Weather at your house

[packs]

No, my last point is not wrong. Temperature and climate can be related and have correlations between the two, but they are not interchangeable. You can't point to this week's forecast to determine the climate isn't changing. That's not the relationship that exists between the two.

I don't think you've addressed anything I said. I didn't talk about Co2 so I can only guess as to why it's come up in response to my comments. The climate is not part of any political party so I don't know what you mean when you say "my side" is destroying forests. There is just a planet. It's the only planet we have to live on. I can't imagine why anyone would be against keeping it clean and in good condition.

[irv]

Originally Posted by packs

No, my last point is not wrong. Temperature and climate can be related and have correlations between the two, but they are not interchangeable. You can't point to this week's forecast to determine the climate isn't changing. That's not the relationship that exists between the two.

I don't think you've addressed anything I said. I didn't talk about Co2 so I can only guess as to why it's come up in response to my comments. The climate is not part of any political party so I don't know what you mean when you say "my side" is destroying rain forests. There is just a planet. It's the only planet we have to live on. I can't imagine why anyone would be against keeping it clean and in good condition.

And, there you go again with that non sense. I think any rational sane person wants those things too but they know they don't have to pay a carbon tax or any other financial penalty in order to achieve them. Did you watch the movie? (of course not) Are you afraid too? In it they discuss how things have improved greatly over the past decades. And no one paid a carbon tax for that to happen. See where I'm going with this? It's a lie, a grift, a scam, nothing more. The climate is cyclical, always has been always will be. Get that through your head. They are capitalizing on a lie.

[packs]

Originally Posted by irv

And, there you go again with that non sense. I think any rational sane person wants those things too but they know they don't have to pay a carbon tax or any other financial penalty in order to achieve them. Did you watch the movie? (of course not) Are you afraid too? In it they discuss how things have improved greatly over the past decades. And no one paid a carbon tax for that to happen. See where I'm going with this? It's a lie, a grift, a scam, nothing more. The climate is cyclical, always has been always will be. Get that through your head. They are capitalizing on a lie.

This isn't a tit for tat statement. It's a practical question for an individual. Whether or not you believe in global warming is unrelated to what I'm asking. Why would anyone be against something like renewable energy? Or more fresh water to drink? Or cleaner air?

[irv]

Originally Posted by packs

This isn't a tit for tat statement. It's a practical question for an individual. Whether or not you believe in global warming is unrelated to what I'm asking. Why would anyone be against something like renewable energy? Or more fresh water to drink? Or cleaner air?

Are you obtuse or something?
Because, like what I thought I made clear, your renewable energy narrative is nothing but a scam and is actually more harmful than it is good.
Are you OK with them razing forests, ruining habitats, just to burn in co-gen stations that claim they are "green renewable energy" sources?

You and me, whether you want to believe that or not, are basically after the same things, but your refusal to educate yourself with what you have been brainwashed with is getting tiring.
Watch the movie. It might be tough for you to admit you've been lied to and fooled but I've always believed it is better to be slapped with the truth than it is to be kissed with a lie.

[packs]

Originally Posted by irv

Are you obtuse or something?
Because, like what I thought I made clear, your renewable energy narrative is nothing but a scam and is actually more harmful than it is good.
Are you OK with them razing forests, ruining habitats, just to burn in co-gen stations that claim they are "green renewable energy" sources?

You and me, whether you want to believe that or not, are basically after the same things, but your refusal to educate yourself with what you have been brainwashed with is getting tiring.
Watch the movie. It might be tough for you to admit you've been lied to and fooled but I've always believed it is better to be slapped with the truth than it is to be kissed with a lie.

Renewable energy isn't a scam. It exists and can exist in larger formats if developed further. You keep saying things like "are you ok with razing a forest for renewable energy?"

What does one have to do with the other? Are you suggesting there is no other way to develop renewable energy?

[irv]

Originally Posted by packs

Renewable energy isn't a scam. It exists and can exist in larger formats if developed further. You keep saying things like "are you ok with razing a forest for renewable energy?"

