NASA head changes mind on Climate Change

124

Replies

  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,264 Senior Member
    Hey since the Chinese put out more than twice the CO2 we do why don’t you tell THEM to sit in their hot black cars for a few hours in Beijing at noon? 😁
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,261 Senior Member
    Soooooo, no carbon tax then?

    🏃
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,264 Senior Member
    Breathing tax for exhaling CO2...
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • MichakavMichakav Senior Member Posts: 2,143 Senior Member

    Actually the warming impact of Volcanoes is a fart in the wind compared to the volume of emissions from human and human induced activities (deforestation, concentrated farming operations). Volcanoes actually have a strong short term cooling effect (because of their large ash clouds which increase cloud formation which blocks sunlight also known as albedo) and a tiny long term warming effect (from the relatively small amount of green house gassed emitted). Also volcanic activity and it's impacts are included in every climate model.

    Do you drive a car? Do you change the oil? Do you buy tires for that car? Do you drink from plastic? Do you use electricity?....etc...You are part of the problem that you are SO concerned about. That makes what you say worth a pile of beans.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 22,616 Senior Member
    Wait do you even read what you post. You just posted an article that uses science to debunk the exact point you were trying to make. Nice one Mike! 
    Actually, NO. It proves that your massive fixation on CO2 is indicative of a neurosis. An increase or decrease in solar output has a HUGE effect on cloud formation and the amount of water in the atmosphere. Or did you forget that.

    Why is it hotter this year than the last few years? Maybe it is because of the La Nina effect in the Pacific Ocean that started last Fall. We'd been in a longer than normal El Nino pattern, and then La Nina showed up and messed up both ocean currents AND the jet stream. You're confusing weather with climate change. Which just goes to prove that little things that happen, like warming or cooling surface temperatures in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans have some profound effects on weather. The Earth's climate..........er..............weather patterns can change in big ways with warming and cooling of ocean surface temps. And a large upwelling of really cold deep ocean currents can throw a wrench in the works that lasts for years. Those deep cold ocean currents change from time to time, and wreak havoc on the weather. And those deep ocean currents haven't been studied all that long with any high dollar funding like global warming/global cooling/climate change. No scary scenario to get money for funding for that.

    And you have not acknowledged that the volcanic activity at the South Pole is a large part of the ice melt. I suspect that since it doesn't fit your narrative that you are content to ignore that fact. I've also thrown out some other things that effect the climate, and you've ignored those, too. They must not fit your narrative or 'lens', either.

    Without CO2 plants would die off pretty rapidly, and the remaining ones would be severely stunted. That would solve the overpopulation thing pretty definitively, though.

    When all y'all climate change fanatics show me DEFINITIVE PROOF that the climate models show a 100 out of 100 same conclusion run on the model, then I might put some weight to them. As they are now, they are about as accurate as shooting at a target 10,000 kilometers away with a Daisy Red Rider BB gun. The climate of Earth is WAY more complicated than you make it out to be, and has some really erratic inputs. That's why the models don't give the same results over many runs of the program.

    Here's an idea. Instead of being a 'sand crab' contractor with the Navy, why don't you sign up with some folks doing THIS stuff. Renewable fuel from CO2.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170605110809.htm

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-carbon-dioxide/


    If a Liberal throws a hand grenade at you, pick it up, pull the pin, and throw it back at them.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 7,991 Senior Member
    So again, it’s never been 95 degrees in Washington before?  I seem to recall a lot rather miserable days I DC in the 80s and in them old days the whole government would take the summer off because of the heat/humidity...  I read that in Teddy Roosevelt’s bio...
    Wasn't remotely the point. The point is the greenhouse efffect is scientific fact and can be easily proven in ways that even the most obstinate of deniers can understand. 
    If it wasn’t “remotely the point” what on God’s earth could your comment about locking me for a few hours in a black car in Washington’s typical summer weather could possibly bring to this conversation except hearing yourself propose something silly?
    Was a direct response to your proposal that I stop breathing. Admittedly neither of our best exchanges on the forum. Anyway.

