None of the Apocalyptic predictions for the Climate Have Come True
According to the Washington Examiner, None of the Apocalyptic predictions about the climate and the environment have come true. These are predictions that are recent and some that are decades old.
Why are they always wrong?
“Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today,” said the analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute shared with Secrets.
“None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true,” it added.
The report cites 30 predictions made by experts, government scientists, and global leaders, including former Vice President Al Gore and Britain’s Prince Charles.
Some examples:
1967 — Stanford University expert Paul Erlich predicted “time of famines” in 1975.
1971 — A top NASA expert predicted an “ice age” by 2021.
1988 — It was predicted that the Maldives would be under water by last year.
2008 — Gore said the Arctic would be free of ice by 2013.
2009 — Charles said there was just 96 months left to save the world.
Report from Competitive Edge Institute
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-yea … redictions
Article from Washington Times
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash … 9YMI4zYzRYEventually one of them will be right!
Just wait and see!
Manipulated Time Cover on Climate Recirculates
Eventually, someone will be right, but apparently not you. lolThe cover on the right is correct Apr 2006...The one on the left, the closest I can find is from Apr 2007 "The global warming survival guide."
Although there is something from Jan 1977 "The Big Freeze"
The fear mongering used to be about global cooling, then they switched to global warming. now they say climate change to get our money and our votes. That way they can spread fear no matter which way the weather changes.
I really wish people would be more discerning in their reading and their assumptions. Take this sentence, for example:
"Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster..."
So the scope of this article, by its own admission, is limited to "modern doomsayers". I don't really know who those people are, but my guess is that the vast majority of doomsayers on any subject are never right. Fringe people on any subject are almost never correct.
Conversely, I bet you I could easily write an article with the headline: "Good climate scientists accurate about climate predictions..." and provide plenty of evidence to prove that my select group of climate scientists made accurate predictions.
Ultimately, if we all lack the intellectual curiosity to question the premise of the things we are reading, we are indeed doomed.
The science about climate is pretty irrefutable (hottest years on record over and over again, CO2 in the atmosphere rising; etc.). These are just facts. Now, what they may mean for the future... I guarantee you that every prediction of a definitive nature will be wrong. General predictions can be right, but there will always be somebody around to point out the vast number of incorrect guesses about events that haven't happened yet.“Conversely, I bet you I could easily write an article with the headline: ‘Good climate scientists accurate about climate predictions...’ and provide plenty of evidence to prove that my select group of climate scientists made accurate predictions.”
LOL Really? Well why has no one done that? Have at it if you think it can be done - it can’t, that’s Mike’s whole point! Their predictions are never right and when they aren’t, as time always tells, they just make more predictions further into the future until nobody making the predictions will even be alive to see them not come true!
LolI don't trust government scientists predictions who money comes from fossil fuel companies.
Any more than FDA schedule one for Marrijanna and on all cannabis too.
If 97% scientists do the worst job at predicting global warming than any kind of other professional feild in the world.
Or
All scientists got together and created a great conspiracy just for the hell, since no bonus money in it for them.
What are the % chances of either one working out for scientists to be untitled....................the
stupidest professionals in the world."I don't trust government scientists predictions who money comes from fossil fuel companies."
Do you trust government scientists whose money comes from manufacturers of solar cells? The development/construction of windmills or any other "renewable" resource? Those that make a living off of climate change (usually while burning tons of fossil fuels themselves)?The hold idea is to use natural energy like windmills , solar, geo Thermo and dozens others to get off of fossil fuels or fracking oil and gas. The technology is already here. It's the political corruption, oil companies and banker will to be greedy dirty killers. They don't want smaller operations of natural energy to complete at all.
haha, you still want to convince people that the Climate Crisis is a hoax!!!
Spoiller: Elvis is dead.Okay, so, for the sake of argument Climate crisis is real.
Now what?
Are YOU willing to sacrifice everything you use every day that comes from petroleum products? That would include computers, smart phones, roads, vehicles (no just to power them, but to make the hoses, tires, electronic products, paint, glass) and much, much more.
What are YOU willing to sacrifice to save the planet?Good question Readmikenow,
It’s a huge problem. But there are a lot of things we can do.
First. Stop eating beef. Thats not to difficult. It should make a huge impact if we stoped eating beef.
Plant trees.
Use more solar power and wind power.
Don't buy plastic bags.
Re–use things
Eat more organic food (its healthier too)
These are the things I do.
Of course you can always find things we use or do which are not good for the environment but if you stop trying you’ve lost already.
You can always fingerpoint to somebody saying, but he is not doing anything for the environment either, so why should I but that is not an argument.
Everybody can do something. But ignoring the elephant in the room is foolish and becomes irresponsible.I see your point.
Can we agree none of this will change the world'd dependence on petroleum? Solar and wind can only proved a very tiny portion of the world's energy needs.
People will still want cell phones, computers, roads to drive on, buildings etc. There isn't a way to replace petroleum products. There isn't a mass manufacturing method that doesn't come with problems.
How many people do you know are willing to give up all of the products made from petroleum products? How many are willing to live without the benefit of mass manufacturing that provides clothes, cars, the food we eat being transported from farmer to processing plant to store shelves and so much more?
Stop and think in a day how completely dependent you and everyone else is on petroleum products. From the cup you had your coffee, to the coffee, to the creation of the waste container. All were transported, grown and displayed with products made from petroleum.
I think it is much bigger than not eating beef or using plastic. It sounds good but ...IF climate change is caused by man, there is NO realistic solution to it. None. Short of crashing every economy in the world and having people live like in the stone ages, I don't see a real and workable solution to it.
Many people talk, but those who really think about it and understand the world economy realize the scope of change being requested is beyond impossible.
Climate change is no longer science. It has become a social and political view.One example out of a million of them.
