Remember me
▼ Content

Prove It!


Prove It!05-12-2018 11:44
cthor29
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
Can somebody show me how they can prove that the sea is rising? How did they measure it? DID THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE EFFECT OF EVERY BOAT, FISH, ANIMAL, PERSON IN THE WATER THAT CAUSES THE WATER TO BE DISPLACED. How can they be accurate. Is it just speculation, without taking into account every variation. Since the water is always moving, how can they talk in such minute terms? Speculation and Theory is NOT PROOF.
05-12-2018 20:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
It's obviously not possible. There are storm surges, rogue waves, different temperatures of the water in different places, etc.

One way people are claiming to measure sea level is tidal stations along the coast. Unfortunately, the reference point is the land they are sitting on, which moves. It even has a 'tide', just like the sea.

Satellites can measure their distance to the surface using radar altimeters that are quite accurate. The problem is, they have to have a reference point (since the satellite itself isn't quite sure where IT is!

The reference point used for U.S. satellites is a beacon station in Boulder, CO. Like the tidal stations, this station too is referenced to land, which moves. It's altitude is referenced to 'sea level', which is the thing they are trying to measure!

Basically what this means is that measuring the sea level is like trying to measure a spot on a wall with a ruler randomly placed on it. The spot might be at 6 inches, but what is zero? In other words, there is no valid reference point for measuring sea level. All we can do is estimate it to withing several dozen feet, certainly not the accuracy that is claimed by the Church of Global Warming.
05-12-2018 21:54
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(145)
cthor29 wrote:
Can somebody show me how they can prove that the sea is rising? How did they measure it? DID THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE EFFECT OF EVERY BOAT, FISH, ANIMAL, PERSON IN THE WATER THAT CAUSES THE WATER TO BE DISPLACED. How can they be accurate. Is it just speculation, without taking into account every variation. Since the water is always moving, how can they talk in such minute terms? Speculation and Theory is NOT PROOF.


Good display of Logic and reasoning here, cthor29!!

In short, the best these people can do is guess... They don't take into account any of these factors that you and Into The Night have listed. How can they, really? They have no reference point...
05-12-2018 22:35
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
cthor29 wrote:
....prove that the sea is rising? How did they measure it?....


The word "proof" isn't used much in science. "Convincing evidence" is.

Measurements. Hundred year continuing observations of tide gauges at multiple locations.

An explanation here: https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/question356.htm

A record of one tide measuring station: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414290

Examine enough of those tide gauge measurement records from stations around the world and then see if there is a trend. Or no trend.

The tide gauge measurements won't show a cause of sealevel change, just whether or not there is a change.
06-12-2018 01:57
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(145)
still learning wrote:
The word "proof" isn't used much in science.

It technically shouldn't be used at all in science... science doesn't make use of proofs.

still learning wrote:"Convincing evidence" is.

That word shouldn't be used in science either... science doesnt make use of supporting evidence... it only makes use of conflicting evidence.

still learning wrote:Measurements. Hundred year continuing observations of tide gauges at multiple locations.

An explanation here: https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/question356.htm

A record of one tide measuring station: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414290

Examine enough of those tide gauge measurement records from stations around the world and then see if there is a trend. Or no trend.

The tide gauge measurements won't show a cause of sealevel change, just whether or not there is a change.

I don't trust those measurements. There's no way that I know of to accurately measure sea levels...
Edited on 06-12-2018 01:58
06-12-2018 03:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
still learning wrote:
cthor29 wrote:
....prove that the sea is rising? How did they measure it?....


The word "proof" isn't used much in science. "Convincing evidence" is.

Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. It does not use supporting evidence either. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The only evidence science is interested in is conflicting evidence.
still learning wrote:
Measurements. Hundred year continuing observations of tide gauges at multiple locations.

Means nothing. Those tidal stations are sitting on land. Land is the reference point. Land moves.

Is the sea rising, or is the land sinking?


The Parrot Killer
10-12-2018 22:42
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
OP - What would prove it to you?
10-12-2018 23:18
Tero
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
gfm7175 wrote:
still learning wrote:
The word "proof" isn't used much in science.

It technically shouldn't be used at all in science... science doesn't make use of proofs.

still learning wrote:"Convincing evidence" is.

That word shouldn't be used in science either... science doesnt make use of supporting evidence... it only makes use of conflicting evidence.

still learning wrote:Measurements. Hundred year continuing observations of tide gauges at multiple locations.

