First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.

Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
be on.

So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!

So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????

In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.

Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.

So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
its buildings.

Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
so???

Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

terry wrote:
First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.

Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
be on.

So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!

So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????

In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.

Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.

So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
its buildings.

Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
so???

Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

Cold water running downhill puts out just as much heat as that that runs through
a dam and thereby heats a house. All the energy from gravity speeding up the
water is released to the environment when the water is slowed down by rapids and
friction. Most of it probably goes into warming the water, which then warms the
air.

Any hydropower you use to heat your jouse is power that cannot be sold to
another region that would use it to replace fossil fuel generated power, so
conserving is still helpful.

terry wrote:
First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.

Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
be on.

So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!

So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????

In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.

Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.

So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
its buildings.

Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
so???

Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

Well, the cold water running downstream to warmer climate will soak up
the heat lost from your house. I think you're breaking even )

terry wrote:
First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.

Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
be on.

So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!

So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????

In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.

Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.

So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
its buildings.

Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
so???

Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

Darnit! Don't give the Commiecrats any new ideas. You'll get us
all slapped with a latent heat tax or an inertia tax or a caloric
tax or an enthalpy tax or a ...........

TDD

On Nov 27, 1:22*pm, "
wrote:
terry wrote:
First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.

Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
be on.

So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!

So does that 'add' *to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????

In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.

Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.

So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
its buildings.

Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
so???

Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

Well, the cold water running downstream to warmer climate will soak up
the heat lost from your house. *I think you're breaking even )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thta's what trying to figure out! Are we just neutral; just
transferring energy from one place to another or creating additional
heat?

On Nov 27, 1:51*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
terry wrote:
First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.

Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
be on.

So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!

So does that 'add' *to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????

In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.

Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.

So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
its buildings.

Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
so???

Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

Darnit! Don't give the Commiecrats any new ideas. You'll get us
all slapped with a latent heat tax or an inertia tax or a caloric
tax or an enthalpy tax or a ...........

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, oh another holo-climate denyer. Eh?

It's OK I'll just retire to my basement (50 to 60 degrees all year
round) and use the fat from one seal carcass for heat and light.

And yes we too, are struggling to understand carbon tax credits etc.
None of it seems to do much to actually REDUCE emissions. Anyway we
have planted some 70 trees during the last 35 years which
'sequestrate' (think that's the right word?) certain amount of carbon
so credit is presently pretty good.

How many trees have you planted and matured?

"terry" wrote in message
...
On Nov 27, 1:51 pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
terry wrote:
First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.

Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
be on.

So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!

So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????

In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.

Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.

So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
its buildings.

Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
so???

Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

Darnit! Don't give the Commiecrats any new ideas. You'll get us
all slapped with a latent heat tax or an inertia tax or a caloric
tax or an enthalpy tax or a ...........

Our bodies give off heat also. That is why they tax us. ww

The Daring Dufas wrote:
terry wrote:
First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.

Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
be on.

So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!

So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????

In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.

Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.

So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
its buildings.

Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
so???

Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

Darnit! Don't give the Commiecrats any new ideas. You'll get us
all slapped with a latent heat tax or an inertia tax or a caloric
tax or an enthalpy tax or a ...........

TDD

I think there should be a carbon tax on all consumables...fight obesity
and help the environment. Higher tax, depending on customer weight? )

terry wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:22 pm, "
wrote:
terry wrote:
First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.
Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
be on.
So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!
Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!
So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????
In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.
Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.
So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
its buildings.
Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
so???
Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?
Well, the cold water running downstream to warmer climate will soak up
the heat lost from your house. I think you're breaking even )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thta's what trying to figure out! Are we just neutral; just
transferring energy from one place to another or creating additional
heat?

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? Sounds good
to me, but I almost flunked physics )

On Nov 27, 12:05*pm, terry wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:51*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Darnit! Don't give the Commiecrats any new ideas. You'll get us
all slapped with a latent heat tax or an inertia tax or a caloric
tax or an enthalpy tax or a ...........