What does one have to do with the other? Are you suggesting there is no other way to develop renewable energy?

Good god, man. At least do yourself a favor and watch the movie. Renewable energy is nothing like you think it is. You've been brainwashed into believing something that simply isn't true nor better for the planet.

[packs]

Renewable energy has a clear definition: renewable energy is energy derived from natural sources that are replenished at a higher rate than they are consumed.

[Smarti5051]

As I type this, I am already regretting it, because I realize there is never a rational discussion of anything that has been politicized. But, on a micro level, I can tell you that when I bought my house 12 years ago, I had a high energy bill. So, I paid to have solar panels installed on my house. They are still pumping out about 900 KwH of energy each month and to my knowledge do not put any added stress on the environment. We also bought two Teslas, not for energy reasons - just because they are fun to drive and the X was a business tax write-off, and have not had to rely on gas for the past four years and that should continue for several years. So, again, on a micro level, I like to think that we have decreased the world's reliance on energy sources that could be harmful long term to the planet - maybe I am wrong. I also like to speculate that if everybody in a sunny climate did the same thing, it would have a more meaningful effect.

I believe there are plenty of profiteers and and a multitude of politicians that have used the environment solely for personal gain (on both sides of the aisle). But, on a basic academic consideration of the topic, it seems hard to argue that renewable energy sources do exist and could help decrease the reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

As I type this, I am already regretting it, because I realize there is never a rational discussion of anything that has been politicized. But, on a micro level, I can tell you that when I bought my house 12 years ago, I had a high energy bill. So, I paid to have solar panels installed on my house. They are still pumping out about 900 KwH of energy each month and to my knowledge do not put any added stress on the environment. We also bought two Teslas, not for energy reasons - just because they are fun to drive and the X was a business tax write-off, and have not had to rely on gas for the past four years and that should continue for several years. So, again, on a micro level, I like to think that we have decreased the world's reliance on energy sources that could be harmful long term to the planet - maybe I am wrong. I also like to speculate that if everybody in a sunny climate did the same thing, it would have a more meaningful effect.

I believe there are plenty of profiteers and and a multitude of politicians that have used the environment solely for personal gain (on both sides of the aisle). But, on a basic academic consideration of the topic, it seems hard to argue that renewable energy sources do exist and could help decrease the reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

This sounds great. Turning sunlight into electricity is a great concept, especially when you can also use that electricity as a substitute for gasoline. If I lived in a sunny state and had the dough, I'd love to do what you're doing.

The problems, as I see it, lie in the politicalization of it. First, the lies (like, CO2, which comprises less than 1/2 of 1/10th of one percent of the atmosphere is "too much.") and second, the hypocrisy. The batteries in your Teslas require lithium, nickel, and copper among other elements. These need to be mined. Here in Minnesota, Twin Metals has been trying for more than a decade to open a mine to extract proven reserves of nickel and copper. Like the Keystone pipeline project, when conservatives are in power the process moves forward. When liberals gain power, they shut it down.

And that's the hypocrisy. The people who proclaim and mandate a nationwide transition to electric vehicles too often shut down efforts to obtain the necessary raw materials. Meanwhile, there are environmental concerns about discarding used solar panels and batteries.

On the micro level, solar looks like "clean" energy. On the macro level, not so much. Concerns about mining, disposing of waste, ramping up power plants to handle more EV demand, etc. reveal the whole "clean energy" movement to be, well, not so clean after all.

[Cliff Bowman]

It’s actually very pleasant today, in the 70’s and sunny, but it’s going to rain Thursday and then return to normal lower temperatures.

[2dueces]

Originally Posted by packs

No, my last point is not wrong. Temperature and climate can be related and have correlations between the two, but they are not interchangeable. You can't point to this week's forecast to determine the climate isn't changing. That's not the relationship that exists between the two.

I don't think you've addressed anything I said. I didn't talk about Co2 so I can only guess as to why it's come up in response to my comments. The climate is not part of any political party so I don't know what you mean when you say "my side" is destroying forests. There is just a planet. It's the only planet we have to live on. I can't imagine why anyone would be against keeping it clean and in good condition.