An explanation here: https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/question356.htm

A record of one tide measuring station: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414290

Examine enough of those tide gauge measurement records from stations around the world and then see if there is a trend. Or no trend.

The tide gauge measurements won't show a cause of sealevel change, just whether or not there is a change.

I don't trust those measurements. There's no way that I know of to accurately measure sea levels...

Will you be buying the sea front properties people are selling in Miami? Or your closest ocean? I'm making sure I have only rain or tornadoes to deal with so I have some 1000 miles to the sea.
11-12-2018 01:05
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(145)
No I won't be buying any... I am in WI where I don't have those issues.
11-12-2018 03:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
gfm7175 wrote:
No I won't be buying any... I am in WI where I don't have those issues.


I am in Seattle. Seafront property is too expensive.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2018 16:05
Yomi
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Here in Norway, we had over 34 degrees in Mai. It has not been that warm in over 100 years! That is proof enough for me!
11-12-2018 20:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Yomi wrote:
Here in Norway, we had over 34 degrees in Mai. It has not been that warm in over 100 years! That is proof enough for me!


You are easily duped then. Temperature in a single location does not mean the Earth.

Did you know it's not even possible to measure the temperature of Norway?


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2018 21:16
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
Yomi wrote:
Here in Norway, we had over 34 degrees in Mai. It has not been that warm in over 100 years! That is proof enough for me!


You do realize that if it was that warm 100 years ago that disproves global warming? The Little Ice Age ended approximately 1850 and the effects of that are still being felt. What we are witnessing isn't anything unusual but the Earth returning to its normal temperatures after the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The "warm periods" that occur about every thousand years aren't so much warm as normal temperature. We are past the present warming and are about to start a pretty dramatic cooling by 2050 +/- 11 years. Though you will see some rather stupid articles that the cooling started circa 2014.

Be cautious and skeptical about article misrepresented by the media about things they do not know about and get from interviews with other idiots that have little to no training or even worse are trying to get government research grants by making the most grandiose claims to achieve that.
11-12-2018 23:49
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
Wake wrote:
Yomi wrote:
Here in Norway, we had over 34 degrees in Mai. It has not been that warm in over 100 years! That is proof enough for me!


You do realize that if it was that warm 100 years ago that disproves global warming? The Little Ice Age ended approximately 1850 and the effects of that are still being felt. What we are witnessing isn't anything unusual but the Earth returning to its normal temperatures after the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The "warm periods" that occur about every thousand years aren't so much warm as normal temperature. We are past the present warming and are about to start a pretty dramatic cooling by 2050 +/- 11 years. Though you will see some rather stupid articles that the cooling started circa 2014.

Be cautious and skeptical about article misrepresented by the media about things they do not know about and get from interviews with other idiots that have little to no training or even worse are trying to get government research grants by making the most grandiose claims to achieve that.


So, basically, the Climatologist knew all along, that we would being hitting a cooling cycle soon after the 2030 'deadline', to cut man-made CO2 production in half, which would prove that they're saving the planet. They figure they can show definite progress, and completely cut carbon fuels soon after, with little resistance.

Unfortunately, they failed to provide an attractive alternate, that wasn't going to cause considerable hardship. Our electric production, and power grid, is only mostly adequate, but needs some major upgrades, to accomodate all the electric vehicles. Pretty sure there is no alternate to carbon, that can keep up with our current demand, no chance to feed our new, greener needs. There aren't going to be enough electric vehicles, to replace carbon-burners, not to mention producing the batteries. 10 years, and need to replace hundreds of millions of vehicles, private and commercial. Isn't jet fuel carbon based? Not many electric planes.

How do they plan to get people to kick the carbon addiction, in 10 years? Carbon tax isn't working so well in France, and will likely meet similar resistance globally. So, what's plan 'B'? Carbon Fuel has to be less attractive than green, but super-high prices, will cause violent resistance. There is something in the works, but not sure what, but think it sort of flopped. Obama's 'Public Works' spending, was mostly a 50/50 mass transit system, which didn't go over too well in Florida. He sold Gov. Christ a light-rail system, that was to run coast-to-coast, East/West. And, there was to be a bullet-train North-to-South, connecting to one of the northern neighbor states. Fortunately, Christ didn't get that started, and Gov. Scott stopped that project, but got elected too late to kill the light-rail project, which isn't even half done. They just start running this year, but not many people using it. Been a lot of fatalities, and collisions this first year. They'll have to sink a few more million into it, to keep people off the tracks... Guess, Obama was figuring to take away our person vehicles, and stuff us all on the death trains. Think those trains run on diesel, guess they'll need to spend a few more million on going 'green'.