    I think 30 years from now you'll either look back with significant regret at the world your grandchildren and great grandchildren are inheriting or you'll thank you're lucky stars that despite all the heel dragging and denial of people like you as a society we we're able to make enough change to avoid some of the worst potential outcomes. I'd be willing to bet any 3 firearms in my collection against your Wilson combat 1911...
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 7,991 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    Wait do you even read what you post. You just posted an article that uses science to debunk the exact point you were trying to make. Nice one Mike! 
    Actually, NO. It proves that your massive fixation on CO2 is indicative of a neurosis. An increase or decrease in solar output has a HUGE effect on cloud formation and the amount of water in the atmosphere. Or did you forget that.

    Why is it hotter this year than the last few years? Maybe it is because of the La Nina effect in the Pacific Ocean that started last Fall. We'd been in a longer than normal El Nino pattern, and then La Nina showed up and messed up both ocean currents AND the jet stream. You're confusing weather with climate change. Which just goes to prove that little things that happen, like warming or cooling surface temperatures in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans have some profound effects on weather. The Earth's climate..........er..............weather patterns can change in big ways with warming and cooling of ocean surface temps. And a large upwelling of really cold deep ocean currents can throw a wrench in the works that lasts for years. Those deep cold ocean currents change from time to time, and wreak havoc on the weather. And those deep ocean currents haven't been studied all that long with any high dollar funding like global warming/global cooling/climate change. No scary scenario to get money for funding for that.

    And you have not acknowledged that the volcanic activity at the South Pole is a large part of the ice melt. I suspect that since it doesn't fit your narrative that you are content to ignore that fact. I've also thrown out some other things that effect the climate, and you've ignored those, too. They must not fit your narrative or 'lens', either.

    Without CO2 plants would die off pretty rapidly, and the remaining ones would be severely stunted. That would solve the overpopulation thing pretty definitively, though.

    When all y'all climate change fanatics show me DEFINITIVE PROOF that the climate models show a 100 out of 100 same conclusion run on the model, then I might put some weight to them. As they are now, they are about as accurate as shooting at a target 10,000 kilometers away with a Daisy Red Rider BB gun. The climate of Earth is WAY more complicated than you make it out to be, and has some really erratic inputs. That's why the models don't give the same results over many runs of the program.

    Here's an idea. Instead of being a 'sand crab' contractor with the Navy, why don't you sign up with some folks doing THIS stuff. Renewable fuel from CO2.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170605110809.htm

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-carbon-dioxide/


    All good Mike I get it, you will go to your grave insisting that climate change is a giant hoax. That's ok. When that happens there will still be lots of us here to deal with it and keep working on mitigation and adaptation. 

    As for the technology it's just another energy storage system, basically like using electrolysis to turn electricity into hydrogen. Seems possibly slightly better because you don't have all the terrible issues with hydrogen like pressurization, storage, etc, but it's not an energy source and on net a significant energy loser. Could possibly be a solution for solar and wing powered fuel production for the few things that aren't able to be electrified like ocean transport and air travel. Still probably better than most biofuels.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 9,999 Senior Member
    Once again, it's all conjecture if you can't eliminate the possibility, or actually the likelihood, that natural weather cycles, volcanic activity, solar flares, and a few hundred other natural changes have greater effect on the earth than the piddly changes that humans have had on the evolution of the earth.

    Man-made climate change, evolution, atheism, and white racism make up the religion of leftists, worldwide, and they are all based on unproven theory...just as surely as any other religion is based on faith. If you want to believe it, fine, but don't change the scientific rules about what is fact and what is theory to advance your religion. It is no different from a Baptist telling you that you're going to hell for not believing that Jesus was the son of God.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 6,553 Senior Member
    Michakav said:

    Actually the warming impact of Volcanoes is a fart in the wind compared to the volume of emissions from human and human induced activities (deforestation, concentrated farming operations). Volcanoes actually have a strong short term cooling effect (because of their large ash clouds which increase cloud formation which blocks sunlight also known as albedo) and a tiny long term warming effect (from the relatively small amount of green house gassed emitted). Also volcanic activity and it's impacts are included in every climate model.