Oh, oh another holo-climate denyer. Eh?

It's OK I'll just retire to my basement (50 to 60 degrees all year
round) and use the fat from one seal carcass for heat and light.

And yes we too, are struggling to understand carbon tax credits etc.
None of it seems to do much to actually REDUCE emissions. Anyway we
have planted some 70 trees during the last 35 years which
'sequestrate' (think that's the right word?) *certain amount of carbon
so credit is presently pretty good.

In a 'perfect' world every single person's actions would be tabulated
and accounted for and taxed/rewarded/penalized accordingly. As it
stands in this 'imperfect' world (which I like just fine), there are a
myriad of areas where the actions of some impact others with no
repercussions.

I've long held that there should be a "feedback gun" that drivers
could use to tag other drivers. A driver's insurance premiums and
their SPEED LIMIT would be based on that feedback. If you are a safe
and courteous driver, by all means, you should be able to drive at the
posted speed limit and have reduced insurance rates. If you are an
idiot cutting people off your rates go up and your maximum driving
speed goes down.

How many trees have you planted and matured?

He's still working on the maturing part.

R

terry wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:22 pm, "
wrote:
terry wrote:
First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.

Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month
of year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights
tend to be on.

So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more
ecologically friendly energy source than burning also polluting
fossil fuel (oil, gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy
generated from the electrcity that comes into the home does escape
into the environment!

So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into
the environment does so???????

In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought
by high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.

Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.

So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest
regions cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat
loss from its buildings.

Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to
be adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy
into electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home
might do so???

Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

Well, the cold water running downstream to warmer climate will soak
up
the heat lost from your house. I think you're breaking even )-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thta's what trying to figure out! Are we just neutral; just
transferring energy from one place to another or creating additional
heat?

Didn't I answer that above?

terry wrote:

So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!

So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????

It's turning out that there MAY BE NO Global Warming and therefore releasing
Carbon is irrelevant. A massive document dump from the world's leading GW
research institution indicates: a) Much of the data used was fake, b) The
programs used to model climate are junk, and c) Active efforts were
undertaken to silence critics. The government office in New Zealand was also
recently shown to have been 'cooking the books.'

That's not to say that we should work on the pollution angle - I don't think
we even know the NAMES of everything that comes out of a coal-fired
smokestack.

My rationale is that Al Bore and the leftists are a pile of
lying sack of manure. That "carbon footprint" is a bunch of
hog manure. The planet is self adjusting. Burning carbon
puts carbon dioxide in the air, which plants and algae used
to make oxygen. Quit sticking your head in the NPR programs,
and find something useful to do with your time. Like get a
job as a logger, or farmer. At least they do useful work.
That's my rationale.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"terry" wrote in message
...
First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows
etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was
then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.

Current house about 39 years, all electric heating.
Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated
and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back
then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every
month of
year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when
lights tend to
be on.

So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy
source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more
ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil
fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the
environment!

So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold
water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te
environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape
into the
environment does so???????

In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers
hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is
brought by
high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our
homes.

Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one
form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances
and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools
etc.

So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as
heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the
coldest regions
cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat
loss from
its buildings.

Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not
seem to be
adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its
energy into
electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home
might do
so???

Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

You need to encapsulate your computer in three layers of
plastic, and bury it in the back yard. The survival of the
planet depends on it. You must do so in the next hour, or
we're all going to die. You polluting capitalist pig.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"terry" wrote in message
...

Thta's what trying to figure out! Are we just neutral; just
transferring energy from one place to another or creating
additional
heat?

I actually have a job doing something useful. I repair and
install freon units. Today I repaired a portable freeer, and
diagnosed a walkin freezer for repair. Needs parts I don't
have, will do the rest of the repair one day soon.

Your problem is that you're too well fed. You need something
useful to do.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"terry" wrote in message
...

Oh, oh another holo-climate denyer. Eh?

