leptraps
Banned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,397
|
Post by leptraps on May 8, 2019 11:47:19 GMT -8
I am not sure who is talking to whom. If it was aimed at Leptraps and I got under your skin, I apologize if you were offended, but actually at my age I do not care.
I do what I can, I recycle, I turn my lawn clippings into compost. I own a small wood chipper that is well used in my neighborhood. I keep my home at a constant 72 degrees F. I have electric heat/AC, it came with the house. As a result, my home is rather dry. Too dry for my liking, but I am okay with it.
If you are venting at me, I would suggest you try the Automobile Manufacturers, or any companies that produces anything that requires the use fossil fuel. (I would hate to have to see you use an old push reel type lawn mower). We should build more Nuclear Power Plants and send the nuclear waste into outer space. Or better yet to North Korea.
I am 74 years of age and I seen a few of my out spoken critic to there grave. So if it makes you feel better, then rant on. I am okay with that too.
If I get out of bed this AM with constipation. Took a couple of pills, it is beginning to work, when I hit the head shortly, I will think of you after I wipe my butt and flush the commode.
I feel better now.
I cannot wait to hear the response. It is sure to be a beaut. I may need to run by Wal-Mart for more TP.
|
|
|
|
Post by phanaeus1 on May 8, 2019 12:25:09 GMT -8
Us Walmartians use "toilet paper" as our global currency...
|
|
leptraps
Banned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,397
|
Post by leptraps on May 8, 2019 12:43:41 GMT -8
Some years ago there was a California Company that would print pictures on Toilet Paper. I sent them picture of a former employer and had him sent dozen rolls. I told my Brother in Law about the toilet paper and had rolls printed with an ex-wife picture.
Several years ago I saw toilet paper with Obama's picture.
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on May 8, 2019 13:44:38 GMT -8
Rather than further list what I do, I think this might be a good time to share an idea. In the middle of America, there is not much geothermal to use. The ground at a certain depth does maintain a constant and comfortable temp though. I've wondered if a "U" shaped aluminum (recycled) tube placed at depth and then capped with an air filter and a fan would aid in regulating household temps.
Creatures in ideal environments with plenty of food breed. When that environment ceases to be beneficial - drought, famine, viral etc factors remove the population to a smaller number. World environs have changed with nature inventing chlorophyll and exotherms. The late George Carlin said "When the Earth gets tired of us, it will shake us off like a bad case of fleas." But is Fossil fuel the biggest problem? I call it the Mesozoic Revenge (Leptraps might call it Montezuma's Revenge but that is another story).
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on May 10, 2019 23:31:47 GMT -8
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. I don't recycle. It is a complete waste of my time because the folks that pick up my trash sort through it and separate the recyclables. Thus I am ensuring job security for the sorters. I spend roughly $600 monthly on gasoline and about as much on cigars. My electric bill is around $400 monthly and my wife generates a full bag of trash every day. My carbon footprint is large but it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things, IMO. I don't believe in man-caused global warming. The 97% consensus video was pure crap because it was based on a pure crap study by Cook which I read a long time ago. Cook narrowed his study down to 11,944 peer reviewed papers (with over 29,000 authors) that dealt with climate change. 30 odd % of them argued that is was anthropogenic related while roughly 62% did not attribute the warming to being caused by humans. Out of this, he emailed 8000 authors of about 4500 studies (most papers had multiple authors) and asked them to self rate their work. Only 14% or 1120 authors replied and 97% of them agreed with their original findings. That is where the 97% consensus number came from. There was no mention of which which authors of which papers were emailed. But the whole consensus myth is based on replies from only 4% of the original 29,000+ authors. As I said, it was a pure crap study. What is 97% is the amount of funding provided to universities by the various governments. There are vast amounts of money to be made by universities and big business to perpetuate the anthropogenic hoax. There is very little pure scientific inquiry left. Science had been overtaken by government and government now drives science in the direction it chooses and government is driven by campaign finance. Nonetheless, the USA is making strides in reducing carbon emissions...largely by switching to natural gas (thanks to Leptraps) vs coal fired electric plants. According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that time span and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union. By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170 million metric ton decline. At the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons, and India's grew by 1 billion metric tons. Australia, BTW, is the worlds largest emitter of CO2 per capita The Paris Accord allows China to increase CO2 emissions until 2030 while India said they would think about it. Interestingly, The Sahara desert is shrinking despite all scientific predictions to the opposite. www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdfAs written earlier in this thread, human population growth and the resultant loss of biodiversity is the greatest danger to the planet. In the 1960s Paul Ehrlich predicted global famine by the 1980s due to population growth. He was wrong by probably a century. (I do have two signed copies of his butterfly book though.) We won't die of famine though.