    Do you drive a car? Do you change the oil? Do you buy tires for that car? Do you drink from plastic? Do you use electricity?....etc...You are part of the problem that you are SO concerned about. That makes what you say worth a pile of beans.
    And then there are those big jets he will fly around the planet on checking out energy wasting military bases.
    I HAVE HATED COMMUNISTS EVEN BEFORE THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME TO LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES
  • cpjcpj Senior Member Posts: 37,653 Senior Member
    edited July 11 #101
    Here’s my beef with climate change, or whatever it’s called today. 

    Assume the earth is only 100,000 years old. (Its older, roll with it)

    We are studying a 125-ish year period. Why do I say that? That’s roughly (I’m not researching) how long records have been kept. We are looking at a few degrees either way. 

    To say this time period is statistically insignificant is an understatement. 

    And with that, the accuracy of which temps are measured has improved. 

    Please  don’t bother with “well, they have drilled holes in ice and rocks and trees and through dinosaur skulls and it says the earth was X degrees cooler 8 million years ago. “

    Some ice/rock/tree/petrified dinosaur dick is going to be accurate enough to tell the diffence in two degrees over time? Bull ****. 

    "I'm here for the guns, hunting, and skirt wearing men."
    Zee
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 6,553 Senior Member
    cpj said:
    Here’s my beef with climate change, or whatever it’s called today. 

    Assume the earth is only 100,000 years old. (Its older, roll with it)

    We are studying a 125-ish year period. Why do I say that? That’s roughly (I’m not researching) how long records have been kept. We are looking at a few degrees either way. 

    To say this time period is statistically insignificant is an understatement. 

    And with that, the accuracy of which temps are measured has improved. 

    Please  don’t bother with “well, they have drilled holes in ice and rocks and trees and through dinosaur skulls and it says the earth was X degrees cooler 8 million years ago. “

    Some ice/rock/tree/petrified dinosaur dick is going to be accurate enough to tell the diffence in two degrees over time? Bull ****. 

    That's exactly the point of the opposition to this "climate change" dogma. When you factor in the fact that earths actual age is BILLIONS of years, with fluctuations between molten rock, thousands of years of rains, creating tropical inland seas and then frozen wastelands, that is why a lot of us are skeptical. I couldn't give a crap less about the left-wing hysteria on this subject. Their "evidence" is going to have to be a LOT more convincing to make me believe this is nothing more than a worldwide tax scam.
    I HAVE HATED COMMUNISTS EVEN BEFORE THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME TO LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 9,999 Senior Member
    cpj said:
    Here’s my beef with climate change, or whatever it’s called today. 

    Assume the earth is only 100,000 years old. (Its older, roll with it)

    We are studying a 125-ish year period. Why do I say that? That’s roughly (I’m not researching) how long records have been kept. We are looking at a few degrees either way. 

    To say this time period is statistically insignificant is an understatement. 

    And with that, the accuracy of which temps are measured has improved. 

    Please  don’t bother with “well, they have drilled holes in ice and rocks and trees and through dinosaur skulls and it says the earth was X degrees cooler 8 million years ago. “

    Some ice/rock/tree/petrified dinosaur dick is going to be accurate enough to tell the diffence in two degrees over time? Bull ****. 

    That is the gist of the problem.

    The current climate change narrative contains some actual scientific evidence that man is capable of contributing to a slight increase in temperatures, but zero proof that naturally occurring weather change events don't dwarf the input of man, to global warming.

    The temperature estimates by scientists during the time that life has been present indicate that the average temperature of the entire earth was once at about 73 degrees, which is about 20 degrees higher than it is now. But they also can prove that we have had at least five major ice ages, suggesting that the temperature was likely much lower than now. The 'mini ice age' that afflicted Europe for about 500 years was coming to an end about the same time that the temperature started to be accurately measured and recorded, so that raises questions about the starting temperature of the computer model used in climate change arguments, and whether the industrial age actually had any significant effect on rising temperatures.

    So, if you apply the scientific threshold that every other theory has to meet, to become scientific fact, the current climate change narrative is...nowhere. All of the dire predictions may come true, but if they do, they would have anyway. More likely, the weather cycle will, at some point, swing back to cooler temperatures.

