On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 11:31:05 AM UTC-5, wrote:

But sadly this has just become political,.....


Yes, it has become political because the proposed solution is more government and more taxes.

That's true of parts of the solution, but not all of it. Yet I see
people here just denying anthropogenic warming and others opposing
any steps to reduce it, even eschewing LED lights.





THAT is why it is political.

Nobody is opposed to scientific research and development of alternative sources of energy.

That certainly isn't true of much of what I hear from the global warming
deniers. They vilify the researchers, claim they are all no good lefties.
It's a trend that greatly accelerated with the arrival of the despicable
Trump. That's his method and the method of despots the world over.
Vilify and dehumanize those that don't agree with you, that challenge you in
any way.





Nobody is opposed to planting more trees and conservation of resources.

That alone is nowhere near sufficient.




But as they learned in France, plenty of people are opposed to more taxes.

Mark


There is no tax on the table, hasn't been any serious proposal that had
any chance of passing here. Yet Trump impulsively withdrew the US from
working with the world to reduce CO2. I'm sure he gave that decision
as much vetting and due consideration as he did when he hired Manafort,
Cohen, Gates, or when he killed the Kurds with one phone call. The US/Trump
position isn't that we need to do X, Y, and Z to reduce the rise in
CO2, that is what we are willing to do. It's we deny that it matters,
screw you all, let's burn more coal.

On 11/25/2019 8:14 PM, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 11/25/2019 2:44 PM, Bod wrote:
On 25/11/2019 19:38, devnull wrote:
On 11/25/19 1:13 PM, Bod wrote:
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases once again reached new highs in 2018.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2
was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.

Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide,
have also surged by above average amounts.

Since 1990 there's been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on
the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50504131

Someone tell Trump how serious climate change is!


LOL! Climate change is more FUD from the leftards.

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most
of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be
the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding
at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Fake science concocted by a bunch of lefty libtards.

People fail to recognize that it is a tactic to take more government
control. Climate does change and always will and there is little we can
do about it.

On 11/27/2019 6:37 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:18:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:


30 MPG cars are here because oil isn't $2 a barrel anymore, Let the
market work.

I'm on board with that. Let the market actually work, and stop subsidizing
fossil fuels.

Cindy Hamilton

Are you nuts? We do not subsidize fossil fuels. We do subsidize the
green crap like solar and battery operated cars.

In article ,
says...

IDK where you live, but we are using it here and now. I see solar
roofs on homes all over the state. I see some solar energy farms too.
Funny, I thought the US was a world LEADER, not a last adopter.





I often wonder if the solar cells on homes will go the way of the solar
heaters about 40 years ago. People were installing things on the top of
the house to collect the heat of the sun. Seldom see any of those any
more and the ones that had them removed them when they needed to
reshingle the roof.

Some were putting in wood stoves and heatalaters. Many of those have
given up on burning wood.

On 11/27/2019 12:10 PM, Frank wrote:



People fail to recognize that it is a tactic to take more government
control.Â* Climate does change and always will and there is little we can
do about it.

Sure, there has always been change, but we can do some things about it.

We can stop the deforestation quite a bit. We can use less fossil fuels
and just plain overall conservation.

Big question, how much are we willing to give up? Not just the US, but
the world.

This will get people riles up.
If it is better for the earth and humanity long term would we:
Drive a smaller car
Get rid of cruise ships
Adjust the thermostat
Fly less
Build smaller houses
Accept slower delivery times if it is more efficient
Use less chemicals on lawns
Probably another 100 things like these.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 12:13:04 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 11/27/2019 6:37 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:18:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:


30 MPG cars are here because oil isn't $2 a barrel anymore, Let the
market work.

I'm on board with that. Let the market actually work, and stop subsidizing
fossil fuels.

Cindy Hamilton

Are you nuts? We do not subsidize fossil fuels. We do subsidize the
green crap like solar and battery operated cars.

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

Even if you subtract the intangibles, fossil fuels are still subsidized.

The U.S. government has always picked winners and losers. Fossil
fuels are but one in a long, long list.

Cindy Hamilton

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 14:55:03 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:20:55 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


The US had just 5 percent of the world's population, yet we emit 15 percent
of the greenhouse gases. It's not from burning forests, just open your
eyes and look around.



The question is would it really make any difference? CO2 started
rising as the population started rising, long before we knew what to
do with oil

Total claptrap. Your chart doesn't mean what you think it means.

The uptick in population at the far end of the chart happens
to correlate quite well with the uptick in fossil fuel usage
(i.e. the Industrial Revolution) over the same period of time.

You also should actually point to the original - you've removed any
attributions from your copied jpg which makes it completley useless
for drawing any conclusions.

The CO2 is from NASA, with the data sources (ice cores) noted. The
population from the UN but it is going to be duplicated from multiple
sources.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:00:18 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:26:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 10:22:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Which man has only been burning in any significant amount for
about 150 years. Not 8000 years (burning wood is carbon neutral
for all intents and purposes as it is not releasing carbon that
has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years).

Also factor in that for 95%+ of that period, whatever burning was going
on was to heat a small cave, a hovel, or a couple of ten by ten rooms.

Burning is not the problem, the loss of native vegetation and forest
land is. A farm that is bare dirt or emerging plants for most of the
year is not removing much CO2. When you plow everything under you
didn't eat it is the same as burning it and everything you eat is also
burned. 6.6 billion people belching out CO2 and farting methane is
also not an insignificant amount. That is before we start looking at
their animals.