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on May 11, 2019 11:49:54 GMT -8
I can appreciate the skepticism. I do enjoy cigars too. Roll some of my own occasionally. Cost of cigars and draconian taxes are a turn off so I learned from a Cuban roller while I lived in Tampa. Rather than worry about others, being personally responsible -a good caretaker-is the goal I seek. Ramming down fear of the end will not work especially when the predictions are consistently incorrect. It is not the fault of science. It appears to be the wrong interpretation of data to fit a hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on May 12, 2019 21:41:34 GMT -8
Hilarious indeed. You personally wonder- I think you are correct - you wonder. And your wonderment is shown as reason.
This time you contradicted yourself in the same post. Can you find it?
Going to use children again? Sigh -
Panic is for low IQ folks....you know, lemmings. Easily led into alarmist trends based on modeling and interpretation of science data rather than science solely.
The bit you personally do Jan might weigh against the story you echo of the boy who cried wolf. I hope it does. More people are rejecting climate science due to faulty modeling and false predictions. When the wolf comes, most will just be glad the boy and his believers, if there are any left, will have been eaten.
Multi government supported must mean believable..... I almost typed that without laughing. I really tried.
After all of that - There is a great paper (peer reviewed) showing positives of a warmer planet judged by many variables during the anomaly of the Medieval Warm Period.
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on May 13, 2019 4:57:06 GMT -8
My concern is that supposedly science minded individuals here continue to debate global warming when the oceans are depleted, a fact nobody is denying. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a 95% loss of a fish species has a high probability of extinction. GW is being blamed for coral bleaching but lo and behold, the reefs that still have apex predators don’t exhibit bleaching. How can there be so much concern for one problem and virtually no concern for a known bigger problem? I don’t get it.
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on May 13, 2019 16:26:32 GMT -8
Ok Strawman - Keep on lying and obfuscating (The proof you do so is in your own words). Maybe it makes you feel better. You are ruled by your feelings to incorrect assumptions and live by it. You have the right to do so. More than several of the climatologists and scientists I know (or knew since some have passed) had the consensus that the trend you echo will pass to a new one and better to just be quiet about it as it will pass. Sure, some will immaturely cry out constantly anyway as if brainwashed rather than do more than a fair share- a pity. If you demand a feeling out of me - rather than hope you stop rushing to command others to do at least a tiny bit such as yourself - I would not pity you - More of a feel sorry for such a wasted life when you could have done something to make a real difference for your children. Your own words indict you. Go ahead and Strawman it away. Your feelings will force/command you to make another incorrect assumptive response. I might respond to further mewling but you seem to have successfully inoculated several here from paying attention to you and the possible solutions of addressing a big issue.
Ty oissinagay
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on May 19, 2019 23:50:00 GMT -8
I mentioned some time ago that Germany was abandoning wind energy projects only to be denied here by the "true believers". Here is an update and seems solar is also on the chopping block now: Germany has belatedly but finally come to the realization that renewable energy is a failure, that it cannot power Germany or the German civilization. The reason is very straight forward: renewable energy wasn’t designed to power modern civilization.
Writing about Germany’s renewable energy transition, the Energiewende, as an environmental model for the world, four reporters for the German newspaper Der Spiegel said in a lengthy article earlier this month that Germany acknowledged last year that it was delaying its phase-out of coal and that it would not meet its greenhouse gas reduction commitments for 2020.
Because its renewable energy emissions have flat-lined since 2009.
Announcing last year that it was delaying its phase out of coal, the reporters also said Germany would bulldoze an ancient church and forest to get the coal underneath.
Titled “A Botched Job in Germany,” the reporters said the Energiewende — Germany’ biggest political project since reunification — has cost Germany $36 billion annually, and opposition to renewable energy is growing in the German countryside.
“The politicians fear citizen resistance,” they said. “There is hardly a wind energy project that is not fought.”
Reporting the Der Spiegel story, Michael Shellenberger, a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award winner and president of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization, said the poor physics of resource-intensive and land-intensive renewables have meant the end of Germany’s rush to renewable energy.
“Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants,” he said, “and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells to produce the same amount of energy.”
Of the 7,000 new kilometers of transmission lines needed in Germany, only 8% have been built, while large scale electricity storage remains inefficient and expensive. “A large part of the energy used is lost,” the Der Spiegel reporters said, noting a much hyped hydrogen gas project, “and the efficiency is bellow 40%. … No viable business model can be developed from this.”