    An honest climate change study would be trying to predict that, instead of using half-baked science to press a political position.


  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 22,616 Senior Member
    All good Mike I get it, you will go to your grave insisting that climate change is a giant hoax. That's ok. When that happens there will still be lots of us here to deal with it and keep working on mitigation and adaptation. 

    As for the technology it's just another energy storage system, basically like using electrolysis to turn electricity into hydrogen. Seems possibly slightly better because you don't have all the terrible issues with hydrogen like pressurization, storage, etc, but it's not an energy source and on net a significant energy loser. Could possibly be a solution for solar and wing powered fuel production for the few things that aren't able to be electrified like ocean transport and air travel. Still probably better than most biofuels.
    You'd be wrong. I KNOW from the science already done on the past going back millions of years that the climate changes on a (geological time) frequent basis. It has done so since the molten planet cooled enough for liquid water to form. There have been supervolcanoes  like the one in Yellowstone that have changed the climate for long periods of time when they erupted; nuclear winter without the nuclear part. VERY large meteors have hit this planet and caused worldwide climate change that killed off most life. The Sun has pitched fits and bombarded the planet with high energy particle and EM energy  from solar mass ejections and wiped out huge amounts of life. Proton, neutron, gamma, and X-ray radiation are bad, K? The magnetic poles have flipped a few times leaving the Earth vulnerable to the full force of the solar wind and particle bombardment for thousands of years while the poles realigned. Over geologic time, CO2 and other greenhouse gases have fluctuated with wild swings. I BELIEVE the climate changes because of ACTUAL PROOF and the application of logic. Where we differ is the human input and the effect on climate. If it wouldn't cause ME a problem, and I could do it, I'd shut off the light from the Sun for a few weeks and let you Disciples of the Church of Manmade Climate Change figure out that the Sun is pretty important to our climate. It would be a fun experiment, and probably produce a lot of heretics in the manmade climate change camp.

    You're in or at least near Washington, D.C. It might interest you to know that there are HUGE deposits of Methane hydrates along the Atlantic Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. The  methane deposits along the coasts are actually worldwide. And they are ALL seeping methane gas. A few good earthquakes along these deposits and they would outclass anything we're doing with CO2 production as a greenhouse gas. Gigantic Earth farts. If there's actually earthquakes or landslides in the ocean where those deposits exist, and there's a strong East wind, don't go around striking matches. :D

    Libtard news source:
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/underwater-methane-gas-plumes-erupting-along-atlantic-coast/

    Gooberment news source:
    https://www.energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/methane-hydrate

    Actual science news source:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/numerous-methane-leaks-found-atlantic-sea-floor



    If a Liberal throws a hand grenade at you, pick it up, pull the pin, and throw it back at them.



  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,264 Senior Member
    So again, it’s never been 95 degrees in Washington before?  I seem to recall a lot rather miserable days I DC in the 80s and in them old days the whole government would take the summer off because of the heat/humidity...  I read that in Teddy Roosevelt’s bio...
    Wasn't remotely the point. The point is the greenhouse efffect is scientific fact and can be easily proven in ways that even the most obstinate of deniers can understand. 
    If it wasn’t “remotely the point” what on God’s earth could your comment about locking me for a few hours in a black car in Washington’s typical summer weather could possibly bring to this conversation except hearing yourself propose something silly?
    Was a direct response to your proposal that I stop breathing. Admittedly neither of our best exchanges on the forum. Anyway.

    I think 30 years from now you'll either look back with significant regret at the world your grandchildren and great grandchildren are inheriting or you'll thank you're lucky stars that despite all the heel dragging and denial of people like you as a society we we're able to make enough change to avoid some of the worst potential outcomes. I'd be willing to bet any 3 firearms in my collection against your Wilson combat 1911...
    Ok let me try to skin this cat a different way.  I have NEVER said Climate Change is a hoax.  It has happened before, it will happen again.  THAT is science.

