Climate Change: Let's Have a Fruitful Discussion
Savvy, MUST WATCH, spot on!!!
https://fb.watch/meMu3CqRhs/?mibextid=UVffzbA great speech. My brother had sent it to me, but I had not watched it yet. Thank you for sharing this with me, AB. This individual has common sense and heart. My kind of man. He made me laugh out loud.
I hope those he spoke to understood that poor people want prosperity too, but I doubt that the other side of the aisle will spend much time, if any, contemplating this simple truth. However, even if he managed to open the eyes of one or two people, that is still progress.I had my husband pause 'On Patrol Live' to have him watch it...lol
Don't know if anything gets through to the dug-in loyalists, but maybe he got through to a novice or two.
This video tells me more about woke(ness) than climate change.
It's the best story on woke, that I can read.
Breaking News Yesterday: https://www.newscientist.com/article/23 … -heats-up/
I believe that the '30s and 50's saw higher temps. As a kid in Tucson, I would play baseball and run when it was up to 110. Not saying that makes heat problems less annoying, but some of the media really play the doom up. Even though recently in Phoenix it was 119 and folks were decrying the fact, it has been in the 120's in the past - in those days officials wouldn't let planes take off or land because they were not rated at such temps.
Regardless, we should be preparing ourselves by doing all the things we can to cut down the heat island effect. We could do so much, but won't until it gets ugly, if and when action takes place. Such a pity.I found it odd to understand this...who said August is the hottest or warmest month in Nigeria? Who is reading odd things into my posts? Nigeria, has been raining, raining for over 24 hours this week. Where do you my friends get the information? Actually, July, is the coldest month during the rains. And the torrent of rainfall this 2023 has not been experienced in a decade! The 'August Break' encountered during the first week of August seems warm and comfortable. The hottest or warmest month is not predictable.
Yeah, I know: Some people seem to just make assumptions with fact checking.
No one said that August is the hottest month in Nigeria. You offered up the current temperature where you live, of your own accord. Nobody asked. Go back and read your own words.
The only thing I said is that 80F is not a crisis.We here in Michigan have had a mild summer today it is 66... We were warned early in the spring we would have a Sourcing summer.
Temps lower than usual, nice amount of rain, just a great Michigan summer.
All the warnings of record highs just did not pan out, as predicted.Actually, if you go back and check, I did not offer up the current temperature, you took it upon yourself to check what the current temperature was on a day when it was not partially hot in Britain; you didn’t ask what summer we had, and you didn’t bother to check back over previous temperatures this summer.
If you had asked, I could have told you that our hottest period in Britain this summer was in June when it reached 32.2C (90F).
Plus, as I previously explained, this year Britain was just outside the heat dome (heatwave) that hit mainland Europe; pointing out that for the previous 5 years in a row we have been hit by devastating heatwaves, when last year for example the UK had temperatures up to 40.3C (105F) – and that is a crisis.
"Not predictable"!
Hear, hear, that's the weather...as it has always been, is now & will continue to be.
Time for people to lighten up, laugh, love and appreciate precious life on this amazing planet of ours!The weather is predictable. Not on the short term but it is on the long term.
As you compare this year with last, and last with before last.
So you know that the weather in the winter will be colder than the weather in the summer.
Now if you look at the weather from the last 200 years you see that the average temperature on earth is rising.
And it is rising at an abnormal speed since the '70.due to humans burning fossil fuels on a planetary scale.
'Actually, July, is the coldest month during the rains. And the torrent of rainfall this 2023 has not been experienced in a decade!' So you get it? Obviously. But does July this year seems colder than July 2022 in Nigeria, due to the amount of rainfall? No. Last year 2022, Nigeria experienced something like 'a cold winter' when it was obvious that they was less rains in July. Actually, it was like a mediterrean climate. I can't sleep with my clothes on.
Yes, locally you will see more and more extreme weather. Last week it was 44°C here in Valencia. It has never been so hot before!
But we have to look at the global scale when talking about the climate crisis.
Some countries will have more extreme heat days, others will have more heavy rainfall than normal.
But as things are developing at such a fast pace on a global scale nature simply can not keep up.
Hi all, this is a:
Must Watch:
https://youtu.be/vVi01vJ4nxMAre the changes proposed by the climate change extremists worse than what they are trying to stop?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tKZ3DkaDGwYes, but remember it is not the wind or solar technology that's bad. It's where you put them.
Although I have my doubts about wind energy as those windmills are gigantic and a big disturbance in the local ecosystem wherever you place them.This reminds me of the environmental destruction you were describing in Spain secondary to the imposed solar farms. Solar is certainly not bad but if you destroy the few wild spaces we still have left in order to fight climate change it is not a good thing.
Yes, exactly.
besides the problems of the solar farms, there is also a lot of resistance against the huge windmills here in Spain.
It's not always as green and clean as it pretends to be.
Guys, I want to make it clear here that the temperature I submitted had no reference to any European country, nor Britain, or the USA. Nigeria, my country is what I had in mind. And you savvydating, whose mind is now set on calling me Mie, you're welcome. Actually, it was a tradition in my home town for a female to call a man whose mame is Miebaka, Mie. Are you getting my English, my friend?
A very recent poll by Ipsos shares one in four Britons see the environment as an important issue for the country, rising thirteen points since last month. Pollution/Environment/Climate Change now sits at #3 for their most important issues.
Public importance of climate change and the environment doubles to become the joint-third biggest issue facing the country by Ipsos (Aug 15, 2023)
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/public-impo … sue-facing
#1 is inflation/prices. Is that connected to climate change in any way?
$2 is the Economy. Is that connected to climate change in any way?
In any way that can mean due to regulations/laws, new industries/markets, or use your imagination.Good questions, tsmog. My observation is that European’s are much more trusting of their governments than U.S. citizens.
Today, I put gasoline into my medium sized car. It cost me twice as much as it did before Biden came into office. It needn’t have.
This is where examine your points can be informative."Today, I put gasoline into my medium sized car. It cost me twice as much as it did before Biden came into office. It needn’t have."
Which Biden policies do you believe made your gas more expensive? What other factors influence the price of gas that an American president does not have complete control of? As an aside, the Dow was up today, can I attribute that to Joe also since he is currently in office?My observation is that European’s are much more trusting of their governments than U.S. citizens.
The wealth inequality in the US is far higher than in Europe. Perhaps that could be a reason why people in the US have less trust in their government.
But to be honest it is very difficult to speak about Europe in these terms as Europe has about 40 countries and each has its own governmental system. Europe is Albania as well as Germany. And that's a huge difference in living standards and political systems.The U.S. as a nation of people has had a trust issue for years now. I just now did some poking about on the internet coming upon surveys, studies, and articles going back to the '60's. A poignant reality of that is trust between people and not just of institutions. People don't trust each other and are wary of people in public settings. They are always aware while on their guard something negative may happen.
Instead of posting a link to an article, study, or survey this link goes to a Google landing page with multiple articles on the subject, 'Do Americans have trust issues'.
https://www.google.com/search?channel=f … ust+issuesYes I can imagine that it's a much broader issue.
And as well I can imagine that it is difficult to find the culprit as it is something that has grown over a period of time. Cultivated as well as fear next to sex the biggest seller of products. Fear of becoming fat, fear for accidents, fear for bad tooth you name it.
And now we enter the surface era with face detection cameras all over the place, trust is something that's even gone deeper down the drain.
To me, the UFO hearing by Congress sums up the craziness of today's USA.
Because I think conspiracy thinking, UFOs, fake news, and distrust of science can all be linked. Linked to a rotten capitalistic system. Where money is more important than truth(facts). UFO talk sells, no matter if it lacks basic facts.
And if the truth(facts) is thrown out of the window, trust is thrown out of the window too!China has face detection cameras all over their country. They watch everything their populace says and feels. The U.S. government does not.
Not yet.
So, please do not confuse the US with China, a country that has deliberately killed hundred of thousands of their own people.
I am always amazed at the resentment many Europeans have toward the US.
But, apparently, that is the mindset of those who do not have natural optimism and goodwill like Americans do. It surely goes back to history.
That being said, American progressives are (generally) compliant with China.
This is something that many Europeans cannot understand, given your culture, history, and support of China, but I still believe it is necessary to put it “out there.”The US police force uses face detection in the US as well. Also, many private buildings/flats have face recognition. As companies as well.
I don't know why you think that the progressives are compliant with China as China is an incredibly capitalistic state with a one-system party. And 6.2 million millionaires, it's ranking only second after the United States in the world!!
China is definitely not an example of how to run a state.
Europe is not supporting China. As Europe is not in favour of one-party systems but promotes democracies, freedom of speech and human rights.The US Police force is also using face recognition. It is also used in the private sector. Like flats and corporate buildings.
China is a capitalistic country with the most millionaires in the world after the US.
China is not directly an example for Europe as it is not a democratic country and the freedom of speech and human rights are not respected.
So I don't actually understand why you think that "progressive" people are looking to China as an example. On the contrary.What I am saying is that American progressives are compliant with China, often unwittingly and out of ignorance.
That is not the same as “looking”to China as “an example.”
Nor do I believe that Europeans agree with China on every issue. However, Perhaps you, and certainly Nathanville, have praised China for “advances” in their climate policy’s.
No offense, but that makes no sense. China cares nothing about climate and they, along with India, have dirty air and dirty factories.
The US has cameras here and there, but they are not for the purpose putting someone in prison or hard labor camps because a citizen may have spoken out about the government. We still have free speech here, although the progressives are quite successful at squashing the speech of those they disagree with.Don't you think it's a bit black and white?
A person or a country is not all good or all bad.
I could say that the US is a terrible country because it impressions people in inhumane conditions without giving it a trial at Guantanamo Bay.
Does that make all American politics bad? No.
Same with China. China has a terrible record on human rights but this does not mean that everything China does is bad.
Freedom of speech in the US? Depends on the state you are living in. But if I'm correct there are several states in the US that banned certain books in schools.
Freedom of speech is a complicated subject with many nuances. But banning books is definitely called censorship (even if this book is called Mein Kampf.)Why do you think banning sexually expplicit books for grade-school age children is a bad thing? Distributing pornography to minors is not free speech and preventing libraries from distributing pornography to little children is not censorship.
But banning books solely because of contrary ideas that perhaps would tell another side of the story with a narrative other than that preferred by conservatives, ( George Washington cuts down the cherry tree) IS censorship. And that is precisely what they are doing here in Florida.
I don't appreciate literature from black intellectuals being censored because it is "Woke"...I saw the books they are banning in Florida. One of the parents tried reading a passage from one of the books and it was so sexually expicit that they turned off his mike. (But they still thought it was okay for the kids though.)
A graphic description of oral sex is not "contrary ideas".Alright, Doc. I am against clearly pornographic materials exposed to youngest students. But conservatives are attacking ideas and using "pornography" as an excuse to remove politically contrary materials. You need to dig deeper and see that this crusade of theirs goes up through high school to the university level.
You watch Fox news to see the most egregious examples to make the point for the rightwinger, while the other side of the story is being carefully concealed.
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/more … y-16817328
I will let you figure it out....Yes, I am aware that not all the books removed are pornographic. The "progressives" that slipped those porn books into the childrens libraries sure gave them a good excuse to get started though.
Yes, Fox always points out the pornographic books. My quesiton is why CNN and the other MSM sources never cite the fact that those books never should have been in the kids cirriculum in the first place.
Your news sources are not telling you which books are banned.
And no, we are not banning history books.It's not so difficult to google "books banned in the us"....
One of the leads of this search gave me for example:
The 50 most banned books in America
Picking up on just one point - where you say”
“I am always amazed at the resentment many Europeans have toward the US.”
What makes you so presumptuous as to assume that?
Fact: Europeans pay more for everything and are used to getting by with less.
Americans, by nature are less trusting of government because we founded a Republic.
As a consequence, Americans tend to be highly self-motivated and quite optimistic about what we can achieve for ourselves, without the help or interference from government.
Furthermore, we celebrate the success of our friends. We do not begrudge them their successes as is often the case in Germany, for example.
So yes, there is a huge difference in “living standards and political systems between America and Europe.”
The only Americans who have little to no optimism, and who begrudge the success of others, are the progressives and their bots, such as Willowarbor, who will likely be banned again.
That being said, I like my European friends. American progressives, however, have no excuse because they live in a free nation, with freedom of speech… which is why they would never live anywhere else.
Communist China salivates every time they observe progressive legislation being implemented in the United States. I have no more patience with American Marxists.
Now, back to climate. Just so we all know, the only reason the bot came out of hiding is because I mentioned the name of a president.
We are back on track now. That’s a great thing.Yeah, i don´t understand many things.
So i have to ask: "Who is the bot"?I named the bot in the 6th paragraph. We have a group who have been permanently banned, all hard Leftists, never anyone on the Right, who keep returning to HP under assumed names.
Some are AI bots. Some are actual people. They all speak in a similar manner, and they all show up when certain topics come up in the forums.
And you don't have any African friend(s) here, or you refused to acknowledge such? Come on, savvydatting.
How dare you. One thing I will not tolerate from anyone is race baiting.
Have some respect. I had been a friend.Quoteing you: 'We celebrate the success of our friends (Americans?) and 'My European friends...' I'm not good at race baiting. But I've made many friends here.Nevertheless you're welcome.
It's difficult to talk about such a broad spectrum of people Savvy.
For example, do you have the same background as Spanish-speaking family in Texas, an African American family from Harlem, or an Inuit family from Alaska?
Same here in Europe, A Finish family or a Turkish family living in Germany or a Gipsy family living in Spain have a completely different set of family rules.
And then you have people with millions of dollars and you have people living on the street. I'm sure they have a completely different idea about the US (or Europe).
Or people from different religious backgrounds.The American spirit is alive. In general, we have a “can-do” spirit. This is why our nation became great in a short period of time.
Many countries have a "can do" spirit.
The reasons why the US became a great country are many. And a lot of them are dark.
Picking up on just one point - where you say”
“So yes, there is a huge difference in “living standards and political systems between America and Europe.”
Yeah, a huge difference in the political system between America and European countries;
But…..Living standards across Europe are comparable to the USA – what makes you think otherwise?..Fact: Europeans pay more for everything and are used to getting by with less. ..
???
I do it like Winston Churchill: “I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself”.
Take a list of GDP per capita and PPP (purchasing power parity). Then take a list of average working hours per year.
USA: GDP 76.399 USD/year, Working hours: 1.765 h/year, GDP performance: 43.36 USD/hour.
G: GDP 63.150 USD/year, Working hours: 1.353 h/year, GDP performance: 46.67 USD/hour.
Do you really think that Europeans pay more and get less? Definitely not.
I admit that us lazy Germans work less and thus have more leasure time to come up with climate change stories. But that is about it. As Arthur (Nathanville) expressed: There is no significant difference in living standards. However there is a significant difference in preferences between Europeans and Americans. And this is good. Otherwise the western world would be dull.Sorry, but there are huge differences. The problem with civil servants, like your friend, is that they fail to recognize the rest of populace within their respective countries. Their governments design it that way.
It’s called bureaucracy.Chris's data (copied below), which is verifiable fact, clearly shows that there isn't a huge difference of living standards between Europe and the USA; the only real difference is that Europeans get more leisure time to enjoy life.
Data supplied by Chris:-
Take a list of GDP per capita and PPP (purchasing power parity). Then take a list of average working hours per year.
USA: GDP 76.399 USD/year, Working hours: 1.765 h/year, GDP performance: 43.36 USD/hour.
G: GDP 63.150 USD/year, Working hours: 1.353 h/year, GDP performance: 46.67 USD/hour.
If you disagree with Chris, then where is your evidence to prove otherwise.What does bureaucracy have to do with it?
All administrations and bureaucracies suffer from Parkinson´s law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law
Sh.. happens everywhere.
I don´t quite understand why everything has to be attributed to the politics of a government.
Oil and gas are traded on the international market. What does any president have to do with it?
Oil price was low in 2020 not because Mr. T. was in office, but because world economy took a deep dive with Covid and there was no need for oil. Simple as that.
May be in the 1950ties when the US economy absolutely dominated the world a polticial decision may have influenced the oil price. But today with the US economy making up for 20% of world economy, any political decision making does not really influence the oil price or the price at the gas station.
It is a different situation with investments. My stock depots took a dive after publication of the recent FED protocol. But i think, part of it is how poorly China is performing today.
I drift off to economics. We should be talking more on why you have not traded your car for a new one that consumes half as much as a couple of years ago. Just being provocative.Thank you for posting this. Much of our media here in America is filled with overly simplistic, stories that are crafted to capitalize on one small piece of an issue while ignoring multiple complex factors that impact that issue. Many outlets do it for ratings, both on the right and left. But I think it began, sadly, due to the fact that the average reading comprehension here in America of adults hovers around 6th grade (12 year old level) and many would just switch away due to lack of understanding. Far too much of the media in this country is designed around riling up a base with mind blowingly simple explanations for any issue that lead the viewer to one damning conclusion.. it's all one person's fault.
That's the impression I get from these forums
I don’t mind your being provocative, my friend.
Gasoline tanks require what they require, whether the car is new or not. Some cars are more efficient than others regardless of their age.
An electric car poses a greater threat to the environment than a gas car, when all is said and done. I supplied an article about that a few pages ago.
Anyhoo, my answer, frankly, is that buying a brand new car is rather stupid. Why? Because once an owner drives their new car off the lot, the price depreciates by half, or so.
So, why waste my money on a new car when a used car, in good condition, will give me the same value?
Not to mention, my (new) used car is rather spectacular.
As for the cost of gasoline, it need not be this high in America. We were energy independent during the last administration. The present administration changed that on day one by declaring war on the energy sector, even before P. went after U.
Americans now have to reckon with supply and demand. Before, we had plenty of supply on our own land, thanks to T.
This administration, however, is begging foreign nations for oil.
So ridiculous.
No: Inflation and the economy in the UK are not in any way connected to climate change.
The prime causes of high inflation and the current economy in the UK is a combination of:-
1. Brexit.
2. Pandemic.
3. Ukrainian war.
4. Liz Trust as Prime Minister for 6 weeks last year, when she spectacularly crashed the UK economy before being kicked out of Office by her own party.
Prior to Brexit and the Pandemic the UK was the 5th wealthiest country in the world, economic growth was high, inflation was near zero, interest rates was near zero, unemployment was low, energy prices was moderate, and standards of living was rising.
Now we are the 6th wealthiest country in the world, economic growth is struggling, inflation is very high but falling slowly, interest rates are very high and likely to rise further, energy prices are still high but falling slowly, standard of living currently much lower for many (albeit the worst effects are cushioned by Government’s handouts to all – see video below), but the one positive is that unemployment is still low.
UK Government Cost of Living Payment Scheme 2022 Fully Explained (an updated scheme applies for 2023): https://youtu.be/uQo0IEwUXV0
The future does look brighter e.g. over the next few years, as inflation falls interest rates should ease off and with low unemployment, economic growth should pick up and standards of living should start improving again, and the price of electricity should continue to fall.What you shared may be true for today, yet overall is that true? What you shared is like a camera still snapshot, right? Yet, climate change is not static, it is dynamic affecting many systems. At least that is the way I view it and I am known to be wrong now and then if not many times.
"Environmental experts, economists, and thousands of CEOs believe climate change is at least partly a cause of inflation and could play an even larger role if businesses don’t reduce their carbon emissions, landfill waste, and other global warming contributors."
https://www.the-future-of-commerce.com/ … inflation/
Although that article speaks to an American setting the principles are universal are they not?
Working Paper Series
The impact of global warming on
inflation: averages, seasonality and
extremes by European Central Central Bank
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwp … b9c.en.pdf
Climate change is a secret driver of inflation by Axios (Aug 2022)
https://www.axios.com/2022/08/18/inflat … me-weather
There are other article that can be found too.I understand what direction you’re coming from now; I mistakenly assumed that you were taking a similar tact to the climate change denialists and trying to pin the blame on high energy and food prices due to governments investing in Renewable Energy etc. as a means to transition from burning fossil fuels.
But instead the links you provide are pointing out "the costs of climate change on disrupting food production because of drought, fire, floods, rising temperatures, and other global warming related disasters continuing to increase in frequency and severity."
Going back to your original question, the answer I gave is as you say, a “snapshot” of current economics in the UK; but certainly the points raised in your links will have an impact, as to what extent IMHO it will impact on the UK in the coming years, I need to study those links of yours carefully – So it might be a few days or so before I can give a more meaningful response as to what I think.
Thanks for the links, they should make interesting reading.Yep, you’re absolutely right; climate change is contributing to inflation – not just in the UK & USA, but globally. The 3 links you provided are very informative.
It’s a complex subject, and there is no single source that provides the full picture, but in searching I increasingly found snippets of interest – and on reflection, although I was subconsciously aware of what you are saying, I hadn’t joined the dot.
The UK produce around 75% of what we consume, giving a certain level of food security but even British agriculture isn’t immune from climate change e.g. in 2020 the UK wheat yields dropped by 40% as a result of heavy rainfall and droughts, and last year farmers in Wales and Kent lost their crops to wildfires during the heatwave: https://youtu.be/vjqwGMowc74
Climate change is also affecting what foods can be grown in the UK; for example, potatoes which require colder wetter climates are getting more difficult to grow in southern England e.g. potato yields in Britain were down 20% in 2018 due to the drought; other crops traditionally grown in Britain that are increasingly suffering from the droughts in recent years includes onions, carrots and lettuce etc.
Consequently, some British farmers are now switching to crops that are more drought resistant, and fair better in warmer and dryer climates e.g. prior to the 1980s the British climate was too cold for grapes, but since then vineyards have been increasingly common in England. And also, in 2020, one farmer in Devon started to switch from grazing cattle and sheep on 50 acres of his land to planting 5,000 walnut and hazelnut trees which are more suited to the changing climate.
But certainly, for crops we do import into Britain, earlier this year there was a chronic shortage of tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers following disrupted harvests in other parts of the world due to climate change.
One interesting article I came across while reading up on this subject is that this autumn the UK Government is being dragged through the Supreme Court on the grounds that it’s 27-page national food strategy published in June 2022 is illegal under British Law because of its failure to include measures to reduce production of meat and dairy products as part of its strategy to meet carbon net zero by 2050 – that should be an interesting court case to follow.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment … ate-crisisHi Tim,
As you are from California, were you affected by Storm Hilary yesterday?
I hope all is ok where you are.Arthur, when Hilary hit the San Diego metro 30 miles (48 km) south of me it was downgraded to a tropical storm. San Diego metro is maybe 10 miles north of the Mexico border (16 km). That meant there were supposed to be sustained winds upward to 74+ mph (119 kph).
They predicted to have gusts that high in the mountain area and in the 50 mph (80 kph) range for the inland and coast. The inland region is less than 20 miles from the coast (32 km) and 40 miles from the mountains (64 km). I live in the inland area.
I got rain beginning at 8 am and it continued steadily until a little after midnight. We had the 3rd highest rainfall for the county. The winds were not what they predicted, yet quite a few trees were blown over in the San Diego metro.
The winds were strong enough that I had concerns. I have a screen at the front of my front porch and I feared it would be pulled off. That didn't happen thankfully.
All in all, I was disappointed in the sense it was not as dramatic a storm as they presented in the news to expect. That is not to say it did not cause flash flooding or as said blow over some trees causing havoc.
North of me there were worse effects. Oddly, Ojai had a 5.1 earthquake when Hilary was visiting them. See the youtube link. It shows flooding scenes too for different areas north of me. North of me is Orange County first, then LA area followed by Ventura county where Ojai is.
4 minute video giving a good idea of what happen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwGIAT6JPe0
Southern California map
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mi … 83&z=8
Another video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JLXhfeB2-UWow, you were lucky considering that it could have been much worse, and good to hear that your front porch screen survived intact; thanks for sharing the links, very visual.
Great observations w/questions to ponder!
I am not the one though, no pondering going on here!
I believe and have for some time that this is the biggest life-interrupting freedom-robbing, children harming (psychologically), money-making, for an elite few.....hoax, ever perpetuated on man/woman.
But, I am interested in where the spin may take us from hereI have always liked tsmog and I am always happy to hear his voice.
But I hear you, 100%.
I won’t go into the other current topic that is also harming children. That issue would probably not be allowed on HP anyway, so I’ll stick to the subject of climate.
This is a good report featuring a well-known scientist.
The objective facts show that climate change is "manufactured consensus."
There is nothing real about it.
It is as I've always said and believed, it is no longer about science but politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVi01vJ4nxMWhat is a "good" report and what is a "bad" report?
"manufactured consensus" on climate change? Definitely not.
Why don´t you just look at the water level of Lake Powell or Lake Mead. Just look at the graphs, or simply go there and watch for yourself. Or look at the decline of Hoover Dam yearly electricity generation.
