[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

IIRC, the "No Nukes" protests, trying to stop nuclear energy were NOT funded by oil & gas corporations... It was the "peace, love and granola" lobbyists... And that is still true, to this day...

BTW, I've been touting the new "safe" nuclear power plants for some time now. They are the only way we'll be able to power your beloved "E-(insert every single mode of transportation here) vehicles"...

That, or we all get one of these:

Who doesn't love MR. Fusion .......which actually was in the news recently about a lab-controlled breakthrough amounting to getting more energy out than put in for the 1 st time. But still, a long way to go.
...... But, neither of us nor anyone can say for SURE that the Oil and Gas industry did NOT fund anti-nuke rallies either DIRECTLY or by using anti-nuke propaganda. The Oil and Gas industry has some SMART covert operators that may have infiltrated the anti-nuke movement. They have the money and the motivation to hire the BEST covert operators. And they have been excelling at PROPAGANDA for as long as we have been alive. They are the industry that gets paid for NOT DRILLING.....pretty special......no ??????
.....Oil and gas practically owns one TV channel that can convince Americans that black is white.

And believe it or don't ......we can actually agree about your 2nd paragraph about the safety of nuclear energy plants. And I also twice pointed out that Oliver Stone made that point at Davos (anyone can google that). And some poster badmouthed Oliver Stone. Well, he would HAVE to be a pretty sharp "cookie" to be able to have directed and produced some of the top films ever produced. I bet he is EVEN smarter than me. But, more IMPORTANTLY, Davos just does not just let any old "wineo" come in out of the street and speak to the greatest businessmen on the planet. Oliver Stone is a legendary intellect that has a GOOD point to make and deserves a seat at the table with the TOP THINKERS of our time !!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Actually, it said "near" the lowest level, but why quibble over facts?

Actually one sentence I saw said near record. But, in another paragraph or maybe an article it was stated that because it was well into JANUARY that it is about impossible that 2023 will not be a record.
.....But, it is GREAT that yourself and maybe others looked up the % of ICE because it is another (of many) proofs that the planet has warmed to record levels in the past 8 years. Contrary to what one poster claims. And another keeps believing that I am talking in Geological centuries, when in fact I am talking about real-time, right now, when CO2 is not able to be taken in by the amount of plants on earth and the upper atmosphere is acting like a blanket and setting records for HEAT on Earth. Somehow, I am having difficulty getting my point across. I can understand that some people may NOT care. And some people may have a different opinion, but what I don't understand is why after I have put out so many different FACTS, why my statement of those facts is attacked ??????

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by rsimpson

Were you measuring ice back 11,600 years ago, too?

I don't understand how THAT is relevant, when today the scientists in Michigan are the ones believing that it is important this year and recently.

[Rainger99]

If climate change is an existential threat to the planet, what is the solution?

If everyone in the world bought an electric car, would that solve the problem?

There are about 1.4 billion cars in the world and only 19% are in the US. These cars have to be plugged into an electric outlet.

The power plants providing that energy aren’t emission-free; even in California, 60% of electricity came from burning fossil fuels in 2015, while solar and wind together made up less than 14%.

If we have electric cars, aren’t we still burning the fossil fuels to power the electric cars? We just do it earlier.

And how many of the 1.4 billion car owners can afford an electrical car?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

If climate change is an existential threat to the planet, what is the solution?

If everyone in the world bought an electric car, would that solve the problem?

There are about 1.4 billion cars in the world and only 19% are in the US. These cars have to be plugged into an electric outlet.

The power plants providing that energy aren’t emission-free; even in California, 60% of electricity came from burning fossil fuels in 2015, while solar and wind together made up less than 14%.

If we have electric cars, aren’t we still burning the fossil fuels to power the electric cars? We just do it earlier.

And how many of the 1.4 billion car owners can afford an electrical car?

I covered that next to last ? in a prior post. It is EASIER to clean up 1 LARGE STATIONARY power plant than a bizzillion in- FER-nal Combustion Vehicles accelerating and decelerating around town.

I also covered the last ? in a prior post. Electrical vehicles are simpler to design, build, maintain, and fuel than gas vehicles. They also have a lower center of gravity so the accelerate quicker and they ROLL OVER with more difficulty, especially golf carts. So, this SIMPLICITY will, over time and more production, lead to LESS costly and more reliable vehicles. Plus it does NOT take a Nostradamus to realize that E-Vehicles are the FUTURE.
.......But, this Nostradamus is predicting that he will have to repeat a similar post for the next 5 years
........and to all a goodnight ......