Henry Ford made a car and fuel totally made from hemp. The fuel was cleaner and 25% cheaper than gasoline use throughout the southwest of US. The plastic on the car was stronger than steel. David Rockefeller banned both the hemp car and fuel.
I build tiny houses 1/10 the cost of a regarlar house, totally made out of natural materials. I built 4 tiny houses in third world countries. Two in Canada, but after 15 years pioneering in North America, they stop me.
North America will soon be left out in the dust over natural products overseas.
Lately, I finally I won out legally, to build a tiny house community, due to overwhelming homelessness in eastern Canada. The way I build them will be the first step for American kind and first step of beating out corporatism corruption.The average person will only live in a tiny house if forced to, economically.
Most houses are unaffordable causing the house to own you. About 50% of home owners are single. Youth and seniors are most troubled for a housing. Most are one paycheck from homeless and most will consider a tiny house
About 20 million North Americans live in trailers most are toxic rust buckets. They leaks in tens years with an R7 insolation. A few million homeless live in a garages, storages, in cars or Vans, in tents, on the street, couch surfers. My tiny houses would a castle for them.I'm not against tiny houses. But, let's be realistic. A tiny house in a city is going to be unaffordable just because of the real estate costs. Homeless people can't afford an apartment. Much less any size house.
Being single does not mean a person wants to live in a tiny space. They may do it in a big city, but they aren't going to forever.
Trailers are dangerous. But, a trailer is dangerous because a poor person cannot afford upkeep. Costs for tiny houses are comparable to costs for a trailer. Anyone living in an old trailer lives in it because they don't want to, or can't, invest in a new one.
I hear the homeless are balking at the idea Trump floated of getting them off the streets into affordable government housing. That problem is not going to be solved by tiny houses far removed from the streets of San Francisco. As a matter of fact, no problem with a lack of affordable housing in major cities will be solved by tiny houses.My facebook page is loaded with memes of middle class mid-westerners putting up images of their dream tiny home. Though I'm not a tiny house expert, I know there are ways to keep the costs lower than a typical trailer. I've witnessed such things using solar panels, wind turbines etc. It's a different mindset that leads to different ways of living.
I'm not sure Castlepaloma is stating tiny homes will solve the problem of homelessness but I'll let him answer to that.I'm not saying there aren't some who like tiny houses. But the costs are not minimal and they are not a solution to the growing problem of homelessness.
People who can afford to make a choice are not the same as people who can't afford one.
Kitten your always on my ankles, that's alright, I love a challenge. Mostly large corporations are against cannabis, affordable housing and the natural environmentist. I can't imagine a better solution for the environment and economic than these two, can you? People could not imagine me making a living at sand and snow sculptures 45 years ago. Today it's big bussiness. Who would imagine of my 15 years pioneering cannabis and tiny housing it would become a far bigger bussiness and best solution for the environment, corrupted will soon loose and Beauty find a way to survive. Tiny houses has been more IllegalI than weed, if we are getting real.
Yet, many cities have approved tiny house in their backyards and trailer parks.
Homeless people can afford my tiny houses. Just not equipped for handicaped yet. It is not for everyone yet adaptable for most. Why live in a trailers more dangerous, toxic, ugly, and dangerous. For long term cost tiny houses beat trailers at every level except traveling around in.Continue.....
Tiny house gives you less of everything: less space as for less expense, less maintenance, and less energy use.
Tiny houses are unique with most benefits. They go to places a regular house can not and they move every 10 years on adverage and cost $50,000 to rehookup costing more than buying a tiny house.
What is quicker and less cost to build a communities rather than suburbia. Vast majority tiny houses owner love them. Lower Expenses., One tenth the costs of a full-sized house. The luxuries give you far more freedom, access to traveling or enjoy retirement . So less is more. No Mortgage in my tiny house community. Most people can’t afford to buy a house. Like a long-term 30-year house prison mortgage . Most tiny house owners are free and clear unlike oversizeme housing.Lower Energy cost less upfront and long-term . Much cheaper maintainance on electricity, fuel, water,waste disposal, heat and hooked up.
Freedom of Movement. Far smaller footprint, less plot of land. Easy to move. In transit for jobs economical. No brainer for health and economics.I have been rich and famous for most of my life. Yet wonder why I became unhappy because is life all about the stuff.
Some can't live in a small space and without endless stuff.
Most that are a few paychecks away from homeless will not fail from my tiny houses if they are unhappy with junk and debt forever.I have completely uncluttered my life and have no superfluous possessions, have no desire to buy anything other than the necessary anymore. But, you couldn't pay me to exist in a cramped living space.
You will pay more anyways.
These houses don't fell cramp with the other community sharing buildings of kitchen and bathroom utilities.
Missing a golden opportunity.You're saying these people share a kitchen and a bathroom?
That'll be a double no for me
Hi ReadMikeNow,
- "Climate change is no longer science. It has become a social and political view."
The Climate Breakdown is proven by science. It is not a thing you believe in or not.
You can have different opinions of how to solve it. That's the political view. But climate crisis denial is not the solution but part of the problem.
- "How many people do you know are willing to give up all of the products made from petroleum products?"
I recently found a photo where I was smoking in a plain while travelling to New York!!!
Millions of people have given up smoking because laws where made not to smoke in public buildings etc.
The same thing can be done with meat and plastics. Make meat thrice as expensive and make it a luxury product as it used to be. It will make a huge difference if everybody only eat meat once a week instead of every day.
Ban plastic, just like asbestos.
It is not impossible it is only the political will to do so.
The US spends 650 Billion $ on the military yearly. This is more then China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, India, United Kingdom and Germany COMBINED!!!
Imagine what you could do with the money if you would cut the spending in half!!! You will still spent more then the number two on the list China.