And again, your scientific illiteracy rears its ugly head. Without
adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere, there would be no excess regardless
of how many people are respirating and passing gas; on any scale that
matters, the carbon usage would be neutral (the carbon being exhaled was
plant matter or meat a few days earlier, and will become plant matter or
meat a few days or months later).

Taking carbon that _hasn't_ been in the atomosphere for hundreds of millions
of years and adding it back _does_ alter the balance, and not in a good way.

Removing vegetation still upsets that balance. Nature did not envision
farms either.
That still brings us back to the question I asked "How are we going to
stop it"? The western world could stop using fossil fuels completely
(in some dream world) but the other 5 billion people will still use
what they can afford. It is like those people who say banning plastic
straws is going to halt plastic pollution. (Ignoring the cup, the lid,
the package the drink, cup and lid came to the restaurant in).

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:21:25 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:26:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:26:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 10:22:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
trader_4 writes:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 8:03:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:42:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


No, he's saying that CO2 is now higher than it has been in 800,000
years, that it's increased by a third in just the last 100 years, that
it's caused by man burning fossil fuels, that previous rises of that
magnitude took hundreds of thousands of years. No amount of Trump,
Republican lying and denying can change that.

The world population is over 3 times what it was in 1920 too. You
can't deny that either. Most of those people are not going stop
burning the forest and plains to grow more food.

Irrelevant, of course. There is no question that man burning fossil
fuels is the overwhelming emitter. We could have the same population
and be using solar and wind energy and there would not have been the
rise.

The flaw in that theory is CO2 has tracked population growth for 8000
years.


There is no flaw, the rise in CO2 is being fueled by man burning
fossil fuels.

Which man has only been burning in any significant amount for
about 150 years. Not 8000 years (burning wood is carbon neutral
for all intents and purposes as it is not releasing carbon that
has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years).

Also factor in that for 95%+ of that period, whatever burning was going
on was to heat a small cave, a hovel, or a couple of ten by ten rooms.

Burning is not the problem, the loss of native vegetation and forest
land is. A farm that is bare dirt or emerging plants for most of the
year is not removing much CO2. When you plow everything under you
didn't eat it is the same as burning it and everything you eat is also
burned. 6.6 billion people belching out CO2 and farting methane is
also not an insignificant amount. That is before we start looking at
their animals.

That's your version. The accepted science from the overwhelming number
of scientists who have done the research and understand the numbers is
that the majority of the rise in CO2 over the last 100 years, with it
rising by about a third, is the direct result of man burning fossil fuels.
I'll stick with their opinion, thank you. What's next? Argue for
burning more coal because Trump says it's a great idea?

The last 100 years also saw the population increase by 360%. (1.8b to
6.6b)
I have no problem with burning less fossil fuel, I just don't see how
it is possible with the 3d world bringing billions of people luxuries
like electricity and mechanized transportation. A guy in the Congo is
not putting $10,000 worth of solar collectors on his roof or buying a
Tesla.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:24:04 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 10:00:23 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:26:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 10:22:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Which man has only been burning in any significant amount for
about 150 years. Not 8000 years (burning wood is carbon neutral
for all intents and purposes as it is not releasing carbon that
has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years).

Also factor in that for 95%+ of that period, whatever burning was going
on was to heat a small cave, a hovel, or a couple of ten by ten rooms.

Burning is not the problem, the loss of native vegetation and forest
land is. A farm that is bare dirt or emerging plants for most of the
year is not removing much CO2. When you plow everything under you
didn't eat it is the same as burning it and everything you eat is also
burned. 6.6 billion people belching out CO2 and farting methane is
also not an insignificant amount. That is before we start looking at
their animals.

And again, your scientific illiteracy rears its ugly head. Without
adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere, there would be no excess regardless
of how many people are respirating and passing gas; on any scale that
matters, the carbon usage would be neutral (the carbon being exhaled was
plant matter or meat a few days earlier, and will become plant matter or
meat a few days or months later).

Taking carbon that _hasn't_ been in the atomosphere for hundreds of millions
of years and adding it back _does_ alter the balance, and not in a good way.

It's not just that the carbon hasn't been in the air for hundreds of
millions of years, it's that it took hundreds of millions of years for
that carbon to accumulate as coal, oil, nat gas and now we're burning
in in just hundreds of years. If we were adding it back at the rate it
accumulated, the effect would be minimal too.

When you burn the rain forest or plow up native turf land you are
putting CO2 in the air that has been sequestered for millions of
years. It used to cycle, now it doesn't.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:25:17 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 27/11/2019 15:21, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:26:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:26:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 10:22:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
trader_4 writes:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 8:03:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:42:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


No, he's saying that CO2 is now higher than it has been in 800,000
years, that it's increased by a third in just the last 100 years, that
it's caused by man burning fossil fuels, that previous rises of that
magnitude took hundreds of thousands of years. No amount of Trump,
Republican lying and denying can change that.

The world population is over 3 times what it was in 1920 too. You
can't deny that either. Most of those people are not going stop
burning the forest and plains to grow more food.

Irrelevant, of course. There is no question that man burning fossil
fuels is the overwhelming emitter. We could have the same population
and be using solar and wind energy and there would not have been the
rise.

The flaw in that theory is CO2 has tracked population growth for 8000
years.