[Byte1]

My great-grandfather used a horse powered wagon to go to town for supplies. One day, a local businessman confronted him telling him that if he would just purchase a motorcar(truck) the town wouldn't have to put up with his horses' manure in the street. He was told that his horse manure was a blight on the environment. In those days, combustion engines smoked and made enough noise to frighten livestock. A hundred and fifty years later, we have the (what I label) "Screamers" that predict the end of the world due to combustion engines. I've been told that I should purchase an 'lectric car to save the world. Suggestion: mind your own business and quit worrying about man's extinction that MIGHT occur in a thousand years. Man's been using fossil fuel for thousands of years, since the discovery of fire and we are still around. As a matter of fact, we have a larger population than ever. Don't worry about new ways to produce energy because private industry is always progressing. Just don't allow the Gov. to dictate how we "MUST" change because they do not have a clue. Their only motivation is money in their pockets at the expense of the citizens. Private industry has always been the real motivator for progress.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I covered that next to last ? in a prior post. It is EASIER to clean up 1 LARGE STATIONARY power plant than a bizzillion in- FER-nal Combustion Vehicles accelerating and decelerating around town.

I also covered the last ? in a prior post. Electrical vehicles are simpler to design, build, maintain, and fuel than gas vehicles. They also have a lower center of gravity so the accelerate quicker and they ROLL OVER with more difficulty, especially golf carts. So, this SIMPLICITY will, over time and more production, lead to LESS costly and more reliable vehicles. Plus it does NOT take a Nostradamus to realize that E-Vehicles are the FUTURE.
.......But, this Nostradamus is predicting that he will have to repeat a similar post for the next 5 years
........and to all a goodnight ......

Tell that to the residents of Chernobyl or Fukushima.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I don't understand how THAT is relevant, when today the scientists in Michigan are the ones believing that it is important this year and recently.

Again, which scientists? I'll bet it is those who are dependent on government grants, university tenure and acceptance of published articles to feed their families.

And why do they do this----let's cite a 1967 essay by Chomsky:

"Still, let’s reflect on Chomsky’s method. Here were half a dozen of America’s best and brightest, the people daily interviewed on TV, the minds quoted in the media, the people given the grants and the awards, the celebrated geniuses of the age.

Chomsky proved them all to be ruling-class hucksters willing to tell any lie to protect themselves and their friends. The essay remains as a clarion call for intellectuals to stop with the nonsense, the careerism, the coverups: in short, he said, stop serving the ruling class with such slavish obeisance. He didn’t persuade them (he knew he would not) but at least a generation of students and citizens, upon reading his mini-treatise, had the scales fall from their eyes to see these people for what they were doing. "

Sadly, there are those that continue to believe and quote these irresponsible charlatans.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

OK, yes, good post. The 1st step in SOLVING a problem IS to identify clearly what that problem IS. I would like people to realize the PROBLEM happens each time the ignition KEY to a Infernal Combustion Engine is turned on. Or a gas lawn mower is STARTED. Now I know that people, especially older folks that are set in their ways, will NOT immediately trade their ICE engine vehicle (car, truck, or golf cart) on an E-VEHICLE.

I know that ! But I SIMPLY would like more people to realize that for people and animal species to continue to live on this planet Earth in a civilized and peaceful manner in the FUTURE - that today we must, (AT LEAST) recognize the correlation between fossil fuel vehicles and a deteriorating planet and SOME potentially really BAD outcomes for HUMANS !!!!!!

You /cannot/ "solve" the "problem" of climate change by eliminating the use of fossil fuels. You just can't.

Fossil fuels are the #1 ingredient of most plastics on this planet. There are other plastics that don't use fossil fuels, but oil is the #1 source of most plastic. Your computer monitor, your keyboard, your cell phone case, the buttons on your shirt, the hard tips of your shoelaces, the lining of your running shoe soles, most likely your windowshade, your lanai windows and screens. Your plumbing pipes are likely PVC, which is made with natural gas and salt as the main ingredient. Natural gas is also a fossil fuel.

Using the assumption that climate change a) exists and b) is a problem, you have to accept that it cannot be solved. It will never revert back to the time before it was a problem. That just flat out won't ever happen, unless there's another ice age. So you need to stop trying to tackle the problem with the notion that it can be solved. It can't.

The ONLY thing we can do, as a species, about the assumed problem of climate change, is to reduce our contribution to it. Energy-efficient structures, ADDING alternative renewable fuels to our existing use of fossil fuels to reduce our 100% reliance on them, for example.

Reducing pollution, more eco-friendly use of our waterways - maybe get rid of speed boats entirely. Reducing sport-fishing and encouraging fishing for food instead. We have entire species of animals on the verge of extinction, and they are important parts of OUR food chain. Without them, WE suffer. So we need to do whatever we can, within our means, to prevent that extinction.