So the money is there. The problem is solvable. The only thing that lacks is the political will.
And if politicians are not willing to do things, then we citizens have to start doing things."So the money is there. The problem is solvable. The only thing that lacks is the political will."
I disagree.
You've not answered the question about production, petroleum products, crashing of the world's economy and more. To do anything you would have to get every country in the world to agree and in the realm of reality, THAT will never happen.
If anybody is willing to take the time to read about climate science, they should be willing to read about the world economy.
Again, there is NO workable solution. I don't think it's right when people single out the United States. If it is GLOBAL climate change, one nation or even a few won't matter.
Ban plastic? So, what are you going to use to replace all the plastic parts on your computer, smartphone, cars, televisions, etc. etc. etc. Then you wipe out the plastic industry and that has a huge negative impact on the tax base, and employment. More unemployed people and less tax revenue. Not a good idea for anybody.
My problem with most people who claim climate change is a fact don't seem to comprehend the enormity or the economic impact of what they ask to change it.
If Climate Change is established science, then there not being a realistic workable solution to it is also a fact.
Remember, like a wise man once said "Anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about."I gave you a couple of answers.
The problem is big and can not be answered by just one action.
We could use less plastic
We could eat less meat.
We could use less pestisides
We could buy less consumer products
There are many things we could do today, without waiting for politicians to make laws.
These are things we can do personally.
To work on solution against the climate breakdown it will have an economic impact. But who says it is negative. It can be a huge opportunity for lots of companies. During the years products come, become obsolete and go, replaced by better products.
We used cotton bags, then we started to use plastic bags, now we use plastic bags made from degradable plastic. Products change. This is not a bad thing. It's a good thing called innovation and it happens all the time.
So why not change the products so they become more environment friendly? There is a huge market to be filled. Don't see it negative but as a positive force."We could use less plastic
We could eat less meat.
We could use less pestisides
We could buy less consumer products"
You are absolutely right.
We "could." But as someone who has been in this world and traveled around the world I can tell you, some people in the United States may sign on for this, but around the world, there are more people than you realize who won't do anything. That is reality.
Climate change is a Global problem. NOT just a United States problem. You would have to change the habits of people on a worldwide scale. I find that almost impossible.
Ever been to a third world country? Most of them don't care about anything other than surviving the day. Many people in these countries wouldn't care at ALL if what they were doing was harming the climate as long as they had enough to survive. Not live, survive.
"To work on solution against the climate breakdown it will have an economic impact. But who says it is negative. It can be a huge opportunity for lots of companies. During the years products come, become obsolete and go, replaced by better products."
Again, you are 100 percent correct.
The problem is not the products BUT the materials and processes used to make them. This is where petroleum plays a huge role and always will. Think about the process it takes to make most products. Think about all over the world and how many countries have MUCH lower manufacturing standards than the United States. In many of these countries they only focus is on making money. Nothing you or I can say or will change their minds.
"So why not change the products so they become more environment friendly? There is a huge market to be filled. Don't see it negative but as a positive force."
Again, you are spot on. The reality of consumerism is that products will be made to meet demand. When there is a profit motive to make these products, they will be made. You can't just produce products and hope people purchase them. You are right in that it will change, as business always changes.
Still, I don't see any of this having a huge impact on the change in the climate. Is there an example where climate has changed for the better when man has changed his ways? If there was, it would probably inspire many people.Representatives from 196 countries attended the conference. As of 2019, 196 states plus the European Union have signed. Further, 183 nations and the European Union have ratified the agreement. The main purpose of the Paris Agreement is to fight back against climate change.
Trump and gang are not trying at all. Beside Trump claiming he has the greatest economic record in the History of America,
He got the greatest laugh from all the UN members ever.
Greatest shame Trump has ever done is called global warming a hoax and dumped the Paris acordThere are a couple of things we should not do.
Finger pointing like look China is not doing enough against the climate breakdown so why should we.
Getting desperate. The problem is so huge so let's stop fighting in the first place because it's a lost cause anyway.
The western world is the main problem. Africa far less. The average carbon footprint of a family in the western world is far greater then a person who tries to survive with a plastic bag living in a cardboard box.
As Paloma said what Trump did with pulling out of the Climate Change talks was not helpful and besides not a clever economic move. As the talks are not only about stopping climate change but also talking with companies who will get deals to do so. There is a lot of money involved in tackling the climate breakdown and if you are still thinking the old way about petrol you will loose out. It's not for nothing that Silicon Valley was angry at Trump of not getting involved in the climate debate.
The problem is complex and urgent but it's not unsolvable. And it's not a matter of right-wing against left-wing philosophy. That's what old style politicians want to make from it. Essentially (in my point of view) you have three political movements today. The old left socialist, the old right capitalist and the new Green movement.
And both the old left (Sanders) and the old right (Trump) are afraid of the new player on the political playground.
In Germany and Holland the Green parties are supported by people who once voted left and right wing.
Maybe I did not answer you question but it lays within the scope of the theme. As it is huge and touches many things in the society. And there you are right that it will be tough as we have to change the behaviour of people. But people did give up smoking too.I would like to point out an observation.
This discussion on climate change has descended into what it goes to every time I discuss climate change with someone who is a hardcore believer. It's descended into politics.
Nobody discusses the science of it. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with it, but guess what? They'll lose their job. A weatherman was fired because he didn't believe in man-made global warming. If it is science and the other side is afraid of your expressing your opinion...what you have is politics.
This proves the main point of my argument on this topic. Is not longer about science, but politics.
Again, here is my question seeking a political-free answer.
"Is there an example where climate has changed for the better when man has changed his ways? If there was, it would probably inspire many people."
Here is an interesting video about the Paris Climate accord by John Stossel. It is very enlightening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVkAsPizAbUI don't agree Mike,
The science is that the climate breakdown is proofed by thousands of studies by experts in their field.