It's OK I'll just retire to my basement (50 to 60 degrees
all year
round) and use the fat from one seal carcass for heat and
light.

And yes we too, are struggling to understand carbon tax
credits etc.
None of it seems to do much to actually REDUCE emissions.
Anyway we
have planted some 70 trees during the last 35 years which
'sequestrate' (think that's the right word?) certain amount
of carbon
so credit is presently pretty good.

How many trees have you planted and matured?

Carefully. Terry will call you names, being a good leftist.
You holo-climate denier!

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

It's turning out that there MAY BE NO Global Warming and
therefore releasing
Carbon is irrelevant. A massive document dump from the
world's leading GW
research institution indicates: a) Much of the data used was
fake, b) The
programs used to model climate are junk, and c) Active
efforts were
undertaken to silence critics. The government office in New
Zealand was also
recently shown to have been 'cooking the books.'

That's not to say that we should work on the pollution
angle - I don't think
we even know the NAMES of everything that comes out of a
coal-fired
smokestack.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:08:29 -0800 (PST), terry
wrote:

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!

So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????

I suppose that's true.

But it still costs you $ to waste the energy being pipped to your
house.

And the energy is fungible - if you saved it, it could be redirected
elsewhere and reduce someone else's carbon footprint, or used to
recharge your Tesla.

J.

On Nov 27, 10:22*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
My rationale is that Al Bore and the leftists are a pile of
lying sack of manure. That "carbon footprint" is a bunch of
hog manure. The planet is self adjusting.

Self-adjusting? Do you mean for all inputs? On what time scale?
Does the "acceptable" planetary adjustment range coincide with the
allowable adjustment range for habitation?

Does the self-adjustment factor in the rapid decrease in forested
areas worldwide? More carbon can be dumped and more trees can be cut
down and it doesn't affect the self-adjusting equation? Interesting.
A bit stupid, but interesting.

How someone can believe that a farm/factory operation upstream can
affect the people downstream, but deny that it scales up to a global
corollary is very curious.

R

terry wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:51 pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
terry wrote:
First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.
Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
be on.
So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!
Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!
So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????
In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.
Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.
So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
its buildings.
Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
so???
Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?
Darnit! Don't give the Commiecrats any new ideas. You'll get us
all slapped with a latent heat tax or an inertia tax or a caloric
tax or an enthalpy tax or a ...........

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, oh another holo-climate denyer. Eh?

It's OK I'll just retire to my basement (50 to 60 degrees all year
round) and use the fat from one seal carcass for heat and light.

And yes we too, are struggling to understand carbon tax credits etc.
None of it seems to do much to actually REDUCE emissions. Anyway we
have planted some 70 trees during the last 35 years which
'sequestrate' (think that's the right word?) certain amount of carbon
so credit is presently pretty good.

How many trees have you planted and matured?

I've done my part by taking Dairy Relief capsules which has done
a lot toward reducing my greenhouse gas emissions thus preventing
the defoliation of plant life in the neighborhood. It has also
helped stop pealing paint and unaccountable pet deaths.

TDD

RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 27, 12:05 pm, terry wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:51 pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Darnit! Don't give the Commiecrats any new ideas. You'll get us
all slapped with a latent heat tax or an inertia tax or a caloric
tax or an enthalpy tax or a ...........

Oh, oh another holo-climate denyer. Eh?

It's OK I'll just retire to my basement (50 to 60 degrees all year
round) and use the fat from one seal carcass for heat and light.

And yes we too, are struggling to understand carbon tax credits etc.
None of it seems to do much to actually REDUCE emissions. Anyway we
have planted some 70 trees during the last 35 years which
'sequestrate' (think that's the right word?) certain amount of carbon
so credit is presently pretty good.

In a 'perfect' world every single person's actions would be tabulated
and accounted for and taxed/rewarded/penalized accordingly. As it
stands in this 'imperfect' world (which I like just fine), there are a
myriad of areas where the actions of some impact others with no
repercussions.