All made up? You are probably only convinced if Lake Powell is dried up and they can produce movies like Planet of the Apes again.There are now many more people using resources like water. Why do you think less water in a river that is sucked dry to irrigate farmland and provided to cities has anything to do with climate change?
...Why do you think less water in a river that is sucked dry to irrigate farmland...
Simply because i can´t imagine that sucking dry a river for farming and other production makes more money than large scale loss of electricity production.
https://www.circleofblue.org/2010/world … 99s-power/
The article is from 2010 when it became evident that eventually there will be too low water level for electricity generation. And it goes all the way from Lake Powell to Lake Mead.
Last year in continental Europe we had a similar situation. Dry summer 2022 with too little water in the rivers caused thermal power plants to reduce electricity generation. Result: electricity prices tripled in Sept. 22.
It is not important if climate change is man made or natural. It is happening and that already causes huge financial losses. Better not stick your head in the sand but accept and react, on a personal level as well as on the administration level.
Anyways, maybe Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam are long written off and could be shut down, but who will provide electricity then?You are assuming that farmers are in charge of electriticy production? If I am a farmer, and I can get water rights to water that is going to flow into the Colorado river, do you think I am going to say "Oh, I am not going to water my crops as much so the people in Las Vegas can stay up all night and have lights in their casinos."
I do not think that most farmers consider the lights and slot machines in brothels and casinos are more socially important than food production....I do not think that most farmers consider the lights and slot machines in brothels and casinos are more socially important than food production....
This is a reason why i never entered politics. Of course this is a matter of weighing interests, interests of other people, but the people being politicians clientele.
Why has politics not reacted to upcoming developments in the past? Why does it have to come to a dilemma of serving both the interests of said farmers and Las Vegas gambling?
Did you watch the video?
It's an issue that is bigger that water levels in lakes and a decline in electricity generation.I watched the video, and it's nothing more than a charlatan show, fraud, faker - it's only going to convince the gullible.
I strongly disagree with you. I think it is you and those who believe there is a climate "crisis" that are the gullible ones.
It is more proof that climate change is about politics and not about science.
There are much information to support this.
I think people who get emotional about climate change need something in their lives to give it purpose and this does it for them. Again, it's not about science but meeting an emotional need in climate change fanatics.Watching your video reminds me of when Derren Brown travelled from Britain to the USA to expose ‘Fake American Faith Healers’ on TV (a feature length (90 minute) documentary); a few snippets from the show, and about the show, including when Derren Brown was questioned by the American police, below:
• Nathan's Fake Faith Healing Service: https://youtu.be/1kujMnDAcoM
• Derren Brown Questioned By American Police: https://youtu.be/TpCarKiyll0
• Derren Exposes The Tricks of Faith Healers! https://youtu.be/4_8lT1dJV1kYour response reminds me of people when confronted with facts that challenge their beliefs close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and yell, "No, No, No, No."
Better for someone to do this than accept there are many who don't believe as they do.What facts: The science is very clear on the fact that man made climate change is very real, and a risk to life, including mankind.
Climate change denials are blind. They're not seeing or observing the changes going on around the enviroment.
It is also a fact, established by the video, that scientists who see things a different way have their researched crushed. They are shunned and have their funding taken away. Many leave the world of scientific research. There are also many articles that prove this is the case. A climate alarmist fears scientific research that illustrates there no climate crisis. It doesn't matter if validated scientific research proves it.
That is not science. This is simply promoting an agenda. It has also been proven in many reports there is NO climate crisis. It has gone from a scientific theory to a political tool used by unscrupulous people to control others and take away their wealth.
What climate alarmists fear the most is the truth and facts. They fear scientists who can show climate change is something that has happened naturally on the earth and long before mankind had any industry. They are also afraid of scientists who can show that people can easily adapt to a change in climate as mankind has done previously during changes in the climate.
The climate alarmist is a person who doesn't want to hear anything that does not promote or validate their thinking. There is no objectivity. There is only a drive to fulfil their self esteem by believing they are "saving" the planet. This makes them feel special and gives them a purpose. It's about control of people's lives whether they like it or not or whether it makes any sense or not.
As a well-known scientist said at a conference I once attended said...
"There is no such thing as consensus in science. The law of gravity does not require a consensus. Einstein's theory of relativity does not require a consensus. It is provable and demonstratable. Even if you have 1 percent of research that proves something wrong, that research should be taken very seriously. To ignore it or try to discredit it is not science, it is politics.
There is also no such thing as settled science. Science should always be challenged and is constantly changing. Many times accepted scientific theories have been proven wrong. As science advances we are able to look at things like never before and can see things in ways not possible even a decade ago."There are two things.
One is a fact. The Second is how this fact is used.
The fact is that there is a climate crisis and that it is man-made.
This is proven by thousands of independent scientists from different nationalities and different disciplines in science.
The consensus of this is so great that there is no doubt anymore that the climate crisis is real and man-made.
It's like if 98 people say the red apple is poisonous after a study and 2 people say it is not. Would you eat the apple?
How this fact is used, is politics and agenda, but this does not change the fact.There is no such thing as consensus in science. It is either proven or not.
Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time.
There is a nearly 99% scientific consensus on climate change.
The current scientific consensus is that:
The warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.
- Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years.
- Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely (95–100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010.
Scientific consensus on causation: Academic studies of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming among climate experts (2010–2015) reflect that the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.
A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that consensus exceeded 99%.
Another 2021 study found that 98.7% of climate experts indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity.
source : Scientific consensus on climate changeScientific consensus, just like the consensus of anyone in the population, can be swayed. Are you familiar with Ancel Keys and the 7 country studies that proved that cholesterol was the cause of heart disease? There were actually 22 countries but Keys cherry-picked 7 of them that supported his hypothesis. Instead of asking a question, and finding evidence that did not support his original idea, he only chose data that backed up his idea and then used that data to stifle anyone that had other ideas.
The same thing is happening with climate change. We definitely know that there are changes and there is correlation to increased human population but no proven causation. The fact that most "experts" agree does not mean much, just like when people were told that eating seed oils was healthy and margarine reduced the chances of heart attacks.
The president of Stanford and many other scientists are faking data. Some are called out for it, most pass peer review and pass along their falsehoods. Ansel Keys would have been so proud to see that the techniques that he used in science are so pervasive today.I don’t know about the increased population hypothesis with regard to climate. I have doubts about that.
While some areas around the globe are crowded, the earth is not overpopulated.
That idea is being pushed by Bill Gates, who may have been influenced by Ehrlich.I saw an interview with the scientist that originally said that man-made climate change was responsible for more deaths and damage from hurricanes. When she came out with that she received several grants and was the favorite speaker of the activists, who flew her around the world and paid her speaking fees.
Another scientist pointed out the flaws in her research and noted that the increased damage is because of hundreds of millions living close to the coasts now. She re-examined her data, like a good scientist should, realized he was correct and made new findings.
She pointed out that she is now hated and no longer is paid huge speaking fee at the climate change conferences.I am glad she is no longer being paid huge speaking fees.
Absolutely agree that people live too close to the coast. And then they wonder why their homes suffer. It is much wiser to build a home further inland.
One would think city planners might think to speak up.This climate change discussion reminds me of Galileo Galilei claiming that Earth is circling the sun.
And it took some 1600 years after old greek Erathostenes had computed the length of the equator that Christopher Columbus abolished any thoughts on Earth being a flat plate.
Better stick to Columbus, that made sense in 15 hundred years ago and better accept climate change and progress in renewable energies.If only you knew how thoroughly climate activists have duped the UK, not to mention half of Americans.
There is no climate crisis. Co2 is not a present danger, at all. Co2 is needed for agriculture. So are the trees that are currently being cut down by the millions, and which provide oxygen to humans.
You might consider researching the past hoax about the upcoming ice age that prevailed in the 70’s, or the hoax about the population bomb, introduced by Ehrlich, one of the most sinister advocates of our time and a man who has made disciples out of Al Gore, Kerry, and Bill Gates.
These men are proposing that meat be banned, that travel be severely limited to one air flight per year, that people be allowed to buy three new items of clothing per year and no more, that protein foods be made in labs, that cows be destroyed, that farms be taken over by the government to build “smart cities” which will keep people entrapped, that the elderly be euthanized if they so “desire,” that less children be born, and that ultimately, more children die of starvation, (according to Ehrlich).
There is no 97 or 99% consensus on “climate change.” That is a made-up number that only the most naive and uninformed populace actually believe.
But, propaganda is powerful. If you repeat a lie enough times, over and over, day after day, year after year, the naive and uninformed will believe the lies.
I know how to find the scientists who know what they are talking about. There are not many of them because no one wants to be unemployed. At least one is deceased.
Use your critical thinking skills, man. Before it’s too late. The cost of living is already too high in Europe. Do you really want it to get worse, and do you really want to have less food?
Seriously. The UN, which has their hand out for all the millions the US gives them, is not your friend or mine.
Their claims about climate change are not just wrong, they are dangerous and immoral....The UN, which has their hand out for all the millions the US gives them, is not your friend or mine...
What millions?
I looked up the USA contributions to UN, don´t find the USA on the list: https://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/budget.shtml
Apparently the US didn´t pay yet. UN hands still empty? And if the US pays, its share is much lower as of the EU.Where you say: “The cost of living is already too high in Europe. Do you really want it to get worse, and do you really want to have less food?”
As Tim recently pointed out in his post, climate change itself e.g. failed crops because of droughts and crops destroyed by wildfires etc. etc. is partially responsible for food shortages and rising food prices globally.
Other than that, the coat of living in Europe has nothing to do with European governments’ climate change policies to mitigate against climate change; the main cause of the current cost of living in Europe was the pandemic and more recently the Ukrainian war.
So are you suggesting that American cities like Miami, New Orleans, Boston and San Francisco are relocated to higher ground?
Finally, something we don’t totally disagree on for once; but probably for different reasons!
(Re your 2nd sentence)
if 99 out of the 100 scientists who studied apple poisoning tell you that the apple is poisoned and 1 scientist says it's okay to eat the apple.
Would you eat the apple?If 50 scientists are paid by the government and receive high speaker fees at climate change conferences, is it okay to accept their findings without even questioning them.
There are NOT 99 out of 100 scientists that think we have climate change caused by humans. It may be the majority opinion, but like I pointed out above the idea that high cholesterol caused heart disease was also the scientific consensus only a few years ago.Notwithstanding the flawed ‘7 country study by Ancel Keys’ which was heavily criticized by the scientific community, following other independent studies since then, the evidence is quite clear that cholesterol does increase the risk of heart disease, and for that reason scientific consensus supporting that fact is well established.
Would you have trusted the scientists if they were paid by companies?
Scientists are studying climate change in a thousand countries in different universities and by thousands of organizations. The scientists come from different backgrounds with different cultures and races, and different religious backgrounds or political preferences.
The claim that they would be corrupt is absurd as you have to include all governments over the world, including NGOs, independent institutions, universities, etc.
Scientists are questioned all the time by other scientists that's what science does. If you claim something as a scientist you have to back it up with solid evidence otherwise you will be shredded to pieces by others in the same field.
The fact that there is such a high consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity means that it is fact-checked by a lot of people. And almost everyone came to the same conclusion.
Again do you trust the scientific opinion of the 2% or do you trust the scientific opinion of the 98%?
In scientific terms, the discussion we have now is long past. The question is not whether climate change is real. It is.
The question is, what can we do about it?No, I do not trust climate change deniers that are paid by the oil companies any more than I trust climate change extremists that are paid by Al Gore to speak at conferences.
Yes, I am sure you would have thought it was absurd a few years ago to assume that all of those food recommendations coming out of governenment were wrong. I mean, the whole world agreed they were correct so why doubt them? They all came back to the same conclusion, so why doubt?
No, the dicussion is not long past. There is climate change, but there is not proof that it is caused by increased carbon in the atmosphere. The question here is whether we should be cutting down forests in Europe and destroying whale populations in Australia in order to appease those people in government that do not want to rely on other sources of energy.A lot of talks are given for free. Do you trust scientific talk more when given for free? Has it more credentials?
Are you familiar with per diem? Do you really think that someone goes talk at a conference for free?
Sorry, I was not just referring to conference talks but talks in general.
But would you believe a person quicker if you knew he would give a talk for free?
I personally would wonder about the credentials of the person. A lot of people talk for free on Twitter but say absolutely apesht..Yeah, that last sentence is definitely true!
I guess I am not sure. If you talk at a climate change conference and tell everyone that the world is going to end in 5 years and that Florida will be under water in the next few years, you will list that on your resume and some dean will give you a position in a university based on that. A lot of the scientific studies that we read (and no, I am not just referring to climate change) will include a statement at the bottom of the paper that the authors had no conflict of interest. Those statements are often false, and even if they are not funded by an industry may be funded by a group that is funded by an industry.
Just an example: The Amercian Veterinary Medical Association came out with a statement that raw foods are bad for dogs and we should continue recommending ultraprocessed foods which we already know are bad for dogs health and one of the causes of the rising obesity epidemic in domestic dogs. The AVMA receives a large amount of funding from an NGO that receives most of its funding from Purina, one of the largest processed dog food producers in the US. That seems like a confict of interest to me and makes me question any statement that the AVMA makes.
There are NOT 99 out of 100 scientists that think we have climate change caused by humans. It may be the majority opinion, but like I pointed out above the idea that high cholesterol caused heart disease was also the scientific consensus only a few years ago.
----------
But where is the evidence to show that the vast preponderance of the scientific community regarding this climate change matter is in error?
It is pretty basic stuff that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that has been shown in copious data within this very thread to have risen markedly in a relatively short period of time. The resulting heat retention has to have had an effect on the planet's weather patterns. Is it proven as the gospel, probably not. But, I am going to given credibility to the preponderance of evidence as supported by science over the few who cannot prove otherwise......
And I can you tell from personal experience and the medical standpoint that high levels of cholesterol in my blood stream was taking a toll on my heart health.High levels of blood cholesterol are not related to normal dietary cholesterol. If you do not eat cholesterol your body will make it. That is for all of us, so how do you know that your heart disease was not related to the empty processed foods that make up the standard American diet and not related to cholesterol?
Anytime you take a survey, the answer is going to be skewed based on the question. If they asked me if I thought there was climate change I would answer yes. If they asked me if I thought that excessive numbers of cars and factories were causing the bad weather I would say I do not think so. So where is the evidence that shows that 99% of people that study climate think that the coal plants in heavily-polluting countries like China are causing bad weather in Bangladesh?
From an environmental aspect those activities are certainly wrong, and maybe the people that started this hysteria thought it was the only way to call attention to the environmental destruction. (Earth Day was a lot less popular when we were young, but now that it includes climate change it gets a lot more attention.)That’s not entirely true. Following my illness a couple of years ago I’ve been under the watchful eye of my hospital consultant; and although last summer I’d largely recovered he kept me on his books largely because I had high levels of ‘bad cholesterol’. My wife was also seeing her doctor at the same time because of high levels of ‘bad cholesterol’.
In both our cases the NHS wanted to treat the cholesterol with Statins, but we both declined in favour of reducing our high levels of bad cholesterol (LDL) through diet, which over the past year we’ve both managed to do. So consequently my hospital consultant was able to discharge me from his care earlier this month.
FYI – Dietary cholesterol and the cholesterol your body makes are two different types of cholesterol.If LDL is "bad" why are they now finding the following? "The lowest LDL-C group (LDL < 70 mg/dL) had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.81, 1.44–2.28) compared to the reference group. Low levels of LDL-C concentration are strongly and independently associated with increased risk of cancer, CVD, and all-cause mortality." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6832139/
Did you reduce your cholesterol levels through a decreased consumption of processed foods?
No, as a vegetarian, and as someone who grows his own fresh organic vegetables, and has someone who cook our own meals to provide a well balanced healthy diet, our consumption of processed foods is low.
I reduced the cholesterol levels of bad cholesterol in our diet (over a year) significantly by significantly reducing dairy products from the diet - particularly cheese.That is great. I am not a nutritionist by any means but just based on the people I see on a day to day basis the main cause of diseases like coronary artery disease is processed foods.
Yep, I know; I did do Human Biology at Collage, and learning all about that was part of the course.
Also, following my illness a couple of years ago my NHS hospital consultant arranged consultation for me with two NHS nutritionists (standard practice these days as part of the NHS's holistic approach to health); and we went through my diet with a fine toothcomb - and both nutritionists were impressed with my diet.
Fair question.
After testing a meticulously controlled diet and exercise as a solution, blood serum cholesterol was still off of the charts. I manufactured too much to be controlled by conventional methods. The introduction of a mild statin drug brought things into line. Yes, I felt the difference right away. At my age, I can't afford to play with this stuff. The diet before had a great deal of eggs, bacon and pork sausages, my cravings. As for processed food, I can't rule them out as an accessory to the crime. But, adjusting for diet I still had high cholesterol and there was definitely a correlation between that and being sound of both wind and limb.
As for the climate change, the introduction of higher levels of atmospheric CO2 is caused by man and his activities which includes the use of fossil fuels? I don't believe anyone is implying a direct correlation between my hurricanes and coal plants in China. I believe that it is pretty established science that changes in weather patterns across the globe can be attributed to the CO2 issue.
To continue to foul your own nest irresponsibly is something that will not bode well for our species. I have to consider it a stretch to think that the scientific community is hysterical. I would tend to believe that those who profit from fossil fuels and its continued use and would have an agenda of increased profits are sowing seeds of doubt as to whether the world is actually round.Yes, I do agree that the people that sell oil are making up facts to suit their own agenda, but I also think that those politicians telling us that the world is going to be destroyed because of climate change are idiots.
The problem, not just for the climate but for the future of humanity, is "fouling the nest". Hundreds of acres of plastic water and coke bottle landfills may not be destroying our climate but they are certainly destroying our future. I certainly do not see cutting down forests in Scotland or killing whales with wind farms off the coast of Australia are an answer to the problem but appearantly they make the climate hysterics feel better about themselves."Hundreds of acres of plastic water and coke bottle landfills may not be destroying our climate but they are certainly destroying our future"
I certainly will not deny that this is a contributing factor...I totally agree with you and DrMark in this point.
Waste plastic and landfills, and so on, are without a doubt another very serious environmental issue that should also be tackled; as serious as it is, it is a separate issue and fighting one environmental issue, such as climate change, doesn’t exclude fighting the other e.g. plastic waste and landfills.
Before criticising Scotland shouldn’t you look in your back yard; around 500 million trees are cut down in Brazil each year – so the 15.7 million trees (out of 2 billion) that were cut down in Scotland over a 20 year period, to make way for windfarms, pales into insignificance.
Besides, as already discusses, all those trees were replaced, and more e.g. 100 years ago just 5% of Scotland was forests; now, due to the Scottish government’s reforestation programme, 18.5% of Scotland is now forest: 18.5% is still well below the European average, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.So you are saying that because there is deforestation in Brazil it is not okay to discuss or even mention the deforestation in Scotland?
Cutting down old forests and planting some young trees is not the same thing. I would assume you know that as if you cut down one of the fruit-bearing tress in your garden and plant a new tree the effect on your diet is not equivilant.
Neither is the effect on the environment equivilant.Not at all, of course it’s ok to discuss deforestation in Scotland; but at least put it into perspective e.g. more trees are cut down in Brazil every couple of weeks than have been cut down in Scotland over 20 years – So I would say that harm done to the planet by the 15.7 million trees cut down in Scotland is insignificant compared to the harm being done to the planet by the 500 million trees cut down in Brazil every year.
Besides, the reduction in CO2 emissions by producing electricity from the windfarms that were built, instead of burning fossil fuels to produce electricity more than offsets the loss of CO2 absorption from the trees cut down e.g. a net reduction in CO2 emissions.
Plus - once the new trees grow to maturity, over a 30 year period, that’s then an even greater reduction in net CO2 emissions.
That’s not to say that I totally agree with the Scottish approach; I prefer the English planning laws where it’s extremely difficult to get planning permission to cut down trees for any development – as I know from when I worked in the Planning Appeals Department.
A prime example of how difficult it is to get Planning Permission in England is the Government’s proposed scheme to build a road tunnel underneath Stonehenge (a 5000 year old prehistoric monument) as a logical way of improving traffic flow without damaging the monument.
The Government first made the proposal in 1995 (28 years ago); but for decades the proposals have been blocked by fierce opposition and legal challenges from National Trust and others, expressing concerns that it would cause damage to archaeological remains along the route, destroy ancient sites and not achieve an improvement in the landscape.
Will the Stonehenge tunnel really happen? https://youtu.be/5FICXfwW3Gs?si=NrZcjYWsMYV-DrcL
Where you say: “So where is the evidence that shows that 99% of people that study climate think that the coal plants in heavily-polluting countries like China are causing bad weather in Bangladesh?”
“….coal plants in heavily-polluting countries like China....” pump huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere, as does heavily-polluting countries like the USA, and every other industrialised country including the UK, and developing countries like India.
The CO2 pumped into the upper atmosphere from coal plants in China doesn’t just stay over China, it disperses around the world on the prevailing winds; and the quantity of such gases constantly being pumped into the upper atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution (which ironically started in Britain, and quickly spread around the world) is far in excess of the amount of CO2 that the trees and oceans can absorb – Hence we have a global build-up of greenhouse gases.
And greenhouse gases are called greenhouse gases because they trap the sun’s heat, just like glass in a greenhouse traps the sun’s heat – And warming climate changes weather events; that’s how burning coal in China can cause bad weather in Bangladesh.That is the hypothesis. You can choose to accept it but t is not clear beyond doubt.
No, it is not. It is not just "an object in motion stays in motion" or anything like it. It is a hypothesis that pollution in China and the US are altering the climate.
That's your opinion; but if you are wrong, and we ignore the issue (burry our heads in the sand), then the consequences are unthinkable.
Yes, you are correct, but if we destroy the environment to put up wind farms and deforest to put down solar farms the consequences are just as bad. When animal species are destroyed and made extinct they do not come back.
I agree to a point.
But in Scotland the trees cut down to make way for the windfarms where replaced, and in the meantime, while waiting for those trees to regrow the net gain in carbon offset by producing wind power rather than burning fossil fuels balances out – Where I would strongly object is the cutting down of trees and not replacing them.
As I’ve just stated in my post above, it is almost impossible to cut down trees for windfarms and solar farms in England (England is not Scotland); in fact, the UK Government has banned building any windfarms on land in England since 2015, and only this year modified the law to allow windfarms to now be built on land in England only if the local community agree, and even then subject to strict Planning Laws in England which includes strict protection of the Environment, including trees.
Fortunately, Britain is a small island surrounded by sea, so the majority of windfarms in the UK, including in Scotland, are built out at sea: The UK currently has over 11,000 operational wind turbines, with an additional three windfarms having come on line this summer, and several more due to come on line next year.
Over the past 12 months 36.1% of the UK’s electricity has been generated from Renewable Energy, and just 38.7% from fossil fuels; which is a marked improvement on 2012, when less than 2% of the UK’s electricity came from Renewable Energy.Do you think there are going to be many enviromental effects of offshore wind farms in the UK? In a place like Australia it seems worse, but when I lived off the coast of Ireland (Kerry, near the Blasket Islands) it did not seem there was much marine life in those waters.
I am not sure what effects those wind farms might have on seals.That's a good question. The shark family has receptors detecting minute electrical field levels, and some land animals are bothered by it as well. Any cow barn, for instance, must have a special grounding grid over the entire floor to reduce such things.
Will we lose sea life in the area of wind farms with their massive EMF fields?Have you seen that documentary on the whale deaths secondary to wind farms in Australia? THe journalists recorded the sounds made and they were enough to upset any animal in the ocean that uses sounds to communicate.
I just have this link. It is not complete though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tKZ3DkaDGwThe journalists (supposedly) recorded the sound of sonar looking at the sea bed, not the operation, or construction, of a wind farm. It was interesting as well to notice that Biden is pushing this, and that it was about north Atlantic farms with nothing to do with Australia.
Over all I think the guy (in the link) has some valid points, but his presentation sucks. Mostly about crying over whale deaths (boats run into whales, causing death by wind, for instance) that don't make a lot of sense. I also have a real problem when he refuses to release data to the government because "they don't care".
So...for me it's a lot like everything else in the whole climate thing. Unproven claims of causality while noting that there could be a problem of unknown dimension.Yes, you are correct in that there are a lot of weak points in this report. It is an interesting investigation however as most people just point out the rosy benefits and gloss over the problems.
Wind farms on the ocean also kill a lot of sea birds. It is not like they are counted since they fall in the ocean and are eaten by the fish, unlike the land wind farms where the little carcasses are so easy to spot. Thus the death of the sea birds is also one of those unproven claims.