The politics is how to deal with it.
And they should ask scientists for advise and not lawyers, bankers or butchers for that matter.
If you want to start a war you ask the military for advise.
If you want to go to the moon you ask scientists how to reach it.
If you want the climate breakdown to stop you ask scientists for advise.
And with the advise you get you build a policy.
**There are plenty of scientists who disagree with it,**
No there are not. it is a minority of 4%The key is not IF there is climate change. That has occurred on the plant more than once LONG before man was a force on it. The question is IF it is man made and if so, can man stop it by changing his activities.
I say climate change is probably a pretty natural thing that happens. I would also say nothing man does would change a thing.
I wonder why nobody ever provides an answer to my question. I've even asked it of people at climate change summits. The question is either ignored or the subject changed. I don't know why.
"Is there an example where climate has changed for the better when man has changed his ways? If there was, it would probably inspire many people."
Isn't it interesting how climate change occurred even before man walked the earth? That, is a fact.
Interesting article from the Smithsonian on it.
https://aamboceanservice.blob.core.wind … lesson.pdfB.S. I answered all your questions, and this is exactly what you said before I answered them all: "I've even asked it of people at climate change summits. The question is either ignored or the subject changed. I don't know why."
Your reply was I do not care about facts.
Isn't it interesting how climate change occurred even before man walked the earth? That, is a fact.
True. - this is not evidence for the cause that the climate breakdown today is caused by natural elements though.
**The question is IF it is man made and if so, can man stop it by changing his activities.**
This is already proven by thousands of scientific reports who link the industrial age with the change in temp. and climate. (especially the last 50 years)
Simple logic - There are 7.7 billion people living on this planet. It is in human nature to change their habitat to survive. This change in habitat on a world scale is having an effect on the weather.
Even without statistics it is evident that mankind has an impact on this world. For statistics you can google.
**"Is there an example where climate has changed for the better when man has changed his ways? If there was, it would probably inspire many people."**
"for the better" is a relative term. what is better? for whom? For all the people on this world? the answer is no.
What can inspire us is to leave a world that would be a better place for our children to live in. Not a worse one.Remember, to Mike people with a Ph.D. in literature count as scientists who can voice an opinion on Climate change. These are the kind of people in the list who deny it. Also, Mike has created threads like this multiple times, I've given him facts all the time, he said he does not care about facts. You are wasting your time.
He does not know what he wants to say. He begins by saying it's a hoax, he then goes on to say ok if it's true, are YOU willing to give things up. Which is it, Mike? Is it a conspiracy or is it a problem of changing things?
Before your next post two months from now, decide the path you want to have the conversation on.
Good evening Mister Ken Burgers. I read on the news papers. I watched the news on TV. I watched a lot of YouTube videos that people showed in different parts of the world. For example, Bahamas and some parts in the United States Of America a few tornados, floods, hot weather and cold weather was catastrophic. I know; it has nothing to do with the article in the Washington Post, but at some extent some bad things are happening around the world as a consequence of the climate changes. I invite you to see on YouTube some catastrophic moments , so you can see with your own eyes. What, I am writing is true. Have a good night and sleep good.
Why not fire whitehouse staff for willful ignorance of the world's greatest threat to humanity. Natural Environment is the only thing that almost every countries agree upon. Health is wealth first for us and the planet.
Al Core stated about the possibility of a complete lack of summer sea ice in the Arctic by as early as 2013. Tourist ships travel every where in Arctic in the summer.
Charles issue a stark warning that nations have "less than 100 months to act" to save the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change.
It was not the end of the world. He would not know that date, yet still life expectancy has lowered for the first time in modern human history according to my own study's of history and biology organism.
Charles says we need to tackle global warming is more urgent than ever, even in a Global recession. That is true and happening now.
If you find 96% human and livestock being the mass weight for total manmal is normal or only 4% of wildlife mammal mass weight a not a disater. I don't know what normal is. When people allow 75% trees removed from earth or 90% of big fish gone from the oceans, they are heartless. When two in every female and three in every male will get some foam of cancer and made chemo and radiation as the main cure. That is Apocalyptic to me.Why not fire whitehouse staff for willful ignorance of the world's greatest threat to humanity. Natural Environment is the only thing that almost every countries agree upon. Health is wealth first for us and the planet.
Al Core stated about the possibility of a complete lack of summer sea ice in the Arctic by as early as 2013. The first commercial cargo ship to have sailed through the Northwest Passage was SS Manhattan in August 1969. Now many tourism ships travel every where in Arctic in the summer.
Charles issue a stark warning that nations have "less than 100 months to act" to save the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change.
It was not the end of the world. Charles would not know that date, yet still life expectancy has lowered for the first time in modern human history according to my own study's of history and biology organism.
Charles says we need to tackle global warming is more urgent than ever, even in a Global recession. That is true and happening now.
If you find 96% human and livestock being the mass weight for total manmal is normal or only 4% of wildlife mammal mass weight a not a disaster. I don't know what normal is. When people allow 75% trees removed from earth or 90% of big fish gone from the oceans, they are heartless. When two in every female and three in every male will get some foam of cancer and made chemo and radiation as the main cure. That is Apocalyptic to me.I would like to know what predictions by those predicting climate disaster have come true. Anybody? Yes, in the 1970s we were told were going to face another ice age. Nobody freaked out about it like today.
So, were are the correct climate disaster predictions? I'll take some from the early 2000s. There have been several.- RTalloniposted 4 years ago
0Thought you might like to see these items:
https://climatelessons.blogspot.com/p/c … tened.html
https://people.com/health/climate-chang … al-health/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/1 … -epidemic/
It is a terrible injustice, even criminal, to manipulate and use children to promote this agenda. I hope parents will start saying no more for their children. To unnecessarily frighten children is beyond belief, telling us the left will stop at nothing to get to their real goal behind the climate change movement. Money and power is behind all the double-standard lies.If you want talk about criminal and manipulate fear tactics. Flip on the news and hear about horrific terrorists attack everyday. Mostly set off by false flags no doubt.
