Double E Ticket

*
Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Recent posts
The Trump Administration
by Amidala
[Today at 08:24:20 AM]
* CLP REPORT *
by gore range
[Today at 05:22:26 AM]
Holiday start
by Amidala
[December 15, 2018, 07:56:23 PM]
No Topic. Anything Goes.
by Amidala
[December 15, 2018, 07:18:31 PM]
More on climate change
by Amidala
[December 11, 2018, 12:31:16 PM]
....bang bang....
by gore range
[December 04, 2018, 08:37:38 AM]
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: More on climate change  (Read 27186 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

clp_lives

  • Self Important Starfish
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1109
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #30 on: March 08, 2018, 07:52:57 PM »
As I was saying on the Republican efforts to kill the bill, withhold funding on enforcement and delay advances in technology.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/201687-despite-gop-opposition-light-bulb-standards-to-phase-in-on-jan-1


... The Republicans also told me the ban on incandescents is terrible and LEDs are too costly and will never work.  Now I can get LED bulbs for less than $1 and I use less electricity in my home and pay less per month compared to 10 years ago.  ...


of course-




.





.






.





.





.




.




.





.....the bill including the mandating increased light bulb efficency passed in the Senate 86-8 on December 13, 2007. The House approved the final version 314-100 on December 18, and President Bush signed it the following day.

Logged

clp_lives

  • Self Important Starfish
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1109
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #31 on: March 08, 2018, 07:54:36 PM »
Clean air is a terrible thing I guess, everyone wants a coal fired power plant next door to their home I am sure.


You take a snapshot of today to prove your point when I was talking the future.............  And no response to the main point - if global warming turns out not to be true ....

....of course, the documented historical geological record is solid and absolutely factually clear-

....global climates are not static, and-

....the planets have clearly been historically warming over time for a multitude of variable reasons, which likewise remain, and will continue to remain, variable and not static.

Logged

gore range

  • Self Important Starfish
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3543
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #32 on: March 08, 2018, 09:14:34 PM »
Clean air is a terrible thing I guess, everyone wants a coal fired power plant next door to their home I am sure. ...

.





.




.





.




.



.





Logged

lifefeedsonlife

  • Self Important Starfish
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4330
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #33 on: March 09, 2018, 08:50:24 AM »
Folks that lived in and around Pittsburgh in its steel making heyday can attest to what coal burning does to the air. I grew up in an Appalachian anthracite town in eastern PA. I can attest to what mining does to streams and landscapes. Anthracite was the energy that fueled the engine of the industrial revolution though. (Bituminous was a poor substitute - sorry West Virginia.)

Folks in ivory towers far away appreciated us dirty folks . . . kinda.

Tell you what though. "Nature" is an amazing thing. Shamokin's landscape was dominated by its massive black and smoking culm bank that loomed over the town. (I grew up in Mordor!) Some of that has been hauled off and burnt up in a culm plant a few miles up da road in da Heights. (Sorry accent slipped in there.) But even in the areas where the culm wasn't hauled off - trees, shrubs, and the color green have made a dramatic comeback over the 30-some years since the mine and colliery shut down.

The creek is a little less orange too.

Coal isn't going to make a comeback though. There are wildcat mines around, but they're not fueling any revolutions . . . just a few houses and small businesses that have coal furnaces. The big "industry" in the area now?

Corrections.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2018, 09:15:22 AM by lifefeedsonlife »
Logged
For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love. - Carl Sagan

The Wraith

  • Won't Go Away
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Error never lies with facts but how they are used.
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2018, 01:23:05 PM »
I am only going to wade into this discussion by providing this link. Take it for what it is worth, and the source of it and the information being cited within it. These are not independent sources. I merely share this as my "meteorology" professor sounded the alarm bells and went on a 15 minute rant about this a few weeks ago.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/02/21/arctic-temperatures-soar-45-degrees-above-normal-flooded-by-extremely-mild-air-on-all-sides/?utm_term=.8a76206f36dc

Now, I only accept the facts provided by the data, not the blithering from people who clearly have some type of agenda...... more on that in a minute.

What I find amusing is that this planet is estimated to be over 4.5 BILLION years old. It is estimated that human beings in their current form may have developed just about 300,000 years ago. Of course, after a period of probably primal behavior and basically sitting in their own excrement for several thousand years, we can probably eliminate many thousands of those years.

So in essence, an "intelligent" human being with any kind of measuring instrument has been on this planet for probably at most 8018 years. The first recorded weather reports have been dated to 6000 BC in India. The first reported weather readings in North America is reported to have occurred around 1644, according to NOAA.

The point being that out of the 4.5 BILLION YEARS this planet has been around, human beings can only document around 8018 years of weather conditions on it. You do the math. (Hint: it looks like this .0001781777777777778) Would you make any kind of decision based on that percentage of knowledge?