There is no flaw, the rise in CO2 is being fueled by man burning
fossil fuels.

Which man has only been burning in any significant amount for
about 150 years. Not 8000 years (burning wood is carbon neutral
for all intents and purposes as it is not releasing carbon that
has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years).

Also factor in that for 95%+ of that period, whatever burning was going
on was to heat a small cave, a hovel, or a couple of ten by ten rooms.

Burning is not the problem, the loss of native vegetation and forest
land is. A farm that is bare dirt or emerging plants for most of the
year is not removing much CO2. When you plow everything under you
didn't eat it is the same as burning it and everything you eat is also
burned. 6.6 billion people belching out CO2 and farting methane is
also not an insignificant amount. That is before we start looking at
their animals.

That's your version. The accepted science from the overwhelming number
of scientists who have done the research and understand the numbers is
that the majority of the rise in CO2 over the last 100 years, with it
rising by about a third, is the direct result of man burning fossil fuels.
I'll stick with their opinion, thank you. What's next? Argue for
burning more coal because Trump says it's a great idea?

Don't forget the colossal loss of trees in the Amazon etc.
Known as the lungs of the Earth.

That is exactly what I am talking about although turf land also eats a
lot of CO2, some say, as much as trees.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:34:19 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 9:55:08 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:20:55 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


The US had just 5 percent of the world's population, yet we emit 15 percent
of the greenhouse gases. It's not from burning forests, just open your
eyes and look around.



The question is would it really make any difference? CO2 started
rising as the population started rising, long before we knew what to
do with oil

Total claptrap. Your chart doesn't mean what you think it means.

The uptick in population at the far end of the chart happens
to correlate quite well with the uptick in fossil fuel usage
(i.e. the Industrial Revolution) over the same period of time.

And from 0 to ~1900 or so, the chart of population shows a significant
rise, while the chart of CO2 is flat or down. IDK what his illogical point
even is. That CO2 tracks human population, is true. But the next logical
step is what are humans doing that is causing it. The scientific consensus,
by those that have actually done the research and run the numbers, say
it's overwhelmingly from burning fossil fuels, not from burning forests.

You are ignoring the charts or you have them flipped in your mind.
CO2 started rising long before the population did, roughly starting
around the time we started agriculture. Population growth trailed that

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Population%20vs%20CO2.jpg

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:12:54 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 11/27/2019 6:37 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:18:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:


30 MPG cars are here because oil isn't $2 a barrel anymore, Let the
market work.

I'm on board with that. Let the market actually work, and stop subsidizing
fossil fuels.

Cindy Hamilton

Are you nuts? We do not subsidize fossil fuels. We do subsidize the
green crap like solar and battery operated cars.

She is saying we subsidize oil because we fight wars in the middle
east but if that was true, why aren't we also fighting wars in the
other places where oil comes from?
Dare I mention that other entity that is in the middle east with a
huge (AI)PAC in Washington.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:34:17 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article ,
says...

IDK where you live, but we are using it here and now. I see solar
roofs on homes all over the state. I see some solar energy farms too.
Funny, I thought the US was a world LEADER, not a last adopter.





I often wonder if the solar cells on homes will go the way of the solar
heaters about 40 years ago. People were installing things on the top of
the house to collect the heat of the sun. Seldom see any of those any
more and the ones that had them removed them when they needed to
reshingle the roof.

Some were putting in wood stoves and heatalaters. Many of those have
given up on burning wood.

I think the wood burning stoves got a bad rep because of the air
pollution they cause. They also stink up your house. My niece still
has a dual fuel furnace, oil and wood from the Carter days. That is a
double stinker. She may have even replaced it by now. I know she
talked about it but they were hoping Nat Gas would come down their
street.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:45:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 11/27/2019 12:10 PM, Frank wrote:



People fail to recognize that it is a tactic to take more government
control.Â* Climate does change and always will and there is little we can
do about it.

Sure, there has always been change, but we can do some things about it.

We can stop the deforestation quite a bit. We can use less fossil fuels
and just plain overall conservation.

Big question, how much are we willing to give up? Not just the US, but
the world.

This will get people riles up.
If it is better for the earth and humanity long term would we:
Drive a smaller car
Get rid of cruise ships
Adjust the thermostat
Fly less
Build smaller houses
Accept slower delivery times if it is more efficient
Use less chemicals on lawns
Probably another 100 things like these.

I would say the #1 issue is using less water. We are going to run out
of fresh water long before we ever run out of oil or be flooded from
rising seas. There are other options for energy but water is what it
is. We can desalinate enough sea water to drink but we can't get
enough to grow food.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 2:34:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:12:54 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 11/27/2019 6:37 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:18:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:


30 MPG cars are here because oil isn't $2 a barrel anymore, Let the
market work.

I'm on board with that. Let the market actually work, and stop subsidizing
fossil fuels.

Cindy Hamilton

Are you nuts? We do not subsidize fossil fuels. We do subsidize the
green crap like solar and battery operated cars.

She is saying we subsidize oil because we fight wars in the middle
east but if that was true, why aren't we also fighting wars in the
other places where oil comes from?
Dare I mention that other entity that is in the middle east with a
huge (AI)PAC in Washington.

I was talking about the tax code and grants for R&D in that industry.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2019-11-27, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
If it is better for the earth and humanity long term would we:
Drive a smaller car
Get rid of cruise ships
Adjust the thermostat
Fly less
Build smaller houses
Accept slower delivery times if it is more efficient
Use less chemicals on lawns
Probably another 100 things like these.

