable.
No. What I am saying that we can expect higher temperatures in our current interglacial period, which is exactly what we see.
Your earlier comment suggests, comparably to: " Hey its the end of July beginning of August, but its headed toward winter, so it should be cold in July! "
Maunder Minimum is low sunspot activity that brings mini ice ages. Are you ready for the impending mini ice age or not?Yes, we can expect it to be higher, but not like this. This is why studies of the higher atmosphere in comparison to the lower atmosphere where life exists is important. If the upper atmosphere were changing too, it would be natural, but it's not.
"The Earth should be heading towards the next ice age and not the opposite as we see."
"Yes, we can expect it to be higher"
More contradictions.
Lets hope this Maunder Minimum and quickly ensuing ice age does not effect the crops, otherwise we could starve to death before we freeze to death.
Have a good weekend Mr. Lobobrandon.When heading towards an ice age every day is not colder than the last.
Also, we can expect higher temperatures. Expect does not mean we see it happen. If we expect them and it is actually happening, we should see it in the higher atmosphere too, but we are not seeing it. We could expect it, but it's not happening. The lower atmosphere is heating for other reasons which are the build-up of greenhouse gases.
Good weekend to you too.
That's true - we're getting pretty good handle on weather predictions, but when it comes to climate predictions we're still in the stone age.
Climate predictions are far easier than weather. So if todays weather is right, you can bet that the climate are even better. It's because of the scale of the RANS solver of the Navier Stokes equations if you want to look it up.
The science is pretty simple. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere heats the planet. There's no denying that.
So what keeps an otherwise intelligent person from understanding it?
Being pummeled with lies and misinformation and scare tactics would do it. If you watch Fox News all day, this is what you believe because that's what they keep telling you.
Look, it's cold somewhere!Maunder Minimum is also science. Are you ready for the mini ice age? We going to cover the entire planet in solar panels and wind generators as far as the eye can see? Paper or plastic and save all the pop bottle tops, thatll reverse the industrial revolution and supply the planet in juice.
Our influence on the climate, percentage wise, is rather debatable. Us completely erasing our carbon footprint won't throw us into an ice age:if that's what you are saying.
What I am saying is the Maunder Minimum is a scientific fact. Due to low sunspot activity unrelated to mankind. The effect could be dramatically cooler temperatures that would effect crop production with 7 billion mouths to feed.
The rest of my comment is about a naive and unrealistic understanding of our planets demand for power and solutions.I agree on some levels because I'm drawn to the idea of a symbiotic system we can't yet explain somehow balancing to ensure the continued existence of life.
"Because as dumb as you find that, I find the notion against scientifically proven climate change."
If I could absolutely, with 100% certainty trust that the way ALL of the research supporting man made global warming was conducted is sound, then I'd give it a second look. I can't, at this point certainly trust it.
If I could, however, I might be interested is seeing what else outside of an extreme attempt to transform all the economies on earth, along with the displacement and misery it would bring, could be done to correct it.
As of now though, I remain unconvinced that ALL of the supporting research was performed properly.Point one domain where ALL of the research is done properly.
Good answer. However, by done properly I mean it had to have been done so that the outcomes are, with no significant uncertainty, correct. Yes there's going to be a margin of error in every area of research. When we're talking about a complete transformation of how people on every corner of the globe live their lives, I want to know for SURE that all of the assumptions prior to research were correct, given that there's a small margin of error, and that the following research was done properly, given that there's a small margin of error.
I buy from the local farmers market, I do not buy anything that comes in plastic. I cook at home every day, no take out, no plastic straws. I walk to work and back. I cycle around town if I need to. I contribute to the RnD of the renewable sector. All my electricity, the electricity in the entire state and the neighboring states are 100% renewable. The soap I use is made of natural ingredients, but it is shipped here in bulk.
If you're going to say my bicycle tires are made of rubber, don't bother replying.Ah, but that's not nearly good enough for the climate-denying extremists on here. Obviously you are a left-wing hypocrite too.
Yup, I don't mind being a hypocrite then
At least I can sleep at night knowing that I am not the reason for someone else's suffering. I'm pretty sure most of the deniers get sound sleep too, but they are the often people who've for generations lived of the suffering of others. Businessmen cannot have empathy or any other emotion other than greed is the common saying. Not true, but that's the saying.