    My contention is that taxes and electric cars will do NOTHING to stop it.  They are goofy experiments designed to make some people a LOT of money.  And there are a LOT of companies and individuals are making a TON of money (cough ALGore cough) trying to prove or disprove something that is a fact and quite frankly we are probably powerless to change...  And the scientists lie and use numbers to try to prove whatever pet theory will get them more grants, and entire countries wipe their ass with the data because no one can tell what’s real or not anymore.  

    As soon as I see any shred of actual proof that we can do something that will push back the tide I’ll sign up for it.  My son just bought a Prius.  I do recycle AND I buy energy efficient cars and do my best to be a decent world citizen.  My house is HUGELY energy efficient and that’s by design.  

    YOU make assumptions about people having NO facts in your hands except your “perceptions” and interpretation of what you read on a silly Internet forum, mostly based on your preconceived notions of what a conservative is.

    And I didn’t ask you to stop breathing, I said we’d take turns...
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 22,616 Senior Member
    There are roughly 7.6 billion people on the planet. Each person emits 2.3 lbs of CO2 per day with the heavy exercisers/workers emitting up to 8 times that figure. That equals to 17,480,000,000 lbs of CO2 emissions per day, or 8,740,000 tons of CO2 per day. Burning a gallon of gasoline emits 19.6 pounds of CO2.
    How to reduce CO2 emissions? Reduce the population to pre Dark Ages level. ALL CO2 production from the population would be reduced to an insignificant level. See! EZPZ!
    If a Liberal throws a hand grenade at you, pick it up, pull the pin, and throw it back at them.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 7,991 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    There are roughly 7.6 billion people on the planet. Each person emits 2.3 lbs of CO2 per day with the heavy exercisers/workers emitting up to 8 times that figure. That equals to 17,480,000,000 lbs of CO2 emissions per day, or 8,740,000 tons of CO2 per day. Burning a gallon of gasoline emits 19.6 pounds of CO2.
    How to reduce CO2 emissions? Reduce the population to pre Dark Ages level. ALL CO2 production from the population would be reduced to an insignificant level. See! EZPZ!
    Since we're doing mass balances, the world consumes 93 Million barrels of oil a day. a barrel is 42 gallons so that's 3.9 Billion gallons a day. As you suggested each gallon produces 19.6 lbs of CO2. Doing the math I get 38 million tons a day from just burning oil or close to 5 times the amount from breathing alone. That's just oil and doesn't include natural gas and coal which are also huge emitters. I could quickly look up totals, but it's safe to say energy alone is at least 10x the emissions before we even touch agriculture, deforestation, and other anthropogenic sources of emissions.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 2,941 Senior Member

    So 42 gallons of oil in a barrel equates to 42 gallons of gasoline?

  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 2,941 Senior Member
    Or all 42 gallons of oil are burned. so every gallon produces co2, I guess? 
  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 2,941 Senior Member

    In other words, when the folks you're trying to explain something to are basically saying they don't buy your theory because it's based on made up, unproven data, and then you try to make a point using made up data, you don't help your argument.

  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 7,991 Senior Member
    Jay said:

    In other words, when the folks you're trying to explain something to are basically saying they don't buy your theory because it's based on made up, unproven data, and then you try to make a point using made up data, you don't help your argument.

    Close enough. At least 90% goes to various fuels that are burned including diesel, fuel oil, and jet fuel. Less than 10% goes to things that aren't typically burned like asphalt, lubricants and plastics. I also didn't factor in all the ethanol and natural gas liquids that get blended in. Also there's the refinery gain fraction I didn't account for which is 42 gallons of crude actually produces 45 gallons of product due to changes in density after refining. But then a more precise answer would provide nothing to the discussion, the order of magnitude estimate is good enough.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,264 Senior Member
    At least 20% of all oil produced is used in other products, not fuels (everything from plastics to medication).  Not all fuels are burned equally.  I hate bullet point presentations without substance...