It just looks to me like another means of environmental destruction. This one is financed by the taxpayers and supported by elected officials like Biden and AOC.“…environmental destruction.”
That’s the problem (or one of them). The climate policies of activists do not help the environment. They harm the environment, causing so much damage to our ecosystem, that one is forced to concludes that their views can only be motivated by greed, not concern.
Politicians and activists in power, who promote climate fear, are highly immoral people.
But as politicians do, they have no reservations about “talking a good game” and swaying their voters, through emotion, to believe in pseudoscience.
After all, they have all the graphs to prove their claims. Ha!
And I have “beachfront property in Arizona.”
Right.I can’t speak for the USA, but in the UK detailed surveys and studies are carried out on the number of birds killed by wind turbines annually, as part of the ‘Environmental Impact Assessments’ I referred to in my previous post.
The actual data is up to 100,000 birds annually. But putting it into perspective, a minimum of 30 million birds are killed on Britain's roads every year. I suspect it’s a similar picture in the USA, and if you want to use that as an argument for not building windfarms then as the number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant to the number of birds killed by car, then there would be a much stronger case for banning the use of car. But putting that into perspective; around 55 million birds are killed in the UK each year by domestic cats – so should we also consider banning people from owning cats?
On a positive note: A small-scale study in Norway found that painting one of the wind turbines blades black, reduced bird deaths by 70%.It sounds like the environmental impact is seen as a lot more important there. That Norway study sounds like they have picked up on a good potential solution. If they were counting the dead birds in the ocean, however, I do not trust the results.
As per your argument about cars, the same thing could be said about windows. Birds fly into windows, so should windows be outlawed? Of course not, but why cant we look into stopping new things that cause more environemental destruction. Your argument is "well, cars kill birds so what if the wind towers kill a few more milion?" You have pointed out the weakness of that type of argument by another person on this thread before, so why are you now using it yourself?That’s why we Europeans have more faith and trust in our Authorities than Americans have in their Authorities e.g. bureaucracy, which can be a pain at times, and certainly slows new development (sometimes to a snail pace) helps to ensures that every nook and cranny is thoroughly covered, and that interested parties, including Environmentalists, get a chance to have input before decisions are made.
Your interpretation is not what I am saying, I’m just putting it into perspective e.g. in the UK the number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by cars; and then if you start to add in all the birds killed by windows and other manmade structure then it becomes even more insignificant in comparison.
If it was significant then certainly the Environmentalists would be making a lot of noise about it.
If we applied your logic that “we look into stopping new things that cause more environmental destruction” then we’d soon bring a halt to development and progress of modern society – and how far would you extend that logic e.g. stop building new cars, stop building new skyscrapers because we know they kill birds?
Part of the Environmental Impact Studies is to determine the extent of any environmental impact and determine whether it’s major or minor environmental issue. If it’s a major environmental issue, and it can’t be mitigated against, then the proposal is a non-starter. But if any impact is only minor environmental issue, then subject to any mitigation measures, there is scope to consider such Projects e.g. weighing up the risks and benefits – risk assessments are always a part of any Planning Consent in the UK.
FYI, the Norway study is not part of a half-hearted study; it was conducted seriously and thoroughly (as European Studies tend to be), and has led to further studies, which are ongoing – As explained in the link below:
https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and- … collisionsI am sure you read the link. As the authors pointed out in their paper "We must therefore be careful what we deduce from the experiment given the limited number of turbine pairs." I did NOT call it a half-hearted study, those were your words. What you CANNOT do is say that wind turbines are not killing many birds if the color is altered based on this study, nor can you say that wind turbines are causing whale extermination based on a documentary.
And no, I did not say to stop building all new things because of their effect on the environment. What I did point out was that there should be an assesment of potential risks, which it sounds like your country already does. I certainly do not see that here in Brazil.Yeah, I didn’t say that wind turbines are not killing many birds; I was just pointing out that compared to other manmade structures and the like e.g. cars, windows etc., that the numbers were small in comparison. But what’s more important is to ensure that no manmade structure/development threatens endangered species; any such ‘Environmental Impact Study’ that indicates that such a structure or development would adversely threaten any endangered species wouldn’t get Planning Consent without adequate steps being taken to mitigate the risk.
An example of this being when the discovery of 17 Great Crested Newts halted work on a £5.8 million ($7.3 million) development: https://www.eveshamjournal.co.uk/news/1 … e-college/‘Environmental Impact Study’ does not always confirm the reality.
We are fighting this problem with the solar panels here.
For example, many birds are on the 'red list' in our area that's planned for solar panels.
But this is just to advise which bird populations are heading in the direction of "Birds Directive Annex 1 list". and in this modern era people need to unfortunately have the word 'rare' attached to a species before it is considered worth saving whereas the red list does not give any legal protection and is only helpful showing which populations are unstable and in decline so very useful but sadly not recognised by law.
I had this discussion recently about the Red-Necked Nightjar who is on the red list and living here but not protected.Yeah, that seems to be a major difference between Spanish Laws and British Laws. Under British Law Environmental protection is embedded into the general Legislation, and thus forms part of the Planning Regulations.
So in Britain the Environmental Impact Study does carry legal weight, and can be used by protestors (Environmentalists) as evidence in their ‘Objection Letters’ during the ‘Consultation’ period of the Planning Process. And if by chance the Planning Inspectorate (Planning Appeals), where I worked for 5 years as part of my civil service career, doesn’t appear to give sufficient weight to the evidence - then because it’s covered by Planning Laws, it is legal evidence that Objectors (Environmentalists) can use to challenge the Planning Inspectorate’s decision in the Court of Appeal (on legal grounds) – And it’s not a forgone conclusion that the Appeal Court will find in favour of the Planning Inspectorates decision, sometimes the Appeal courts do overturn the Planning Inspectorate’s Decision.
That’s why in the UK it takes years for any large, and particularly controversial, development to get through the Planning Application process.
An example of the complexity of British Law can be gleamed from this Supreme Court ruling (link below) of a case where a gypsy installed a mobile home in the Green Belt. Green Belt being land protected against development (prevents urban sprawl).
In this case it was a woman of 62 in serious ill-health with a rooted fear of being put into permanent housing, and with no alternative site to go to, whose displacement would imperil her continuing medical treatment and probably worsen her condition.
Quite rightly the Local Government took legal steps to have her removed; she applied for retrospective planning permission to stay, which was rejected by the local government – so then she applied to the Planning Inspectorate (Planning Appeals).
The Planning Inspectorate ruled in the gypsies favour. The Planner Inspectorate taking the view that - the gypsies "very special circumstances" "clearly outweighed" the environmental harm involved.
The local government took the Planning Inspectorate to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal sided in favour of the local government.
The gypsy then took the case to the Supreme Court, who overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision, and found in favour of the gypsy.
If you can get your head around all the legal jargon, it’s an interesting read which gives some insight into how English law, and the English legal system works; and not always in favour of local government authorities or private Developers.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/l … outh-2.htm
It’s interesting, from what you say, that windfarms in the USA is financed by the taxpayer?
In the UK windfarms are financed from investment by private commercial companies; one of the biggest investors in windfarms in the UK being the British Oil Company SHELL.
Shell renewables: https://youtu.be/BqJuaTuFv30?si=UpwDQ5qrWegIZsOcSo who pays the operators to stop generating electricity when the grid is at full capacity?
Currently: When the grid is at full capacity, which in the UK doesn’t happen often, but does occasionally happen for brief periods during the early hours of the morning (when demand is at its lowest) prices go negative e.g. the windfarms (private companies) pay the National Grid (a private company) to use the surplus electricity (it’s commercially cheaper than shutting the wind turbines down.
In return the National Grid pays the Utility Companies (private companies who sell electricity to home owners). Most Utility Companies just pocket the profit; but Octopus Energy passes that onto home owners by paying home owners to use the surplus electricity.
It’s not done haphazardly: The National Grid, using computer modelling on powerful computers, gather data of anticipated usage for the following day, along with detailed weather reports from the British Meteorological Office (who themselves use powerful computers for their computer modelling). The Met Office then instruct their suppliers (on call-off contracts) what power they will require from each one, and when, for the next 24 hours.
This is explained in detail in this very old video (over 11 years old), at a time when 45% of the UK’s electricity came from coal, 30% from natural gas, and less than 2% from Renewable Energy:- https://youtu.be/vX0G9F42puY?si=9tNu4WnZf61Fyxuj
The National Grid, being a private company, buys from the cheapest source first e.g. wind, and only instructs the more expensive sources, such as natural gas power stations, when to start burning gas. And as a fine tune to the system, the National Grid has at its fingertips UK hydroelectric plants that can provide full power from stand still in just 20 seconds, and links to other European countries, such as Norway, Belgium and France to buy and sell surpluses and shortages of electricity as short notice.
Below, is an old video on how negative pricing can benefit the consumer (home owner): https://youtu.be/bjcqGu0ib5w?si=rpEAZaKCUSpgilJM
I switched to Octopus Energy a couple of years ago, so I benefit from cheap wind power every night, when (with the tariff I’m on) I only pay £0.09 ($0.12) per kWh from 12:30am to 4:30am; so during that time period I top up my wall battery to give me cheap electricity during the day, and I put our washing machine and dishwasher on timer to come on during that period – which means that even with our solar panels producing much electricity e.g. mid-winter (on a cloudy day) my electricity bills are still cheap.
For the future, Scotland, along with other countries including Australia and Germany etc. are all at an advanced stage of R&D (Research and Development) for commercially scaling-up using Green Hydrogen as massive storage batteries e.g. using surplus electricity to convert sea water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, and storing the Hydrogen for when needed; and when needed the Hydrogen is converted back to electricity (just like a battery), with the by-product being water.
Energy transition with green hydrogen: https://youtu.be/tGKKHWkrXDA?si=bKYNu3Z7bqMCjobq
In the UK, plans are at an early stage to install such Green Hydrogen storage plants near existing and new windfarms.So glad you explained all that in so much detail. Why use a sentence or two when you can write a whole chapter?
"According to the UK Wind Curtailment Monitor, last year, consumers paid £215 million to turn wind farms off and an estimated £717 million to purchase gas-powered electricity to cover the difference."
https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/01/ … more-cash/Yep, nothing’s perfect, but as the same report stated; the main current problem is the lack of grid storage – and as I stated in my previous post that is an issue which is being addressed e.g. one of several solution being the development of facilities on a large scale to convert surplus wind power to green hydrogen, which can be converted back to electricity when demand is high.
But in spite of the costs you’ve quoted, it still remains a fact that overall, energy from new wind-farms is a fifth of the cost of energy from gas-fired power stations that are already built and running; which is reflected in the figures you quoted e.g. £215 million worth of electricity from wind farms costing £717 million for gas-powered electricity.
In spite of the problems (which needs ironing out). It doesn’t alter the fact that costs from wind power have fallen sharply over the past 7 years, with the latest round of offshore wind projects coming in 70% cheaper than those awarded contracts in 2015, making offshore wind the cheapest source of new power in the UK.
1. Wind farms supported by CfDs will generate 93TWh at a total cost of £5bn.
2. The equivalent cost of getting that electricity from gas would be around £26bn at current prices.
So this represents a saving to consumers of over £20bn, with every UK household benefitting by £246 a year.
https://www.renewableuk.com/news/620286 … o-gas-.htmSo what happens to your house batteries (and solar panels?) when they reach the end of their life?
And aren't you concerned about the possibility of the batteries exploding (just thinking of the blazing electric car I saw on the side of the M4 a couple of weeks ago).The solar panels have a 25 year warranty, the wall battery a 10 year warranty.
Like everything else, when they reach end of life you replace them. And the new wall batteries are already far more powerful and a lot cheaper than the one I bought. Both the solar panels and wall batteries will more than pay for themselves long before they need replacing.
I’m no more concerned about the slight risk of the wall battery exploding than anyone should be about the batteries in their laptop or smart phone etc. from exploding. If you are that worried, then get rid of your smart phone, laptop and anything else you have in your house that uses lithium batteries.Arthur, in a discussion with you during the pandemic lockdown, I clearly hint you on introducing solar panel to my house as it's cheaper. And, I'm on course with that. But here Bev, is saying something significant that I hardly thought of. Seriously, I've experienced electricity power surge in my area, and while online, my laptop give the alert and shut itself down. Seems an inbuild device in the pc doer it. So how about the solar batteries if they capture excessively?
Not a problem: The battery is protected by the ‘invertor’ and ‘controller’ that regulate the electricity e.g. they convert the DC electricity from the solar panels to AC etc. in a safe and controlled way.
Understand the Hybrid Inverter https://youtu.be/GcC7niss4J8?si=ESXXcPkjT_ghhMTjA screen dump I took of our solar panels and wall battery on the 13th November 2021 at 1:51pm on a cloudy day shows the converter and controller in action – as shown below:
• 1236 Watts being generated from our solar panels.
• 766 Watts of that being used in the home, and
• The remaining 470 Watts going into the wall battery e.g. recharging it.
Once the wall battery is 100% full then any surplus electricity generated by my solar panels is sold to the National Grid.
That I understand. But unlike your country Glasgow, Nigeria, my country has not make any solar connction to be sold to the national grid. Currently, electricity supply and distribution, is in private hands. But the various electricity companies use the old national grid for transmision. But no excessive is being encountered due to weather conditions.
What’s we have in Europe is what’s called a ‘Smart Grid’ – something which takes time to develop.
Yeah, I appreciate that your National Grid is old, and not capable of handling the flexibility of today’s complex energy mix; you’re not alone, even in the USA and Australia their National Grids haven’t been upgraded either.Thank you for the information about the USA and Europe.
These short videos give more insight into what smart grids are and their development across the world. Perhaps a glimmer of hope is the comment at the end of the video on the European Super Grid, where the EU’s long term desire (in years to come) is to expand it to countries like Turkey and North Africa!
1. Understanding the Smart Grid (an old video at the time when Europe was at an early stage of developing the smart grid): https://youtu.be/wj3APOiGEfI
2. A recent video about the USA trying to create a smart grid: https://youtu.be/X2eYdAR0ka4
3. A recent video about Europe (including the UK) expanding and enhancing our smart grid, and turning it into a European Super Grid: https://youtu.be/2Ry38iWLJr0
Arthur, i am with you that risk of batteries igniting is fairly low.
However batteries in your house are still a hobby, there is no business case or decent payback period generated from having a battery.
On the idealistic side, it is more a matter of supporting grid stability on a nationwide level. If enough home batteries can be used to supply electricity when needed, this will reduce the need for firing up fossile fuel power plants at night. We remember: night is when the sun is not shining.
A business case is much more feasible for solar panels. Return on investment is easily possible within 10 years or less. Of course all depends on which country you live in.You are right, if it’s just a case of using wall batteries in conjunction with solar panels the return on the wall battery over its lifetime is marginal.
When I was costing it out before deciding on whether to get a wall battery with the solar panels, the game changer is the fact that Octopus Energy (an Energy supplier to domestic homes) have tariffs that offers cheap electricity when electricity is cheap e.g. during the early hours of the morning when demand is low but supply is high because the wind is still blowing at sea where most of the UK windfarms are situated.
The tariff I opted for with Octopus Energy gives me cheap electricity from 12:30am to 4:30am every night – and that’s when I top up my wall battery.
Consequently, even in mid-winter, on an overcast day when there is little daylight to generate electricity from our solar panels the wall battery, having been fully charged overnight from cheap electricity provides us with all the power we need, on average for about 8 hours e.g. extending the 4 hours of cheap electricity from the national grid to 12 hours – And that’s where we make our savings with the wall battery.
It also means that with the battery being fully charged with cheap electricity from the national grid during the early hours of the morning; come dawn on a sunny day, instead of our surplus solar energy going towards recharging the battery, it’s exported to the national grid, for which I get paid on a monthly basis by Octopus Energy.Getting back to washing machines. Do you set your machine to automatically turn on at 12:30 am? Is your washing machine a combination of washer and dryer? Is it not annoying to have wrinkled clothes in the dryer, sitting there until you can get to them?
Just wondering because most women I know like to take their clothes out of the dryer immediately, so that they can hang them up and prevent wrinkle.
That being said, I think most American men don’t care if their laundry is wrinkled either.The timer on our dishwasher is that you set it when you want it to start; so I set that to start at 12:30am - but the timer on our washing machine is set it for when you want it to end, so we set it to end at 4:30am.
Yes it is a combination washer and dryer; but we don’t use the dryer option that often because my wife has always preferred to hang the cloths out to dry – and if the weather is not suitable for hanging outside we put it on the cloths horse in the conservatory, and later in the day put the cloths horse on the decking just outside the conservatory door if the weather changes.I see. More work, but doable for those who have enough space in their homes or who have yards.
Well yeah, most people I know prefer to hang out their washing, they seem to think drying in the fresh air makes the clothes smell fresher. I don’t have any particular opinion on that, but it’s their opinion, and their choice.
Most people in the UK have back gardens (yards), but for those who don’t the retractable clotheslines for bathrooms are popular; they come in single or 5 lines options: https://youtu.be/ICmkS77AUbYAnybody can find out a unique way to hangout and dry their clothes.
Interesting, how this discussion mutates from climate change at large to switching on washing machines and household behaviour.
Isn´t this about pennies and cents?
I looked into our smart meter protocol for this year and we had a consumption of 158 kWh for the washing machine and 58 kWh for our heat pump dryer. That is roughly 20 kWh/month and 7 kWh/month. What are we talking about?
Last winter the 2 AC´s we use for heating consumed between 7 and 20 kWh / day not month. A different magnitude, me think.
I understand that consuming electricity when it is cheap and in abundance does help. But it is no real game changer, at least not when it comes to washing machines and alike.Yep, you’re right: However, there is an old English saying, “look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves”, which means if you concentrate on saving small amounts of money, you’ll soon amass a large amount.
It’s a habit which is engrained into a lot of British people from the war, and passed down through the generations e.g. from a time when people had to “Make Do and Mend” – another common British phrase from the war, which is still in the British psyche.
It’s not just saving pennies on the washing machine and dishwasher by using them when electricity is cheap at night – Currently a third of the standard day time rate:-
• But when travelling on a day trip we always take a flask and packed lunches to have a break somewhere in the country side, rather than pay for a snack in a café; and when travelling any great distance from A to B e.g. from Bristol to Portsmouth to visit our friend, we stop at a motorway service station halfway and use the flask and packed lunch rather than buy a snack and drink at the service station.
• And of course, I recycle a lot of salvaged wood in my DIY projects, rather than buying new.
• Plus we grow all our own vegetables (except potatoes), and a lot of our own fruit during the summer months and autumn – plus each August I forage for wild blackberries along the local cycle track.
It all adds up, and over the course of the year, the pennies saved do turn into £s; which we can then use to splash for good Christmas without using any of our regular income, which can then be saved for another time.
Of course, we don’t have an A/C, just gas central heating during the winter; our most expensive electrical usage is the electric shower, at 9kW.My most expensive electrical usage is my refrigerator. It is 115 volts at 6.5 amps, which is about 748 watts. The accepted practice is to use 1/3 of that for a day's usage or 249 watts. So, 180 kwhr for the month. With our three-tier weekday/weekend schedule it winds up being $95/mth.
Interesting; rather than try to work it out from the wattage, and as you say divide by 3 to get a more accurate power usage, or look up fridge and freezer suggested power usage from websites (both of which I did, but which gave me figures that didn’t look right); I double checked my actual electricity usage between 4:30am and 6:30am over an average week e.g. a time of morning when little else is using electricity other than the fridge and freezers.
And surprisingly, even though we’ve got a large fridge/freezer in the kitchen, and a large and a small chest freezer in our food store (1 fridge & 3 freezers in total); the average power usage in our home during early morning, when little else is using power, is a constant average of about 300 watts per hour.
So our total monthly electricity usage for our fridge and three freezers is also around 180 kWh per month. And the electricity cost for those appliances, if I didn’t have solar and wall battery, would be about £58 per month.
So the savings is nominal. Nathanville left out that detail. I wondered about it because he has brought up the washing machine and dishwasher a number of times.
For a retired couple, I suppose doing the wash in the middle of the night is fine, but for a young couple who work and have children, it would be rather inconvenient, and apparently it wouldn’t cost much more.
Good to know.It’s a personal choice: Freedom of choice is something Americans usually hold sacrosanct – so why are you trying to dis it?
Besides, what hassle is there in just setting the timer for your washing machine at your convenience during the day, and then getting up the following morning to find your clothes washed, and ready to hang out?
Why would it be inconvenient for a young working couple with children to set the timer on their washing machine, if that is what they wish to do? They’ve got to fill the washing machine anyway during the evening regardless to whether they turn it on there and then or just set the timer.
Yeah, we are just talking about pennies. The total annual cost of using the washing machine and dishwasher at standard electricity rate would be around £111; whereas, by putting both on overnight, when electricity is cheap in the UK, the total annual cost is just £31 per year – a saving of £80 ($100) per year.I did not “dis” anything. That is your perception. Women I know like to be able to sort their clothes right away. Some things they dry for 10 minutes and then air dry the rest, such as nice work clothing, like tops and pretty dresses. This prevents wrinkles and endless ironing. We do not like our clothes sitting wet for 12 hours at a time, and most of us do not have time to hang laundry in the morning.
That being said, my step mother hangs her sheets and towels outside. She is retired, needless to say. I prefer using a dryer, except for the most delicate fabrics. Everything lasts longer that way.
Truth be told, you have more devices than I do. I don’t even own a toaster, and I certainly do not have 3 freezers.
People should have the freedom to live as they like. I actually live quite modestly, but that is my choice. My preference is to make my small home as beautiful as possible. I recently installed new flooring. It’s gorgeous.
In other words, lots of people save up for special purposes, including families in the United States.It is all about personal choice; and yes “People should have the freedom to live as they like.”
Yes, if you are a working mum then you’ll not have the time to hang out your washing in the mornings during the working week; just on weekends – So in those circumstances you’ll not be able to put your washing machine on until you get home from work in the late afternoon; and by the time the washing is done it’s going to be too late in the evening to hang it outside in the fresh air.
I don’t know about America, but in England not many people use the dryer option in their washing machine that often. Most people in England (including working mums) do like to hang their washing out when they can, which means that they do need to organise their routine so that the washing is ready to hang out earlier in the day rather than late at night – How and when they do that is up to the individual couple (personal choice) e.g. doing one of the washing loads over the weekend is popular.
One advantage of hanging the clothes out to dry, rather than using the dryer in the washing machine, is that the clothes don’t wrinkle, which makes ironing easier – but again, its personal choice. But from what you’re saying, it sounds as if Americans prefer to rely heavily on using the dryer rather than the fresh air to dry their clothes.
Yes, I do have a lot more devices than you; including our robotic vacuum cleaner, and robotic lawn mower - both labour saving devices.
Our robotic lawn mower cutting our lawn: https://youtu.be/Q7NTWZWt44w
Our robotic vacuum cleaner: https://youtu.be/383NSADCoOE
And like you, I save up for special purposes; the most recent lavish expense being the high-end (powerful) computer for our home-office, which cost around $6,000 to build. And for my wife, a few weeks ago I treated her to a genuine Tiffany lamp.
It’s good to hear that your new flooring is gorgeous; what type of floor is it, wood, tile, carpet?
Good flooring is something that does interest me:-
Years ago I laid solid oak flooring in our dining room, and we love it so much that when I built our conservatory back in 2015 we also laid solid oak flooring there too; and that too, does look gorgeous.
However, for our living room and bedrooms, we didn’t want wooden floors; so when we redecorated them a few years ago we re-carpeted them with Axminster Carpets (one of the most luxurious and most expensive carpets you can buy in Britain) – it wasn’t cheap, but it was worth it.
Axminster Carpets Introduction https://youtu.be/ZpeEhgKCCzI
So what happens to the old ones? Can they be recycled?
Not sure what you mean about 'If you are that worried...?' I don't think I expressed 'worry'. I have no idea how safe house batteries are or if they have risks like car, bus, and scooter batteries, which (unlike laptops and phones, relatively speaking) are notorious for catching fire. Like the devastating one on the ship transporting electric cars a few weeks ago.FYI, laptops and mobile phones are just as likely to catch fire as car batteries, but they don’t get as much publicity because domestic house fires (even when caused by an exploding laptop) aren’t normally news worthy.