Everything else is a human generated ASSUMPTION, which is exactly what a forecast is..... an assumption made on projected facts. Humans love to try and convince each other that they can predict the future instead of just concentrating on facts they currently have readily available and conditions that will be obvious over the short term. Projections beyond a certain point in time are about as reliable as you rolling the ball on the roulette table. The same can be said for when humans try to estimate what happened several hundred thousand years ago based on human generated fact patterns. How many times through the years have "scientists" had to walk back what they thought happened when actual facts came forth to prove what happened.

To further prove the point, humans have been continually making what they themselves consider "more accurate" recording devices in an attempt to fine tune the information they provide. So this could effectively throw into doubt the accuracy of measuring devices in the past as compared to the devices we have today, most notably with satellites and digital devices.

In addition, as stated in this thread previously, many of these studies and tests are done on government contracts and through competitive grants. That means that $$$$$$$$ has an undue influence on the outcomes. People who wish to push favor towards their beliefs will sponsor tests and research that favors their position, or trade. Such was demonstrated recently at the CPAC convention when this group appeared:


Or the attempts by a certain political organization to influence public policy and laws to help further their financial benefits through a "cap and trade" policy - or the biggest fraud in the renewable energy industry known as "carbon credits." Those who would have benefited the most were the ones actually in power to enact the laws and influence the debate on the issue. Namely several former Presidential candidates, former actual Presidents, and one person who basically started this entire train of thought by making the assertion that the "planet has a fever." Look up the dealings with Shore Bank and who has been associated with it over the years. Don't get caught up in the political BS, stick to the facts uncovered.

It IS all about the money and both sides know it, and they want you arguing over it. Global warming and cooling is going to occur no matter if humans have contributed to it or not. We sit on a giant ball of molten material and rock, and if that giant ball decides to fart in a certain way - goodbye earthlings.

Earthlings attempting to predict the future of something unpredictable like the planet - or mother nature - is a continuing exercise in futility. I say this under the guise that an intelligent scientist has told me that the place I now sit was once under a mile high sheet of ice once........ so yes, climate does change.

End of rant..... LOL

 
Logged
“Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?” ― Peter Hitchens

The Wraith

  • Won't Go Away
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Error never lies with facts but how they are used.
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #35 on: March 11, 2018, 01:25:56 PM »
As a side note, seeing as how this thread started around 2010, did anyone go back and see if the projections offered in the articles they cited actually were on target? I have not, but I may if I find the time.....

Just curious....

Logged
“Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?” ― Peter Hitchens

NightmarePatrol

  • Self Important Starfish
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8529
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2018, 09:07:52 PM »
That would be interesting. Lots of predictions (or prognostications) can be from spot on way, way off.
Logged

The Wraith

  • Won't Go Away
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Error never lies with facts but how they are used.
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2018, 06:05:43 PM »
And for further consideration on the topic....... fudging temperature data? Say it ain't so....

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/



Logged
“Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?” ― Peter Hitchens

clp_lives

  • Self Important Starfish
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1109
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #38 on: March 23, 2018, 08:45:53 AM »
One thing for sure is it created a lot of good paying jobs in the process regardless, that also outnumbered those lost in the coal industry.  It is one of the fastest growing job markets around.  So in reality who cares if the predictions are accurate or not if the job gains keep up and my electric costs are actually lower than 10 years ago.  Why do people want to fight a job growing high tech industry and improved efficiency is beyond me.

As a side note, seeing as how this thread started around 2010, did anyone go back and see if the projections offered in the articles they cited actually were on target? I have not, but I may if I find the time.....

Just curious....


Logged

gore range

  • Self Important Starfish
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3543
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #39 on: March 23, 2018, 10:09:47 AM »
... So in reality who cares if the predictions are accurate or not if the job gains keep up and my electric costs are actually lower than 10 years ago... 

 

 

Logged

clp_lives

  • Self Important Starfish
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1109
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #40 on: March 23, 2018, 10:47:16 AM »
You did not account energy efficiency into my equation, appliances, LED light bulbs, LED TVs, AC etc.  My usage is 40% less as well over that time period, same house.  Add to it the legacy costs that were added to electric bills prior to transition to a free energy market have been removed.  All this does not and will not show up in your charts as this only looks at part of the bill, the pure electric portion.....
Looking at this link  it shows from 2008 to 2016 electric costs went up a whopping 5.5%, well below inflation over that time.  Also once again you add charts for something I was not talking about, I mentioned 10 years.  I guess Obama kept energy costs in check, Bush did not.  ;D 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183700/us-average-retail-electricity-price-since-1990/



... So in reality who cares if the predictions are accurate or not if the job gains keep up and my electric costs are actually lower than 10 years ago... 

 

 

Logged

gore range

  • Self Important Starfish
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3543
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #41 on: March 23, 2018, 01:06:11 PM »
Of course-

....still, the factually reality, as documented above, is the costs did not decrease-

....the costs have only continued to increase.