So, do you use any of these products created from petroleum? If you don't use them, you benefit from them. How do you think food gets transported? How do you think farms plant and harvest their products? Everything you see in every store had to be manufactured and transported there. Everything you purchase had to be transported to the store. Roads are from petroleum products, plastics, metals are turned into items using petroleum products. Do you have any idea how much you use or depend on petroleum products during every day of your life? You could not go a single day without using something manufactured or transported without petroleum products. You couldn't go a day without using something made from petroleum products. You may think your smart, but not smart enough to realize how dependent the entire world is on petroleum products.
Here is a small list of products.
Solvents Diesel fuel Motor Oil Bearing Grease
Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats
Upholstery Sweaters (Boats Insecticides
Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures
Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes
Cassettes Dishwasher parts Tool Boxes Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape
CD Player (do people still have these?) Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline
Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs
Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes
Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs
Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant
Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings
Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician’s Tape
Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint
Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters
Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring
Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick
Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber
Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin
Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice
Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint
Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards
Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses
Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses (I thought they were made from glass)
Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs
Combs CD’s & DVD’s Paint Brushes Detergents
Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents
Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones
Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras
Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages
Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers
Cold cream Movie film Soft Contact lenses Drinking Cups
Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia
Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste GasolineMike, I agree with the point you are trying to make about our dependence on petroleum products.
I think where we differ is the impact of those products on the environment.You couldn't go a day underwater or in a desert.
You couldn't go a day without bees, you couldn't go a day without biodiversity.
That small list and everything else DOES NOT MATTER without the above.
Also, if you are one of those fools who beleives the change is a on-off switch, I have nothing to say to you, other than: you know what I call you... Do you think all those products and things came about in a day? It was a process from the day oil was discovered to the products came out.
In the same way, the change is gradual, there are many things that can be replaced immediately and cheaper the others will be phased out as necessary. Throwing stuff out for no reason is against the point of being renewable and recycling.Does it really matter if we irreversible harm is going to be done to the planet in 12 years?
Who said it's being done in 12 years? It's already being done.
Ocasio-Cortez: 'World will end in 12 years' if climate change not addressed
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir … nt-addressMy God. Can you quote experts and not some politicians? I can quote Trump, the probability of anything being right is near 0%.
If politics is all you understand, stick to it. Maybe if you spend more time there, you'd learn to associate facts to what politicians say.
We've already been down the Cortez rabbit hole on the other thread if you have forgotten some facts stated there.
Also, this is something that has been happening forever because the polar ice caps were always thinning making the polar bears move around and change course so much: https://www.livescience.com/64741-polar … ussia.htmlThe problem with AOC making such ridiculous claims is that it is akin to shouting 'FIRE' in a burning theater. It poisons minds causing an inability for reasonable debate.
That's a good way to put it. I'll use this in a week from now when the same statement is used.
Oh, if you read the article AOC was quoting a climate report from the United Nations.
Her comments are in reference to a United Nations-backed climate report, published late last year, that determined the effects of climate change to be irreversible and unavoidable if carbon emissions are not reined in over the next 12 years.
Here is a copy of the report.
http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-de … index.htmlInteresting. I can go back to the other thread and directly point out where you and others have said that she did not quote this. She never used those words. Interesting how your mind works.
Also, I responded to that report and how it's run away climate change the report talks about. It does not mean that things break in 12 years, it's not brittle fracture, it's ductile fracture.The UN also predicted in 1989 we'd be gone by the year 2000 if we didn't fix global warming. I think we're still here.
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
One of the things the sky is falling crowd refuse to understand is over 50% of the problem exists in countries which cannot embrace these extremist views because to do so would completely negate their strides to move their countries out of poverty and their economies into global players.
Socialism in America implementing the green new power grab is not going to effect the clock in any substantive manner.Considering the USA is the biggest per capita on carbon emissions - yes it is.
Also China and India and the Shipping companies (the largest danish company is working on solutions) and the EU the next biggest players, are all cutting down on emissions and capping the extent they emit.
The problem could be Nairobi, but right now the US is also a major concern.We are a major concern but the green new deal is like saying the answer to abortion is chastity belts.
We need a philosophical shift, not a slew of regulations and overreach. If every company with desk workers allowed them to work at home we'd see a dramatic decrease in carbon emissions. We'd see a positive effect on high cost rent going down or, at the least, much of the workforce could be able to seek areas they could afford. Small businesses could thrive, in an environment where they didn't exist in bedroom communities. The quality of life would increase for workers allowed to log in at home.