    BTW you’ll be happy to know both my wife and my car rate 8 out of 10 (10 being best) on the scale for greenhouse emissions at the tailpipe according to fuel economy.gov.  How does your car rate?????
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 22,616 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    There are roughly 7.6 billion people on the planet. Each person emits 2.3 lbs of CO2 per day with the heavy exercisers/workers emitting up to 8 times that figure. That equals to 17,480,000,000 lbs of CO2 emissions per day, or 8,740,000 tons of CO2 per day. Burning a gallon of gasoline emits 19.6 pounds of CO2.
    How to reduce CO2 emissions? Reduce the population to pre Dark Ages level. ALL CO2 production from the population would be reduced to an insignificant level. See! EZPZ!
    Since we're doing mass balances, the world consumes 93 Million barrels of oil a day. a barrel is 42 gallons so that's 3.9 Billion gallons a day. As you suggested each gallon produces 19.6 lbs of CO2. Doing the math I get 38 million tons a day from just burning oil or close to 5 times the amount from breathing alone. That's just oil and doesn't include natural gas and coal which are also huge emitters. I could quickly look up totals, but it's safe to say energy alone is at least 10x the emissions before we even touch agriculture, deforestation, and other anthropogenic sources of emissions.
    I see you studiously IGNORED the second paragraph of my post. It IS a viable alternative.
    And a LOT of that oil is used for other purposes besides fuel.
    If a Liberal throws a hand grenade at you, pick it up, pull the pin, and throw it back at them.



  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 2,941 Senior Member
    Jay said:

    In other words, when the folks you're trying to explain something to are basically saying they don't buy your theory because it's based on made up, unproven data, and then you try to make a point using made up data, you don't help your argument.

    Close enough. At least 90% goes to various fuels that are burned including diesel, fuel oil, and jet fuel. Less than 10% goes to things that aren't typically burned like asphalt, lubricants and plastics. I also didn't factor in all the ethanol and natural gas liquids that get blended in. Also there's the refinery gain fraction I didn't account for which is 42 gallons of crude actually produces 45 gallons of product due to changes in density after refining. But then a more precise answer would provide nothing to the discussion, the order of magnitude estimate is good enough.
    My point is, the guys are no too arguing whether climate change is real or not. They are saying they don’t buy man made climate change, in large part because it’s based on made up, unproven theories. Then, you make stuff up to argue back. 

    Roughly 20 gallons of gasoline and 11 gallons of fuel oil come soon out of a barrel of oil. Or, about 74 percent. Of course, that depends on the quality of the crude and refining process. But, roughly 74%. And, the number you used specifically stated gasoline. But you made stuff up in order to dramatize your argument. Which is pretty much why they don’t buy your theory. 
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,264 Senior Member
    I still want to know how YOU personally contributes to the effort to “save the planet”...  Again, what kind of car and how does it rate?  Mileage?  Do you fly often?  Trains?  

    Or do you just send the Sierra Club and the Democrat Party your contribution and sleep well after you get off your shaky soapbox here?
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 7,991 Senior Member
    At least 20% of all oil produced is used in other products, not fuels (everything from plastics to medication).  Not all fuels are burned equally.  I hate bullet point presentations without substance...

    BTW you’ll be happy to know both my wife and my car rate 8 out of 10 (10 being best) on the scale for greenhouse emissions at the tailpipe according to fuel economy.gov.  How does your car rate?????
    I ride an electric train with a few hundred other people for 90% of my transportation needs. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,264 Senior Member
    At least 20% of all oil produced is used in other products, not fuels (everything from plastics to medication).  Not all fuels are burned equally.  I hate bullet point presentations without substance...

    BTW you’ll be happy to know both my wife and my car rate 8 out of 10 (10 being best) on the scale for greenhouse emissions at the tailpipe according to fuel economy.gov.  How does your car rate?????
    I ride an electric train with a few hundred other people for 90% of my transportation needs. 
    Got any efficiency numbers for that?  The electric trains in New York are filthy power hogs.  I work from home and telecommute.  A tank of gas in my highly efficient car can last me a month.  We now do just about all our shopping except for perishables off Amazon and clothing off other online sites.  

    So how about your car?  Airline travel? 

    Yes I’m the one leaving the planet worst off...
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • MichakavMichakav Senior Member Posts: 2,143 Senior Member
    edited July 11 #118
    At least 20% of all oil produced is used in other products, not fuels (everything from plastics to medication).  Not all fuels are burned equally.  I hate bullet point presentations without substance...