I just don't see any practical way we could possible stop using carbon fuel in 10 years, with out some major hardship, and a lot of cash getting sunk into a non-issue. Think we need to start finding the folks, who are going to profit most, and make it public. Got a hunch most of them will be democrats, who are pushing this the hardest, eager to gets some 'green' out of our wallets.
12-12-2018 00:30
James___
★★★☆☆
(955)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Yomi wrote:
Here in Norway, we had over 34 degrees in Mai. It has not been that warm in over 100 years! That is proof enough for me!


You do realize that if it was that warm 100 years ago that disproves global warming? The Little Ice Age ended approximately 1850 and the effects of that are still being felt. What we are witnessing isn't anything unusual but the Earth returning to its normal temperatures after the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The "warm periods" that occur about every thousand years aren't so much warm as normal temperature. We are past the present warming and are about to start a pretty dramatic cooling by 2050 +/- 11 years. Though you will see some rather stupid articles that the cooling started circa 2014.

Be cautious and skeptical about article misrepresented by the media about things they do not know about and get from interviews with other idiots that have little to no training or even worse are trying to get government research grants by making the most grandiose claims to achieve that.


So, basically, the Climatologist knew all along, that we would being hitting a cooling cycle soon after the 2030 'deadline', to cut man-made CO2 production in half, which would prove that they're saving the planet. They figure they can show definite progress, and completely cut carbon fuels soon after, with little resistance.

Unfortunately, they failed to provide an attractive alternate, that wasn't going to cause considerable hardship. Our electric production, and power grid, is only mostly adequate, but needs some major upgrades, to accomodate all the electric vehicles. Pretty sure there is no alternate to carbon, that can keep up with our current demand, no chance to feed our new, greener needs. There aren't going to be enough electric vehicles, to replace carbon-burners, not to mention producing the batteries. 10 years, and need to replace hundreds of millions of vehicles, private and commercial. Isn't jet fuel carbon based? Not many electric planes.

How do they plan to get people to kick the carbon addiction, in 10 years? Carbon tax isn't working so well in France, and will likely meet similar resistance globally. So, what's plan 'B'? Carbon Fuel has to be less attractive than green, but super-high prices, will cause violent resistance. There is something in the works, but not sure what, but think it sort of flopped. Obama's 'Public Works' spending, was mostly a 50/50 mass transit system, which didn't go over too well in Florida. He sold Gov. Christ a light-rail system, that was to run coast-to-coast, East/West. And, there was to be a bullet-train North-to-South, connecting to one of the northern neighbor states. Fortunately, Christ didn't get that started, and Gov. Scott stopped that project, but got elected too late to kill the light-rail project, which isn't even half done. They just start running this year, but not many people using it. Been a lot of fatalities, and collisions this first year. They'll have to sink a few more million into it, to keep people off the tracks... Guess, Obama was figuring to take away our person vehicles, and stuff us all on the death trains. Think those trains run on diesel, guess they'll need to spend a few more million on going 'green'.

I just don't see any practical way we could possible stop using carbon fuel in 10 years, with out some major hardship, and a lot of cash getting sunk into a non-issue. Think we need to start finding the folks, who are going to profit most, and make it public. Got a hunch most of them will be democrats, who are pushing this the hardest, eager to gets some 'green' out of our wallets.



And in Jacksonville, Florida they have some of the worst traffic congestion in the U.S. At least they're avoiding a light rail system that could get them where they want to go quicker and that's important. It'd lower the cost of automobile ownership but why care about that when they can spend more time in their cars just sitting in traffic, right?
12-12-2018 01:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Yomi wrote:
Here in Norway, we had over 34 degrees in Mai. It has not been that warm in over 100 years! That is proof enough for me!


You do realize that if it was that warm 100 years ago that disproves global warming? The Little Ice Age ended approximately 1850 and the effects of that are still being felt. What we are witnessing isn't anything unusual but the Earth returning to its normal temperatures after the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The "warm periods" that occur about every thousand years aren't so much warm as normal temperature. We are past the present warming and are about to start a pretty dramatic cooling by 2050 +/- 11 years. Though you will see some rather stupid articles that the cooling started circa 2014.

Be cautious and skeptical about article misrepresented by the media about things they do not know about and get from interviews with other idiots that have little to no training or even worse are trying to get government research grants by making the most grandiose claims to achieve that.