Lighting kills 8 times more than terrorists do. Some Government corporation will use environment fear tactics also, to gain more tax dollars. For most part natural environment damages and poverty kill more people than anything.
The top 10 ways to die on planet earth is diseases related, almost invisible pollution area in our water, air, fires, earth everywhere is being large Corporation toxic waste free for all.
There are natural disaster happen around the world in single events in the hundreds of thousands. Many of the large mammal and most of large cats in the world, live in captivity.
We drop the ball with environment as hippies. I personally will be educated and training our youth for lower stress level of the environment by being able to take action, rather than corporation politics sitting on their tuffs thinking of more ways to kill more people and gain money."Lighting kills 8 times more than terrorists do."
Terrorists took some 3,000 lives less than 20 years ago. We have NOT lost 24,000 people to lightning in the succeeding 20 years all combined. Is this some of those manipulated fear tactics?If you divide 3,000 terrorists, into 24,000 Lighting dose that not come out to be 8 time more. For floods and fires it's alot more. Only 104 Americans have been claimed to be kill by Muslims terrorists the last 18 years. The 9/11 is very debatable as an flase flag inside job.
More military intelligence facts.
American soldiers die by suicide than combat; the number of veterans committing suicide is astronomical and under-reported). So you’re 2,059 times more likely to kill yourself than die at the hand of a terrorist.
-So why do it, US has only won in two wars wail being at wars 93% of the time since birth 1776.
The CDC says that some 80,000 deaths each year are attributable to excessive alcohol use. So you’re 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself to death than die from terrorism.
-Alcohol often gives them these criminal ideas to go to war.Wilderness
About those authorities against tiny house living. I can't imagine any two better solutions for the economy, environment and our physical health than tiny house communities and cannabis. I challenge anyone to give me two other better ideas than these two.
And No....exaggerations.
From a grassroots entrepreneur perspective, a two party dictatorship is ridiculous they are deeply a broken system
As the first sand and snow professional 45 years ago til today. You learn how to bend the rules all to hell. As for weed growing, I can talk about it today because it's legal after 95 years of being Illegal. Too bad for offenders lock up more than the violent criminals who rape murder and moleste kids, with no pardons for weed offenders is showing hypocrisy again.
Getting the first Government grant for 2 years building tiny houses in BC Canada. I found out why Tiny houses can't be built on trailers like in the US. Minimum size house has to be 1200 sq ft or 400 sq ft. in a regular size house backyard. This is a grey area for North America. Like weed the Feds schedule it #one, meaning no useful purpose and dangerous. Even though it is the best known medicine for 10,000 years. Check history of Marrijanna 101. Avoid the biggest killers tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs.
Fed law can force tiny houses to move on like Illegal homeless people, most tiny house owners are aware of this great grey gap. Some local authorities will try to bend the laws to help.
I dealt with a shotgun, police trying to give me a criminal record, mysterious building and tiny houses set on fire.. County inspector threat and fines. Then finally I sold out to save my skin.
Coming this spring I will be the first of 4 groups government legally to build a tiny house community in all of Canada. After 15 years the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Sorry for venting so much.Better for the environment and perhaps the economy are tremendous apartment complexes complete with commercial and even light industrial built in. Less total energy consumed, less land required, maybe even easier recycling. I'm talking a complex of a square mile or more, 20 or 30 stories high, with an occupancy in the tens of thousands.
I wouldn't care to live in one, but then I wouldn't care to live in a tiny house, either.My tiny house community only need an hour's drive exist to 100,000s population rural.
The operations beats apartment & small housing pros & cons easily. Starting with by far most important issue affordable dwelling. Tiny is 1/10 the price. Aircrete hemp anti fire, anti mold, anti begs and many others. It's 1/10 the cost and 1/5 the weight of apartment concrete. Tinyhouse much superior concrete to stiff concrete boxes. Of which both are mostly made of..
Smaller houses would be a better investment than apartments.
Disadvantages with Apartments renter or buyers
* Average condo or Apartment owners move average every 8 years
* Some travel just to get out of the apartment.
*Apartment noise and traffic.
* Number of tenants using the amenities
*Lack of Control, too many laws, no ownership of the land. Increase mataince dues.
*landlord can enter, inspect apartment, less privacy.
* landlords strict rules about interior paint colors and fine violations for a lot of things.
*Unruly Neighbors.
* Often cockroaches or bed begs
* Low income community is only as peaceful as its tenants & rules.
* Often weaker community than even suburbia
*Leasing Issues or dues
restriction
* Forms of leasehold property rights for specific lease durations, eviction or termination, possible until lease ends.
Rights or nots roommate or a pet.
*lease can increased upon renewal.
*No Ownership Benefits
Like opportunity to claim tax deductions. Building lack increase in value and equity.
Low cost apartments often a view of road, parking lot or another ugly box blocking veiw.There are environmental advantages to stacked up apartments, as Wilderness mentioned. It seems many of the problems you state here or more related to how the apartments are run.
Would it be possible to build apartment complexes with aircrete? I've seen some beautiful complexes with green roofs, etc.I once was interested in this style of building back in 1967. It turn out it was a failure long term.
I do see stacking up to two can add some benefits. Yet, It is complicated enough adding additional units to your tiny house. More higher levels at low costs housings required alot more expensive for equipment.
Something to explore when I get rich and famous again.Ha..I was just curious if you'd thought about it. I can see initial expenses rising quite a bit with even just stacking two homes, with plumbing, electrical, etc. I would live in the right tiny home community after my children are all gone.