Here are a couple of examples of laptop and smart phone exploding:-
1. iPhone explodes, forcing woman to flee: https://youtu.be/WZvCV_Eom8s
2. Laptop explodes, and burns down office building: https://youtu.be/2aOICtMyKTk
Lithium Ion Batteries: Why They Explode https://youtu.be/D3GDdZkN6fg
Yeah, the old lithium batteries can and are being recycled in the UK (UK Lithium battery recycling centre): https://youtu.be/q-Qq4POmngo
Arthur, I've heard you said something along these lines before, in another thread and forum post. But here you dive into much detail. I think it was during the pandemic lock down period. This benefits a country much, and drive and accelerate her economic and social development. Critically, I'm wondering why certain Legislative and political nuts and idiots, from Nigeria, visited Europe and the USA, a long time ago, to study your energy frame work, and yet failed to implement same. Seriously, I, as an African, with an under develop energy capacity envy your country.
Yeah, there is a lot of inertia global in this area; especially in non-Industrialised like Africa - but hopefully in time we will begin to see change!
Where do I start - To start with, it’s not just windfarms that may impact on the environment and marine life; oil and gas rigs also have a similar impact.
I guess the best place to start is with the UK’s ‘Offshore windfarms Environmental Impact Reports’, of which there are many going back at least to 2002, which is the earliest one I found.
Actually, if you study any of the Environmental Impact Reports you will see that the UK waters is actually rich in a wide range of marine life – making Environmental Impact Reports all the more important; and with Britain being such a bureaucratic country (as Savvy quite rightly pointed out recently) Environmental Impact Reports is something that the UK is good at doing.
For example the Environmental Impact Report for Hornsea 4 windfarm is 782 pages containing data collected from 2010 onwards. Following careful consideration of the data, made available to all interested parties including Environmentalists, and subject to public consultation with all interested parties and Public Inquires by the Planning Inspectorate (where I used to work), the project was finally approved by the Government on 12 July 2023 and the windfarm, with 180 giant wind turbines that will provide 5% of the UK’s electricity, will be operational by 2027.
A similar Environment Impact Report done for the proposed Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm led to the Planning Inspectorate refusing the Application; not for the hard to marine life, as the Report concluded any damage would be minimal, but primarily refused for the potential risk to shipping.
To give an idea of how extensive such Environmental Impact Studies and Reports are:-
An extract from the section on fish and shellfish spawning and nursery areas in the 357 page Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm is copied below:
“The proposed Offshore Wind Farm Area and proposed Offshore Export Cable Corridor are within or in close proximity to spawning grounds for a number of protected (UK BAP) species including sole, herring and plaice.
The spawning and nursery grounds around the proposed Wind Farm Area are illustrated in Table 2.10 and Figure 2.6 and Figure 2.7. However, the proposed Wind Farm Area itself is not considered to be an important spawning ground or nursery area for commercially important fish species (e.g. herring), as those which spawn within the proposed Wind Farm Area and proposed Offshore Export Cable Corridor also spawn widely within the surrounding coastal waters of the southern North Sea.”
Obviously I haven’t copied the Table and Figures below, but they are informative.
Another useful document to environmentalist, scientist, planners, the government and other interested parties is the UK’s ‘Impacts of offshore wind farms evidence base’ database; which gathers all evidence from evidence based primary and grey literature. Primary literature being ‘peer reviewed’ literature, and grey literature being literature from other sources that is not peer reviewed.
The comprehensive database covers the impacts of offshore wind farm developments (for construction, operational and decommissioning phases) on ecosystem service outcomes in the marine environment.
A couple of extracts from the summery of the database:-
1. Wind turbine substructures introduce hard surfaces that are rapidly colonised by epibenthic marine organisms, altering biomass and biodiversity within the local ecosystem. As offshore wind development continues to grow and modify marine habitats, changes in biological populations and processes could affect the provision of ecosystem services. In this context, this database sets out to capture the current understanding of environmental impacts following the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of Offshore Windfarms and attempt to link these changes to marine ecosystem services through the associated processes and functions.
2. The POSEIDON project will conduct analysis to strengthen the knowledge base of the potential risks of developing wind farms on different environmental receptors, such as seabirds, marine mammals, marine landscapes and benthic seabed habitats. New and existing data on environmental sensitivities will be combined using existing web-based tools where possible, to provide a comprehensive environmental baseline. These tools will be used by marine managers, scientists, developers and all those with an interest in offshore wind to ensure that decisions on marine planning and project development can factor in environmental risk from the outset.
These Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA’s) play an important role in the planning and decision process of building offshore windfarms in the UK, as follows (quote from a Government source):
“Prior to submission of an application for consents, a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of all of the potential impacts that may arise during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind farm is undertaken.
The assessment looks at the impacts to the physical, biological and human environment, both on and offshore. Where potential impacts are identified, any measures that could be put in place to mitigate or reduce these impacts are considered.
To determine the impacts, a full suite of environmental surveys are undertaken, establishing the baseline for the assessment. These surveys included bird, fish and ecology surveys, navigational and socio-economic surveys, and traffic impacts assessments.
Prior to construction, surveys of birds, fish and shellfish, benthic and marine mammals are undertaken to identify the use of the area by marine life.
An Environmental Impact Assessment for another UK offshore windfarm shows the extent to which mitigation is applied, as follows (quote):
• “It was found that the Black Bream spawning at the Kingmere Reef Marine Conservation Zone were particularly sensitive to noise during foundation piling, and therefore the piling activities during the most sensitive breeding season (from April to July) were stopped.
• Piling noise can also impact on marine mammals so before any piling activities were started, specialised marine mammal observers were on site to look out for any animals in the sea near the piling activities. Piling is put on hold until the animals are no longer in the area.
• When piling at night passive acoustic monitoring devices were used to identify the presence of mammals. Throughout the campaign the observers spotted two harbour porpoise – although neither of these were in the wind farm site itself, but in the transit corridor between their base at Shoreham Harbour and the wind farm.
• Although there are a number of seabird species along the South Coast, an assessment of the potential impacts to birds by ornithological experts determined that the presence of the wind farm would not result in any significant impacts to birds in the area.
• Once construction is completed, further fish and shellfish plus benthic ecology surveys will be undertaken, as agreed with the authorities, to determine whether the presence of the wind farm has led to any changes in the use of the site by marine life.
So in conclusion, the Environmental Impact of offshore windfarms is taken very seriously in the UK; and you can rest assure that where there is any serious impact the ‘Environmentalist Activists’ are the first to shout, and make a noise; just as they regularly do about oil and gas in the UK.
Your first paragraph is a clever bit of propaganda. Firstly, the Ancel Keys 7 country study was heavily criticized by the scientific community during peer reviews because of its flaws e.g. cherry picking the data, the first of many critiques being published in 1957.
And FYI, he did not “stifle anyone else that had other ideas”; research by other scientists all around the world has continued since before Ancel Keys first publication, and continues to this day.
However, since the publication of Ancel Keys rationale and conclusions, based on faulty research, that there is a correlation between blood cholesterol level and coronary heart disease, other studies (correctly carried out) by other scientists around the world have shown that there is a connection.
Furthermore, there have been a number of systematic reviews on the subject e.g. one in 2015 and another in 2020; and they all conclude the same as Ancel Keys concluded e.g. that saturated fats from meat and dairy products have adverse effects, while unsaturated fats found in vegetable oils had beneficial effects:-
• A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis by the Cochrane Collaboration, an organisation which promotes evidence-based medicine, found that reducing saturated fat intake reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease.
• The findings of a systematic review published 21st Aug 2020 suggest that reducing saturated fat intake for at least two years causes a potentially important reduction in combined cardiovascular events. Replacing the energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate appears to be useful strategies, while effects of replacement with monounsaturated fat are unclear.
FYI: A Systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic – That’s how science works.There is no proof that high cholesterol levels in the diet causes heart disease.They are correlated, which does not mean much. The only study done that fed some patients high cholesterol in their diet and others fed low cholesterol diets was never published as Ansel Keys buried the info in his basement. (It did not support his hypothesis.) It was not released until one of his children found those results.
Studies like that are no longer done as it is unethical to feed people things that will make them sick.
So yes, Ansel Keys did bully other scientists and hide information that did not support his idea that high dietary cholesterol causes heart disease. His cherry picked data did pass peer review and was used by the whole world to change dietary suggesions.
My point in relation to climate change is that scientific consensus can be wrong and does change as more information comes along. Even if the majority of scientists think that it is caused by human activity (if you really believe it is 99% you are incorrect) that does not mean it is correct.
Scientific consensus changes. That is how science works.I beg to differ:
There is more than one way to carry out such studies on humans, including trials that include using placebos (as a control) along with statins and other cholesterol-lowering medicine.
Ansel Keys not publishing all his data didn’t stop or affect other scientists carrying out their own research; as they have done – Ansel Keys stopping other scientists from doing research is just unsupported propaganda.
Where there seems to be confusion is the relationship between good cholesterol and bad cholesterol:
1. The current literature (published 2018) does not support the notion that dietary cholesterol increases the risk of heart disease in healthy individuals.
2. However, there is ample evidence that saturated fatty acids and trans-fats increase cardiovascular disease risk.
3. The fact that dietary cholesterol is common in foods that are high in saturated fatty acids might have contributed to the hypothesis that dietary cholesterol is atherogenic.
Bad Cholesterol (LDL): High levels of LDL cholesterol raise your risk for heart disease and stroke.
Good Cholesterol (HDL): High-density lipoprotein cholesterol absorbs cholesterol in the blood and carries it back to the liver. The liver then flushes it from the body.
In summary, LDL cholesterol clogs the arteries and causes heart disease, whereas HDL cholesteryl absorbs cholesterol blood and carries it back to the liver, from where it is then flushed out of the body.
So it’s a far more complex subject that it might first appear.
As regards your last paragraph, Peter has just given the answer along the lines that I was going to give; so I suggest you read Peter’s reply above.No, there is no evidence that saturated fats cause heart disease. There are several ways to do studies, some of which provide weak evidence and some of them much stronger.
The stronger evidence is when you take two groups and feed one on high saturated fat and another on low. If you see higher levels of heart attacks and coronary artery disease in the first group you can state that the correlation is indeed the causation.
The problem comes about when the second type of study is done.They ask people if they eat meat, see that those that answer yes have a higher rate of heart disease, and then state that based on the study meat eaters have more heart disease. What they do not do is an experiment to rule out all other food sources.
Since we know that vegans generally eat a healthier diet than many people that include meat in their diet, those findings are totally useless. If they studied a group of carnivores that ate only saturated fat, and none of the ultraprocessed foods, the results might be very different. (If you eat a meat patty from a fast food restaurant it is not the same as eating a meat patty with the bun, the toppings, and all the other junk they include in one of those sandwiches.)
Trans fat is another issue entirely as it is part of the processed foods that seems to be making so many people sick.
LDL is not "bad" cholesterol. If you take one of the drugs that causes it to be abnormally low you die sooner. I realized you did not come up with that misnomer but it is something the medical establishment has emphasized for several years based on poor experimental data.
I have already read Peters reply and published a reply to it.It is what I thought, Arthur. Thanks for reaffirming it for me.
Yep, you said it; manmade climate change is proven - so what are we arguing about?
It's not proven. It is a theory. Scientists who don't agree with it have their funding taken away and their jobs eliminated. That is not science, that is politics to promote an agenda.
How many more scientists would disagree with the claims of a climate crisis if they were permitted to have their research funded and able to present their findings and ideas?
There is too much fear of scientist disproving the idea that we have a climate crisis.
It's like the Catholic church threatening Galileo when the world believed the earth was the center of the universe. They were afraid of the truth so they put him in jail.
That is what it is like today. If a scientist today speaks out and has scientific evidence that there is no climate crisis...they are treated like the Catholic church treated Galileo.
History is repeating itself.Peter has pre-empted my answer, so I suggest you read what Peter's post above.
You’re first paragraph is not factually correct - that’s not how it works. The scientific community are ruthless, and for a very good reason e.g. to weed out anything that is flawed.
The three essential criteria of any credible scientific theory are:-
1. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
2. It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.
3. It is consistent with preexisting experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any preexisting theories.
Part of that process is that scientists doing research need to publish that research in the appropriate scientific journals, such as ‘New Scientist’ so that other interested scientist around the world can ‘peer review’ their work.
As part of the peer review process, other scientists will scrutinise the research, looking for flaws; and if they find any flaws in the methodology or data e.g. the scientist used just a ‘blind test’ when they should have used a ‘double blind test’, then funding for that research can dry up.
A crucial part of the peer review process includes the ability of other scientists around the world to be able to repeat the same experiments time and time again, and get the same results each time; if the theory is potentially flawed, other scientist when repeating the experiments will get different results – in which case funding can dry up.
Project Nim and Washoe are classical examples of where funding dries up if the scientific methodology appears to be flawed.
The only reports I’ve seen, claiming that there is NO climate crisis, are articles contrived by right-wing political sources, and climate change denialists; articles that not supported by the scientific community, and do not reflect the views of the scientific community e.g. many are nothing more than propaganda.
For every propaganda article you can find I can find 10 from the scientific community that provides clear evidence of how real climate change is.
Sorry, but the “scientists who can show climate change” are called paleoclimatologists; and FYI paleoclimatologists actually support the concept of ‘manmade climate change’, and the harm we face from it. Also, FYI, although mankind has survived harsher times in the past, the speed and severity of climate change is far faster (about 20 times faster) than any climate change in our history – far too fast for mankind and eco systems to adapt to; and the changes we are facing now is surpassing any change mankind has had to face in our brief history. Yes, we might be able to adapt to some extent, but it’s not going to be easy, especially if the Thwaites Ice Shelf does collapse e.g. displacement of millions (in wealthy as well as poor countries) as low lying land succumbs to the sea.
If the Thwaites Ice Shelf did collapse, nearly every coastal city in the USA would be partly or entirely underwater—from Miami to New Orleans to Boston to San Francisco – Do we really want to risk such a catastrophe?
Your last two paragraphs show that you don’t understand how science works:-
Yeah, sure “even if you have 1% of research that proves something wrong, that research should be taken very seriously.”; and it is, that is how science progresses; but when you reach a point where after that research, and through ‘peer review’ 99% of scientists conclude that it is right, then the matter is concluded.
As regards your last paragraph, yeah, there is no such thing as settled science, science is always challenged, and is constantly changing; that harps back to my opening statements above. But that’s not where science has been proven wrong and scientists have abandoned their previous understanding in favour of new theories that contradict the old – New theories are built on the foundations of the old, an improvement in our knowledge e.g. Quantum theory didn’t replace Newtonian theory, it just enhanced it."although mankind has survived harsher times in the past, the speed and severity of climate change is far faster (about 20 times faster) than any climate change in our history – far too fast for mankind and eco systems to adapt to; and the changes we are facing now is surpassing any change mankind has had to face in our brief history."
This is far from true; vulcanism in the past has created almost instant (days or weeks at most) massive worldwide climate change to the point that there were no crops to be had. And the return to "normal", when it happened, was not much slower - a matter of a couple of years rather than decades.
" if the Thwaites Ice Shelf does collapse e.g. displacement of millions (in wealthy as well as poor countries) as low lying land succumbs to the sea. "
This is something I do not understand - perhaps you can explain. Floating ice that melts does NOT increase the level of water that it is floating in. Floating objects displace the exact weight of water that they have and thus there is no rise when ice melts. So how will a floating ice sheet drown out low lying areas when it breaks off, floats out to sea and melts?Such global events from volcanoes are thankfully few and far between and short lived. I assume you are referring to eruptions such as the Laki eruption, Iceland, 1783 and the Ilopango eruption, El Salvador in 450AD (the 2nd largest volcanic eruption in over 200,000 years.
• The Ilopango eruption, El Salvador in 450AD caused global cooling in 535-536 AD, which led to crop failures from Rome to China that year.
• The Laki eruption, Iceland, 1783 caused global cooling, and famine from Europe to Egypt that year.
The difference is that the impacts from such volcanic events aren’t temporary and limited; not on the scale of the current manmade climate change which is here to stay, and set to get worse – not just dissipate after a year like the effects of volcanoes.
Largely true: “floating ice that melts does not increase the level of water that it is floating in.” to any great extent – Quote from ‘New Scientist’: “Fresh water, of which icebergs are made, is less dense than salty sea water. So while the amount of sea water displaced by the iceberg is equal to its weight, the melted fresh water will take up a slightly larger volume than the displaced salt water. This results in a small increase in the water level.”
However, the Thwaites Ice Shelf (the size of Florida) is NOT floating on water it is currently sitting on land and held in place by an ice shelf that juts out onto the surface of the ocean. The floating shelf in front of the Thwaites Ice Shelf acts like a cork, holding the glacier back on the land and providing an important defence against sea level rise.
If the Thwaites Ice Shelf did collapse into the sea from the land that it is currently resting on, the amount of fresh water in that ice sheet is sufficient to raise sea level by over 2ft.
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/2020/ … s-glacier/
The truth is in the details.
"Your last two paragraphs show that you don’t understand how science works"
If you actually read what I wrote, you would realize I didn't say this.
These are words spoken by a man with impressive scientific credentials. I think he knows more about science than me, you, or any person contributing to this thread.
I think it is YOU who knows nothing about science.
It is only common sense that scientists who have research that contradicts the current belief in climate change should be supported. They should be free to do their research without any impediment. A true scientist embraces challenges to established theories.
THAT only makes sense.Nathanville is in love with the phrase “peer review.” What he does not realize is that peer review is meaningless in this area. It does not indicate consensus. He also does not understand that scientists who counter the so-called consensus will not get any grant funding for their work, and they may be fired.
Disciples of the climate agenda have no idea of the truth, nor the corruption that surrounds this agenda.When the general consensus of 99% of scientist is that manmade climate change is real, and that climate change is a real risk to mankind, then there is more pressing matters to research other than trying to disprove what is already well proven e.g. more research into the impact of climate change on such things as the Thwaites Ice Shelf and its implications for mankind if the ice shelf collapses into the sea, and how to mitigate against climate change. What you are suggesting is akin to paying scientists to disprove that the world is not flat.
I made not be a professional scientist (I chose a different career path), but I do have qualifications in Astronomy, Physics and Human Biology. Also, from the 1980’s until my retirement, I used to receive the weekly publication of ‘New Scientist’ which I read from cover to cover; following the development of numerous scientific theories goes through their ‘peer review’ process, including the discovery of the long predicted Higgs boson particle in 2012 (the granddaddy of all particles), that was originally predicted to exist back in the 1964, but not actually discovered until 2012.
Higgs Boson (The God Particle) and Higgs Field Explained in Simple Words https://youtu.be/BiR1cPisge8?si=U2QiEy6y8KDWL3Kc
But of course, my all-time favourite is Schrödinger's Cat: https://youtu.be/67MG6_N0msg?si=TZpK_z0IKRIXx142
I agree that politics may infleunce climate crisis and climate changes. Seriously, science or nature had a hand in this, and the scientific aspect of it is crucial. Critically, no mango tree in my part of Nigeria, has been bearing fruits for 8 years. This shows that science had an effect.
Yep, that's a good example of the point Tim was making the other day, with his three links about global food supplies being disrupted by climate change, causing food shortages and price rises.
The problem is wide spread not only in Nigeria, but in other countries of the world. I've noticed that climate crisis also affect most reduction and the increase of some animals. As a fisherman, I noted Mud Skipper seriously rare in my Rivers. No one hunt for these spices again, and one could think that they should increase for the past five years. But there're drastically moro reduced than ever.
Thanks for sharing your personal experiences.
If a government or its agency bans or censored any book, it's a clear sign that that book will surface via, underground. This is worst than letting the book to circulate.
The ban is an open invitation for the people to read more. Example is the Christian Bible.
No one here is sayying your government is banning history books. Have I said any such thing or infer that? Sorry, savvydating, you can't proved it.
Besides it looks likes you're anti-government. Sorry again, my friend.
A little more diversion, while we were discussing the health of our tickers, I wanted to add a little levity that touches on the topic. (Adult language)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cYziI5nkOoY&noapp=1"That’s why we Europeans have more faith and trust in our Authorities..."
Speak for yourself. I for one would not believe in much that comes from anyone in 'authority'. In fact, questions must be asked. And it now appears that many people are waking up to the climate scam.Thanks for adding that UK-based alternative view. I certainly know that here in Brazil there is great distrust in the motivation of the government. During the Bolsanaro administration the socialists in the congress constantly attacked his policies, and now that a socialist has been elected the Bolsanarists are attacking their policies.
Deforestation in the Amazon is up but the people who are proposing climate change projects are getting huge subsidies.Thank you, theraggededge. It is heartening to hear the voice of one who is willing to speak out about so called authority.
And you did not use the crutch of endless graphs and lists to make your point. You were succinct. We’ll done!
A subject for another forum perhaps, but discerning women have the capacity to effect change.
We’re not tied to the Bro code. That’s a good thing.Thank you. We are witnessing a great transfer of power from citizens and elected bodies to unelected organisations which presume to issue diktats from on high. Europe, including the UK is sleepwalking into a situation which gives the WHO untold power over national policy making. From Covid to climate change to digital health IDs. Pretty soon we may no longer have sovereignty over our own lives.
People must question and challenge authority. And stir up those who accept all they are told by the likes of the BBC.Indeed we must. I am truly alarmed at this turn of events.
FYI: I used the phrase Bro code incorrectly. I meant it as a loose term for men in power, such as Bill Gates, John Kerry, Al Gore, and many others who are taking advantage of a naive populace, and who do not have our well being in mind.
As I’ve said before, the UN is not our friend.
However, I have found it difficult, if not impossible, to convince Socialists and the American left that our freedoms are being taken away from us. They are apparently blind to all the evidence.
It is very sad.Oh Yes... And look at the destruction we have experienced in such a short time. And right before our eyes... So mad, so sad!
In my humble opinion, there is only one man who can reverse the climate nonsense occurring in the US.
Probably within the first week of his presidency.
You know who I am talking about.
Unfortunately, many who call themselves conservatives fail to see the danger ahead and will foolishly fail to get onboard. But hopefully, we won’t have to rely on them. I see where many minorities are moving toward the right.
As raggededge said, people are waking up. It is quite heartening to know that there are people in the UK, as well, whose eyes are wide open.
This gives me some hope. And so, we must keep our faith alive. But no matter what happens, the Lord is in control.I'm truly hopeful that all conservatives will come to recognize the importance of this pivotal moment. It's crucial that we set aside any divisions and work together to address the challenges ahead. Instead of placing ourselves on pedestals, let's approach this with a united spirit. Our strength lies in standing up to challenges with determination and unity, for there's no alternative route at this juncture. I'm confident that we have dedicated individuals in the House who will persistently champion the cause.
As someone who closely observes the polls, I'm heartened to see that we haven't lost ground despite the tumultuous circumstances. In fact, our candidate's support remains steady despite some expectations that it might waver. His resilience is inspiring and reinforces the notion that when faced with adversity, he remains strong. It appears that even amidst negative campaigning, our candidate's position is bolstered.
I share the sentiment expressed by raggededge – a realization is dawning upon many. It's only natural that eyes open to the significance of the situation. I hold firm in my belief that right will ultimately prevail.
Yes, the Lord is in control.Savvydating? Are you seeing Trump, in the Oval Office, again for a second tenure? Then your prayer is answered.
Amen sister!!!
I want to slap people upside the head and shout, "snap out of it", but I'd be arrested!
Locked up, the key thrown away, a political prisoner, never heard from again.....
It may happen either way, perhaps I should start slapping.
Nigerian men care to iron out the wrinkles on they clothes.
Yesterday, I was talking to a bud on maling the pennies into a pound per our local currencies. He agree. Seriously, I don't failed to point out if a guy stole my pennies, and I bring in the police, the theft could get into trouble in the eyes of the law. So our discourse with climate change is interesting. And we focus on many varied factors that cause the change. So we digress a little into something that keep our discussion on fire. Two days ago, I read about a flood in South India, that destroyed rice fields, and resulting to the ban on exportation of Indian rice. So where do we go from our climate change again?
In Nigeria, currently there is no 'smart' meter reading for electricity consumption. All that is done is the submission of pre-paid bills. The electricity company reguest that consumers paid for the meters, and Nigerians refused. For they is a law which states the company provide certain material for the consummer. As the suqply of electricity is very erratic, consummers like me resort to paying 1/4 or less of the pre-paid bill. Some don't paid at all but brided the power agents.
I use these devices. Hooked up to our WiFi home network. Easy to use and monitor.
https://www.foto-erhardt.com/accessorie … ement.html
or
https://www.tapo.com/de/product/smart-p … oduct-spec
If in use, make sure that outlets are not automatically switched off in case of WiFi or router failure. Otherwise your fridge may start to live from the inside.Thanks for the links; they look useful devices that anyone can use, even if they don’t have a smart metre; certainly something like that would be useful for anyone living in Nigeria.
I notice that Nigeria’s voltage is the same as Europe’s e.g. 230V, so I guess Miebakeshu57 could potentially buy them cheaply from Europe.