We have resources for renewable energy but energy savings is where we should, as individuals, focus. Small steps combined make for major effect. Builders could easily add wiring allowing the electricity for things such as tv's, which pull constantly even when off, to be disconnected completely while not in use. Timers on hot water heaters, etc.
I'm not into electric cars. From what I've read there is a major carbon footprint created during production and the electricity needed to run them is a problem also, in America. We travel long distances, compared to Europeans, for our daily lives.
I'm certain there are other areas we could find to turn minor adjustments into major gains. Government overreach is not one I'm interested in pursuing.The green new deal is not the answer. It does help, but that's not the only way to go about it. There are many countries making good progress and none of them have a green new deal in place.
Yes, you make some good points about travel, etc.
Hot water heaters do switch off when the water is heated, but they do come back on again if not switched completely off. Electric cars are good. You definitely do not travel 300 km one way, do you? If yes, then only with the increase in electric cars by the people who travel less will the technology advance to have more charging docks and probably machines that just switch batteries like you refill fuel. When cars were new, people didn't travel 100s of kms. The change needs to start small and with people who do not travel over 300 km in a single trip.
Also, studies have shown that even when the electricity used is from fossil fuel sources they are usually cleaner than regular gas. Plus, with the change to renewables, this energy would be green. Let's not forget the big role electric cars would play in a smart grid without the need for massive separate storage. Electric cars are good. You may be interested in this: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/07/te … -per-hour/
Governments can start by not subsiding fossil fuels, there are different forms of outreach the government can take. Increasing taxes need not be one of them.Any steps to help find reasonable and intelligent alternatives should be taken and I agree, subsidizing a fuel source we'd all like to replace would be beneficial. But, if subsidies would equate to higher cost to the consumer they need to lower gas taxes to offset
Your link is scary. Few people understand what is being asked of our electric grid to switch to electric cars, and certainly those signing on to the NGD do not.
Consider. Tesla's new charger requires a MW of power for just 4 stations (it actually requires more than that due to losses, but keep it simple at 100% efficiency even though it requires water cooled cables to drain off the wasted energy).
My corner gas station has 12 pumps, pretty common in my area. That's 3 MW of power to just that station to match the number of "pumps". Double it for the long charging times, relative to the time to fill a tank with gas. That's 6 MW of power necessary.
That in turn is about what a wind turbine puts out, meaning a turbine for each "gas station"...except that such turbines operate only about 40% of the time. We'll need 2 turbines per station, or power generation capability of 12 MW for each station (24 charging stations at one location).
There are about 170,000 gas stations in the US; converting them to electric means an additional 2,000,000 MW of power generation capability, or around a half million wind turbines. For comparison, that's about half what the country produces now - the grid won't carry that much, so an additional grid of at least half the capability of the existing one must be built, along with that half million wind turbines. And refitting 170,000 gas stations to electric charging stations.
The natural resources (steel, copper, aluminum, etc.) alone required for this boggles the mind.The natural resources should not boggle the mind because constructions on this scale are not new.
Also, not everyone will be using the chargers because cars will be charged at home and at the office. It's not like regular petrol pumps. Also, electric cars parked at homes and offices would serve as batteries for the variable wind and solar power.
No, gas stations are not going to be retrofitted. Also, the home and office chargers would not be as powerful, because you're at home through the night and you are typically at office 8 hours a day.
Not everything needs to be a replacement of what we have today. That's the problem most people have when they try to analyze and think of an electric future.
A fair point. If you believe that the effects of global warming are a serious thing, then you should act accordingly and not demand that other people solve the problem.
There are many small adjustments we can make - making sure all your light bulbs are LEDs, for instance. Driving a vehicle that gets good gas mileage. But believing strongly that global warming is a catastrophe and then doing nothing is the very definition of hypocritical.
Yes. Big time hypocrites. We could change an incredible amount and greatly reduce our carbon footprint just by personal adjustments but many want government mandates because they can't willingly make those changes to their own lifestyles.
What I do not understand is the notion that simply affirming or denying global warming is somehow relevant. What if someone denies global warming but has no carbon footprint. Conversely etc.