As admitted and ‘reported’ in the lives
’  unattributed and unsourceable  graphic,  electricity cost have only continued to increase, with an admitted 5.5% increase in the cost in the referenced time frame.

What allegedly decreased was personal usage of electricity,-

.... resulting in an alleged lower payment for that alleged reduced usage of electricity.

An alleged self-proclaimed  40% reduction in usage of has no bearing on the cost of electricity, only what is paid for the amount of the continuing-to-increase-in-cost electricity.

And of course, an alleged 40% reduction in personal usage is quickly offset by both the increasing cost of electricity and the amount of money expended to implement the alleged reduction in personal use of electricity. It takes decades to even begin approaching the financial break even point of retro-fitting a structure, even with DIY-ers supplying the labor. And much longer for those lacking  reliable DIY-er abilities.

Tho, I’m confident somebody, somewhere might tend to be impressed with utilizing an utterly unsupported, alleged claim of a 40% reduction in personal electrical usage is a valid point in addressing the delusion of human-caused ‘global warming’.

In the last decade alone, while my electrical usage is down a documented 89% (same house, same number of residents in the household), and I am clearly paying far far less in monthly electrical bills than before, my average monthly billing has only been reduced 67% due to the continuing increasing price of electricity.




On the financially plus side, I am most fortunate that I surpassed the financial break even point years back in terms of my personal costs of physical upgrades made to the house in  realizing my usage /economical reductions, and I am now benefiting financially as a result of those decisions made a quarter century back.

My situation is the rare exception, with most homeowners very likely throwing good  money after bad in their self-entitled, feel good, false delusion of the possibility of making a contribution to reducing ‘global warming’.
[/]
Logged

gore range

  • Self Important Starfish
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3543
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #42 on: March 23, 2018, 01:22:17 PM »
As a side note, seeing as how this thread started around 2010, did anyone go back and see if the projections offered in the articles they cited actually were on target? I have not, but I may if I find the time.....

Just curious....


...not hard to locate-

-12 years after Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” guilt/fear producing predictions on his way to the bank....

-inundating rising sea levels

- new ice age in Europe

- south Sahara drying up

-massive flooding in China and India

-the earth would be in a “true planetary emergencywithin a decade unless drastic action taken to reduce greenhouse gasses


Logged

clp_lives

  • Self Important Starfish
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1109
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #43 on: March 23, 2018, 01:37:23 PM »
My total monthly cost I pay for my electricity bill is down compared to 10 years ago while my wages went up well over 50% over over that same time period.  Spin that however you like and if I am better off or not.  I say yes but somehow you will find a way to argue no. 

 
Of course-

....still, the factually reality, as documented above, is the costs did not decrease-

....the costs have only continued to increase.

As admitted and ‘reported’ in the lives
’  unattributed and unsourceable  graphic,  electricity cost have only continued to increase, with an admitted 5.5% increase in the cost in the referenced time frame.

What allegedly decreased was personal usage of electricity,-

.... resulting in an alleged lower payment for that alleged reduced usage of electricity.

An alleged self-proclaimed  40% reduction in usage of has no bearing on the cost of electricity, only what is paid for the amount of the continuing-to-increase-in-cost electricity.

And of course, an alleged 40% reduction in personal usage is quickly offset by both the increasing cost of electricity and the amount of money expended to implement the alleged reduction in personal use of electricity. It takes decades to even begin approaching the financial break even point of retro-fitting a structure, even with DIY-ers supplying the labor. And much longer for those lacking  reliable DIY-er abilities.

Tho, I’m confident somebody, somewhere might tend to be impressed with utilizing an utterly unsupported, alleged claim of a 40% reduction in personal electrical usage is a valid point in addressing the delusion of human-caused ‘global warming’.

In the last decade alone, while my electrical usage is down a documented 89% (same house, same number of residents in the household), and I am clearly paying far far less in monthly electrical bills than before, my average monthly billing has only been reduced 67% due to the continuing increasing price of electricity.




On the financially plus side, I am most fortunate that I surpassed the financial break even point years back in terms of my personal costs of physical upgrades made to the house in  realizing my usage /economical reductions, and I am now benefiting financially as a result of those decisions made a quarter century back.

My situation is the rare exception, with most homeowners very likely throwing good  money after bad in their self-entitled, feel good, false delusion of the possibility of making a contribution to reducing ‘global warming’.
[/]

Logged

gore range

  • Self Important Starfish
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3543
Re: More on climate change
« Reply #44 on: March 23, 2018, 03:21:24 PM »
...yes, dear.....

....do continue to make shit up with the personal attacks.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12   Go Up
 

*
A random picture
Sorry, you need to be logged in to view the gallery
Portal Management Extension PortaMx™ v0.957 | PortaMx © 2008-2009 by PortaMx corp.