I’m not going to debate this but as the United States tries to ban gas stoves China is building a new coal plant every 3 months using 70’s technology.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

I’m not going to debate this but as the United States tries to ban gas stoves China is building a new coal plant every 3 months using 70’s technology.

They couldn’t care less what China does. They don’t hate China, just the opposite, they hate the people who voted for the Orange Meanie.

[mrreality68]

Still no snow on long island and this weather been mild temperatures (this weekend slightly cold) but feels like early spring most of February

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

I’m not going to debate this but as the United States tries to ban gas stoves China is building a new coal plant every 3 months using 70’s technology.

I'm really trying to bite my tongue and stay out of these ridiculous threads...but do you actually think they're trying to ban gas stoves?

We are doomed!

P.S. No need to debate anything. Let's not waste each others time.

[irv]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I'm really trying to bite my tongue and stay out of these ridiculous threads...but do you actually think they're trying to ban gas stoves?

We are doomed!

P.S. No need to debate anything. Let's not waste each others time.

Well, I haven't followed it, tbh, but I know at least one is trying to do exactly that.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...till-uses-one/
I really wish I knew how someone like this, and both sides have them, how they get into power?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfrUWwPLT48

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by irv

Well, I haven't followed it, tbh, but I know at least one is trying to do exactly that.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...till-uses-one/
I really wish I knew how someone like this, and both sides have them, how they get into power?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfrUWwPLT48

Let me reiterate, nobody is trying to ban gas stoves...not even the boogeyman that's referenced in the shittily constructed article you linked.

You can declare that exposure to natural gas causes cognitive disfunction (doesn't seem to be a controversial statement, because exposure to natural gas can also KILL you), and still have natural gas appliances without the howls of "hypocrisy" raining down upon you.

I have a gas stove. I have a propane heater in the greenhouse connected to our house. I am aware of the dangers of those appliances. I also like the convenience of those appliances. I live in a blue state, and have zero fear of anybody coming for my appliances. If they do...I promise you I'll kick up a fuss and publicly declare on social media to lay down my life for my gas stove, as other over-dramatic personalities are claiming to do.

You can also admit that guns kill people, while also owning guns. It's allowed you know.

[irv]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Let me reiterate, nobody is trying to ban gas stoves...not even the boogeyman that's referenced in the shittily constructed article you linked.

You can declare that exposure to natural gas causes cognitive disfunction (doesn't seem to be a controversial statement, because exposure to natural gas can also KILL you), and still have natural gas appliances without the howls of "hypocrisy" raining down upon you.

I have a gas stove. I have a propane heater in the greenhouse connected to our house. I am aware of the dangers of those appliances. I also like the convenience of those appliances. I live in a blue state, and have zero fear of anybody coming for my appliances. If they do...I promise you I'll kick up a fuss and publicly declare on social media to lay down my life for my gas stove, as other over-dramatic personalities are claiming to do.

You can also admit that guns kill people, while also owning guns. It's allowed you know.

Well, like I said, I haven't been following along but to say it wasn't/hasn't been talked about is also false.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/11/polit...ves/index.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...;sref=svjzpYTg

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by irv

Well, like I said, I haven't been following along but to say it wasn't/hasn't been talked about is also false.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/11/polit...ves/index.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...;sref=svjzpYTg

It was "talked about". That's the goal post now?

Please name one topic that hasn't been "talked about".

One guy, on one committee somewhere, talked about regulating safety features on certain appliances and somehow it becomes a rallying cry of outrage for triggered, pearl-clutching snowflakes everywhere.

See what I did there?

Granted, I think the "outrage" was mostly faux outrage for specifically performative and political purposes. Sadly, it's done it's job, and now I have to read from people who are somehow legitimately outraged, and declaring as a statement of fact that the government is gearing up to come for their stoves.

FYI, the supposed left leaning "Bloomberg", invests heavily in Natural Gas Futures...so it's no surprise they blew that whole "stove ban" bullshit out of proportion back in early January, which has since been given much more context.