So, basically, the Climatologist knew all along, that we would being hitting a cooling cycle soon after the 2030 'deadline', to cut man-made CO2 production in half, which would prove that they're saving the planet. They figure they can show definite progress, and completely cut carbon fuels soon after, with little resistance.

Unfortunately, they failed to provide an attractive alternate, that wasn't going to cause considerable hardship. Our electric production, and power grid, is only mostly adequate, but needs some major upgrades, to accomodate all the electric vehicles. Pretty sure there is no alternate to carbon, that can keep up with our current demand, no chance to feed our new, greener needs. There aren't going to be enough electric vehicles, to replace carbon-burners, not to mention producing the batteries. 10 years, and need to replace hundreds of millions of vehicles, private and commercial. Isn't jet fuel carbon based? Not many electric planes.

How do they plan to get people to kick the carbon addiction, in 10 years? Carbon tax isn't working so well in France, and will likely meet similar resistance globally. So, what's plan 'B'? Carbon Fuel has to be less attractive than green, but super-high prices, will cause violent resistance. There is something in the works, but not sure what, but think it sort of flopped. Obama's 'Public Works' spending, was mostly a 50/50 mass transit system, which didn't go over too well in Florida. He sold Gov. Christ a light-rail system, that was to run coast-to-coast, East/West. And, there was to be a bullet-train North-to-South, connecting to one of the northern neighbor states. Fortunately, Christ didn't get that started, and Gov. Scott stopped that project, but got elected too late to kill the light-rail project, which isn't even half done. They just start running this year, but not many people using it. Been a lot of fatalities, and collisions this first year. They'll have to sink a few more million into it, to keep people off the tracks... Guess, Obama was figuring to take away our person vehicles, and stuff us all on the death trains. Think those trains run on diesel, guess they'll need to spend a few more million on going 'green'.

I just don't see any practical way we could possible stop using carbon fuel in 10 years, with out some major hardship, and a lot of cash getting sunk into a non-issue. Think we need to start finding the folks, who are going to profit most, and make it public. Got a hunch most of them will be democrats, who are pushing this the hardest, eager to gets some 'green' out of our wallets.



And in Jacksonville, Florida they have some of the worst traffic congestion in the U.S. At least they're avoiding a light rail system that could get them where they want to go quicker and that's important. It'd lower the cost of automobile ownership but why care about that when they can spend more time in their cars just sitting in traffic, right?


San Francisco, New York City, and Los Angeles all have far worse traffic congestion than Jacksonville! So does Seattle (at least we're better than Chicago traffic!).

Guess you don't get to Miami much.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-12-2018 01:08
12-12-2018 01:15
James___
★★★☆☆
(955)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Yomi wrote:
Here in Norway, we had over 34 degrees in Mai. It has not been that warm in over 100 years! That is proof enough for me!


You do realize that if it was that warm 100 years ago that disproves global warming? The Little Ice Age ended approximately 1850 and the effects of that are still being felt. What we are witnessing isn't anything unusual but the Earth returning to its normal temperatures after the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The "warm periods" that occur about every thousand years aren't so much warm as normal temperature. We are past the present warming and are about to start a pretty dramatic cooling by 2050 +/- 11 years. Though you will see some rather stupid articles that the cooling started circa 2014.

Be cautious and skeptical about article misrepresented by the media about things they do not know about and get from interviews with other idiots that have little to no training or even worse are trying to get government research grants by making the most grandiose claims to achieve that.


So, basically, the Climatologist knew all along, that we would being hitting a cooling cycle soon after the 2030 'deadline', to cut man-made CO2 production in half, which would prove that they're saving the planet. They figure they can show definite progress, and completely cut carbon fuels soon after, with little resistance.

Unfortunately, they failed to provide an attractive alternate, that wasn't going to cause considerable hardship. Our electric production, and power grid, is only mostly adequate, but needs some major upgrades, to accomodate all the electric vehicles. Pretty sure there is no alternate to carbon, that can keep up with our current demand, no chance to feed our new, greener needs. There aren't going to be enough electric vehicles, to replace carbon-burners, not to mention producing the batteries. 10 years, and need to replace hundreds of millions of vehicles, private and commercial. Isn't jet fuel carbon based? Not many electric planes.