I am not willing to do any of those things, and in fact am not doing
any of them. None would make a damned bit of difference in any event,
it would merely be a tiny bit of noise in comparison to nature.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11/27/2019 3:27 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2019-11-27, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
If it is better for the earth and humanity long term would we:
Drive a smaller car
Get rid of cruise ships
Adjust the thermostat
Fly less
Build smaller houses
Accept slower delivery times if it is more efficient
Use less chemicals on lawns
Probably another 100 things like these.

I am not willing to do any of those things, and in fact am not doing
any of them. None would make a damned bit of difference in any event,
it would merely be a tiny bit of noise in comparison to nature.


Not in our lifetime, but some day we will run out of oil. You could get
into a conversation on ethics on what to do about it.
Nothing, new fuel will probably take over
Nothing, a meteor or big volcano will take us all out anyway
Use less so it lasts longer
Stop making babies so the need will be less

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:18:30 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 2:34:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:12:54 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 11/27/2019 6:37 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:18:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:


30 MPG cars are here because oil isn't $2 a barrel anymore, Let the
market work.

I'm on board with that. Let the market actually work, and stop subsidizing
fossil fuels.

Cindy Hamilton

Are you nuts? We do not subsidize fossil fuels. We do subsidize the
green crap like solar and battery operated cars.

She is saying we subsidize oil because we fight wars in the middle
east but if that was true, why aren't we also fighting wars in the
other places where oil comes from?
Dare I mention that other entity that is in the middle east with a
huge (AI)PAC in Washington.

I was talking about the tax code and grants for R&D in that industry.

Cindy Hamilton

OK I assume someone thinks it is valuable up there in DC.
I know a lot of the tax breaks went away a while ago (86?)
Capital investment always gets a tax break, no matter what industry it
is so some of that is just because they do business here.
Who is getting these grants. Exxon or some university?
To be honest I have given up on where all the corporate welfare is
going, no matter who is getting it. I understand million dollar
lobbyists talk and everyone else walks.

I still doubt oil prices would change much and they would still be
pumping all they can sell if all of the welfare went away. Gas might
just cost a few extra cents a gallon and airplane tickets would cost
more. It still would not be enough to get me to ride a bike to LA or
turn off my air conditioner in July.

On 11/27/2019 3:18 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 2:34:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:12:54 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 11/27/2019 6:37 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:18:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:


30 MPG cars are here because oil isn't $2 a barrel anymore, Let the
market work.

I'm on board with that. Let the market actually work, and stop subsidizing
fossil fuels.

Cindy Hamilton

Are you nuts? We do not subsidize fossil fuels. We do subsidize the
green crap like solar and battery operated cars.

She is saying we subsidize oil because we fight wars in the middle
east but if that was true, why aren't we also fighting wars in the
other places where oil comes from?
Dare I mention that other entity that is in the middle east with a
huge (AI)PAC in Washington.

I was talking about the tax code and grants for R&D in that industry.

Cindy Hamilton

A tax break is not a subsidy. I hear similar complaints about
subsidizing the casinos here but they really mean taking less of their
profits.

On 11/27/2019 12:34 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

IDK where you live, but we are using it here and now. I see solar
roofs on homes all over the state. I see some solar energy farms too.
Funny, I thought the US was a world LEADER, not a last adopter.





I often wonder if the solar cells on homes will go the way of the solar
heaters about 40 years ago. People were installing things on the top of
the house to collect the heat of the sun. Seldom see any of those any
more and the ones that had them removed them when they needed to
reshingle the roof.

Some were putting in wood stoves and heatalaters. Many of those have
given up on burning wood.

Guy here had to take the installer to court because after a few years
the installed solar panels caused his roof to leak. We talk here about
shingles lasting 25 years or so. Does anyone in their right mind think
that solar panels will hold up that long?

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:49:21 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 11/27/2019 12:34 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

IDK where you live, but we are using it here and now. I see solar
roofs on homes all over the state. I see some solar energy farms too.
Funny, I thought the US was a world LEADER, not a last adopter.





I often wonder if the solar cells on homes will go the way of the solar
heaters about 40 years ago. People were installing things on the top of
the house to collect the heat of the sun. Seldom see any of those any
more and the ones that had them removed them when they needed to
reshingle the roof.

Some were putting in wood stoves and heatalaters. Many of those have
given up on burning wood.

Guy here had to take the installer to court because after a few years
the installed solar panels caused his roof to leak. We talk here about
shingles lasting 25 years or so. Does anyone in their right mind think
that solar panels will hold up that long?

The only way I would do this is put a new roof on at the same time as
the solar array and have the roofer seal up the mounting brackets.
There is a chance he might warranty the roof. Otherwise you own it. I
bet the solar installer would say an old roof was not sound before he
started.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 2:10:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:24:04 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 10:00:23 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:26:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 10:22:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Which man has only been burning in any significant amount for
about 150 years. Not 8000 years (burning wood is carbon neutral
for all intents and purposes as it is not releasing carbon that
has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years).

Also factor in that for 95%+ of that period, whatever burning was going
on was to heat a small cave, a hovel, or a couple of ten by ten rooms.

Burning is not the problem, the loss of native vegetation and forest
land is. A farm that is bare dirt or emerging plants for most of the
year is not removing much CO2. When you plow everything under you
didn't eat it is the same as burning it and everything you eat is also
burned. 6.6 billion people belching out CO2 and farting methane is
also not an insignificant amount. That is before we start looking at
their animals.