The Wiki image pretty cool. I bet some crazy air currents through that complex.A roof cost more than walls in a house. My gypsy style vaulted roofs design save roofing cost, saves materials, stress from wind, ease of construction, air flow stress of wind. Takes heavy snow loads and looks beautiful. For codes I bring electricians and plumbers.
Most People don't realize a regarlar house is 9 times more toxic air quality inside than outside. Our mass material inside and out is 92% all natural.Oh yes...furniture, paint, carpet, etc. all toxic, some with endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, bad for people with breathing problems. I hate carpet, I know that. I know you've put a lot of though into your homes. Taking advantage of natural daytime heating, using blinds for cooling, etc. can make a huge difference on energy use/bills.
Our bills are extremely low for the size/age of our home and number of people living in it. It helps a ton when the home was designed with this in mind. Our old home is not bad here, with South facing windows, and a big house right next door to lessen the harsh west winter winds.By far, most of what these tiny houses are made of is aircrete.
Check out many of honey do video. Most amazing site online
https://youtu.be/eC3MITjo8M4
Don't worry. It's coming. Obama bought a house right on the edge of the ocean so he can let us know when the apocalypse starts. He's like the climate apocalypse equivalent to judge Rutherford.
Nothing good will come out of a two party dictatorship. Obama broke a record for wars and before he got started he was given a Nobel Peace prize.
You would be surprised on how many others think like me.
I don't think I would be, I have spent enough time outside the U.S. to understand many non-Americans are far more aware of what is going on in the world, and how corrupt American leadership is, than the typical American.
I was after all, part of that boot on the world's neck, or I was part of American diplomacy at work, for more than a dozen years, depends on one's perspective.If you love what you do and your not harming anyone, then my hat is off to you.
Your much better at diplomacy than I . I dream for a living and live a alternative healthy lifestyle. Been told, especially from Americans, I am too honest to a fault.
We may have a closer perspective than you think.
Actually, 50 years ago, everyone was worrying about the next and overdue ice age. Our carbon dioxide is preventing that. Who knew.
It was way colder when I was growing up. In fact I had to stop my snow sculpture business due too much warm weather. When the odd extreme cold day came along people would say, see there is no global warming.
https://www.newscientist/article/dn1164 … the-1970s/
Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
I earned a degree in meteorology and climatology in 2002. The trends that the mainstream science community were predicting then are turning out to be true. And, there's no way scientists have time to conspire to create such a hoax. If you know many scientists, you understand how passionate they are for finding the truth in their fields.About 97%of scientists say humans are responsible for global warming; The other 3% could be dumb or pay off from people like Trump or large corporations.
Thank dog for honest science.
I am looking forward to your next forum post titled, “Are we sure the Earth isn’t flat.”
No shame in admitting a mistake. I'd encourage you to rely on more reliable sources.
Since virtually all of the things that contribute to climate change, also emit various other pollutants, which we can very clearly see, and feel, the results of (mercury, NOx, SOx, etc.) why is this even an issue? Why can't we just agree that we need to move on from these dirty energy sources and products? While we may not have the perfect energy source yet, we have much much better alternatives that would leave our planet, and our species, much more healthy.
Agreed,
Makes you wonder why the media doesn't do more to point out why EVs would be a good thing... actually it doesn't, they need the revenues from all those Auto Ads, Tesla doesn't do Ads, but GM does.
The media has had one of the biggest, and most critical, news stories to cover this past month. And they barely mentioned it:
https://me.mashable.com/culture/6711/th … a-coverage
Gotta have that "New Green Deal" to save the planet... but can't be bothered to make the #1 story of the day, every day until its stopped, the burning of the Amazon Forest at record setting rate.
I don't watch our MSM news, bloviating self aggrandizing talking heads, but if I did, they would make me puke in disgust.Yes, good point. EVs could be huge for air quality especially in urban areas and places directly downwind from them. They are even better when powered with cleaner energy sources such as wind turbines, but they cause cancer now, lol.
Also, we don't hear much about gas lawnmowers:
"According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a new gas powered lawn mower produces volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides emissions air pollution in in in one hour of operation as 11 new cars each being driven for one hour." https://www.peoplepoweredmachines.com/f … onment.htm
I use a mower with no engine and an electric weed eater on my typical sized city lot/garden area.
I find myself reading MSM now and then as I don't really watch live TV. I did read some about the Amazon, but you'd think it would be bigger news...getting dirt on Trump with the Ukraine thing is more important--and that may turn out worse for Biden than Trump.
My confidence in MSM has greatly diminished. They take hearsay and run with it before getting the facts, and lead us all down unproductive paths with their story choices. I see the propaganda machine even with things like the anti-Kratom push..which is 100% ridiculous, but I won't get into that here, lol. -- I think we can still find some good reporting here and there though.
It actually means the entire world would have to move away from dirty energy sources. That is NOT realistic. So, again, feel good words and no workable solutions.
It is realistic...it's just not going to happen overnight. There are solutions, and there will be more solutions in the future. The alternative is continue to pollute until the planet is uninhabitable.
It is? Any proof?
Please answer this question. Is there an example where climate has changed for the better when man has changed his ways? If there was, it would probably inspire many people.
So, also, there have been periods in the earth when there was climate change AND there were no humans. THIS is a fact. So, how did this happen without humans?There are examples of climate changing for the betterment of man you just have to google them and find a reliable source. I wasn't even speaking on climate though.
The same goes for proof of technologies beyond coal and oil...google. Here's a good place to start though: https://www.nrel.gov/research/learning.html
As batteries improve it will get even easier. I cannot prove that technologies will get better, but, um...this is what's happened throughout human history
I think you know that the issue is how much humans change the climate not whether or not climate has natural variability. Milankovitch cycle, etc"There are examples of climate changing for the betterment of man you just have to google them and find a reliable source."