The two sources of information I use are:-
1. Our Smart Meter Display, which is portable: https://youtu.be/fDrgsPByb00
2. The Web Portal: https://youtu.be/S0Au0LFwkp8
Of the two I find the web portal most useful.Chriss57, does these gadgets computed the cost of the electricity consumed? The cost obtainale can be lower that tarrif of the electricity company. Critically, Nigerians will still like to pay lower rates than what they consumed. Seriously, if the electricity company fix smart meters, the actual readings obtain don't mean much to the majority.
Miebakagh57, these smartmeters collect and store data in kWh over a specified period of time: day, month, year. Moreover they record voltage and amperage.
Pricing depends on the contract you have. In G. we can choose from dozens and hundreds of energy firms. They all buy electricity and sell it and kind of rent electricity cables that bring electricity to your house. Tarriffs go from all year fixed to hourly rates (as Arthur had described).
It is the job of the device control itself to figure out automatically at what time to switch on and off a specific household device. For example an intelligent washing machine (again this stupid example of a poor washing machine) has to be provided with timely electricity rates to determine what to do. Not those small metering gadgets. Gadgets wouldn´t know how long a washing program will be.Chriss57, in the '60, '70, '80, and early '90s every Nigerian house-hold had the classical or common meter. This is when electricity generation and distribution was a government business. Critically, when the electricity corporation of Nigeria, was privatised (21st century) the meter reading was done away with. But the consummers are insisting that they bring back the meter. Critically again, we consummers knows we'll pay less than what the pre-paid bills offer. Private elctricity suppliers and distributors are big time profiters, under they political masters. For example, ex-president Muhammadu Buhari, was in support of pre-paid billings. Its no wonder the cry nowadays is to return the supply and distribution back to government control.
A new State of the Climate report published today with the American Meteorological Society features contributions from over 570 scientists from 60 countries and provides a detailed update on the global climate in 2022.
The international report confirms record-high greenhouse gases, global sea level rise, and ocean heat.
Report highlights include:
Earth’s greenhouse gas concentrations were the highest on record.
Warming trends continued across the globe.
La Niña conditions moderated sea surface temperatures.
Ocean heat and global sea level were the highest on record.
Heatwaves shattered temperature records across the planet.
The Arctic was warm and wet.
Antarctica experienced a variety of extremes in 2022.
Although tropical cyclone activity was near average, storms brought devastation to many areas across the globe.
ReportThanks for sharing; an interesting read.
Although July and August were a washout in Britain this year; the June heatwave has returned to Britain this Month (September); Today’s temperature over here is 32c (90f); which for a September in Britain, although not unique, is very unusual. And the night time temperatures aren’t expected to drop below 20c (70c); which, as we don’t have A/C in British homes, will make it uncomfortable for some.It's clear that the world's climate is changing in a rapid pace. Not in a natural pace. Extreme weather will be the norm.
Some people think that technology will save us. Making more energy-efficient machinery, creating more efficient and cleaner sources of energy.
It will not.
The relationship we as humans have with nature has been broken for a long time. The three main religions Christianity, Islam and Judaism see mankind as the custodians of the earth. In other words, owners can do with the earth, animals and plants whatever they want.
And since the Enlightenment, the West has had the idea that humans and Intelligence are unconnected and outside of the rest of nature.
Many indigenous people, people who live close to the land, know that humans are part of the ecosystem. You kill a tree, you kill a part of yourself.
I think the mentality of the Western philosophy has to change. Understanding deeply that nature is part of us. Only then we will have a better equilibrium with the world.
The products we make should be made with this idea in mind. The way the products are made too. The way we use food and grow food should be based on this idea.
Climate change will have a profound impact on our lives and that of the next generation. It will force us to see the world differently, if we want it or not.Every circle in nature is balanced. For example, the water circle, or the nitrogen circle. Mankind actions is destroying part of all these. And this accounts for the imbalance we now had in nature. Today, I see a single white butterflying where some childrens are playing. None care to think and pursue it for fun. Not so in my boyhood days 50 years ago. Apparently, this generation don't know about butterflies in their natural environment. Seriously, some 5 decades ago, when I study nature science or natural history, teachers will took us students into the woods or convenient areas. Then we returned to the classroom to complement the field work. These days its all done in the class. Oddly, most of us here don't know a thing here about the carbon circle and its benefits.
Yes Miebakagh, the circle of balance is broken. It's difficult to say when it happened. But some point to the Enlightment (period 17th century -mid 18th) where philosophers regarded nature as an object and outside the human body. It sepearted nature from mankind.
A lot of positive things happened in science (Netwon etc.) but the negative part is that we saw nature only as resources and not connected with ourselves.
Ironically enough sciences shows us today how connected everything is and is now warning us about the disastrous outcomes of the fact that we saw ourselves as owners of the world.
Science shows clearly too that the climate crisis is man-made. And now we have to deal with it, if we want it or not. It is the biggest challenge of our and the next generations.This is such nonsense. Do you want all nations to become like Germany? Do you really think that going broke, as they are for no actual scientific reason, is a good thing?
What is it about Germany that makes them so gullible?
(I am not saying you are from Germany. My understanding is that you are a Dutchman living in Spain.)
If you only knew that the pseudoscience you embrace is not only false, but destructive.It’s not nonsense what Peter said:-
What’s wrong with Germany; are you suggesting (based on your next sentence) that Germany is going broke?
FYI: Germany is the 4th wealthiest country in the world.
FYI: The scientific evidence is now overwhelming – Not only that but the climate change we seeing happening in the world and around us is living proof of what the science has been saying.Arthur, you're welcome. I'm going to ignore our friend, savvydating. Meanwhile, the thread she sponsored is mindblowing.
Absolutely; I've got far better things to do than waste my time on people who are so blind to the science that you can't even have a fruitful discussion with them.
If only. One gets the impression you have nothing better to do. Why is this? Do the Socialists or the CCP pay you to post propaganda?
Fat chance you’ll ignore me or anyone. That would mean you’d actually have to refrain from posting endlessly long comments, repeatedly, over and over again, all the while cutting and pasting your way through forums.
If you were as clever as you think you are, you would use far fewer words to make a point. So far, you have failed. Popular science, of which you are a disciple, never stands the test of time.
? I don't understand what you say about Germany. I was not talking about Germany at all, not even thinking about it. Sorry, could you explain why you were thinking about Germany when you responded to my thoughts about the Enlightenment?
That's why I said I'm going to ignore savvydating. But she's my friend. Seriously, she's a woman. And what tangent her mind is beating at that I don't know. I'm jiggling to relax.
...What is it about Germany that makes them so gullible? ...
With due respect what makes you gullible to accept any hear say as truth?
Germany certainly has a lot of issues to solve as every economy on our planet has. But problems are more associated to incompentence of our governments (especially the current red-yellow-green coalition) than to particular green politics.
Major problem is the slowdown of the world economy. And G. relying heavily on exports and trade is suffering first. Second is demographics, with high shortage of skilled workforce. Everything else, even energy prices is moreless same as all over Europe.https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65707206
Germany is doing less well than other European states.
As for gullibility, I was thinking about World War II.Pinning your entire statement on one publication, without even willing to have a fruitful discussion on it?
There are reasons why Germany’s economy was hard hit e.g. they were too reliant on natural gas from Russia at the start of the Ukrainian war; plus global growth has fallen by 3% this year, primarily due to the Ukrainian war.
However, Germany is recovering, and if you read the IMF’s forecasts for 2024 (next year), Germany’s economy is predicted to grow by 1.5% next year; which happens to be the same prediction for the USA next year e.g. 1.5%.
Besides, the German’s being gullible to follow Hitler during World War II is not unique; megalomania leaders who command such following, including Trump, are far too common the world over, and always have been since the dawn of civilisation.With the discussion headline in mind, i thought you meant gullible with respect to climate change.
Do you run out of arguments to have to refer to WWII?
But this discussion is getting away from arguing facts and science and fiction. This discussion is getting more and more political. What on earth has left, right, up, down, queer orientation have to do with climate change?Unfortunately, Chris, in America, the science regarding climate change takes a back seat to the politics.
The moon has to be made of green cheese because they would not want to acknowledge that the other side could be correct about anything.Hello Peter. Yes. Germany has thrown themselves headlong into climate change. They are essentially throwing the baby out with the bath water. Germany still needs energy. Before they rid themselves of fossil fuels, they must first find viable alternatives that do not leave their citizens hungry or cold. They have not done this, nor has any nation.
I mentioned Germany because their climate regulations are the strictest at this point. Consequently, they are suffering economically. Yes, I know they are expected to have some growth in 2024. But what no one mentions is that that growth will be far less than it could be had they taken the time to find the energy they need to live adequately.
As for the recent transgender thread, this is something Dr. Mark brought up. It is okay if we diverge now and then. Eventually, we get back on track.
There is only a "circle of balance" in nature if the time frame is exceedingly short in geological terms. Anything from asteroid impacts to volcanic action to tectonic movements to life itself has, and will again, impact the global environment in massive ways we cannot begin to duplicate. And it can do it in very, very short time periods; witness the "dinosaur killer" asteroid that wiped out most life - just one of the several times life has nearly died out on our planet.
But, having said that, it is to our very great benefit to maintain the earth as it is, for it is the environment we evolved to survive in.That is the unfortunate truth; what we are doing to our planet is on the same scale as the natural impacts on the global environment that you mention; you underestimate the destructive power of the burning of fossil fuels by mankind.
The scale that mankind is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is on the same scale of volcanic activities that have led to climate change, and mass destruction, by the volume of gasses they’ve released at various times in the Earth’s history.
In short, mankind has become an infestation on the Earth; and like so many infestations, we are killing our host.How arrogant are men to assume they can control the planet? The planet controls itself. Co2 is not the boogieman.
Yes, we must respect the earth. We do that by fertilizing, planting and growing. We do not do that by attacking Co2, or by wiping out our forests to build machines.How ignorant are men (and women) to assume that we aren’t damaging the planet.
All things in moderation; of course we need a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but too much CO2 in the atmosphere has led to mass extensions on several occasions in the Earth’s history – and that is scientific fact – But as you don’t believe in science, then…….!!!!!!
Yes, we must respect the earth; so why are we polluting the oceans with plastic, causing devastating climate change by excessive burning of fossil fuels.
And as for forests, maybe in Spain trees are cut down to make way for solar farms; but not in every country e.g. not in England, and in Scotland the trees cut down were all replaced with new trees.
But nowhere in the world (to my knowledge) is anyone “wiping out forests” to build machines: If you are worried about forests being wiped out, then it should be Brazil that you should be complaining about.
If we skip the discussion about what caused climate change, we, human beings are the only ones who can do something about it.
Just like we are now able to alter the direction of a comet that's on a collision course with Earth. The dinosaurs didn't have the technology, we do. That's the difference.
The question is are we willing to stop the climate change? So far money and greed are bigger motivations than self-preservation.
Let's paint better picture for our next generation.
Yes and with all, it starts with education.
Certainly. Education in the direction of environmental friendliness or friends of the earth.
Absolutely
From what I see in these posts, a lot of Americans seem to be lacking in good education on such subjects as the environment and science etc.What I am seeing is a lot of gullible Europeans that are willing to accept whatever drivel the government feeds them. You would have thought the UK learned its lessons after so many lies during the mad cow outbreak.
The UK government: Eating beef for cows with mad cow disease is safe.
The people: Continue to eat meat, including processed meat made with spinal cords.
The UK government: It is only a few cats and this will not spread to hunans.
The people believe the government and continue to eat processed meat.
The government: Well, it looks like we were wrong. Sorry.
The people? You tell me.You make plenty of sweeping statements without any evidence to support them.
Typical right-wing misinformation, taking the facts and twisting them to paint a distorted picture.
I'm surprised you haven't raised the Government's egg scandal (similar time period) that led to a high percentage of British egg producers going bankrupt in a short period of time; because the way the Conservative Government mishandled the health situation regarding salmonella in eggs.Typical socialist response, expecting the government to do your critical thinking for you. I would have thought anyone living in the UK at that time would have developed some healthy skepticism about governmebt.
And how do you make that out: At the time it was a right-wing Conservative Government in power (Margaret Thatcher) e.g. the majority of people of Britain voted for a right-wing capitalist Government, not socialism.
If it was a right wiing government in power at the time of the mad cow fiasco I would think you would have trusted them less, not more.
Who said I trusted Thatcher's Government; I didn't - you just seem to be making assumptions.
And certainly, things came to ahead when Margaret Thatcher (then Conservative Prime Minister) introduced the poll tax in 1990. The introduction of the poll tax in 1990 had the same effect as its failed introduction in 1380 (over 600 years earlier) e.g. the ‘Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 – when the people refused to pay the poll tax, and within months it was abolished.
In 1990 the people revolted again, with widespread protests and riots, and up to 18 million people, out of a working population of 38 million (almost half), refused to pay the tax.
The poll tax was introduced in April 1990, and it’s rejection by the masses led to Margaret Thatcher’s resignation as Prime Minister in November 1990 (just 7 months later); and after her resignation the Conservative Government (with a new Prime Minister), following continued widespread ‘civil disobedience’, abolished the poll tax within two years.
For clarity, people in Britain (even people who didn’t vote for the party in power) do have a greater trust of their Government, than Americans do of their Governments; but trust is earned (it’s not blind trust, as you seem to think it is).
1990: Chaos, Carnage & Bloodshed in Poll Tax Riots: https://youtu.be/I4QQN2aqeKAWhen I said the UK government lied about the safety of eating meat during the crisis you got upset and told me that I was spreading conervative propoganda.
So which is it? Why are you trying to divert this to the poll tax?I didn’t get upset; you can slag off the British Conservative Government as much as you like, as far as I am concerned – I never voted for them and am unlikely to ever vote for them.
What I take umbrage with is your assertion that the British voters are gullible; and that the Conservative Government lied, when in fact, if you look at the facts (as laid out by the Public Inquiry that followed) is that “The government did not lie to the public, but its policy of reassurance was a mistake.”
As regards British voters being gullible, as a socialist that would be my view of many (but not all) people who vote for the Conservatives e.g. many of the ‘floating voters’ who are swayed to vote Conservative by the propaganda published in British newspapers like the ‘Sun’; the Sun being a newspaper whose target audience are the less well educated working classes, and a newspaper that pays little attention to fact-checking.
As far as I can see, rather than staying factual, you tend to twist the facts to suit your political agenda, by using language that paints a picture that is anything anti-left.
In contrast, I might not like the Conservative party, but I don’t always slag them off; I give them credit when credit is due.
That seems to be a major difference between American politics and European politics. In American politics everything has to be so ‘black and white’, there is very little common ground between left and right; whereas in British politics, all political parties do generally work together in Parliament, and do often find common ground, because things are not always so black and white, but there is often many shades of grey.No, I am certain not all Brits are socialists and gullible. There are conservatives in your country too. Are you forgetting why this subject even came up? Look back in this thread and read your comment disparaging the education of the Amercians.
No, we got onto politics because I mentioned in passing that if Labour wins the next General Election then we might slowly see more school field trips, as the current Conservative cuts in spending on Education is reversed.
And at that point you got onto your anti-socialist high horse.No, that is why I mentioned that the socialists support chemically castrating little gay boys, which they do.
The gullibility issue came up when you made those remarks to Mie about how uneducated the Americans on this forum were. I have seen that the liberals involved in politics are very good at forgetting their previous comments (Justin Trudeau, Gavin Newsome, etc) so am not sure if that is the case here.Where you claim “socialists support chemically castrating little gay boys” (emotive language); where does the law covering this point in Britain differ under Conservative Government and Socialist Government? LGBT+ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender etc., it’s the LGBT+ who supports the current laws in Britain; you don’t have to be a socialist to be LGBT, you can also be Conservative. Although in Christian countries like America the right-wing make it very political.
So as I said before, it’s just you being very anti-socialist, and anti-LGBT.
As regards the “gullibility issue”, ok, our conversation may have weaved from one subject matter to another; but so what, does it really matter – We are where we are.
I’ve never said “how uneducated the Americans on this forum were.” my reference was to ‘some’, not ‘all’. And if you’d been following all my recent posts, I made a similar claim about ‘some’ British people’.
1. Europeans are not gullible, and do not automatically accept what governments say without question.
2. There was no lies by the Conservative government during the mad cow outbreak; just incompetence (as explained below).
3. The statement by the UK Conservative government that “Eating beef from cows with mad cow disease is safe” was true to a point, in that the potentially dangerous bits had been cut out, but they failed to mention that some beef might have been infected before this precaution was introduced, therefore failed to give a balanced picture of the risks – indefensible, but not as black and white as the picture you are trying to paint.
4. People did not continue to eat meat; sales in beef in the UK dropped by 25%.
There were shortcomings by the Conservative Government in the 1980s in what was done and unacceptable delays in the bureaucratic process and poor communication between different Government Departments.
The Conservative government confessed that it had been “preoccupied with preventing an alarmist over-reaction to BSE because it believed the risk was remote.”
Over 80 people in the UK died from mad cow disease, and the Government paid farmers $100s of millions in compensation for the slaughter of over 170,000 cattle.
There was initially a Conservative Government six-month embargo on publishing information about BSE (mad cow disease); but after that the information was made public, albeit the Conservative government failed to give the public a balanced picture about risk e.g. the public was repeatedly reassured that it was safe to eat beef without always being told that this was because the potentially dangerous bits had been cut out; but what the public was not told was that some beef might have been infected before this precaution was introduced.
The findings of the BSE (mad cow disease) Inquiry:-
• BSE has caused a harrowing fatal disease for humans. The link between BSE and vCJD is well established, although the mode of transmission remains unclear.
• The BSE epidemic developed because of the recycling of animal protein in ruminant feed.
• The measures introduced by the government to address the hazard were sensible but were often ill timed or inadequate.
• Risk communication was poor.
• The government's scientific advisory committees reached decisions too slowly and unsatisfactorily.
• Bureaucratic processes resulted in unacceptable delays in putting policy into practice.
• The government did not lie to the public, but its policy of reassurance was a mistake.
The Salmonella scare in Britain in 1988 was a completely opposite scenario:
In 1988 the UK Conservative Government publicly announced on the News on TV that “most of the egg production in the UK was affected by Salmonella.”
The short term ramifications of the announcement caused egg sales to plummet, putting many British egg producers out of business within months.
The long term ramification is that what remained of the egg industry ‘self-regulated’ to such a stringent level that after 15 years hard work, British eggs became amongst the safest eggs in the world to eat.
Today, all eggs produced in Britain have a lion symbol stamped on them, and that lion symbol guarantees with an almost 100% certainty that the egg is free from Salmonella – A tribute to the stringent measures the British egg producers take these days to ensure their eggs are absolutely safe to eat.
Edwina Currie (then Conservative Health Minister) talks about the Salmonella crisis: https://youtu.be/0sLNz7aqK4gNo, I do realize that not all Europeans are socialists and not all are gullible. I was making that statement as your reply characterizing people from the US as lacking.
Education. Yes.
Pseudoscience? No.
But I understand that you have not been exposed to the real science. I offered up a book many pages ago, from a real scientist who is also a paleontologist.
I was later offered up men who had degrees in communication and various other professions, (from your European friend) to include those who had blogs on Twitter, as experts in “climate change.”
The hell.I completely agree that pseudo-science should not be taught in schools.
Education should be based on facts not on belief systems.
But as there is an incredibly high consensus of 98% in the science community that climate change is real and man-made. It can be considered a fact.
And thus should be taught in schools.
Just as that you have to teach children that 6 million Jews were murdered in the concentration camps during WWII for example.
Facts are not always lovely and comfortable. Humans do terrible things to each other and to their environment.Peterstreep, I understand what you said, and I like it. Thank you.
The 98% “consensus” is a made up number, Peter. It is a convenient lie that has been repeated so often, that most people take it for truth.
I think it was Goebbels who said "If you repeat a lie often enough the people will believe it"
Yes, and I seem to remember that Goebbels was a member of an extreme right-wing party using these tactics to the max.
I seem to remember that he was from a socialist party. (In fact, in case to care to look into the issue, it was actually CALLED the socialist party.)
Just because the Nazi’s called themselves National Socialist doesn’t make them socialists; the Nazi’s were in fact a far-right political party.
No: Look up fascism in the Oxford English Dictionary, and you will find that it's far right-wing, not socialists.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display … 3095811414They were socialists. If the oxford dictionary told you in the 1990s that it was safe to eat a cow that was infected with mad cow disease would it be true?
By who's definition are the Nazi's socialists?
No need to look it up, here it is. What is it with you right wing types? Is the Oxford English Dictionary now considered Woke?
What Authoritative source can you provide that can counter this definition?
------
fascism n.
1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.2 (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. The term fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of ...fascist n. fascistic adj.from Italian fascismo, from fascio 'bundle, political group,' from Latin fascis 'bundle.' ...Who in the hell is AZ quotes? As I said before, socialism is an economic system not a political one.
This website answers that question:
https://richardlangworth.com/az-quotes- … ills-wordsWhen I think about just how dumb it is when I ask my adversaries for a credible contradiction to an apolitical definition for "fascism" by the renown Oxford English Dictionary, THIS is the sort of nonsense that I receive in return?
Arthur, as you can see, we have got a lot of trouble hereYep, I know - in Britain they would be called 'Sun' Readers; Sun being a popular British newspaper who doesn't pay much attention to fact-checking, likes to put a Conservative political spin on their lead story's (especially during Election times), and who's target is the less well educated working class - as such, the Sun is renowned for not using long complicated words.
This is what school children in Britain is being taught about the Sun Newspaper, in their GCSE Media Studies, for their end of school exams, for qualifications used for getting employment: https://youtu.be/WZlgpao8QLs
Perhaps if American school children were given similar analytical learning about their media, our debates on these forums would be a lot more agreeable?
And this is what British school children are being taught about ‘The Guardian’; a left-wing British newspaper who targets the better educated, middle class – and unlike the Sun, does not used emotive language in their articles, and do take pride in fact-checking: https://youtu.be/wexx1Fi7aqUFunny, I used to refer to the anti-intellectual types as "Enquiring minds want to know" in reference to the tabloid "National Enquirer" which was the equivalent of what we today call "clickbait".
I remember "The Sun" and the provocative photos of Fergie when she was being naughty..
Anti-intellectualism is a feature of a rightwing oriented fascist mindset, and is quite prevalent within this very forum.
This is the kind of indoctrination that our young school kinds are receiving from the faux-university, PragerU, with about the same accreditation as "Trump University".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0tlAJ5yR6jE&noapp=1
The problem with ‘AZ Quotes’ is that they don’t source reference their quotes, making it impossible to know how authentic a quote is.
Further research about ‘AZ Quotes’ suggest that not all quotes from that website is genuine, according other sources “There are many misattributed and outright fake quotes there.”
And one source in particular, a writer and historian who studies, research, and writes about Winston Churchill, commenting about ‘AZ Quotes’, wrote:-
“Dozens of readers have sent email attachments from a website called AZ Quotes. They ask: “Are these accurate?” The answer: Not a lot. AZ Quotes is a serious purveyor of “Churchillian Drift.” I don’t think there is a larger batch of fake Churchillisms anywhere.”
https://richardlangworth.com/az-quotes- … ills-words
I was referring to the word NAZi, which is the national socialist party. You both choose to ignrore that they were socialists.
I think your slurs about mad cow disease in Britain, which you also previously raised in another recent post, is based on a lot of 'misinformation, and possibly 'fake' information - I was living in Britain at the the time, and it was nothing like the false picture which you paint.
I pointed out all of the misinformation the UK government distributed to the people at the time. Anyone else would recognize that and all of that information is freely available. If you did not learn a lesson about your government then it is unlikely you are going to learn now.
False. In one of Goebbels quotes, he said, “As Socialists, we are the enemy of the Jews…) paraphrase.
Today’s Marxists, who are also Progressives, have made equally reprehensible comments about Jews. We have at least four members in Congress. All women. All Democrats, at least one of which is a card carrying Socialist. They despise Israel.
So, you have your parties mixed up.
As an aside, the Klu Klux Klan was formed by Democrats. Republicans have nothing to do with them.This is a good non-biased video that explains what fascism means.
FASCISM: An In-Depth Explanation
Fascism is extreme right-wing
Stalinism is extreme left-wing.
Both are complete dictatorships.
I remember the school field trips, and in Britain it was exactly as you describe.
It’s not part of the National Curriculum (although there have been calls for it to be); consequently, only between 41.9% and 57.3% of school children go on annual (or biannual) school trips, which includes field trips – and currently that percentage is on a decline as schools cut back on spending to keep within budget. But maybe with a socialist government, if Labour wins the General Election next year, we might start to slowly see a reverse in that decline?"But maybe with a socialist government, if Labour wins the General Election next year, we might start to slowly see a reverse in that decline?"