And again, your scientific illiteracy rears its ugly head. Without
adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere, there would be no excess regardless
of how many people are respirating and passing gas; on any scale that
matters, the carbon usage would be neutral (the carbon being exhaled was
plant matter or meat a few days earlier, and will become plant matter or
meat a few days or months later).

Taking carbon that _hasn't_ been in the atomosphere for hundreds of millions
of years and adding it back _does_ alter the balance, and not in a good way.

It's not just that the carbon hasn't been in the air for hundreds of
millions of years, it's that it took hundreds of millions of years for
that carbon to accumulate as coal, oil, nat gas and now we're burning
in in just hundreds of years. If we were adding it back at the rate it
accumulated, the effect would be minimal too.

When you burn the rain forest or plow up native turf land you are
putting CO2 in the air that has been sequestered for millions of
years. It used to cycle, now it doesn't.

No ****, Sherlock. And the climate scientists that have studied the
overall situation have concluded that burning fossil fuels, not
burning rain forest, is the overwhelming contributor to CO2.
It;s quite amazing that you'd spread that BS, when if you just look
around you see McMansions, families with 3 cars, people spewing CO2.
But heh, tweeet it to Trump, he'll believe it and spread it on.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 1:43:38 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:00:18 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:26:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 10:22:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Which man has only been burning in any significant amount for
about 150 years. Not 8000 years (burning wood is carbon neutral
for all intents and purposes as it is not releasing carbon that
has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years).

Also factor in that for 95%+ of that period, whatever burning was going
on was to heat a small cave, a hovel, or a couple of ten by ten rooms.

Burning is not the problem, the loss of native vegetation and forest
land is. A farm that is bare dirt or emerging plants for most of the
year is not removing much CO2. When you plow everything under you
didn't eat it is the same as burning it and everything you eat is also
burned. 6.6 billion people belching out CO2 and farting methane is
also not an insignificant amount. That is before we start looking at
their animals.

And again, your scientific illiteracy rears its ugly head. Without
adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere, there would be no excess regardless
of how many people are respirating and passing gas; on any scale that
matters, the carbon usage would be neutral (the carbon being exhaled was
plant matter or meat a few days earlier, and will become plant matter or
meat a few days or months later).

Taking carbon that _hasn't_ been in the atomosphere for hundreds of millions
of years and adding it back _does_ alter the balance, and not in a good way.

Removing vegetation still upsets that balance.




Still upsets the balance the primary cause.



Nature did not envision
farms either.



More importantly, nature didn't envision Trump and you. Are you sure
you didn't vote for him?


That still brings us back to the question I asked "How are we going to
stop it"?

The first step is to stop lying and denying, to stop vilifying the science
and instead accept it. But heh, you're full on board with Trump, who
wants to burn more coal and who has withdrawn from intl cooperation.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 2:17:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:34:19 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 9:55:08 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:20:55 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


The US had just 5 percent of the world's population, yet we emit 15 percent
of the greenhouse gases. It's not from burning forests, just open your
eyes and look around.



The question is would it really make any difference? CO2 started
rising as the population started rising, long before we knew what to
do with oil

Total claptrap. Your chart doesn't mean what you think it means.

The uptick in population at the far end of the chart happens
to correlate quite well with the uptick in fossil fuel usage
(i.e. the Industrial Revolution) over the same period of time.

And from 0 to ~1900 or so, the chart of population shows a significant
rise, while the chart of CO2 is flat or down. IDK what his illogical point
even is. That CO2 tracks human population, is true. But the next logical
step is what are humans doing that is causing it. The scientific consensus,
by those that have actually done the research and run the numbers, say
it's overwhelmingly from burning fossil fuels, not from burning forests.

You are ignoring the charts or you have them flipped in your mind.
CO2 started rising long before the population did, roughly starting
around the time we started agriculture. Population growth trailed that

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Population%20vs%20CO2.jpg

Sadly you can't read a chart. How about this. Cancer increases with human
population. Following your Trump logic, that's it, end of story. Nothing
can be done, just give up. No need to figure out why, or to do what we can to
slow the increase in total numbers. And with cancer, fortunately we didn't
listen to the deniers like you, who at the time had all kinds of similar
arguments as to why science was wrong, cigarettes don't cause cancer,
etc, etc, etc.

Let me go take a shower now and I sure am happy that I'm not a Republican
anymore.

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 2:44:43 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
On 25/11/2019 19:38, devnull wrote:
On 11/25/19 1:13 PM, Bod wrote:
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases once again reached new highs in 2018.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2
was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.

Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have
also surged by above average amounts.

Since 1990 there's been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on
the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50504131

Someone tell Trump how serious climate change is!


LOL! Climate change is more FUD from the leftards.

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of
it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the
result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a
rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

--
Bod

Don't confuse the trumptards with facts and science.

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 4:50:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:44:39 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 25/11/2019 19:38, devnull wrote:
On 11/25/19 1:13 PM, Bod wrote:
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases once again reached new highs in 2018.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2
was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.

Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have
also surged by above average amounts.

Since 1990 there's been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on
the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50504131

Someone tell Trump how serious climate change is!


LOL! Climate change is more FUD from the leftards.