What am I doing to that end? My flower and herb beds use no pesticides or chemical fertilizers at all. They attract honeybees and other pollinators, which can thrive and not spread poison from my soil to their nests and hives. I don't kill bugs outside my house, only inside it. I try to walk or ride my bike to the postal station instead of driving. It's a tiny little nothingburger of something I can do to help. But if everyone on the planet added their own tiny little nothingburger, the problem might take a few hundred years longer to become a catastrophe.

[Rainger99]

I will believe climate change is an existential threat when the Davos people start meeting on Zoom.

Private jet emissions quadrupled as 1,040 planes flew in and out of airports serving Davos during the 2022 World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting.

Look at what we do - not what we say!!!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

My great-grandfather used a horse powered wagon to go to town for supplies. One day, a local businessman confronted him telling him that if he would just purchase a motorcar(truck) the town wouldn't have to put up with his horses' manure in the street. He was told that his horse manure was a blight on the environment. In those days, combustion engines smoked and made enough noise to frighten livestock. A hundred and fifty years later, we have the (what I label) "Screamers" that predict the end of the world due to combustion engines. I've been told that I should purchase an 'lectric car to save the world. Suggestion: mind your own business and quit worrying about man's extinction that MIGHT occur in a thousand years. Man's been using fossil fuel for thousands of years, since the discovery of fire and we are still around. As a matter of fact, we have a larger population than ever. Don't worry about new ways to produce energy because private industry is always progressing. Just don't allow the Gov. to dictate how we "MUST" change because they do not have a clue. Their only motivation is money in their pockets at the expense of the citizens. Private industry has always been the real motivator for progress.

Actually, if we remember back to the 40s, 50s, 60s - we innovated because the US University system had MANY RESEARCH scientists employed. There were MANY Federal GRANTS for basic RESEARCH. Also, the space program and the race to the moon provided USEFUL, practical products like VELCRO.........That was the Federal Government DOING the innovating, NOT industry.
.........This basically changed in the 1980s when it was decided that the Federal Government was giving away too much MONEY to the Universities. Also about the same time as portrayed in the movie about "greed is good" - the best and the brightest (and the believers in money) of the College Graduates ORBITTED toward Wall Street.

That is the way I remember the History from 1940 onward. Private Industry has NOT been the prime innovator throughout History. As a matter of fact ......industrial GIANTS have often held back innovation. For example, the railroad TYCOONS - they had to be broken up.The oil and gas industry conned the Federal Govenment into paying it to drill long after the reason for the payments had evaporated. Today the oil and gas industry has MEGA lobbyists PREVENTING any meaningful change. And they have been fighting against E-vehicles and E-bikes. Also, look at Facebook, which simply buys up the competition. As does most of the Silicon Valley corporations. The Federal brought these monopolistic Corporations before Congress, but the CEOs of those companies DAZZLED the CongressPeople who did NOT have the capacity to UNDERSTAND them - much less to regulate them. And now currently we have this unmanageable internet mess of a DARK WEB that is seriously threatening US basic liberty and Capitalism itself.

Not ALL, BUT MANY......INDUSTRIAL Corporations are actually INNOVATING, but they are innovating GREED for themselves, not benefits for you and I.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Tell that to the residents of Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Actually, I knew that someone would bring this up. Those were old-generation nuclear plants. And the Japanese plant was located in a vulnerable location. Today the US's biggest aircraft carrier is powered by a somewhat small nuclear reactor. And the same with submarines. That is what Oliver Stone presented at Davos to the world's pre-eminent business people. Also, I am sure that gas and even coal power plants have had accidents. And as the Chinese found out the hard way, coal burning causes air pollution detrimental to human health. And as I have said before, the pollution drifts upward and ends up causing Global Warming of the type that is increasing at a dangerous rate for the last 8 years.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Again, which scientists? I'll bet it is those who are dependent on government grants, university tenure and acceptance of published articles to feed their families.

And why do they do this----let's cite a 1967 essay by Chomsky:

"Still, let’s reflect on Chomsky’s method. Here were half a dozen of America’s best and brightest, the people daily interviewed on TV, the minds quoted in the media, the people given the grants and the awards, the celebrated geniuses of the age.

Chomsky proved them all to be ruling-class hucksters willing to tell any lie to protect themselves and their friends. The essay remains as a clarion call for intellectuals to stop with the nonsense, the careerism, the coverups: in short, he said, stop serving the ruling class with such slavish obeisance. He didn’t persuade them (he knew he would not) but at least a generation of students and citizens, upon reading his mini-treatise, had the scales fall from their eyes to see these people for what they were doing. "

Sadly, there are those that continue to believe and quote these irresponsible charlatans.