Yes, maybe the UK can elect a socialist government so that they can castrate more little boys and remove the breasts of more girls! That would be real advancement.Leftists governments around the world have promoted their Orwellian "gender affirming care" for children, which is the way they are now justifying castrating gay boys and sterilizing girls. You may not like it, but it has been worse in the UK than in many other countries, although that may be changing now as so many of those kids that have been sterilized are now filing lawsuits against the hospitals that have mutilated them.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/arti … eveal.htmlI'm not quite sure if I can follow you. But you say that the left wants to castrate gay boys to make them more "normal"?
Since when has the left a problem with gays?I am sure you have been following all of the transgender activities in Europe and the US. What happens now is a boy says he feels odd and is attracted to boys and the psychologist says "well, you must be confused about your gender identity." They are now a girl. Boys are having their sex organs removed so that they can assume a tg indentity when previously they would just be gay.
This is an article about the so-called "puberty blockers" used on children. They are also the same drugs used for chemical castration in sex offenders. https://www.binary.org.au/chemically_ca … hild_abuse
Binary Australia, previously known as ‘Marriage Alliance’ is an anti-LGBTQ+ publication who campaigned vigorously against ‘same sex marriage’. And if you analyse the article they published (your link) it’s no more than a cleaver piece of propaganda, twisting the facts, and using language to paint a false picture.
Just because they may use similar drugs to reduce aggression in male prisoners (if that is true), doesn’t mean that it’s chemical castration (which it’s not); as mentioned in my previous post, I know someone (an adult, not a child) who went through that process, as part of trans-gendering so that he could have his operation to become female – and it’s nothing like the article makes out.
Let alone, we do have a strong LGBT presence in Bristol, so I do know plenty of gays, some close friends of ours, and I have met transgenders, and it’s nothing like such right-wing (pro Christian) anti-LGBT publications make out.It is not "similar drugs to reduce aggression" it is the same thing. Despite your twisting the words, you can easily find out the names of the drugs on other sources and look into the drugs used for sexual castration of prisoners. It is available from other sources but of course no matter which one I point out you are going to say it is full of lies so I am not even going to do the research for you.
If you really do know any gay people, ask them if they want to be associated with those transgenders that want to castrate their children.I’m not the one twisting the words; it’s nothing more than just one typo, and nothing compared to the lies published in the Daily Mail and the propaganda in the Australian Binary publication, who use a lot of links to Healthline (an American publication who are a bit sloppy in fact checking).
And in spite of the propaganda, although such medication can bring about similar effects to physical castration, it’s not the same, and it does have the advantages that it does not mutilate the individual, and its effects are reversible. And besides, in the UK such drugs are not prescribed until after puberty, and then only after strenuous counselling and consultation – not a decision that is take likely. And it has nothing to do with socialism (in the way that you are trying to make out), that’s just an anti-socialist slur that you are adding; in the UK such laws have been the same under both Conservative and Socialist Governments.
What “transgenders that want to castrate their children” – that sounds like just more anti-LGBT and anti-socialist slurs/propaganda again.
Oh yeah, I know plenty of gays, not least our close family friend (now living in Portsmouth) who we see several times a year; plus several work colleagues who are gay.
But also, my son is a professional photographer (Proper Job Productions), and as such gets paid to do a lot of work for Bristol Pride and Bristol nightclubs, including gay pubs, such as the Queen Shilling, as the following demonstrates:
1. Bristol Pride Dog Show 2022 – scrawl to the bottom of the page and you will see ‘Proper Job Productions’ credited for the ‘header photo’. https://bristolpride.co.uk/events/pride-dog-show-2022/
2. My son’s Flickr album on Bristol Pride 2017 https://www.flickr.com/photos/properjob … 271324386/
3. My son’s Linked-in page: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/nathan-russ-700b424b
4. A promo that my son was commissioned to make for the Queen Shilling (gay nightclub in Bristol): https://youtu.be/39Igjdu8dPI
Yeah right; the Daily Mail takes pride in fake news, which is why it’s been banned as a source in Wikipedia articles – So you can’t trust what you read in the Daily Mail.
Nevertheless, I did read the Daily Mail article, and although there is enough correct information to make the article sound plausible, there is also an awful lot of false information e.g. there was only 853 transmen, and 12 trans women operations in the UK between 2000 and 2020, not the one operation a day as the Daily Mail falsely claims.
Also, there was no mention of lawsuits in the Daily Mail, so where did you drag that up from?
But, let’s get down to the facts:
1. In the UK, in 1985 the Supreme Court (judicial decision) ruling established the ‘Gillick competence’. The Gillick competence is where any child of any age, if they can demonstrate competence in understanding the issues, can see their NHS doctor without their parents knowledge or consent e.g. commonly used for 13 year old to get contraceptive pills for free from their NSH doctor without their parents knowledge or consent.
2. However, to be clear: the NHS will not give anyone under the age of 18 transgender surgery; and the NHS will not give anyone under the age of 16 gender-affirming hormones.
3. Also, contrary to the lies in the Daily Mail, if a child who may have gender dysphoria goes to their doctor, before a diagnosis is confirmed, they will be assessed by a multidisciplinary team consisting of the following:-
• clinical psychologist
• child psychotherapist
• child and adolescent psychiatrist
• family therapist
• social worker
Depending on the results of the assessment, options for children and teenagers include:
• family therapy
• individual child psychotherapy
• parental support or counselling
• group work for young people and their parents
• regular reviews to monitor gender identity development
• referral to a local Children and Young People's Mental Health Service (CYPMHS) for more serious emotional issues
• a referral to a specialist hormone (endocrine) clinic for hormone blockers for children who meet strict criteria (at puberty)
• Most treatments offered at this stage are psychological rather than medical.
From the age of 16, teenagers who've been on hormone blockers for at least 12 months may be given cross-sex hormones, also known as gender-affirming hormones.
So where the Daily Mail says “These young men are far more likely to simply be gay, but at NHS adult clinics they will be waved through without any proper assessment or exploration.” - It is just lies. One point the Daily Mail did correctly report on is “According to health service rules, people must have socially transitioned, meaning living as their new gender identity, for at least a year before becoming eligible for taxpayer-funded surgery.”
FYI, for Adult to get the gender surgery on the NHS:
Like children, adults have to see a multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals, who offer ongoing assessments, treatments, support and advice, including:
• psychological support, such as counselling
• cross-sex hormone therapy
• speech and language therapy (voice therapy) to help you sound more typical of your gender identity
Plus, as already stated an adult has to socially transitioned to your preferred gender identity for at least a year before a referral is made for gender surgery,
And also, two have the surgery; you will require two recommendations for surgery to be undertaken by two responsible clinicians from a specialist Gender Identity Clinic.
Besides, why are you making out its all children, when in fact it’s not legal to do any gender operations on anyone under the age of 18, especially even when the Daily Mail didn’t make that claim. According to the Daily Mail (not that you can trust what they say) the average of men having the transgender operation in the UK is aged 44 – not exactly a child.
Someone I know has gone through the procedure, and the process was a lot slower than he/she would have liked, it took years to go through the counselling and assessment procedure, where the NHS was being over cautious. He was an x-partner of close friend of ours, originally from the Netherlands.
He eventually got his operation on the NHS, and since then couldn’t be any happier.Why is it that when you point out the truth to socialists they alway claim them to be lies? The truth is that socialists around the world are using puberty blockers, which are the same thing that sex offenders use for chemical castration, on little boys.
They are sterilization drugs. You obviously do not want to believe it is true but it is.If you pointed out the truth, and backed it up from reliable sources, then I would take notice; but firstly, all you are presenting is propaganda from anti-LGBT+, and secondly, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source.
Now if you presented an article from British right-wing (conservative) newspapers like the Telegraph (nick named the Tory-graph by socialists) and the Financial Times, then I would take their article seriously – two British newspapers that pride themselves in ‘fact-checking’, so much so that in the 1980s, when Boris Johnson was a journalist (before becoming a politician) the Financial Times sacked him for writing a ‘fake story’, which tarnished the reputation of the Times for being factually correct.
Whenever I read an article, I always do background checks to establish the reliability of the publisher; regardless to their politics.
The truth isn’t “that socialists around the world are using puberty blockers,…”, that’s just propaganda. As I went to great lengths to point out in my previous post, the laws in support of LGBT in the UK are not exclusively left-wing (socialist laws):-
• The Gillick competence is judicial law passed in Britain in 1985, when the Conservatives were in power – and at the time the Conservative Government made no attempt to change the law.
• So same laws exist today, but for the past 13 years the Conservatives have been in power there’s been no attempt, or desire, by the Conservative Government to change the LGBT laws, including the policy for children (after strict screening, and extensive consultation) to be allowed to have puberty blockers, after puberty.
• Same sex marriage was legalised in Britain (not Northern Ireland) in 2014 by the UK Conservative Government.
• The UK Conservative Government forced through the legalisation of same sex marriage in Northern Ireland in 2020, against the wished of the Northern Ireland’s (ultra-right wing government).
And in spite of the propaganda that you are spreading, yes, medication can bring about similar effects to physical castration, with the advantages that it does not mutilate the individual, and its effects are reversible. And I can assure you that it is not identical to physical castration in that I have known transgenders on the drug who have still been sexually active – so don’t believe everything you read in the media.It does not matter what source I found for you. You have already decided that since so many leading socialists support chemically castrating little gay boys that it is a good thing for society.
I definitely was NOT talking about same sex marriage, and your attempt to obfuscate the thread does not change the fact that socialists are supporting the use of these drugs.No, none of your links claim that "leading socialists support chemically castrating children", that is anti-socialist and anti LGBT- propaganda that you are adding yourself.
Would you believe it if I put up a video of Biden or his talking heads supporting "gender affirming care" which is the Orwellian newspeak phrase they use for chemical castrations?
Probably not, as you have decided that this is okay anyway.That’s your anti-socialist, anti-LGBT view:
Gender-affirming care helps people to change their physical appearance and/or sex characteristics to accord with their gender identity; it includes hormone replacement therapy and gender-affirming surgery – that is ‘personal liberty’ and ‘freedom of choice’, something which right-wing, Christian, Americans so often harp on being so sacrosanct. Yet, when it comes to ‘personal liberty’ and ‘freedom of choice’ for anything to do with LGBT, or abortion rights, the right-wing, Christian, Americans is very quick to want to deny and stifle that choice.
What harm is there in allow individuals the personal choice (personal freedom, and personal liberty) to choose to live their lives the way they want to live it; even if it means they seek gender reassignment – in a free society that should be their personal choice:
Or is it only a free society in your eyes if people conform to the constraints of dogmatic right-wing Christian values?There is nothing wrong with allowing ADULTS to change or become trans if they want to. What you are trying to suggest is that we elect more socialists that will allow chemical castration of children. You may think that is okay, but you are the one being anti-gay here, not me.
Why do socialists want to destroy children? Do you think that telling a child they cannot vote but can take a medication that will make them sterile is a form of freedom?What crap it that; as I said previously - you are making false anti-socialist and anti-LGBT propaganda – I’ve stated what the laws are in Britain; the same laws that have existed under both Conservative and Labour Governments in Britain:
So where is your evidence that Labour would do any different in Britain than the Conservatives?
Again, your second paragraph is nothing more than propaganda lies.
Who says socialists tell children they cannot vote; it’s the other way round, it’s the Conservatives who tell children they cannot vote:-
FYI in Scotland (under a Scottish socialist government), and in Wales (under a Welsh socialist government), the voting age has been lowered to 16; the same age that children (who after strict counselling and consultation) can be given hormone blockers (a treatment which is reversible).
https://youtu.be/c2lyvkkN7boThe "crap", as you so eloquently put it, is from your side. You leftists are claiming that COVID vaccines are fine and children that are created in one sex can become another. That is willful ignorance, which all of you seem to support.
Where is your evidence that labor is going to give more field trips to children in the UK than a conservative government? I guess you feel it is okay to post lies when it supports your narrative but if someone posts the truth it offends you.Yeah, there are people who feel that they were born in the wrong body e.g. born male but physiologically feel that they are female; I’ve met and gotten to know plenty of people like that:
Why shouldn’t someone who’s born male have the freedom of choice to live as a female, if that is what they truly want?
Why stifle someone’s personal liberties and rights to live as they wish, if they wish to change their gender identity?
We do live in a free society, and as such, people should have the freedom to make such choices about their gender.
Now who said “Labour is going to give more field trips to children in the UK than a conservative government?” I didn’t say that, I said (in reference to school field trips):-
“…..currently that percentage is on a decline as schools cut back on spending to keep within budget. But maybe with a socialist government, if Labour wins the General Election next year, we might start to slowly see a reverse in that decline?”
The emphasis on the words “maybe”, and “might” -
For any evidence of what Labour intends to do if they win the next General Election, we have to wait for their Elections Manifesto, which (in accordance with the British Constitution) will not be published until just 6 weeks before the next General Election; although we might get an idea of what their policies on Education is going to be at their Annual Conference Sunday 8th to Wednesday 11th October, in Liverpool.
However, for an idea of Labour’s stance on Education vs the Conservative Government; this Labour Budget Report on Education from 2020 should give some insight: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/upload … cation.pdf
Although realistically, which is why I used the words “maybe”, and “might” in my original post: A Labour government would most likely follow the Conservatives tax and public spending policies until growth returns to the ailing economy; and although they might promise 'bold' policies Labour will almost certainly insist on sticking with 'responsible economics'.
Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, lesbian, gave birth in 2018: The first out lesbian to lead the Conservative Party in Scotland, announced that she and partner Jen Wilson have welcomed a baby boy on Friday 26th October 2018.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2018/10/26/ … -baby-boy/
So you see - it’s not just socialists in the UK who support LGBT, its Conservatives as well.
Below image of Scottish Conservative Leader and her lesbian partner, with their new baby.
A lesbian is not the same thing as someone supporting chemical castration of children. Why are you trying to put everyone who has a sexual idenitity into a group that wants to mutilate children?
Doc
The human psyche is incredibly susceptible to influence. Some in our society are very susceptible to being influenced by media, and even what one can refer to as "trendy issues". In my view, over the past few years, Gender issues have been put front and center by some politicians as well as the media.
Children, in particular, are highly vulnerable as they naturally place immense trust in their parents, who have been their primary guides since infancy, regardless of whether these parental figures are positive or negative influences. As a nurse, I've often observed instances of child abuse, and it's striking how even severely mistreated children can experience intense distress when separated from their abusers.
In my view, children at this point need to be well protected. Perhaps we need clear written laws on gender reassignment, age-appropriate, and punishment for any medical help if breaking these proposed laws. We just have too many parents who don't have true common sense. If it's a popular trend some will just lean into it...
SharParents are being told by “gender affirming medical practitioners” this:
“would you rather have a dead child or a transgendered child.” Thus, they put the parents of young children between a rock and a hard place.
This is a lie, of course, meant to scare the parent into acquiescence. Sorry to say, transgender surgery and medication is big business.transgender surgery and medication is big business
What are the numbers? How many under 18 are receiving these surgeries?
Parents are being told by “gender affirming medical practitioners” this:
“would you rather have a dead child or a transgendered child.”
According to what source?
Is your assumption that all doctors who practice in gender affirming care are sinister? Or they are just out for money?Good point. Maybe they are only castrating a few hundred gay boys a year, which some leftists think is okay. But why are the numbers being hidden?
I don't think there's a word strong enough to encompass the disdain I feel for SO-CALLED medical professionals, teachers, parents {or anyone who supports this} who will make a way and then allow for this to happen to a child!!
It is as evil as evil gets!!!I agree, odd how all of this came about in the past couple of years. It appears most suicides are committed during the course of transition
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317390/
Being a Christian, I try to stay away from the subject. My religion causes a bias.
And you think that LGBT people don’t support the rights for individuals with gender dysphoria to seek medical help?
You want to force people, against their will, with gender dysphoria to live a life they don’t want to live?
Do you know what it’s like for a “female to be trapped inside a male’s body”?In what world do you think that most gays accept that it is okay to chemically castrate children? it is typical when discussing this with a leftist that they will use disinformation and false speech to claim that castration is "gender conifrmation".
As I stated previously, if an adult woman wants to claim she is a man that is her problem. If an adult woman wants to force her minor child to have surgery where the testicles are removed and the penis is cut off that is wrong. (See the link I posted earlier to the Jazz Jennings child abuse scandal video.) Do you know what it is like to have your sex organs removed?Who says adult women want to force their children to have gender altering surgery; to start with it’s illegal, and secondly it’s what the children want, not their parents.
In the UK, you can apply for gender reassignment surgery only if you are over 18, and only then if you have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria by the NHS – so at least get your facts right.
I somehow missed your video, but on looking on the web it seems that Derick Dillard is publishing ‘fake news’ about Jazz Jennings, claiming that she regrets having the surgery; but if you see her own video, she doesn’t regret it: Jazz Jennings & Gabe Paboga Talk Being Transgender https://youtu.be/2I_2cdUy2RAAs I mentioned, you can watch the video of Jazz Jennings being taken to surgery for his castration and implantation of an artificial vagina if you do not think it is happening. (Includes the part of her mother telling her if she does not use her sex toy to expand her vagina she is going to do it for her.) That person was still a minor, not an adult. In what world do you think it is okay for a child to decide they want surgery to change their body? In most societies children are not even allowed to get tatoos at that age. Do you think cutting off the penis is less invasive than a tatoo?
As far as your comment about "get your facts straight" you might want to look into the drugs used as "puberty blockers" which are actually the same drugs used in chemical castration of sex offenders and cause permanent damage. (The socialist websites tell us that they are totally reversible.) They are available from your NHS, so before making that comment you might want to get your facts straight.You need to check your facts, Jazz Jennings was not a child when she had her gender reassignment surgery; she was 18 (an adult). I guess you didn’t even bother looking at her video, to see her own perspective?
Also, you clearly stated “If an adult woman wants to force her minor child to have surgery”; I was just pointing out that in the UK it is illegal to carry out such surgery on anyone under the age of 18.
Yeah, puberty blockers are available on the NHS, after puberty, and only after stringent counselling and consultation; and yes they are totally reversible; it’s the drugs given in the latter phase, in preparation for gender reassignment surgery that isn’t reversible.No, they are not totally reversible, despite what you have read on socialist disinformation sites.
"Jazz Jennings first underwent her gender confirmation surgery in June 2018, when she was 17"
You need to check your facts with a reliable source.
https://people.com/tv/jazz-jennings-sho … n-surgery/I beg your pudding; 17 years, 8 months and 15 days – just 3 ½ months short of her 18th birthday.
Yep, that would be illegal in the UK; so what does that say about America.It should have been illegal in the US too. What does that say about America?
Depends which country you live in - it may be legal in the USA to have such operations under the age of 18, but it's not legal everywhere e.g. its illegal in the UK.
Rubbish. Is this an atheist thing, to demean anyone who thinks differently than you do?
You have no knowledge of gender dysphoria. Please educate yourself.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransit … g-genders/What do you know, other than what you read in social media; at least I have close contact with the LGBT movement in Bristol, and have close friends, and know people personally, who are gay or lesbian, including transgender and transsexual - and all are happy e.g. the daughter of a close friend of ours is married to a transsexual (born female, but now male), and they are a lovely couple.
So I think personal contact, and personal experience carries a lot more weight than misleading articles on the web that distorts the facts by only gives one side of story.You assume wrongly, as usual, that I do not know any gay people. I do, and they hate that children are being castrated. I do not rely on social media for my most of my information. That is another false statement on your part. You, on the other hand, are the link king.
You seem to equate gays with transgender. They are not the same. Again, I urge you to become educated on this subject. Making a broad statement that all transgender people are as happy as can be is a blanket statement. It is a very difficult thing to go through surgery after surgery and take harsh medication’s for the rest of one’s life.He does not appear to accept that their is a distinction, and even posted a photo of a lesbian when the discussion was about transgender.
Mark, don't you think it's a bit strange to accuse millions of progressive people, who are marching on the streets to support gay rights, of giving the same gays a chemical treatment?
I was discussing the leftist so-called "progressive" governments that are supporting chemical castration. Dont you understand the differene between someone who wants gay rights and those who want to chemically castrate children?
Could you please give me an example of a specific left-wing party from a specific country that is promoting to chemically castrate a specific child?
It seems that you fail to know that there is a distinction between gays, who accept their gender and transgenders, who do not.
The point is that children, who may think they are transgender, usually grow out of that feeling around 18 or 19 years of age. About 90% of them realize they are gay, not that they were born in the wrong body.
This is why it is a travesty that children as young as 13 are allowed puberty blockers.
Unlike what you have been told, many girls are rendered sterile and they have a permanently deep voice after taking puberty blockers. Not to mention, if a girl has her breasts cut off, she is usually scarred for life.
It’s a very serious matter, Peter. This is why the lawsuits from detransitioners are becoming more common.
Here is one detransitioners story:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rC7EtIeWrPsWhich country are we talking about?
And how many children were affected?https://youtu.be/LKhmGb18zDg?si=f8cOEmlHM252cQ6e
This just gives one example, but there are no numbers as they are not being released by the medical professionals that are making their livings experimenting on these kids.
I'm wondering too, especially, for Nigeria, and all countries. Government come and go. And the in-coming Government could have a different agenda. Take my Rivers State, in Nigeria, for example. It was nick-named the 'Garden City', because some environmetalist copy the Englishman, in planting fruit trees in every corner of the State, in Church yards, and School compounds, and every children play grounds. Now all these are cut down by the the political beasts. And in addition vegetation, and mangroove swarmps take the place of housing and road construction without replacing that which is up-rooted.
Correct, “….technology will not save us”; but “Making more energy-efficient machinery, creating more efficient and cleaner sources of energy” is one of a number of measures to attempt help ‘mitigate’ against the worst of Climate Change e.g. to make it less severe, less serious and less painful that it will be if we do ‘nothing’.
Yep, absolutely, “The three main religions Christianity, Islam and Judaism see mankind as the custodians of the earth. In other words, owners can do with the earth, animals and plants whatever they want.” Having said that, it doesn’t have to be that way: In England the Government (Historic England) are responsible for protecting designated Grade I & Grade II Listed Buildings; and their view, and the view of anyone who buys a Listed II building e.g. an old mansion, or castle, is that although the owner owns the property, they can’t do what they want with that building; the view is that the owners are only custodians of the property, looking after it for the benefit of future generations.
And that’s the attitude mankind should adopt e.g. that we should be custodians of the Earth, and look after it for the benefit of future generations – an attitude which unfortunately mankind doesn’t have: The attitude of mankind at present is to ‘rape and pillage’ the Earth; all too often for greed.
Yep, absolutely, in an ideal world “The products we make should be made with this idea in mind. The way the products are made too. The way we use food and grow food should be based on this idea.”
Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world; and that isn’t going to change: However, we can make efforts towards a more eco-friendly production and distribution of food and goods – and I do see such efforts being made in Britain from individual level, through business and organisations, right up to government level – and I’m sure there are similar efforts being made in other countries around the world.
I know that you are sceptical, but in Britain:-
At the individual level, recycling and growing your own food is a big thing in Britain, it has been since WW2. 35% of individuals in the UK grow their own herbs, fruit or vegetables in their garden; and in recent years 87% of Brits are spending more money at Garden Centres to bring more wildlife to their own gardens. In fact, since 2017 there’s been a 267% growth in business in the garden centres in Britain, as popularity for gardening has bloomed.
It’s a similar story with DIY centres, with a growth in popularity in DIY, and with an increase interest in individuals recycling, repurposing and upcycling materials that would otherwise end up in the dump – a 9.5% growth in the DIY industry in Britain, since 2018.
• Many organisations and businesses take pride in sourcing locally, especially food; not only does the Bristol hospital, where I spent three weeks recovering a couple of years ago, source over 90% of the food for their catering from local farmers, but they also grow their own herbs on their roof garden.
And when on British holidays, many of the local cafes in the tourist destinations where we visit take pride in resourcing their food locally.
• At the Government level, the responsibility of waste management is at local government level in Britain; but many local governments do take recycling seriously and some, like Bristol, have a “Zero Waste to Landfill” policy.
So although nothing is perfect; at least effort is being made – and yeah sure, there is always room for improvement; and with the ground swell in popularity of the Green Party in Britain, in Britain, you are likely to see that effort being stepped up even further in the coming years.
Bristol Green Party: https://youtu.be/Bz1ymUmkw7c
I would ignore savvydating for the meantime. I'm fed up with her science.
I can certainly understand her frustration when dealing with some of those climate change nuts. When we are told "But maybe with a socialist government, if Labour wins the General Election next year, we might start to slowly see a reverse in that decline?" it is no better than Hillary Clinton coming on Twitter and blaming Trump for the hot weather.