I've long held that there should be a "feedback gun" that drivers
could use to tag other drivers. A driver's insurance premiums and
their SPEED LIMIT would be based on that feedback. If you are a safe
and courteous driver, by all means, you should be able to drive at the
posted speed limit and have reduced insurance rates. If you are an
idiot cutting people off your rates go up and your maximum driving
speed goes down.

How many trees have you planted and matured?

He's still working on the maturing part.

R

Ya know there are already GPS units in rental cars that record
speed. There was a story about a guy who's car rental bill was
very high because the rental company charged him a lot extra
because the GPS recorded excessive speeds.

TDD

wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
terry wrote:
First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.

Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
be on.

So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!

So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????

In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.

Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.

So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
its buildings.

Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
so???

Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

Darnit! Don't give the Commiecrats any new ideas. You'll get us
all slapped with a latent heat tax or an inertia tax or a caloric
tax or an enthalpy tax or a ...........

TDD

I think there should be a carbon tax on all consumables...fight obesity
and help the environment. Higher tax, depending on customer weight? )

But I have a glandular problem! Oh yea, government run health care
will fix that. I'll starve to death in the waiting room.

TDD

Now how about the damge to the eco system, plants animals and
fish caused the the disruption of the dam?

terry wrote:

And yes we too, are struggling to understand carbon tax credits etc.
None of it seems to do much to actually REDUCE emissions. Anyway we
have planted some 70 trees during the last 35 years which
'sequestrate' (think that's the right word?) certain amount of carbon
so credit is presently pretty good.

Okay, I'll play. Why would we WANT to reduce carbon emissions?

If the atmosphere could be represented by the area of a football field
[56,000 sq ft], the amount of CO2 is roughly equivalent to the space taken
up [16 sq ft] by the prostrate body of an official stabbed to death because
of three consecutive bad calls against the home team, while the increasing
CO2 is roughly equivalent to the spreading pool of blood.


How many trees have you planted and matured?

I plant trees by proxy. I donate to the JNF.

On Nov 28, 10:04*am, wrote:
Now how about the damage to the ecosystem, plants animals and
fish caused the the disruption of the dam?

Correct; that's why the term 'supposedly' more ecologically friendly
was used.
Some others will argue that damming the water not only disrupts/
diverts natural flows, leading to droughts etc., but also causes the
rotting of flooded trees and other vegetation. Which then creates
methane gas!

In the case of hydro-electric projects the water supposedly and
eventually runs away below the dam to wherever it was going
previously!

Can't win whatever method we use; eh? Hard to know what the REAL facts
are!

BTW. It's unusually warm for this time of the year, here. Our well
used, originally second or third hand, 16 to 18 plus year old snow-
blower one, had bad bearings and had broke it's gears etc. It was
unreliable for someone in late 70s. Someone took it for parts to fix
up another one.

So we bought a brand new snow-blower this fall, (made in the USA btw).
If like previous winters looks like it will get only occasionally use;
maybe grand children will get to use it some 25 years from now? If we
still have snow then!

Living close to the North Atlantic, each year, we seem to be seeing
fewer icebergs (Ref the Titanic in 1912 etc.) which means fewer
hazards to oil rigs off the North American coast! But if it keeps
getting warmer we will be using less fossil fuel for heating anyway!
So fewer rigs neeeded?

On Nov 29, 11:16*am, terry wrote:

BTW yesterday, Nov 29th, in this somewhat northern location, the
outside temp. was so warm (and virtually no wind either) that in the
morning we forgot to turn up the electric heat thermostats in the main
part of the house (kitchen/family room etc.) from their overnight
setting. Only noticed on way to bed around midnight!
Nevertheless the house stayed warm enough with the normal wastage/loss
of heat from a few lightbulbs, a bit of cooking, using the kettle to
make tea etc.
Thinking back the some 50 years or so, living here, we 'normally'
would have had snow by now!
Just what is happening?
Must consider the use of a programmable thermostat some time!