OK, I will Google Chomsky and I will do that simply because it seems to mean a lot to yourself and I ADMIRE the emotional commitment to your hypothesis.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

You /cannot/ "solve" the "problem" of climate change by eliminating the use of fossil fuels. You just can't.

Fossil fuels are the #1 ingredient of most plastics on this planet. There are other plastics that don't use fossil fuels, but oil is the #1 source of most plastic. Your computer monitor, your keyboard, your cell phone case, the buttons on your shirt, the hard tips of your shoelaces, the lining of your running shoe soles, most likely your windowshade, your lanai windows and screens. Your plumbing pipes are likely PVC, which is made with natural gas and salt as the main ingredient. Natural gas is also a fossil fuel.

Using the assumption that climate change a) exists and b) is a problem, you have to accept that it cannot be solved. It will never revert back to the time before it was a problem. That just flat out won't ever happen, unless there's another ice age. So you need to stop trying to tackle the problem with the notion that it can be solved. It can't.

The ONLY thing we can do, as a species, about the assumed problem of climate change, is to reduce our contribution to it. Energy-efficient structures, ADDING alternative renewable fuels to our existing use of fossil fuels to reduce our 100% reliance on them, for example.

Reducing pollution, more eco-friendly use of our waterways - maybe get rid of speed boats entirely. Reducing sport-fishing and encouraging fishing for food instead. We have entire species of animals on the verge of extinction, and they are important parts of OUR food chain. Without them, WE suffer. So we need to do whatever we can, within our means, to prevent that extinction.

What am I doing to that end? My flower and herb beds use no pesticides or chemical fertilizers at all. They attract honeybees and other pollinators, which can thrive and not spread poison from my soil to their nests and hives. I don't kill bugs outside my house, only inside it. I try to walk or ride my bike to the postal station instead of driving. It's a tiny little nothingburger of something I can do to help. But if everyone on the planet added their own tiny little nothingburger, the problem might take a few hundred years longer to become a catastrophe.

I agree with the INTENT of what you are saying. I wish everyone realized that animal species are vanishing at a HORRIBLE rate. AND extinct .....NEVER reverses. I may differ in that I feel SOME optimism when I read about things like the Oliver Stone deal of his going to Davos. He IS a busy, important individual who is using his MEGAPHONE to do the right thing for HUMANITY. I do NOT have the same megaphone, so some might say that I should NOT get excited, rock the boat, or BOTHER to type stuff out that only a few people will EVER see.
........I think of it more like a little HOBBY that allows me to IMPROVE my writing and allows me to stay current on News events and what is important to this environment........Village never Never Land.

I agree that it would be better to save our fossil fuels for use in plastics than to just BURN them up. It would probably be better to make as many things out of wood that you could instead of plastics because of the waste accumulation going on at landfills.
......I agree that people each doing little things for the environment like supporting honey bees is very VIRTUOUS.
.......I never believed that the way things ARE has ANY UNCHANGEABLE relationship to the way things SHOULD BE. Life is about constant change.......and the change is happening MORE rapidly with each year.
.......I see a near FUTURE (next 5 years) where many, many MORE people (even old ones here in La la Land) will be trading in their IC engine vehicles for E-vehicles, for E-carts, E-3 wheelers, and for E-bikes. It is starting to trend that way right NOW. Imagine bicycling and you come to a steep hill, what could be nicer than to get a little E-boost up that hill.......better commuting.
........And I could see the oil and gas industry losing its grip on peoples' thinking and people leaning toward electric production from CLEANER sources like Nuclear, wind solar, or WHATEVER the future brings. And the FUTURE is closer than we think.......like about 5 years.
.........OH yes......about your herb garden.......always remember the garden advice........"a thyme in time saves nine"

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

I will believe climate change is an existential threat when the Davos people start meeting on Zoom.

Private jet emissions quadrupled as 1,040 planes flew in and out of airports serving Davos during the 2022 World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting.

Look at what we do - not what we say!!!

I would agree to a certain extent and it reminds me that MY personal idol .....Greta Thunberg traveled from Sweden (I think) aboard a boat powered by sails and solar energy. It took her awhile, but she is young and TIME is on her side. It probably would NOT be the BEST thing for the WORLD if Oliver Stone traveled that SAME way....SLOWLY.
..........Oliver Stone is at the PEAK of his productive and artistic life so I don't think if we voted on having him fly or take a slow boat, that the majority would NOT want him to fly. The SAME can be said for Presidents, Congress people, Generals, sports stars, etc. In the future, maybe they can take aircraft and boats powered by Fusion engines and there will be nothing to complain about.