How do they plan to get people to kick the carbon addiction, in 10 years? Carbon tax isn't working so well in France, and will likely meet similar resistance globally. So, what's plan 'B'? Carbon Fuel has to be less attractive than green, but super-high prices, will cause violent resistance. There is something in the works, but not sure what, but think it sort of flopped. Obama's 'Public Works' spending, was mostly a 50/50 mass transit system, which didn't go over too well in Florida. He sold Gov. Christ a light-rail system, that was to run coast-to-coast, East/West. And, there was to be a bullet-train North-to-South, connecting to one of the northern neighbor states. Fortunately, Christ didn't get that started, and Gov. Scott stopped that project, but got elected too late to kill the light-rail project, which isn't even half done. They just start running this year, but not many people using it. Been a lot of fatalities, and collisions this first year. They'll have to sink a few more million into it, to keep people off the tracks... Guess, Obama was figuring to take away our person vehicles, and stuff us all on the death trains. Think those trains run on diesel, guess they'll need to spend a few more million on going 'green'.

I just don't see any practical way we could possible stop using carbon fuel in 10 years, with out some major hardship, and a lot of cash getting sunk into a non-issue. Think we need to start finding the folks, who are going to profit most, and make it public. Got a hunch most of them will be democrats, who are pushing this the hardest, eager to gets some 'green' out of our wallets.



And in Jacksonville, Florida they have some of the worst traffic congestion in the U.S. At least they're avoiding a light rail system that could get them where they want to go quicker and that's important. It'd lower the cost of automobile ownership but why care about that when they can spend more time in their cars just sitting in traffic, right?


San Francisco, New York City, and Los Angeles all have far worse traffic congestion than Jacksonville! So does Seattle (at least we're better than Chicago traffic!).

Guess you don't get to Miami much.



That's not it at all. As harvey said, he doesn't care how much he spends on transportation costs or how much time he spends in traffic. Yet all you said is that as long as someone spends more money and time in or on your car than you do, that's all you care about. All this means is that people like you don't have something better to do.
12-12-2018 01:51
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Yomi wrote:
Here in Norway, we had over 34 degrees in Mai. It has not been that warm in over 100 years! That is proof enough for me!


You do realize that if it was that warm 100 years ago that disproves global warming? The Little Ice Age ended approximately 1850 and the effects of that are still being felt. What we are witnessing isn't anything unusual but the Earth returning to its normal temperatures after the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The "warm periods" that occur about every thousand years aren't so much warm as normal temperature. We are past the present warming and are about to start a pretty dramatic cooling by 2050 +/- 11 years. Though you will see some rather stupid articles that the cooling started circa 2014.

Be cautious and skeptical about article misrepresented by the media about things they do not know about and get from interviews with other idiots that have little to no training or even worse are trying to get government research grants by making the most grandiose claims to achieve that.


So, basically, the Climatologist knew all along, that we would being hitting a cooling cycle soon after the 2030 'deadline', to cut man-made CO2 production in half, which would prove that they're saving the planet. They figure they can show definite progress, and completely cut carbon fuels soon after, with little resistance.

Unfortunately, they failed to provide an attractive alternate, that wasn't going to cause considerable hardship. Our electric production, and power grid, is only mostly adequate, but needs some major upgrades, to accomodate all the electric vehicles. Pretty sure there is no alternate to carbon, that can keep up with our current demand, no chance to feed our new, greener needs. There aren't going to be enough electric vehicles, to replace carbon-burners, not to mention producing the batteries. 10 years, and need to replace hundreds of millions of vehicles, private and commercial. Isn't jet fuel carbon based? Not many electric planes.

How do they plan to get people to kick the carbon addiction, in 10 years? Carbon tax isn't working so well in France, and will likely meet similar resistance globally. So, what's plan 'B'? Carbon Fuel has to be less attractive than green, but super-high prices, will cause violent resistance. There is something in the works, but not sure what, but think it sort of flopped. Obama's 'Public Works' spending, was mostly a 50/50 mass transit system, which didn't go over too well in Florida. He sold Gov. Christ a light-rail system, that was to run coast-to-coast, East/West. And, there was to be a bullet-train North-to-South, connecting to one of the northern neighbor states. Fortunately, Christ didn't get that started, and Gov. Scott stopped that project, but got elected too late to kill the light-rail project, which isn't even half done. They just start running this year, but not many people using it. Been a lot of fatalities, and collisions this first year. They'll have to sink a few more million into it, to keep people off the tracks... Guess, Obama was figuring to take away our person vehicles, and stuff us all on the death trains. Think those trains run on diesel, guess they'll need to spend a few more million on going 'green'.