I think she ignored something. 'Science'. Trump don't like science, and don't know it.
If you look into science, there are several cases of people that do not support the mainstream theory and them being correct. It was previously thought that the earth revolved around the sun, and if you said that was not the case you were guilty of heresy.
Even if it is true that the majority of scientists think humans are causing climate change (which I do not think is true), that does not mean that it is not a good idea to listen to others that have dissenting voices. I guess if you are a Google and want to ram your views down others throats you can demonetize them for saying anything against your narrative, but that does not make those views incorrect.
We have seen the same thing with the hysteria around COVID. Your country was one of the few was able to handle the hysteria and avoid having the president mandate vaccines. It is pretty terrible here in Brazil at the moment because they are vaccinating babies as young as 6 months of age even though they know all of the potential side effects of that vaccine to children that age.
Your last sentence makes no sense. Do you think that Biden and the Dems have more science advisors than Trump had? It is not up to the politicians to know science, it is just up to them to listen and judge how it is going to effect society.Doc, your last paragraphe and sentence is awful. That's how the community is being destroyed.
As young as 6 months? My God!
Come to think about it, the U.S. is no different. I know someone who bemoaned that the fact that his 2-year old grandson couldn’t get the jab during Covid. His grandson probably can now. This is incredibly sad.
They know Doc! Biden hasn't been shy about it in the past.
Although, as with abortion, those on the left, are getting more wishy-washy, when asked to elaborate (that tends to happen when you are empty at your core)
As they watch and get an understanding of just how unpopular their stance on ALL things, is!!
To bring this full circle...I believe it is just a matter of time, before their so-called "climate crisis" false god, begins its descent and demise.AB, I assume you are a Protestant, (correct me if I am mistaken) but here are words from a devout Catholic, Mother Teresa, about a subject that is near and dear to your heart. She spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994. Ironically, Clinton was the president and Gore was the Vice president. This did not deter this strong woman of God from speaking her mind.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AhM0zqesPFA
Just to add to the dialogue . . . Here is an article by AP titled: How common is transgender treatment regret, detransitioning? (Mar 5, 2023) It states:
"HOW OFTEN DO TRANSGENDER PEOPLE REGRET TRANSITIONING?
In updated treatment guidelines issued last year, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health said evidence of later regret is scant, but that patients should be told about the possibility during psychological counseling.
Dutch research from several years ago found no evidence of regret in transgender adults who had comprehensive psychological evaluations in childhood before undergoing puberty blockers and hormone treatment.
Some studies suggest that rates of regret have declined over the years as patient selection and treatment methods have improved. In a review of 27 studies involving almost 8,000 teens and adults who had transgender surgeries, mostly in Europe, the U.S and Canada, 1% on average expressed regret. For some, regret was temporary, but a small number went on to have detransitioning or reversal surgeries, the 2021 review said.
How common is transgender treatment regret, detransitioning? by AP (Mar 5, 2023)
https://apnews.com/article/transgender- … 5371c6ba2b
If curious following is the link to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. They have a standard known as standards of care version 8 (SOC8).
https://www.wpath.org/
standards of care version 8
https://www.wpath.org/soc8
Edit: From the American Academy of Pediatrics is a study; Gender Identity 5 Years After Social Transition (July 13, 2022)
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics … redirectedThese drugs are not fully reversible as your first article claimed. They cause immense changes in the body. I believe Dr. Mark may have submitted a study.
This is a qoute from a typical socialist website: "Puberty blockers have few-to-zero long-term side effects and simply allow trans adolescents the chance to pause puberty while exploring their gender." That statement i not true but it is what socialists would have you believe. they want to use these on children even when it is known that they cause permanent damage.
https://socialism.com/fs-article/reacti … rans-kids/Regarding drugs, there are two types and they are used in steps for the youth. First is puberty blockers that are reversible once usage is stopped. These are used to give time to consider all aspects of transitioning with family and counseling.
After a period of counseling and the individual wishes to continue transitioning hormone treatment is the next step. Regarding whether they are reversible it is dependent on where in the therapy they are stopped. So, yes in some cases there is permanency with physical changes.
For me a good read was from the Association of American Medical Colleges
What is gender-affirming care? Your questions answered
https://www.aamc.org/news/what-gender-a … s-answered
Another good article is:
Medical Association Statements in Support of Health Care for Transgender People and Youth (June 21, 2023)
https://glaad.org/medical-association-s … iminatory/
They state: At least 30 leading professional medical associations have issued statements supporting health care for transgender people and youth.
That is followed with each organization's name, which is a hyperlink to their statement.You may want to view some videos of detransitioners. They reveal that their experiences are far different from what your literature claims.
Yes, there are recommendations, but they are not necessarily followed. Far from it.Where were claims being made about what a person detransitioning ‘may’ experience made in both of those articles or any articles I shared? I willingly will admit I may have missed any references made. I must admit I have not, until yesterday, actually looked into the negative consequences of a decision to transition. That said, watching a video of someone's experience will not give cause for me to condemn the medical community/profession.
So, being an ‘old guy’ ignorant fool your reply promoted my curiosity. With time on my hands, I sought to educate/inform myself further on this topic, so I went on an adventure of learning. So, I thank you for that. I don't like watching TV all the time. ;-)
First, I went to youtube to watch some videos. Next is the link to their landing page - trans, transgender, transition and detransition.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P … ETar7B8zQS
Then I went to Google University. Here is the link to the landing page to the search phrase ‘Transgender Detransitioning’ where I began my adventure.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … oning#ip=1
After reading several articles and skimming a few yesterday and last night I will recommend only one that is comprehensive and thorough in my view on the topic of detransitioning. It is the fourth article of a four-part series – Youth in Transition, by Reuters Investigates. I must caution it is very comprehensive and thorough as well as a lengthy read. It is:
Why detransitioners are crucial to the science of gender care
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp … -outcomes/
Next is their opening statement:
“Understanding the reasons some transgender people quit treatment is key to improving it, especially for the rising number of minors seeking to medically transition, experts say. But for many researchers, detransitioning and regret have long been untouchable subjects.”
At the top of the article is where all of the investigative articles of the series are listed as links. The complete series follows
As more transgender children seek medical care, families confront many unknowns
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp … outh-care/
A gender imbalance emerges among trans teens seeking treatment
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp … opsurgery/
England’s trans teens, lost in limbo, face mounting barriers to care
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp … ransyouth/
( As posted above) Why detransitioners are crucial to the science of gender care
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp … -outcomes/
And, the original article for the series not listed is:
Putting numbers on the rise in children seeking gender care
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp … outh-data/Hello tsmog, I scanned your last article (because I am in the middle of getting ready for work). Anyway, it seems to be well written. I was not surprised by the dramatic increase in numbers from 2017 to 2021.
What you may have learned is that teens are often influenced by social media and peer pressure. Consequently, one teen within a group of friends (usually girls) will decide they are trans, and then another and another friend will follow suit.
Later, they find out they’re not trans afterall. Sometimes it is too late to reverse the puberty blockers if they have taken them. Thus, some girls are rendered sterile."Sometimes it is too late to reverse the puberty blockers"
This is incorrect
"GnRH analogues don't cause permanent physical changes. Instead, they pause puberty. That offers a chance to explore gender identity. It also gives youth and their families time to plan for the psychological, medical, developmental, social and legal issues that may lie ahead..
When a person stops taking GnRH analogues, puberty starts again."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con … t-20459075Okay . . . I will research puberty blockers as being that detrimental at a later time. BTW . . . I am currently finishing a regiment of Lupron injections, which is one of the top three puberty blockers.
I am on it for prostate cancer another of its uses. The purpose of it is to halt or slow testosterone feeding the cancerous tumor slowing the cancerous growth. My regimen is an injection every three months for 18 months or 6 altogether. In jest, should I worry about becoming sterile at the age of 69?Ha, I dont think I would lose a lot of sleep over it!
All these are puzzling to me. And engaging in controverses like transgender, is not part of my mindset. Of course, I've noted a fellow in my country Nigeria, who was a populalar singer transisting from male to female, saying that no one can accused him(?) of rape, and then transisted back, via surgery to male again, because of pain and mode.
I originally made the trans comment when Arthur told us that the socialists were going to give kids more field trips, which is just as ludicrous as Hillary blaming the hot weather on Trump.
I had not heard of that Nigerian singer but a lot of people here in Brazil are accused of using that excuse to commit sexual assault; so far they are getting then away with it.
Conservative always try to confuse people with Socialism as being associated with Nazism.
Socialism is an economic system, Scandinavian nations have socialist economies, at least far more socialist than the United States.
Fascism is a political system, that is what makes NAZI, NAZI. Fascism is pure rightwing or do I need to "school you" on that point, too? Sweden's economic system is socialist but its political system is democratic.
Now, boys and girls, have we learned our lessons well?Hey Credence I never agree with you but missed your input these last few days. By the way, socialism is facism. Facism is socialism.
And no, the scandinavian countries have some socialist government policies but they are definitely not socialist. Nor are they democratic socialists. They are capitalist countries, and you can find this out by driving to your nearest IKEA.
Now have you learned your lesson?I dispute that, what is your source? I will check for a more precise definition
Oh, by the way, Doc, thanks for the warm welcome, nice to be missed.
"Fascists shared many of the goals of the conservatives of their day and they often allied themselves with them by drawing recruits from disaffected conservative ranks, but they presented themselves as holding a more modern ideology, with less focus on things like traditional religion, and sought to radically reshape society through revolutionary action rather than preserve the status quo. Fascism opposed class conflict and the egalitarian and international character of socialism. It strongly opposed liberalism, communism, anarchism, and democratic socialism"
Sounds a lot like Trump and MAGA.
Excerpt from infopedia, does not appear that your definition is correct. Where can you convincingly point otherwise?Your ally Arthur has taught us that it does not matter what source I find. Your side will claim that it is a conservative site, just like I know that anything you qoute is going to be a highly biased leftist source.
If you will notice your own qoute, however, it says that facists are attempted to radically reshape society. That is not conservatism and certainly nothing like Trump and MAGA. Attempting to radically reshape society is the definition of what Biden and others like him (Lula here in Brazil) are attempting to do."Your ally Arthur has taught us that it does not matter what source I find. Your side will claim that it is a conservative site, just like I know that anything you qoute is going to be a highly biased leftist source."
-----
So, show me your source and it needs to be good, it can't be one that gives credibility to just one adverse opinion Verses the other 999.
I never said that I would dismiss your source out of hand. Would you consider the Oxford dictionary a leftist source? Really?
Trump and MAGA attempts to usurp Constitutionally Mandated procedure as to how the electoral votes for a Presidential election is tallied is in itself radical and illegal. That is not even conservatism as defined in this society, it goes well beyond. When it smells like, looks like it, you call it what it is: "fascism".Yes, I agree that Biden looks like and smells like facism. Have you already forgotten his anti-Maga speech where he declared that any American that did not agree with him was anti-American?
Credence, your own source that you qouted above agreed that a facist is someone that is radically attempting to reshape society, such as Biden has done with his Orwellian disinformation about puberty blockers. Conservatives do not do this, yet you qoute the exact opposite.
Not all right-wing political parties are Conservatives; the Republican Party in America is Conservative, just as the Conservative party in the UK is Conservatives – but the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party), a far right-wing party in Northern Ireland is not a Conservative Party.
Just as not all left-wing parties are socialists, and not all socialist parties are communists.
The Nazi’s politics were far more right wing than Conservative politics.That would be radical left wing, not right wing. Even Goebbels stated his party were Socialists.
He said “…as Socialists we hate the Jews.” (Paraphrase)
Socialists in Europe are not radical left wing tyrants, though they are promoting radical left wing climate policies.
In the United States, Socialists today are radical left wing. All Democrats. No Republicans.
They’ve even gone so far as to promote legislation to make it illegal for a parent to be informed by school officials and teachers that their child is transitioning." In the United States, however, Socialists today are radical left wing. All Democrats. No Republicans."
Agree, just yesterday a CIA agent stepped up and shared his experience with this administration's weaponization of the CIA in regards to COVID research... This administration is very much showing communist actions in our government. Once again another Federal agency weaponized and offered cash incentives to come to the conclusion higher-ups desired.
This disturbing trend has taken hold in our White House, reshaping our values and perceptions. What was once seen as virtuous is now criticized, while what was previously viewed as undesirable is now being championed. Dangerous in my view.Yes, indeed. Biden is as destructive as Justin Trudeau, who is also a member of the radical left wing, and like Biden he is not very smart.
If like European countries you had more than just two main political parties you would quickly become familiar with the distinctions between different political ideologies, and begin to appreciate that there is a world of difference between democratic socialists in Europe and communism; and you would also appreciate that the Democrats are not that particularly left.
In British terms the Democrats, on the political spectrum, are on a par with the Liberal Democrats – a centralist party.And to make it more complicated. The Democrats in The Netherlands, the VVD (Peoples Party for Freedom and Democracy) is a right-wing party on par with the Conservative party in the UK.
Yep, the European political spectrum is far more diverse, and covers a far wider political spectrum than American politics.
Yep, I know that American understanding of political parties is different to Europe's - But then what do you know, with just two main parties, and neither of them are on the left by European standards.
I know Americans have a lot of confusion over what fascism is, even though if you look it up on reliable sources it makes it quite clear that Nazism is far right wing.
And by European standards the Democrats are far from socialism. By European standards the Democrats is centralist politics - in the middle of left and right.Just because a party say they are 'national socialists' doesn't make them socialist, no more than me calling myself Donald Duck would make me a duke.
Actually you could have added "anymore than calling myself Antifa makes me antifacist"!
Antifa (which is peculiar to the USA) is a left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement; and fascism, and predominately racism are right-wing.
Antifa is a facist movement led by leftists. Just because they claim to be anti-facist does not make them so, anymore than saying you are a duck (or saying that you are a woman for that matter) makes you a duck.
That is a typical American right-wing view; but it doesn't make it so.
So if you say you are a duck you are a duck then. And I suppose if you claim that you are a woman you are a woman, even if born with male anatomy and male DNA?
The first statement is nonsense; as regards regards your second comment:
If I did feel that I was a woman trapped in a man's body (which I don't), and I felt strongly enough about it - then yes I would be seeking gender reassignment surgery: And I do know, as a close social contact (x partner of a close family friend - and thus in our circle of friends) one such person who has been in that situation - and since having the operation she is now far happier and far more content with life than she was as a man.It is nonsense but if you care to look around or at least do an internet search you will find numerous example of leftists that now say they are cats, or wolves, or whatever. i have not yet seen any of them claiming they are a duck, but if someone says "I am a duck but I am trapped in a humans body" I am sure that person would have plenty of leftist support. That support would even include statements like "And I do know, as a close social contact (x partner of a close family friend - and thus in our circle of friends) one such person who has been in that situation - and since having the operation she is now far happier and far more content with life as a duck than she was as a human."
And you expect to win arguments with sarcasm and mocking?
False. The Socialist Party, led by Hitler, despised Capitalism. They were left wing tyrants.
The only reason why you choose revisionist history is because the truth about socialism is too ugly for you to accept. And so, like the far left disciple you are, you point the finger at the other. But, history tells a far different story than anything you choose to believe in your mind.“Nazis were socialists” has become one of the biggest memes within a swath of the Right. And it is woefully, almost hilariously incorrect.
The Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively.
the 1930s and even beyond, nazism, in sharp contrast to socialism, was strongly supported by leading capitalists and right wingers in the US. Henry Ford, the leading industrialist and auto maker, of the time was a great admirer of the nazis.
What types of groups use the term "neo-Nazism"? It is applied to other far-right groups with similar ideas which formed after the Second World War.
Hitler wasn’t a socialist. Nazism wasn’t a socialist project. The majority of historians agree that Nazism sits alongside Italian fascism on the right-wing of the political spectrum. The Nazis, were hyper-nationalists obsessed with military and state power and social control. Their policies had none of hallmarks of socialism. They did not seek economic levelling, the eradication of class or private property or the redistribution of wealth.I’ve supplied the Goebbels quote, who clearly stated that the Nazi’s are Socialists. Oh, how the radical left love their revisionist history.
Radical left? Maybe refrain from making personal attacks or assumptions.
Goebbels was a socialist in his younger days but never Hitler. Goebbels was a member of the German Social Democratic party before joining the Nazi party which was in no way socialist.
There are literally no reputable sources that would say Hitler was a socialist or that Nazism was a socialist movement.Here is an interview with Hitler. He prided himself on being a socialist.
1923 Interview with Adolf Hitler
October 1923 Interview with Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck in The American Monthly
https://famous-trials.com/hitler/2529-1 … olf-hitler
"We might have called ourselves the Liberty Party. We chose to call ourselves National Socialists." Adolf Hitler
The article gives his views on the subject.the Nazi Party was not the “socialist” party of Germany, that would have been the Social Democratic Party.
The basis of the fusion of nazism and socialism is the term "National Socialism," a self description of the Nazis. "National Socialism" includes the word "socialism", but it is just a word. Hitler and the Nazis actually outlawed socialism. Would either you or savy care to elaborate on the socialist principles you feel were evident during that period?
Again, please delve into the history a little bit deeper. In 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser (a true socialist}, an act that was carried out in 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished.
It's more complex than the savvy dater is representing.
The link you provided with the interview with Hitler provides all of the nuance.
"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists."
Hitler had his own very specific ideas of what this meant and it is not true socialism.
The current right wing conflation of nazism and the left is disinformation. A more informed population would view this as completely ridiculous, but unfortunately this propaganda is becoming increasingly effective.Your AI propaganda is getting old.
The only reason why you and your radical left wing friend suddenly jumped onto this forum is because I used the word “progressive” and “Biden.”
How about if you plant a tree, maybe take care of a senior citizen? You might be happier that way. Or will AI not allow you to experience such mundane, yet rewarding experiences?
Question. Are you a woman or do you identity as a man, or perhaps a cat? Just wondering. Thought I’d ask since you are so “open-minded.”Question. Are you a woman or do you identity as a man, or perhaps a cat? Just wondering. Thought I’d ask since you are so “open-minded.”
What?! Question, can you answer anything based on fact rather than personal attack?
Question for moderation here, is this really okay?Wow. Congrats on responding within 3 seconds. So AI.
I answered your question earlier, by the way.
Questions for moderation: Is Willowarbor using AI? Is he or she or something else AI? Does Willowarbor use chatgp? (Which is against HP rules?)
Willow, why would you take offense if anyone ask how you identify?
My understanding is that Progressives want to be asked how they identify. Did this recently change?
Why do you always result to personal attack, and accuse people of using AI, when they put forward a reasoned, comprehensive and intellectual response that is contrary to your views?
You did it with me, when you tried to silence my viewpoint, rather than debating the issues I raised; and now you are doing the same with Willowarbor.
I suggest you do some research:
FYI: The Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector.
The gender gay/lesbian question is not second nature to Nigeria and the African continent.
Its mostly a European disease.It's not a disease, its a personal freedom to be who you are; something which right-wing Americans seem to want to suppress - in spite of the fact that they claim to stand for the rights of personal freedom?
Folks, we've hijacked savvydating thread this much.
Can we get back to the climate topic again?
Today is the first time I'm seeing the radiating Sun shine brilliantly in my of the world.
How is your backyard?
I took a walk to warm my body, in spite of my indoor exercises for the week.Well, the only new news I have is that this week my energy supplier (Octopus Energy) have now doubled the amount they pay me for exporting surplus energy from my solar panels. So now I'm being paid as much to export green (renewable energy) during the day, as I pay for green (renewable energy) during the early hours of the morning, when Renewable Energy electricity in Britain is plentiful, and thus cheap.
Green and renewable energy is not just a matter of people´s conviction to reduce emissions but a very real business case for producers. Certainly so in Europe but probably also in the USA.
Absolutely, especially as Renewable Energy is now a lot cheaper to produce than electricity from fossil fuel in countries like Britain.
Getting back on topic; an update from what I previously said, I've just received an email from my energy supplier (Octopus Energy) to tell me that as from midnight tonight they are reducing the price I pay for overnight electricity (the cheap green/renewable energy) in the early hours of the morning by 5%; and that in October they will be reducing prices even further.
I thought you would enjoy this since you are a vegetarian. Russel Brand, a UK vegan, discussing hte carnivore diet with Dr. Paul Saladino.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0NMW0OpZcw
Great info, and whether or not you agree with Brands politics you will have to admit he is entertaining.True, I do not agree with Russel Brand’s politics, and true, he is entertaining – it’s just a shame that he’s such an ardent conspiracy theorist.
Yeah, certainly, for a vegan, getting a healthy well balanced diet is very, very challenging. Our neighbours (on one side of us) have been strict vegans for years; it’s not a diet that I would relish, or recommend – but it’s their choice.
The first interviewee in the video is Dr Paul Saladino; a doctor of Psychiatry (not a dietitian), and although he is an MD in Psychiatry, he doesn’t have a practice in any State, and he doesn’t have any patients.
In doing a background check on Dr Paul Saladino, my findings include:-
Paul Saladino argues against the scientific consensus on most nutritional topics and has made a number of bizarre and pseudoscientific claims unsupported by evidence-based medicine, including:
1. Paul Saladino argues that humans only need to consume a small amount of polyunsaturated fat (n-3 and n-6 PUFA) and they should eat lots of saturated fat. He argues against diets high in polyunsaturated fats as he believes that wild animals contain less polyunsaturated fats than domesticated animals.
The claim is false, and the opposite of what he claims is true. Studies since the 1960s up to the present have shown that domestic meats have higher saturated and lower polyunsaturated lipid levels than wild meats.
2. He claims LDL cholesterol does not cause or increase the risk of heart disease.
There is strong evidence that high LDL cholesterol (LDL-c) causes atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
3. He claims that consumption of unprocessed red meat does not cause or increase risk of cancer.
Although few clinical trials have been conducted, there is consistent epidemiological evidence and mechanistic data that red meat increases cancer risk.
4. He claims A diet high in saturated fat is good for you and is a "health food"
There is strong evidence from epidemiological studies and clinical trials that higher intakes of saturated fat increase the risk of heart disease.
5. He claims Dietary fibre does not increase gut microbial diversity.
Paul Saladino fails to provide any evidence for this claim. Studies have shown that higher fibre intake is associated with increased gut microbial diversity, so like with most things, the opposite of what Paul Saladino claims is true.
Although on video Dr Paul Saladino sounds convincing (he’s a very clever talker), and when comparing a meat eating diet to a vegan diet, some of what he says is sound (but not all); when you analysis the fine details of what he says, it doesn’t hold water. I am at a slight advantage in that I did do Human Biology at collage (and passed the exam to get my qualification certificate), and part of that course covered human diet and nutrition in some great detail.
I admit, that being disappointed in Dr Paul Saladino, I didn’t bother listening to the others on the video, nor did I bother to do background checks on the others, assuming that they are all probably of a similar ilk.
Notwithstanding the above – For clarity: I’ve never said that eating meat is bad for you, but eating excessive amounts of red meat, especially if its fatty, does hold health risks. The simple answer, if you want to eat meat, is ‘in moderation’ (not in excess).
Also, the difference between a vegan diet and a vegetarian diet (something which didn’t seem to be covered in the video) is that vegetarians also eat dairy products, which has all the protein and nutritional values that meat has (and the health risks) - so again, for a healthy diet; nothing in excess, just a well-balanced diet, with all things in moderation.Just going back to point 2: Correlation is not causation. LDLs are correlated with heart disease but are not causative. What might be causative is triglycerides, which you can also have measured at labs now (not sure if that is on the regular panel at Nhs.)
Well yeah, because of my kidney problems a couple of years ago, I regularly have my cholesterol levels checked (both types) on the NHS; and because of my age, annual tests by the NHS on my cholesterol anyway.
Initially, it was controlled through medication, but since then I've managed to reduce my cholesterol through diet e.g. by cutting down on cheese significantly, so I hardly have any cheese in my diet now - and subsequently, I no longer need to take the medication.That is great that you are able to control it without medication. A lot of people that recommend that diet (I am not sure about Saladino) suggest that we remove cheese and other dairy products as they are not biologically appropriate foods once we go past our young teens.
I can't give up ice cream altogether. Häagen-Dazs. M'm . . . M'm I really only have it during the summer months.
I still make homemade cottage cheese once a week with raw milk. Not really summer food, but not one of those things I want do without.
My favourite are the blue cheeses; which I do treat myself to for Christmas - last Christmas I bought a 2kg block, still got some in the freezer for a special occasion.
No Saladino doesn't' - he doesn't believe that saturated fats are harmful.
Strange you should mention Russel Brand now: News breaking today on British media is that Russel Brand claims he is under attack by two British Medias, with serious criminal (sexual) allegations - but he goes into no details, and so far no British media has publicly published anything?