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of
it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the
result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a
rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The climate does appear to be warming and there is pretty good
evidence that man is affecting. The question is whether there is
actually anything we can do about it.


Are you just totally stupid? If we emit X CO2 per capita or X - 30%\
by using renewables, nuclear, etc, which is better? I mean this is so
basic, it's stunning that anyone except Trump and the trumptards would
put forth such BS.






As long as we are piling more
people onto the planet it an alarming rate, we are going to create
more greenhouse gas. It is a trend that goes back 8000 years when we
started clearing native vegetation to grow crops.

Following that stupid logic, because we were piling on more people, there
was no point to reducing the cancer rates, seat belts, air bags, etc,

Wise up.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 6:49:32 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 11/27/2019 12:34 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

IDK where you live, but we are using it here and now. I see solar
roofs on homes all over the state. I see some solar energy farms too.
Funny, I thought the US was a world LEADER, not a last adopter.





I often wonder if the solar cells on homes will go the way of the solar
heaters about 40 years ago. People were installing things on the top of
the house to collect the heat of the sun. Seldom see any of those any
more and the ones that had them removed them when they needed to
reshingle the roof.

Some were putting in wood stoves and heatalaters. Many of those have
given up on burning wood.

Guy here had to take the installer to court because after a few years
the installed solar panels caused his roof to leak.

Well, there is a good argument. Because some installers are so stupid
they can't correctly install solar, it's all bad, let's just give up.
Have you sent that as a tweet to Trump?





We talk here about
shingles lasting 25 years or so. Does anyone in their right mind think
that solar panels will hold up that long?

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 12:10:43 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 11/25/2019 8:14 PM, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 11/25/2019 2:44 PM, Bod wrote:
On 25/11/2019 19:38, devnull wrote:
On 11/25/19 1:13 PM, Bod wrote:
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases once again reached new highs in 2018.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2
was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.

Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide,
have also surged by above average amounts.

Since 1990 there's been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on
the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50504131

Someone tell Trump how serious climate change is!


LOL! Climate change is more FUD from the leftards.

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most
of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be
the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding
at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Fake science concocted by a bunch of lefty libtards.

People fail to recognize that it is a tactic to take more government
control. Climate does change and always will and there is little we can
do about it.

Another lie, worthy of Trump. Wheh, I'm proud I'm no longer a Republican
and in no way responsible for this horse ****.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 3:27:19 PM UTC-5, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2019-11-27, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
If it is better for the earth and humanity long term would we:
Drive a smaller car
Get rid of cruise ships
Adjust the thermostat
Fly less
Build smaller houses
Accept slower delivery times if it is more efficient
Use less chemicals on lawns
Probably another 100 things like these.

I am not willing to do any of those things, and in fact am not doing
any of them. None would make a damned bit of difference in any event,
it would merely be a tiny bit of noise in comparison to nature.


Man increased Co2 by a third in the last 100 years. Most of the world
thinks limiting further increase is important and doable. That is based
on science. What is your opinion based on?

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 19:12:13 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:49:21 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 11/27/2019 12:34 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

IDK where you live, but we are using it here and now. I see solar
roofs on homes all over the state. I see some solar energy farms too.
Funny, I thought the US was a world LEADER, not a last adopter.





I often wonder if the solar cells on homes will go the way of the solar
heaters about 40 years ago. People were installing things on the top of
the house to collect the heat of the sun. Seldom see any of those any
more and the ones that had them removed them when they needed to
reshingle the roof.

Some were putting in wood stoves and heatalaters. Many of those have
given up on burning wood.

Guy here had to take the installer to court because after a few years
the installed solar panels caused his roof to leak. We talk here about
shingles lasting 25 years or so. Does anyone in their right mind think
that solar panels will hold up that long?

The only way I would do this is put a new roof on at the same time as
the solar array and have the roofer seal up the mounting brackets.
There is a chance he might warranty the roof. Otherwise you own it. I
bet the solar installer would say an old roof was not sound before he
started.

There is an echo in here

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:28:52 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 2:10:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:24:04 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 10:00:23 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:26:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 10:22:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Which man has only been burning in any significant amount for
about 150 years. Not 8000 years (burning wood is carbon neutral
for all intents and purposes as it is not releasing carbon that
has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years).

Also factor in that for 95%+ of that period, whatever burning was going
on was to heat a small cave, a hovel, or a couple of ten by ten rooms.

Burning is not the problem, the loss of native vegetation and forest
land is. A farm that is bare dirt or emerging plants for most of the
year is not removing much CO2. When you plow everything under you
didn't eat it is the same as burning it and everything you eat is also
burned. 6.6 billion people belching out CO2 and farting methane is
also not an insignificant amount. That is before we start looking at
their animals.

And again, your scientific illiteracy rears its ugly head. Without
adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere, there would be no excess regardless
of how many people are respirating and passing gas; on any scale that
matters, the carbon usage would be neutral (the carbon being exhaled was
plant matter or meat a few days earlier, and will become plant matter or
meat a few days or months later).

Taking carbon that _hasn't_ been in the atomosphere for hundreds of millions
of years and adding it back _does_ alter the balance, and not in a good way.

It's not just that the carbon hasn't been in the air for hundreds of
millions of years, it's that it took hundreds of millions of years for
that carbon to accumulate as coal, oil, nat gas and now we're burning
in in just hundreds of years. If we were adding it back at the rate it
accumulated, the effect would be minimal too.