    BTW you’ll be happy to know both my wife and my car rate 8 out of 10 (10 being best) on the scale for greenhouse emissions at the tailpipe according to fuel economy.gov.  How does your car rate?????
    I ride an electric train with a few hundred other people for 90% of my transportation needs. 
    Electricity generation accounts for roughly 34% of co2 emissions. Maybe you should ride a bike. 

    Plastic? Do you use it? Yea, I figured you did. Producing 1# of PET can produce up to 3# of co2. You should only use paper. Oh wait, paper production uses high amounts of electricity and is the 4th largest emitter of green house gases due to production and methane release from landfills. 



    etc...etc....etc

    I know..."do as I say, not as I do"
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 9,999 Senior Member
    I am completely in favor of conserving natural resources and practicing good stewardship of the planet. I'm in favor of developing alternate resources of power, as the technology improves and makes it more cost-effective. Solar and wind power should be refined and made more efficient, at less cost, so that when we truly are running short of fossil fuels, in a hundred years or so, we will already have started the transition. I'm in favor of hydroelectric power, nuclear power, and any other scientific advancement that will make coal a better, cleaner source of energy.

    But I'm 100% against science by consensus, rather than empirical proof, that is embraced as an ideology by otherwise bankrupt political movements that have to continuously recruit new useful idiots to help them cram it down the throats of ordinary citizens who want nothing more than a government that exercises a little bit of common sense.

    The world is ripe for new advancements that can dwarf those of the past, but they won't be made by third rate scientists that tailor their research to whatever gets them the most influence with power hungry politicians that dole out grants to any starving scientist who will help them sell their snake oil.
  • MichakavMichakav Senior Member Posts: 2,143 Senior Member
    edited July 11 #120
    bisley said:
    I am completely in favor of conserving natural resources and practicing good stewardship of the planet. I'm in favor of developing alternate resources of power, as the technology improves and makes it more cost-effective. Solar and wind power should be refined and made more efficient, at less cost, so that when we truly are running short of fossil fuels, in a hundred years or so, we will already have started the transition. I'm in favor of hydroelectric power, nuclear power, and any other scientific advancement that will make coal a better, cleaner source of energy.

    But I'm 100% against science by consensus, rather than empirical proof, that is embraced as an ideology by otherwise bankrupt political movements that have to continuously recruit new useful idiots to help them cram it down the throats of ordinary citizens who want nothing more than a government that exercises a little bit of common sense.

    The world is ripe for new advancements that can dwarf those of the past, but they won't be made by third rate scientists that tailor their research to whatever gets them the most influence with power hungry politicians that dole out grants to any starving scientist who will help them sell their snake oil.

    All while they have the same or larger carbon footprint than us average Joe's. They are no more willing to give up the modern conveniences of everyday life than anyone else. That would take living off grid. Sure, they put their little garbage can of plastic bottles and a stack of newspapers by the curb. But have no idea as to what goes into making those products in the first place. Well, they probably know, but don't REALLY care because it makes their life easier. They just want the rest of us to live a little less conveniently while they rake in the $.  

    I also agree 100% with your post!
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 14,045 Senior Member
    I decided to go with some green packaging for my daughter's cookie business and my food truck. They are all biodegradable plastics derived from corn and sugar cane. My main ride is a little Chevy Aveo. My houses are all well insulated, have 95% efficiency or higher furnaces in them and a couple have 98% efficient tankless water heaters that run on relatively clean natural gas. My camp in northern Michigan is completely off grid and runs mostly on solar. I will be building my distillery with solar panels. All my lights are LED.

    Know why? I am cheap. I really do appreciate the work these hippies have been doing to save the planet. Keep it coming and when the tech is ready enough to where I save money by adopting it, I will be all over it. If they want to save the planet, they need to stop preaching, and keep inventing and innovating-- that is the way it is going to work. Get us some good tech that is affordable, and the market will embrace it.

    A Tesla pickup that is a torque monster? I am listening....
Sign In or Register to comment.