I don't believe there is such a thing.
Again, do you grasp how much of our daily lives involve products made from petroleum? One of them is plastics. This involves smart phones, computers, glass, televisions, cables, tires, hoses, roofing materials, roads, sidewalks, etc. etc. etc.
You are not going to get rid of petroleum any time soon. Will technology improve, sure, but until then what?
At least we agree Climate change is a natural part of the cycle of the earth.
If places get warmer, is it because of of man? Might not be since climate change happens with or without man.
Can man change it? Again, no proof.
It has simply become a political football.As I stated, we are not going to blink our eyes and be rid of ALL oil, natural gas-based products. I understand these things...as I studied them as part of my master's in Environmental Management.
So, your argument is this: Since we cannot make it perfect, we do nothing about any of the environmental/health problems that our technologies bring us?
As has been stated over and over here, we look to scientists for proof. If you don't trust them, I can't help you. Also, my argument is too much attention is paid to climate and not enough to the other..VERY CLEAR health/envrionment problems we have from technologies.
We began truly understanding, and witnessing, these things since at least back in 1948 in Donora, Pennsylvania.HardSun
If the people from planet Toxic win.
I got a plan B in Colomobia in starting operation, we could use a good man.Ha...My wife is an excellent horticulturist who would love that experience. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but unfortunately it seems much more likely now then just ten years ago when it looked like more nations would come together and take real action on these matters...like the US.
US dropped out of the Paris Accord. And the smartest man in the World elected in the US. (according to the recent President) calls global warming a Hoax.
I thought I was was an Optiholic, (over optimistic)
Good question.
I think that it has to do with money, power, mentality and the incompetence of change.
As Mike pointed out. The world is running on oil at the moment. And the companies who are connected with the oil industry don't want to change this power position. So they fight against the new technologies. They fight against the truth with the media sewing doubt about the climate crisis. This is what the tobacco industry did for years.
But just like the coal industry became obsolete, so will the oil industry become obsolete. New energy resources are developed and already on the market.
Just to give an example from here in Spain. For years the government taxed solar power for those who lived in the cities and could get electricity by the grid. With the result being that solar energy was more expensive then normal electricity. Nobody used solar.
Spain could have exported solar energy to France (which uses mainly nuclear energy). No, it did not as the government was ruled by oil and gas companies.
Today there isn't a tax on solar any more and people start to use it as an alternative more and more. Spain has a lot of sun hours so it makes sense.
But it demonstrates that it is a fight between the old oil empires and the new ones.
It's a fight between Donald Trump against Greta Thunberg. The dinosaur and the future. The dinosaurs are in power but they are afraid of what is coming. They know too, that the world is changing, and most rednecks know instinctively. That's why the world is in turmoil. Machismo against feminism. White supremacy against cultural diversity. Isolationism and nationalism against global connectivity. There are a lot of forces at work today.
And the big question is : In what kind of world do we want to live in.Tax on Tobacco is 12%. Just Imported taxed solar energy into the US is 30%.
Meaning the worst drug in the world that's killing more people than aids, wars and all drugs combined is less sin taxed than solar. Everything keeps coming up backwards.
Why do so many Americans love a two party dictorship? Is way beyond me.Yep. It always comes back to money. The state in which I live had some solid net-metering laws until the most recent Republican governor decided to make it a priority to end them. Now, you can put any amount of energy into the grid and all you get is a waiver of fees and such. Used to, the energy companies had to pay you market rate for that energy...seems fair. But, we deal with energy monopolies with tremendous lobbying powers.
Much of the US is at least decent for solar power, and I would love to run on all panels with maybe a small wind turbine. But, with upfront costs, it's just not going to happen right now. I will certainly do this when I'm able to downsize .With several deep cycle batteries, it won't be too difficult.
However, it should be cheaper now. Coal and oil are still subsidized way too much. This paragraph is very telling:
"The best way to compare solar energy and fossil fuels without subsidies is to examine global energy prices. Consider this: global coal prices have historically averaged $0.06 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Until the past decade, no alternative energy resource came close to rivaling that price. Fossil fuel steam averages around $0.05 cents/kWh and small scale natural gas can go as low as $0.03 cents/kWh"
https://news.energysage/solar-energy-vs-fossil-fuels/
It's not easy to push out those with the means to get things done especially in the States, with our lax lobbying laws.
As to your big question. It baffles me that so many have been played by the lobbyists into arguing that we should simply continue to destroy our planet. Where I grew up, many people are actively trying to keep a solar PV farm from coming in just outside of town as they fear the metals leaching from the panels into their water. "Grassroots" efforts start with thing like a phone call from an astroturfing company with a name like "Citizens for the Betterment of People and the Planet." What they don't tell you, is the group just started when the lobbying company spoke with coal industry reps who are paying for the effort.
There are risks of environmental harm with any known energy source, but those risks are not ANYWHERE near equal. Lobbying tactics are underhanded and effective.My solar unit cost $3,500 powers my 200 square foot tiny house and work shop for $350 in batteries for the year. Lucky my genius neighbor sold a kit. He generates a huge solar plant cheaper than local hydro running on coal.
Jet stove, oven and house heater like the linked honey do aircrete to you. Cost just travel in free scrap wood, takes one Fourth of wood to burn. Live in zone 4 like times it gets 45 below. Back up propane used just a couple of times.Gas generator for laundry and higher voltage power tools at times. Also passive heating from 2 pane glass windows. Attrached four season growing food greenhouse for air freshest, extra heat and air
flow. Freezer most expensive gas $300 a year. Solar is expensive to buy yet much cheaper to run.