When you burn the rain forest or plow up native turf land you are
putting CO2 in the air that has been sequestered for millions of
years. It used to cycle, now it doesn't.

No ****, Sherlock. And the climate scientists that have studied the
overall situation have concluded that burning fossil fuels, not
burning rain forest, is the overwhelming contributor to CO2.
It;s quite amazing that you'd spread that BS, when if you just look
around you see McMansions, families with 3 cars, people spewing CO2.
But heh, tweeet it to Trump, he'll believe it and spread it on.

At this point you are just picking your scientist there are plenty who
just blame "man" for being here.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:38:36 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 2:17:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:34:19 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 9:55:08 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:20:55 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


The US had just 5 percent of the world's population, yet we emit 15 percent
of the greenhouse gases. It's not from burning forests, just open your
eyes and look around.



The question is would it really make any difference? CO2 started
rising as the population started rising, long before we knew what to
do with oil

Total claptrap. Your chart doesn't mean what you think it means.

The uptick in population at the far end of the chart happens
to correlate quite well with the uptick in fossil fuel usage
(i.e. the Industrial Revolution) over the same period of time.

And from 0 to ~1900 or so, the chart of population shows a significant
rise, while the chart of CO2 is flat or down. IDK what his illogical point
even is. That CO2 tracks human population, is true. But the next logical
step is what are humans doing that is causing it. The scientific consensus,
by those that have actually done the research and run the numbers, say
it's overwhelmingly from burning fossil fuels, not from burning forests.

You are ignoring the charts or you have them flipped in your mind.
CO2 started rising long before the population did, roughly starting
around the time we started agriculture. Population growth trailed that

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Population%20vs%20CO2.jpg

Sadly you can't read a chart. How about this. Cancer increases with human
population. Following your Trump logic, that's it, end of story. Nothing
can be done, just give up. No need to figure out why, or to do what we can to
slow the increase in total numbers. And with cancer, fortunately we didn't
listen to the deniers like you, who at the time had all kinds of similar
arguments as to why science was wrong, cigarettes don't cause cancer,
etc, etc, etc.

Let me go take a shower now and I sure am happy that I'm not a Republican
anymore.

There is plenty that could be done about genetically transmitted
disease but it is not likely. If you really thought Darwin was right
you would starlike everyone with genetic disease but I bet you don't
think that is not right.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:54:51 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 3:27:19 PM UTC-5, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2019-11-27, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
If it is better for the earth and humanity long term would we:
Drive a smaller car
Get rid of cruise ships
Adjust the thermostat
Fly less
Build smaller houses
Accept slower delivery times if it is more efficient
Use less chemicals on lawns
Probably another 100 things like these.

I am not willing to do any of those things, and in fact am not doing
any of them. None would make a damned bit of difference in any event,
it would merely be a tiny bit of noise in comparison to nature.


Man increased Co2 by a third in the last 100 years. Most of the world
thinks limiting further increase is important and doable. That is based
on science. What is your opinion based on?

Man increased the population by about 360% and you don't think that
means ****. Pull your head out of your ass and look around.

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 12:46:26 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:28:52 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 2:10:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:24:04 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 10:00:23 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:26:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 10:22:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Which man has only been burning in any significant amount for
about 150 years. Not 8000 years (burning wood is carbon neutral
for all intents and purposes as it is not releasing carbon that
has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years).

Also factor in that for 95%+ of that period, whatever burning was going
on was to heat a small cave, a hovel, or a couple of ten by ten rooms.

Burning is not the problem, the loss of native vegetation and forest
land is. A farm that is bare dirt or emerging plants for most of the
year is not removing much CO2. When you plow everything under you
didn't eat it is the same as burning it and everything you eat is also
burned. 6.6 billion people belching out CO2 and farting methane is
also not an insignificant amount. That is before we start looking at
their animals.

And again, your scientific illiteracy rears its ugly head. Without
adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere, there would be no excess regardless
of how many people are respirating and passing gas; on any scale that
matters, the carbon usage would be neutral (the carbon being exhaled was
plant matter or meat a few days earlier, and will become plant matter or
meat a few days or months later).

Taking carbon that _hasn't_ been in the atomosphere for hundreds of millions
of years and adding it back _does_ alter the balance, and not in a good way.

It's not just that the carbon hasn't been in the air for hundreds of
millions of years, it's that it took hundreds of millions of years for
that carbon to accumulate as coal, oil, nat gas and now we're burning
in in just hundreds of years. If we were adding it back at the rate it
accumulated, the effect would be minimal too.

When you burn the rain forest or plow up native turf land you are
putting CO2 in the air that has been sequestered for millions of
years. It used to cycle, now it doesn't.

No ****, Sherlock. And the climate scientists that have studied the
overall situation have concluded that burning fossil fuels, not
burning rain forest, is the overwhelming contributor to CO2.
It;s quite amazing that you'd spread that BS, when if you just look
around you see McMansions, families with 3 cars, people spewing CO2.
But heh, tweeet it to Trump, he'll believe it and spread it on.

At this point you are just picking your scientist there are plenty who
just blame "man" for being here.