One thing I do know is that the typical millennial would not last a week on an island with no smartphones, lights, cars or a single luxury.Just FYI for anyone who truly cares: There's a lot of "FAKE" accusations floating around out there from the alt-right climate change deniers and some continue to repeat the falsehoods over and over again so I decided to post the TRUTH about how Climate Change is rapidly destroying our one and only habitable planet:
I'm sure even after watching this NASA Film which depicts the dire circumstances we find ourselves in, there will STILL be the uninformed "Deniers" which at this point is no surprise, they probably believe it's a HOAX perpetrated by China just like the Clown Man in our oval office believes despite PROOF of Climate Change and Damage like the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHE0n5c6-6gSo, Jake, what steps are YOU taking to eliminate using fossil fuels in your life? If it is so important, share how you are eliminating oil and other types of fossil fuels from being used by you. You can talk the talk...can you walk the walk...or are you just another leftist hypocrite?
readmikenow, I don't know too many climate change hypocrites on the left side and I know a lot of people, most are doing what they can despite the madman reality denier in the oval office who will be removed very soon if our laws prevail and I'm doing almost everything humanly possible to mitigate my carbon outpu such as driving a near ZERO emission vehicle that is lubricated with "Synthetic Oil" to ensure the least amount of poisonous carbon is released into our fragile air supply and this vehicle will be exchanged for an electric car which requires ZERO Oil in the very near future, just like many of my family members drive right now:
We recycle plastic, metal, paper and cardboard at the local recycling centers, we have energy efficient windows and appliances and aside from the slight amount of synthetic oil in our vehicles, we use ZERO other oil and we use ZERO coal, we don't even barbeque outside with charcoal briquettes because most of our cooking is done with a microwave oven:
I'm sure I'm missing other environmentally friendly things we do but that's for starters: Unfortunately Devastating Climate Change is for REAL as displayed in the last NASA film clip I posted and it's happening right now with severe dire consequences for ALL Human Beings IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE if we fail to legally REMOVE those who are living in what appears from every public indication, to be mental anguish and psychopathy such as the person in the white house who to my knowledge, publicly stated he believes Climate Change is a HOAX perpetrated by CHINA which is an absolute INSANE Notion and everyone knows it, accept I guess his last few remaining followers:If only they were few. They are not the majority, maybe, but they are by no means few.
LOL "Near zero emissions" for an internal combustion engine does NOT mean no CO2 being released - only that it releases little in the way of pollution creating a health hazard. Try again.
You didn't mention, but are there fossil fuels entering your home? Natural gas, for instance, used for hot water, ranges and the heating system. If you live where electric cars are practical (metropolitan areas) natural gas is very common.wilderness, where did I say I have a "ZERO Carbon Footprint"? Nowhere that I know of but I'm doing the best I can with what I have, and no, I don't barbeque because it emits way too much poisonous gas into the atmosphere and by the way "Natural Gas" is much cleaner and more efficient than COAL or OIL which everyone should be required to limit and or convert over to another source for heating etc ASAP:
Don't worry, if we follow the Retarded Russian Republicans in Congress like Gaetz who is now under investigation for witness intimidation after being a Complete IDIOT, we still have a good decade or two remaining before your grand-children become post toasties, and that my friends is a hard cold fact of life here on planet Earth regardless of the insane sentiment spewed by the soon to be REMOVED Clown in Chief who actually believes CHINA is perpetrating a Climate Change HOAX on the World: You can continue to "BUY Into" that retarded "Bamboozle Job" if you wish but if we still have laws, sonn you'll need to watch him spew that babbling retardation from his remote. cold prison cell:
"One significant change in the Arctic region in recent years has been the rapid decline in perennial sea ice. Perennial sea ice, also known as multi-year ice, is the portion of the sea ice that survives the summer melt season."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8auMIfF50NgWow, that's a lot gone pretty fast. More than I had previously thought.
Yup, the TRUTH about rapid Climate Change is nothing less than ALARMING but don't worry lobobrandon, oval office Donald has it under control, before he's tossed out on his ears, he's probably gonna' nip this HOAX by invading CHINA to make them stop:
I don't really care about that idiot. It's the many others who put him there that are worrying.
The BRIGHT Promising side? FINALLY many Trump Followers are coming to their senses just like former hardcore Trump Supporter Right Wing Extremist Ann Coulter who called him an IDIOT a few weeks ago: If she came to her senses anyone can, so there is actually hope and after that MASSIVE, Record Breaking Blue Democratic WAVE of Righteousness which washed away a good portion of Corrupt Russian Republican Congress-persons, wait until CONservatives get another POUNDING they deserve in 2020:
Jake,
I'm sure all of that makes you feel good. The reality of it is you and everyone on the left use so many products in your every day life created from petroleum. Let us just start with your computer. Plastic, metals, wiring and more could not exist without petroleum.