As the German government’s subsidies to wind, solar and biogas since 2000 end in 2020 — without which none of the country’s renewable energy would have been built because they’re too expensive — the renewable energy idea in Germany is over.
Pointing out that the Energiewende has become an excuse for the destruction of natural landscapes and local communities, Mr. Shellenberger said: “Tragically, many Germans appear to have believed that the billions they spend on renewables would redeem them. He quoted a reporter who wrote: “Germans would than at last feel that they have gone from being world destroyers in the 20th century to world saviors in the 21st.”
“Many Germans will claim the renewable transition was merely botched,” Mr. Shellenberger continued, “but it wasn’t. The transition to renewables was doomed because modern industrial people, no matter how Romantic [when Germany’s society was agrarian] they are, do not want to return to pre-modern life.
“The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to.” He added: “One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they would.”
It’s a question begging for an answer. Particularly in the United States.
|
|
leptraps
Banned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,397
|
Post by leptraps on May 20, 2019 3:46:37 GMT -8
I have read more about energy and energy-efficient use than many. The reason I stopped reading was the lack of science.
I lived in Watseka, Illinois in 2005/2006. During that time windmill farms were built along both side of I-65 in Indiana between the 150 to 210 MM. Besides producing cheap electricity, they decreased the accident rate along that portion of I-65 by 85%. A study claimed that drivers relaxed as they drove through the slowly turning windmills.
However, during the construction of the Wind Mill's, environmentalists claim tens of thousands of bird would fly into the rotating blades and be killed. That never occurred.
Here in central Kentucky the cost of geothermal heat in homes was a booming business until KU's two Nuclear Power Plants went on line. I live in a 3600 square foot brick home that is extremely well insulated. I keep the house at 72° year round. My home is all electric. My electric bill is about $180 a month on average. Due to electric heat and A/C my home is bone dry.
Contrary to common belief, my home is not heated by "my" natural gas.
My home is too dry. If I walk around my house with Sock Feet, I generate enough Static Electricity to give my kittens a good jolt. To prevent me from electrocuting my kittens, I wear rubber sole house slippers.
There are numerous land fills that reached capacity and were closed. However, the decomposition produces natural gas and many old land fills are tapped and the gas sold to utilities.
As for me, I truly enjoy natural gas. I can eat some good Mexican food, a Beef Chimichanga with Refried Beans and then go to the theater for a good flick. Most of the guys sitting around me get blamed.
I got a great gag present one year for Christmas. A bag of extra large corks. Ms Betty had a great sense of humor.
Here is my question: How many of you have broke wind in church?
|
|
|
Post by phanaeus1 on May 20, 2019 17:27:32 GMT -8
May The Lord be with you and May You Be With The BRAAAAAAAP!!!
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on May 23, 2019 2:09:34 GMT -8
As entomologists we all know how much Homo sapiens is destroying nearly all natural habitats. When I was in the jungle in the mountains of New Guinea, I could hear the chainsaws all night long... for the wood we are using in developed countries. And we have all witnessed that destruction in our own countries during our life ! Hundreds of great entomological spots are now under concrete. Paradoxally, medecine has "killed" the future : we are now 7 billions on Earth and we will soon be 15 billions... the world won't collapse, it will just be Hell. What will happen when Human will understand that overpopulation will kill our future ? Massive genocides ? The following trend on that graphic is NOT SUSTAINABLE for peace, and for the survival of most species on Earth. If you've never read the novel "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy, read it, it is a great novel... and I am afraid it will be the future of a generation in the 22nd or 23rd century.. Then I agree with Jan, there are tons of things we can do to limit our impact on Earth, but as long as the demography issue is not fixed, we may gain few years of peace, but we won't save the future.
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on May 23, 2019 2:54:40 GMT -8
The graph is incorrect. The line in developing countries will soon flatten. The contraceptions are becoming widely available there and families don’t have as many children as they were have one generation ago. Actually the medicine unbalanced the graph as the mortality in early ages is lower and the live span is longer but people are also having less children as they are more likely to survive to reproductive age so this problem will correct its self. Nevertheless the impact of population on Earth is huge and we should do all to minimize it.
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on May 23, 2019 3:19:40 GMT -8
The graph goes until 2050 only and I doubt demography in Africa, South America and SE Asia will really change in the next 20 years. The graph comes from scientific sources, not done by me.
Unfortunately... as what you say would be a good news.
Another point : China has recently stopped the one-child policy. What will be the impact on global population in the future, if China goes from 1 child to 1.5 or 2 children per women. A HUGE impact !
|
|