Actually built an eco artificial system in Toronto inside a sick building to bring it back to health.
Man on Mars living on a spaceship. Concept of growing potatoes for oxygen and food from human sh_t.
Microgreens grow twice a week from 2 trays, would worked way easier on Mars.
Microgreens also sell for $20 to $40 a pound at farmer markets, Lighting is no problem. Ducks are twice the nutrition than chickens for eggs and meat. More fun and easier to raise, electric fence dose the trick.What would happen if solar power became cheaper the oil or coal?
People would own their own resources. Now that’s dangerous!
Governments/the ruling class can’t have it that the plebs become more independent.
So the powers that be make us dependent on the resources they control.
The internet was a dangerous thing in the beginning too. Now its a means to control people. (Personal advertisement preferences etc.)
Most laws are made to control you and to protect the ruling class.
A personal example.
We live completely off the grid on the countryside in Spain. I’m Dutch, my wife English. She needs a European passport to be able to work properly in the EU. and with the Brexit coming up she will loose all her European rights (working without Working permit, European healthcare, she will need a Visa to visit other European countries etc.)
Now, we are married, so you would think that’s easy peasy...nope.
As we have to deliver tons of official papers to proof that we are living together. Which we do, but in a house where the postman never comes, without official energy or water bills, etc. Its tough to find those papers..
This independency is a nightmare for governments to work with.
So I guess they rather want to drown us in oil and suffocate us in coal then to give us our own control over energy resources.--some great incite here on how governments flail when people are more self-sufficient. Unfortunately, at least in the US, if solar becomes cheaper than coal it will likely still be grid-dominated solar as that will be how the laws are set up. Only the ones that have the means and/or the drive will ever get off the grid.
"People would own their own resources. Now that’s dangerous! Governments/the ruling class can’t have it that the plebs become more independent. So the powers that be make us dependent on the resources they control."
You are SO right on this one.
In the United States, people have been put in prison for collecting rain water. Rain water. I asked an attorney how does the government control something that falls from to earth from the sky. It is against the law in about a dozen US states to collect a natural resource like rain water. I still can't comprehend the reasonong. ALSO, there has been more than one incident where people in the United States have lived fine without public utilities for years...and government officials have told them the "have" to get public utilities because it is too dangerous for them to live as they have lived for years. People have been removed from property they owned because they refused to get public utilities. You have shown me how governments are the same all over the world.
Spain is a beautiful country. I go there whenever I go to Europe. Have you ever been to Mallorca? I've had so many good times there.
Hope your situation with your wife works itself out some how for the best.Mike is your account hacked? You've for once said something meaningful.
If you can't be nice, move on, I can do without your comments.
In Bolivia, the natives had a long water war with the government & water corporation that claimed all water rights, including rain.
Then they charged for water more than what most people could afford meaning they would all mostly die or be imprisoned. The natives people over threw the Government and water corporation.
I believe in capitalist system, not Centro corporationismThanks Mike.. (The Brexit thing is completely nuts...but that's a different subject)
Now that's a strange and disturbing story. Getting fined for collecting rainwater!
We do it all the time, as water is precious and we want to use all the water we can get for the vegetables and garden..
In Holland you can have solar power but you have to be connected to the grid and give the solar power back to the grid.You won't pay for what you generate yourself but you aren't independent either.
Yes, they will try to control the resources. Huge Solar farms is the way to go I guess. If you have a big dessert you can monetize it... In Morocco they started to do this, something Spain could have done years ago..(thought..invest in the Nevada desert....wouldn't it be great if Saudi Arabia was one big solar panel instead of one big oil bubble )
In Spain they start to organize in such a way as well. You may use solar power but connected to a grid.
As I'm living in a place where there is no grid I am allowed to have my own energy resources. (Sun panels)
(I had a wind turbine too but it flew from the roof during a tornado...)
I haven't been to Mallorca (I live near Valencia) But there is lot's to discover in Spain.
Solar (and wind) power IS more expensive in my area. Perhaps because a majority of our power is hydro, but it is more expensive than what we already have.
I lived in Creston BC for three years, that just above your city. The problem in that area is high Hill and tall trees, hard for sun solar and wind to get at. The trick is to find an area more exposure to the sun then it's Ok. Wind turbines is more of a challenge. In Saskatchewan has the best sun overall in Canada. An 8 acres solar set up, is the best system I have ever seen. That was my neighbor system actually cheaper than coal. Saskatchewan Wind were too strong, Manitoba blows and BC sucks.
You are so fortunate to live in the mountains. You really have a nice treat.
Yes, warm mountains area like Creston and cool oceans beaches like some spots on Western Vancouver island are the most beautiful places ever and love living there.
Although sometimes, I end up in the ugly cities mainly for earning money.
Related Discussions
- 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...
- 1761
Climate Change: Let's Have a Fruitful Discussion
by savvydating 5 months ago
Is climate change a threat to our existence? If so, how much time do we have left as a civilization? What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change? How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics? Do you believe Al Gore? What are your thoughts...
- 76
NOAA to Abandon Climate Change Terminology ?
by ahorseback 5 years ago
I New it ! The era of "political correctness" may finally be maturing into something slightly better ? NOAA having been instrumental in promoting the whole recent Global Warming alarmism may be returning to it's actual day jobof predicting the weather?
- 207
Can the Earth Survive Four Years of a Trump Presidency?
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried...
- 38
Why do you not believe in Global Warming/Climate Change?
by Randy Godwin 6 years ago
Why do you not believe in Global Warming/Climate Change?I have no doubt our earth is warming at an alarming rate. One of the reasons I think this is because of the photo I included with the question. Otzi--the Iceman--was frozen over 5000 years ago and has remained that way through all sorts of...
- 322
Did you see this research on global warming??
by Holle Abee 7 years ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/