Again, if climate change is real, there is no workable solution to it.
It the political world they have what they call "comic book" solutions. The green new deal is one. It's like a comic book story. Looks good like a super hero, but has no place in the realm of reality.
So, do what makes you feel good and morally superior, but to do this you and the rest of the left have to ignore the economic reality of our world. A comic book solution is all you can provide.You fail to understand one thing and you will either ignore this message or write a witty reply and ignore what it stands for because it goes against your principle of THINGS MUST NOT CHANGE.
Moving away from fossil fuels does not mean 0% fossil fuels. Computers and other stuff would, rather could still be made of plastic. You are moving away from fossil fuels where the tech allows it. The quality of life does not go down, the rate of economic growth does not go down, in fact it would increase as new tech and new scopes for jobs arise.
Right now Robots are set to take away many jobs. I hope you're also against artificial intelligence because robots are going to reduce fossil fuel use as well. How? Fewer people will be traveling to work, duh. That's how your logic works.Guess what? Fossil fuels will still be a major part of the manufacturing of robots such as the wires, glass, metal. The robots will have to be transported somewhere. Everything made will require using fossil fuels. that's how understanding economics works. Knowing about raw materials, manufacturing process, means of production, etc. duh!
You don't seem to be able to comprehend economic reality.
Good comic book solution.Of course, duh... Common sense, something you lack. But I'm surprised you caught that. What you failed to realize is that people who drive to work drive there every day, robots are shipped once. People without jobs won't have the money to buy a car: a lot less metal in a robot. Start fighting against automation, now before it's too late.
What you lack is any type of business sense.
AI will be just like industrial revolution. Things will change, but the economic principles will stay the same. I'm sure the production of robots will change manufacturing, but it will still be manufacturing. Robots will have to be made with materials and a manufacturing process involving fossil fuels. Computers and everything else with it will be manufactured with fossil fuels. Wind turbines, solar cells etc., all have fossil fuels as part of their manufacturing process. Anyone who suggests the world will do away with fossil fuel now or in the future is not able comprehend reality. Whatever you think fossil fuel is doing to the planet will always continue to be done because there is no economic incentive to stop it.I linked to videos of experts saying that other forms of electricity are cheaper go back and look into them, as expected you don't look at facts presented.
Also, the world has fossil fuels for the next 400 years or so, 40 of which are economically viable today. To say it will forever be fossil fuels makes no sense. Is 400 years or even 1000 years forever? OR do you mean in your lifetime?
Also, green tech is not going to change economics, it's going to be the same principles, supply and demand being the foundation.
1.The bogeyman is fossil fuels.
2. It costs a lot more to heat than cool.
If there were only some way to raise the global temperatures somehow...
Related Discussions
- 11
Hi. Do You really think global warming is a fraud?
by days leaper 13 years ago
Hi. Do You really think global warming is a fraud?Thanks! For your kind words. (I haven't worked out how to make a formal profile thank you, yet. It seems to appear sometimes and not others. I will sort it eventually. Best Wishes
- 129
49% of American believe climate change is a hoax or "aren't sure"
by Sychophantastic 9 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not ............................................................. 51%Not sure...
- 107
Many Many Little Tiny People (and Cows) are Causing Global Warming.
by Kathryn L Hill 2 years ago
The earth is so huge. And people are so small. Are we really contributing to the build-up of C02 in the upper atmosphere(s) by:1. Burning fossil fuels, 2. Cutting down forests 3. Farming livestock.https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/ … l-warming/"Fossil fuels produce large quantities...
- 18
How do we fix global warming? Medicate it or make a lifestyle change?
by Cecilia 13 years ago
My husband and I had a debate about global warming. He thinks we should spew out sulphur dioxide to cool the earth (as in the case of pinatubo) He claims a source said that in 6 months the problem will be over.But acid rain is caused by sulphur dioxide and it will poison our potable waters. I say...
- 19
Do you believe in global warming ?
by Tcad1191 12 years ago
Why or why notP.S. you would be surprised to find out how many people don't believe in global warming.
- 166
Does Global Warming or Climate Change Really Exist?
by ThunderKeys 12 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please explain.