We don't know which two British Media he is referring to, but Sky News believe it might be Channel 4 (a State owned TV station), and the Times (a right-wing Conservative paper).
https://youtu.be/ibPgqQvgbS0
One thing is crystal clear: no matter which side of the political spectrum one chooses, there is a battle taking place between good and evil!
Good can love, tolerate, forgive, but can't condone, accept or justify, evil. Evil can justify anything and will use the attributes of goodness, whatever it takes...to justify anything: eugenics, genocide, slavery, abortion-on-demand, mutilation......
Forget politics, the question we should be asking ourselves, which side of the battlefield are we on?
And, yes, it is that simple.Not quite.
Every religion on earth has claimed to be good. And they have done it even while committing the crimes you mention, such as genocide, slavery, mutilation, etc. The only ones left out are the relatively new ones such as abortion and eugenics.
Religion, without exception, has caused more death, more grief and pain, and has tried to exert more control over society, than any other force in mankinds history.
So no. It is not "that simple", not when the insinuation is that "the one true religion" is always put at the top, blameless and pure with it's history of great evil.What is your proposed solution? When leftists become godless they invent a new religion, like that of transgenderism.
Yes, atheists will tell us how religion has caused death and grief and pain. What they will not discuss is balance. When I worked in Africa, for example, one of the largest financial backers of our nutrition project was Catholic Relief Servcies. They had no dog in the fight as it is a 100% Muslim area and no one is ever going to be converting to Catholicism because of them.
Despite that they supported our project.
I see Protestant helping all of the time. In Islam there is a zakat, a form of tithing to the poor of the community. Hindus have a very different moral code than Christians and Muslims but even they go out of the way to help their brethren they feel are equal.
The choice seems obvious.The point was purely that it isn't so simple as to pick a religion and declare that it does "good", not "evil" so every should follow along.
There is good, and evil, in almost every group man has created. For Christianity (the primary religion in America and the one most Americans are most familiar with) most (most) of the evil is in the past. That is not a reason to simply assume that it will continue that way, especially as the power of the church grows in this country and with it the control by the church.Yes, I agree as your second comment is much more expansive than the first. There are always going to be humans that interfere and try to destroy any institution that is set up, no matter how good the original intent.
I think the residents of Hawaii are seeing this with the Red Cross at this time, so it is certainly not limited to religioius institutions. I think you are correct in that there is good and evil out there in almost every group.
I do not feel that we can say "well, you are doing good now but based on past actions you might do bad things again, and therefore we are going to censor you so you have no power".Agree, particularly with the final paragraph (I don't know anything about the red cross in Hawaii).
But that does not give an open ended approval to any group, religious or not, to do what they think is best and force others to join in.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we're digressing too much again. What has religion got to do with climate change?
Getting back on topic; I guess there isn't going to be much new to discus until next summer, when the changing climate reeks more havoc around the world.
The only main new climate change item on my mind at the moment is Storm Daniel (the deadliest and costliest Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone ever recorded) which reeked havoc in Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey, and finally led to the devastating destruction in Libya.
Of course, the climate change denialists will claim that it has nothing to do with climate change - but that's their opinion.That's plain enough. But right here on the side of my pool, the rains are geting firce, and fiercer. And yes, Octomber is approaching, and the rainfall partner will be more violent than ever.
Is that you call a monsoon, and is it normal or more intensive than in the past?
Climate change is a religion. Or at least the movement for 'net zero' is.
Well Bev, welcome to the discussion. I hardly think you can be here. Or are you observing me with an astro telescope?
Well Bev, welcome to the discussion. I hardly think you can be here. Or are you observing me with an astrol telescope?
That it is - so, Savvy brought up religion, when she started this discussion.
You'll hear and see some interesting facts about Climate Change, among other things, in the ten minute presentation:
https://youtu.be/Ey7iWsDYnJ8?si=cuHrAvyhuysjnJ1JKen, thank you. My network was very low and flanky. I'll watch when it gets better.
Closer to 1:03 in length. I skimmed seeking to find a presentation on climate change to no avail.
Sorry about that, I meant to type "in the FIRST ten minutes of the presentation".
Where he was discussing how Carbon had been reduced from the atmosphere in recent decades, and showed the graph.
Carbon is not a problem, the problem is Methane, and the growing release that cannot be stopped anymore than the Earth's rotation can be stopped.
This chart shows the growing amount of Methane:
This site explains it:
https://rmi.org/methane-a-threat-to-people-and-planet/
Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 80, meaning a molecule of methane can lead to 80 times more warming than a carbon dioxide molecule.
Over a 20-year period, it is 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere. Methane emissions account for around one-third of net warming to date, this percentage is growing, drastically.
The Methane 'Time Bomb': How big a concern?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzUmjU4lwAUFor clarity, when reference is made to carbon emissions, there is often an inference that it also includes other GHG (Green House Gases) such as methane. In fact Carbon Footprint doesn’t mean just CO2; a carbon footprint is by definition is “the total amount of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) that are generated by our actions.”
I think your original video might be a little misleading - I didn’t hear any mention of developing industrialised nations like China or India in the video (unless I missed that part), which in combination with the Industrialised nations like the USA and in Europe does still make CO2 the prime GHG globally; methane is not the most abundant, but the second most abundant anthropogenic GHG after carbon dioxide (CO2), with methane accounting for about 20% of global emissions.
But yes, as you are highlighting in your post, methane is a very potent Greenhouse gas, 25 times more potent than CO2; but (as explained in your last two links) there are things we can do to curb methane emissions.Just a short note of Thanks! At one of the recommended videos you shared the Blinkist ad caught my attention. Investigating it I am sold, yet tossing and turning on the the subscription costs. There is a free, monthly, and annual options.
Blinkist does 15-minute summaries on books. Over 6,500 of them. I would think it is a good tool for us adventurers of learning. Also, they are non-fiction books that are reviewed.
More on Blinkist with a in depth review following.
Blinkist Review 2023 by four minute books
https://fourminutebooks.com/blinkist-review/
Blinkist landing page for their website
https://www.blinkist.com/?utm_source=gs … gK10fD_BwE
As I see it it looks to be a quick way to grasp a subject/topic. If inspired then one can begin a journey looking more in depth.At the 2 minute 31 second point of that video it shows (and discusses) the GLOBAL DECLINE IN EMISSIONS.
Global includes China and India.
Methane is the MOST dangerous greenhouse gas, simply put.
https://www.britannica.com/science/gree … as/Methane
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/clim … imate.html
Methane comes from Natural Gas (simply put) which we have been switching to, to replace coal and oil. In essence at a time when we want to be reducing Greenhouse Gases we are ramping up production of that which creates a more dangerous element than carbon across the globe.
So when we do things like blow up the Nord Stream Pipeline or blow up Natural Gas tanks in Crimea, we aren't exactly helping the cause.
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/04/11265621 … -broke-rec
Nord Stream’s Explosion Was a Climate Disaster. What It Signals Could Be Worse
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/3009 … -be-worse/Thanks for your comprehensive reply, it makes some good points and raises some interesting issues. On reading your comments carefully, and reflecting on what you say, I’ve gone back and done a character background check on Michael Shellenberger (the person making the representation in your initial video link), and done further research on key points you’ve raised, and cross referenced that research to verify consistency in data.
As regards Michael Shellenberger:-
• His positions and writings on climate change and environmentalism have received criticism from environmental scientists and academics, who have called his arguments "bad science" and "inaccurate"; which accords with my initial feelings when I watched the relevant part of the video, and
• Michael Shellenberger has been accused of mixing accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change; which again, is the impression I got when I viewed the video.
As regards the points you raise; I don’t think we are poles apart, I think we are generally on the same page, but just looking at the same issues from two different angles.
For example, we are both right in what we say in regards to CO2 vs methane, we’re just seem to be saying the same thing in two different ways e.g. I’m correct in saying that CO2 is the most abundant GHG emissions, and you are right in saying that methane is the most potent, and thus the most dangerous.
Likewise, you are correct to a point in saying that CO2 emissions have been declining, to the extent that they have been declining in over 20 industrialised countries for more than 20 years, but in spite of what Michael Shellenberger states, CO2 emissions are currently continuing to rise globally – mainly because of increase burning of coal in developing industrial nations like China and India.
Some data, which seems to be constant across various reliable sources, states that “growth in Carbon emissions was relatively slow until the mid-20th century. In 1950 the world emitted 6 billion tonnes of CO2, and by 1990 this had almost quadrupled, reaching more than 22 billion tonnes. Emissions have continued to grow rapidly, reaching over 34 billion tonnes in the last year. Global CO2 emission actually dipped in 2020 because of the negative impact the pandemic had on global economic growth, but peaked in 2021 to 36.3 billion tonnes, their highest ever level, as the world economy rebounded strongly from the pandemic, and relied heavily on coal to power that growth.
In the year following the pandemic, coal accounted for over 40% of the overall growth in global CO2 emissions in 2021, reaching an all-time high of 15.3 billion tonnes. Emissions from natural gas rebounded well above their 2019 levels to 7.5 billion tonnes. At 10.7 billion tonnes, CO2 emissions from oil remained significantly below pre-pandemic levels because of the limited recovery in global transport activity in 2021, mainly in the aviation sector. The rebound of global CO2 emissions above pre-pandemic levels has largely been driven by China, as world trade rebounded.
From 2000 to 2014 there were just 21 Industrialised countries who managed to reduce their Carbon Emissions while growing their GDP; as follows (I don’t’ have any up-to-date data, but the data over that time period does give a trend, which I’m sure will be similar today):-
Country in order of percentage that they reduced their CO2 emissions over a 14 year period, in order from highest to lowest carbon emissions levels:
• Denmark = -30%
• Ukraine = -29%
• Hungary = -24%
• Portugal = -23%
• Romania = -22%
• Slovakia = -22%
• UK = -20%
• France = -19%
• Finland = -18%
• Ireland = -16%
• Czech Republic = -14%
• Spain = -14%
• Germany = -12%
• Belgium = -12%
• Switzerland = -10%
• Netherlands = -8%
• Sweden = -8%
• USA = -6%
• Bulgaria = -5%
• Austria = -3%
• Uzbekistan = -2%
Yep, you are absolutely correct, Industrialised nation switching from coal to natural gas doesn’t solve the problem; we also need to get off of natural gas as quickly as possible – and most certainly, as you point out, blowing up the Nord Stream Pipeline and blowing up natural gas tanks in Crimea only makes matters worse.
I don’t know about the USA, but the current UK Government policy is to wean Britain off of natural gas by 2035 – some will argue “too little, too late”, others will argue that it’s not practical to transition away from fossil fuels any faster.I own stock in a company that is transitioning away from its Natural Gas assets, selling them off to a Canadian company, as they develop sea, solar and nuclear sources of energy.
This has made me somewhat familiar with Natural Gas, how it is perceived by various governments as a "transitioning" energy resource, better than coal or oil, but to my thinking (which you have elaborated on) this is not a better (or good) "transition" resource at all... it actually presents a worsening factor to the current problem, especially when one factors in disasters (natural or unnatural like Nord Stream).
This company has taken a dramatic hit to its valuation because of its decisions to do so, which is why I have invested a moderate amount into it, as I see value in its transitioning now, ahead of the curve where laws and regulations force it upon others.
We may be diametrically opposed to one another regarding politics, or even the reasons behind to need to transition to renewable energy... but I believe we both feel it is both a necessity and a benefit to the interests of humanity that we do so.
I feel much of the political posturing regarding this transition, is less than sincere at best, at least here in America, when trillion dollar corporations that rely on oil and gas for their profits push their agendas in DC, they are listened to.I can’t argue with that
It sounds as if you’ve made a wise move in your investment; and I wish you good fortune
These Methane Ch4 emissions, I think is one of the reasons acid rains are predominant in nearly the USA, European countries and Asia?
Acid rain comes from Sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
While a small portion of the SO2 and NOX that cause acid rain is from natural sources such as volcanoes, most of it comes from the burning of fossil fuels.
The major sources of SO2 and NOX in the atmosphere are:
1. Burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity. Two thirds of SO2 and one fourth of NOX in the atmosphere come from electric power generators burning fossil fuels.
2. Vehicles and heavy equipment.
3. Manufacturing, oil refineries and other industries.
What is Acid Rain? https://youtu.be/1PDjVDIrFec
Thanks! I will go back and watch it. It is easy to find as I book marked it. I make that a habit.
I frequently hear in this forum that mankind is too insignificant to have any influence on the atmosphere and climate; yet we were not too insignificant to influence the ozone layer by creating the ozone hole, caused by releasing chemicals consisting of halocarbon refrigerants, solvents, propellants, and foam-blowing agents (chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HCFCs, halons) into the atmosphere.
For those who’s forgotten about the ozone hole; the household product at the time that was most commonly associated with CFCs and the depletion of the ozone layer was aerosol sprays – such as deodorants and hair spray.
Thankfully, such chemicals were banned worldwide in 1989 (the Montreal Protocol), and following that, the Ozone levels stabilized by the mid-1990s and began to recover. In 2019, NASA reported that the ozone hole is now the smallest ever, since it was first discovered in 1982.
So yes, mankind can have a profound effect on the atmosphere, and thus the climate.Agreed. I remember being in the automotive industry switching from R-12 refrigerate for air conditioning to R-134A. Not long before that, it became a law that we would have to recover the R-12 rather than just release into the atmosphere and be properly disposed of.
I can remember further back as a smog inspector/repair technician when Nox devices had to be installed on cars back in the 70's. As far as that goes I can remember looking north from San Diego County toward Los Angeles seeing the ugly brown smog haze every day. It is not there today as a result of human intervention. LA is about 125 miles away from San Diego.Yes, I have definitely seen pockets of pollution, like the smog in LA during the 70s, the polluted rivers of the NE United States, or the dioxin dump sites around St Louis Missouri.
I think it is incorrect to extrapolate that data and say that a butterfly that is flapping its wings in Brazil is causing a monsoon in Bangladesh, or a gas lawn mower in your own state is causing a hot summer in Germany. I guess if you are Ashton Kutcher you can defend the butterfly effect and if you are Leonardo diCaprio you can tell the poor to stop consuming so much in the Amazon, from the comfort of your private plane or large yacht!You lost me on the butterfly effect stuff. Call me dense. I don't mind.
Edit: Curious about the Butterfly Effect I discovered an interesting article I skimmed so far and will read full later. So, thanks for prompting me to look. Here is the article I discovered:
The Butterfly Effect: Everything You Need to Know About This Powerful Mental Model
https://fs.blog/the-butterfly-effect/Sorry my comment about Ashton Kutcher was just because of that 2004 movie with that name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butterfly_Effect
diCaprio, however, does not seem to care about the devestating poverty in the Amazon as he sits on his yacht and criticizes the development of that rain forest. Some of it is bad, just like some industrialists in southern California or southern England is bad, but I think there are reasons that the residents of your area are not as poor as the residents of the Amazon. One of them is that there are jobs in industry.
There will never be development in the Amazon as long as man-made climate change hysteria tells us that the Amazon is the greatest source of oxygen on the planet, which is not true, and that development of the Amazon is going to be the destruction of the human race. That also is not true.Thanks! I get the meaning now, I hope.
Again, inspired, at a later time I will poke about the web for the Amazon dilemma to acquaint myself with it.
As far as climate change goes with how to solve with considerations of the this and thats I have slated it to 'Catastrophe Theory'. I have not completely wrapped my brain around the theory yet, but seems to fit. After reading the article I shared about the Butterfly Effect I can somewhat see those two being interconnected.I am not sure you are going to find much on the actual causes of poverty in the Amazon. Most reporters are Eurocentric and are going to blame the hardships on man-made climate change. I know of no sources that will point out the struggles the people go through every day because international cabals do not want to support development of the Amazon.
That article was an interesting read, thanks for sharing; a subject matter that’s of interest to me because of my interest in Quantum Physics - the article does a good job in tackling a complex subject.
As you may have gathered from the article, the Butterfly Effect is the ‘common usage name’ for Chaos Theory (part of Quantum Physics); this short (4 minute) video presentation by the British Metrological Office makes an attempt to explain in laypersons terms chaos theory (the butterfly effect) e.g. the same core details as in your link, but more graphical which can make it easier to follow and digest that plain text. https://youtu.be/Wps2vtzi1TUThanks, Arthur, thanks. Having read the plain text or link, I'll watch the video later in a more relax mode.
Its subject matters like chaos theory (the butterfly effect) that I find fascinating about quantum physics (a kind of Alice in Wonderland science).
Although my all-time favourite in quantum physics is Schrödinger's cat (as explained in this video): https://youtu.be/UjaAxUO6-UwGood video! Thanks! Speaking of synapses being fired I immediately thought of the philosophical concept of Rene Descartes - Dualism or the material and immaterial relationship. In some cases, the mind-body relationship.
A short read giving a quick explanation if needed is at the following link.
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_dualism.html
A very lengthy scholarly article, which I have not read, follows discussing dualism and quantum mechanics. I plan on reading it at a later time.
QUANTUM MECHANICS AND DUALISM by Jeffrey A. Barrett. Here is the link, which is a PDF document.
https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/ … s/BC10.pdf
Here is the abstract:
Abstract. The quantum measurement problem has led some physicists and philosophers of physics to speculate concerning the relationship between physical and mental states. We will consider the sense in which this relationship provides a degree of freedom that is tempting to use in addressing the measurement problem. In short, in a collapse formulation of quantum mechanics, a strong variety of mind-body dualism provides a natural criterion for when collapses occur, and in a no-collapse formulation of quantum mechanics, a strong variety of dualism provides a way to account for an observer’s determinate experience even when her physical state fails to specify a determinate measurement record. We will also consider options for avoiding a commitment to at least mind-body dualism.Thanks for the links; a good refresher course on a subject matter I have touched on in the past, when studying quantum physics, but haven’t delved into too deeply.
Although, talking about dualism reminded me of the similarities between Buddhism and Quantum physics; Quantum entanglement being an example e.g. that everything in the universe is connected to everything else – very similar to the philosophy in Buddhism, as briefly explained in this short video:
How Buddhism and Quantum Physics are interconnected: https://youtu.be/ayohGCRr8wE
Arthur, my internet is still flanky, and is not helping photos and vides to land. When it get upper, I'll watch along with two other reels in this interesting discusion. Interestly, like you, and tsmog, and Ken, I'm also keen with quantum physics. Decades ago, I was in physics class. But the Butter Effect, as described in the linked text seems a little out of touch.
Thanks for the video recommendation. It did offer a simplified explanation. I am familiar with chaos theory to the extent of curiosity and a little reading. Doing all the data mining and business reports with projections I was able to experience the effect of how many digits beyond the decimal would make.
I have not looked into Quantum physics, yet had a physics class in high school, grade 11, and one semester in college. Whenever I hear quantum physics I immediately go toward a TV show - Quantum Leap.
Though, as most, I have memory deterioration or recall ability from aging, more so as I experienced amnesia, information learned remains waiting for the right synapse to fire off. What triggers it, who knows? An example is the word 'quantum' for me as shared. Fortunately, we now have personal computers and the internet at the tip of our fingers.Likewise I did classical physics (Newtonian Physics) at school, as an exam subject, along with Astronomy; and Human Biology at college. But I’ve always had a fascination in Quantum Physics, and when I was working I regularly read the weekly publication of ‘New Scientist’; and as we were moving from our first married home, one of the sons of our next door neighbour had just finished his university degree in quantum physics, and gave me his old text books, including Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and a book called ‘Other Worlds’ - the multiverse theory in quantum physics, which stems from various quantum physic theories that have Schrödinger's cat at their roots.
Copenhagen vs Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Explained simply https://youtu.be/OjrEudqgZ1M
Don’t worry if the video does your head in; there is the famous quote, where Nobel laureate Richard Feynman supposedly said: “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.” – Whether he actually made that quote or not, it is nevertheless a very profound statement!Wow! That video caught my attention throughout and piqued my curiosity, however, it will go on the back burner for now. With what they did present it confirmed my own wild ideas of this and that related to philosophy, theology, science, and mathematics.
I have, currently, three study/research projects I am trying not to be diverted from. And, these forums do divert me I suppose the theories of quantum mechanics may enter to explain that, eh? Maybe philosophy too.Interesting; I’ve never heard of Blinklist, so I found your links informative, especially the first link. Certainly, if I had more spare time to use something like Blinklist, it would be tempting, except I would find it difficult to justify the subscription at this time; as like you, I’ve got several projects (hobbies/interests) on the go, and I wouldn’t want to get too distracted from them. But it certainly sounds interesting, and maybe in the future, if I find myself with idle time to occupy, I’ll know where to look!
I remember walking to school in the smog back in the 1960's; fortunately, something we don't get these days.
A smog inspector/repair technician, an interesting and responsible job: I assume that was for the catalytic converters that had to be fitted to old cars in Britain from 1975 (and presumably in America around the same time period), I do remember that.Frankly, I got my emissions/smog license in California to make more money. I also got a brake & lamp inspector license.
California historically has had tighter emissions regulations than the other states. That was also taken into consideration when I was doing inspections. In other words, the emission levels with tailpipe readings were different if it was an out-of-state car. Also, with what devices were required to be installed on the car such as smog pumps to burn off more hydrocarbons. Out-of-state cars for a time period did not have them.
If curious a link to the history of California Air Resources Board and the actions taken for smog stuff. It is somewhat of a short read.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/historyYes I am curious, I worked for the Departments of the Environment and Transport, in various jobs, some of which relate to this - so it is of interest to me.
I'm just about to start cooking the evening meal, followed by a family evening watching a movie on TV and other TV series we're following - at the moment we're working our way through a collection of MARVEL films, followed by the MASH series and the new American Orville sci-fi series.
I still haven't got use to the name Orville as a sci-fi; in that in Britain Orville is strongly associated with a duck:
Orville the DUCK joins Val Doonican: https://youtu.be/0YOEE2sDpLE
Although to be honest, I think the American Orville is a little bit more intellectual than the British Orville! lol
And I shall be out tomorrow, so it might be a day or two before I get around to reading it, and give any feedback, or ask questions.Thanks for sharing the link: Wow, a very impressive achievement by California. It's encouraging to learn that "in the 1980s and ‘90s, California cars became the cleanest in the world, and California’s fuel became the cleanest"; it shows what can be achieved when there's a will.
This is a huge problem with third world African countries.
Yes, there are a lot of difficulties that mankind has to attempt to overcome, and quickly, if we are to make any real headway before its too late: And ideally the more able countries should be giving a helping hand to those countries most in need of help to achieve positive progress towards a greener and cleaner planet.
Reports on today’s news in the UK – A mixed bag of Good and Bad News:
Bad News First:-
The first ‘Climate Change’ ‘Tipping Point’ has been reached:-
It’s been confirmed that the ‘Doomsday Iceberg’ (a landlocked ice sheet in the Antarctic polar cap) is now melting three times faster, and will be completely melt over the next few centuries, adding six feet to sea levels: It will not have a great impact on us today, but it will cause worldwide devastation as large areas of coastal land is lost to the sea in generations to come, and will have an impact on our children and grandchildren, and their children!
Now for the Good News:-
The latest estimates is that CO2 emissions will peak in 2025, and that by 2030 demand for oil (worldwide) will significantly drop as the tangible effects of the transition from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy really start to kick in.It seems to be Brazil’s turn; following Brazil’s hottest July, August, September and October on record – now this: https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve … inequality
Related Discussions
- 136
Do You Believe Humans Caused the Climate Change?
by emievil 15 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is the website - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … -activity.
- 129
49% of American believe climate change is a hoax or "aren't sure"
by Sychophantastic 10 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...
- 34
Global warming - A global warning?
by Pamda Man 15 years ago
I recently did some research on global warming. I found out that the USA is emitting over 25% of the world's polluting gases. These include sulphur dioxide which causes acid rain, and nitrous oxides which causes health problems. I find this very alarming, as the USA, as a developed country, is...
- 7
Geoengineering to reverse global climate change: good or bad idea?
by ptosis 9 years ago
Geoengineering to reverse global climate change: good or bad idea?Scary? Or maybe filling the sky with chemicals that would partially block the sun would be a solution? Or is it too risky & fraught with potential unintended consequences? What would be worse? Global warming or a...
- 101
None of the Apocalyptic predictions for the Climate Have Come True
by Readmikenow 5 years ago
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...
- 150
A new paradigm on HubPages - A hub to hub challenge on Climate Change
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
Recently, Doc Snow and I decided to each create a hub on the topic of "How accurate are climate change predictions." Here are our opposing hubs - http://hubpages.com/education/Climate-C … e-Are-Theyhttp://hubpages.com/politics/Climate-Ch … hey-ReallyWe are asking people to...