That is absurd. The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists
who actually are involved with studying global warming is that the
vast majority of the increase in CO2 is due to man burning fossil fuels.
You're the one picking, just like those that wanted to deny that
cigarettes cause cancer or that HIV causes AIDS found some small
number of some kind of "scientists" that said no. And typically
they are not even actual climate science researches, instead they
are in other fields. A good example was a recent post here, where
the poster cited a guy who died 11 years ago at the age of 88.
He was a climate scientist, but not active for years and back in
the 70s, he was one of proponents making the case for anthropogenic
CO2 warming. That was when the earth was cooler, yet as his assessment
came true, for some reason much later in life he flipped. We have
no way of knowing what he would say today, 11 years later.

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 12:56:33 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:38:36 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 2:17:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:34:19 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 9:55:08 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:20:55 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


The US had just 5 percent of the world's population, yet we emit 15 percent
of the greenhouse gases. It's not from burning forests, just open your
eyes and look around.



The question is would it really make any difference? CO2 started
rising as the population started rising, long before we knew what to
do with oil

Total claptrap. Your chart doesn't mean what you think it means.

The uptick in population at the far end of the chart happens
to correlate quite well with the uptick in fossil fuel usage
(i.e. the Industrial Revolution) over the same period of time.

And from 0 to ~1900 or so, the chart of population shows a significant
rise, while the chart of CO2 is flat or down. IDK what his illogical point
even is. That CO2 tracks human population, is true. But the next logical
step is what are humans doing that is causing it. The scientific consensus,
by those that have actually done the research and run the numbers, say
it's overwhelmingly from burning fossil fuels, not from burning forests.

You are ignoring the charts or you have them flipped in your mind.
CO2 started rising long before the population did, roughly starting
around the time we started agriculture. Population growth trailed that

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Population%20vs%20CO2.jpg

Sadly you can't read a chart. How about this. Cancer increases with human
population. Following your Trump logic, that's it, end of story. Nothing
can be done, just give up. No need to figure out why, or to do what we can to
slow the increase in total numbers. And with cancer, fortunately we didn't
listen to the deniers like you, who at the time had all kinds of similar
arguments as to why science was wrong, cigarettes don't cause cancer,
etc, etc, etc.

Let me go take a shower now and I sure am happy that I'm not a Republican
anymore.

There is plenty that could be done about genetically transmitted
disease but it is not likely. If you really thought Darwin was right
you would starlike everyone with genetic disease but I bet you don't
think that is not right.

No idea where that came from or what it's about. You sure like to try
to divert to the wilderness.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:40:55 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:18:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:

When solar energy actually gets economically viable, we
will use it here in the rich west.

IDK where you live, but we are using it here and now. I see solar
roofs on homes all over the state. I see some solar energy farms too.
Funny, I thought the US was a world LEADER, not a last adopter.

Wind is in the mix, as well. Down here in Texas we have 2019 headlines like
this:

Texas Has Generated More Electricity From Wind Than Coal So Far This Year
https://www.kut.org/post/texas-has-generated-more-electricity-wind-coal-so-far-year

On 11/27/2019 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:49:21 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 11/27/2019 12:34 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

IDK where you live, but we are using it here and now. I see solar
roofs on homes all over the state. I see some solar energy farms too.
Funny, I thought the US was a world LEADER, not a last adopter.





I often wonder if the solar cells on homes will go the way of the solar
heaters about 40 years ago. People were installing things on the top of
the house to collect the heat of the sun. Seldom see any of those any
more and the ones that had them removed them when they needed to
reshingle the roof.

Some were putting in wood stoves and heatalaters. Many of those have
given up on burning wood.

Guy here had to take the installer to court because after a few years
the installed solar panels caused his roof to leak. We talk here about
shingles lasting 25 years or so. Does anyone in their right mind think
that solar panels will hold up that long?

The only way I would do this is put a new roof on at the same time as
the solar array and have the roofer seal up the mounting brackets.
There is a chance he might warranty the roof. Otherwise you own it. I
bet the solar installer would say an old roof was not sound before he
started.

The roof was not that old and the installation was guaranteed leak proof
and he had to sue.

You can see everything he

http://www.theitalianpalace.com/

I notice he has not updated lately. He is a computer guru and whole
house is completely mechanized including geothermal heating and cooling.

On 11/27/2019 10:55 PM, wrote:
There is plenty that could be done about genetically transmitted
disease but it is not likely. If you really thought Darwin was right
you would starlike everyone with genetic disease but I bet you don't
think that is not right.

http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/Eugenics.html

I enjoy Chesterton and this was in an eBook of collected works and I've
been reading it. It's only a hundred years or so out of date.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffma...y/Eugenics.htm

Some of those snippets are even older. Utter any of them in public today
and you'll be surrounded by pink pussy hats screaming racist and fascist.

On 11/27/2019 11:02 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:54:51 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 3:27:19 PM UTC-5, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2019-11-27, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
If it is better for the earth and humanity long term would we:
Drive a smaller car
Get rid of cruise ships
Adjust the thermostat
Fly less
Build smaller houses
Accept slower delivery times if it is more efficient
Use less chemicals on lawns
Probably another 100 things like these.

I am not willing to do any of those things, and in fact am not doing
any of them. None would make a damned bit of difference in any event,
it would merely be a tiny bit of noise in comparison to nature.


Man increased Co2 by a third in the last 100 years. Most of the world
thinks limiting further increase is important and doable. That is based
on science. What is your opinion based on?

Man increased the population by about 360% and you don't think that
means ****. Pull your head out of your ass and look around.


The Green Revolution made all that possible. I can't wait for another
technical solution to environmental problems. Even Borlaug, the 'father
of the Green Revolution' saw where it was going.