I just don't see any practical way we could possible stop using carbon fuel in 10 years, with out some major hardship, and a lot of cash getting sunk into a non-issue. Think we need to start finding the folks, who are going to profit most, and make it public. Got a hunch most of them will be democrats, who are pushing this the hardest, eager to gets some 'green' out of our wallets.


Before this was about "global warming" it was environmentalism and the most vocal at that time were crying that there were too many people on this planet. Now consider that in light of the demand to cut energy use.

Today there is remarkably little starvation on this planet opposed to the large scale starvation in China and India and the African continent in the past. We still have a long way to go but while the world's population increased 50% starvation dropped to a tiny fraction of what it was.

Presently the IPCC demand for limiting energy would put people in the US - a family of four - limited to the same energy use as in 1909. This would effectively totally end any energy use by the Chinese or the subcontinent of India. It is murder on a level that would make Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot look like pikers.

This is the demand of the IPCC and the Democrat half of Congress. So when you think of this gobal warming hoax consider what the true drive behind it is.

And to give you some history: At the end of the Civil War, Republicans held everything in the government. But the previous Democrat Party was restarted by - the KKK. Yep, those white hoodies. Then the hangings and cross burnings began. Woodrow Wilson came into the Presidency on the Democrat vote and move, seconded and passed the "Separate But Equal" laws. These are the ones that put blacks into the backs of the buses and able only to use Blacks Only public facilities such as toilets and even drinking fountains. Most Americans opposed this so they passed laws punishing any whites or white business owners that didn't comply with these laws.

Franklin Roosevelt was voted in during the depression promising to make jobs. He did - he fired almost all of the black civil service workers and hired whites in their stead. Those blacks that were maintained had low and insulting jobs like janitorial work cleaning white toilets and the like.

Later Franklin Roosevelt put ALL Americans of Japanese extraction into concentration camps seizing all their property and distributing it among the elite whites. At this same time that our people were fighting Germans because they were putting Jews in Concentration Camps Roosevelt had 100,000 Americans in those kinds of camps. At the time only the highest secrecy surrounded the German Camps and it wasn't until American troops marched into those camps that the full shock was felt. They don't speak much of American commanding officers having all of the German troops lined up and shot down.

Even the MILITARY was segregated and it wasn't until General Eisenhower was elected to the office of President that he took full measures to desegregate the military.

Lyndon Johnson was supposed to be elected. But John Kennedy ran away with it with his message of real equality and the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. So there was always a lot of suspicion about Lee Harvey Oswald actually being a paid assassin since he was murdered in turn by Jack Ruby. Both of these people were easily prey to manipulation and the war had taught psychological warfare to a lot of CIA operatives. In any case we went to Johnson as President after all.

Johnson did everything he could to overthrow that Civil Rights bill but the Republicans actually passed it despite the Democrats taking credit for it because it was Kennedy's bill and Johnson's Presidency. When the law passed Johnson was heard to say, "Well, we got the nigger vote for 200 years" as compensation. I'm sure you remember Clinton catering to the black vote by passing the government loan guarantee law. Previously this service had only been available to veterans.

That act caused banks to make loans that any common sense would have prevented. But the government was there to pay them off so they made themselves available. Eventually the banks crashed and the largest losers were again the blacks.

Then along came Obama. His open borders policy totally wiped out the black community. Men could not get a job when they were always undercut by illegals. Because of the poor education received as leftovers from the segregation period they were mostly low level workers so it couldn't be more plainly written to say that Obama knew full well what he was doing. Remember he was supposed to be a community organizer familiar with the plight of blacks. Also he could pretend to himself be a black when he was in reality half white and half MORO - middle easterners of the Muslim faith who took harems and sold slaves and still do.

So the Democrat Party has a long and storied history of doing the very worse they can to anyone but the White Rich Elite who also use the non-working non-tax paying suckers to give them electoral power.

The fact that they are using the hoax of AGW to kill off a third of the world's population should come as no surprise.
12-12-2018 01:57
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Yomi wrote:
Here in Norway, we had over 34 degrees in Mai. It has not been that warm in over 100 years! That is proof enough for me!


You do realize that if it was that warm 100 years ago that disproves global warming? The Little Ice Age ended approximately 1850 and the effects of that are still being felt. What we are witnessing isn't anything unusual but the Earth returning to its normal temperatures after the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The "warm periods" that occur about every thousand years aren't so much warm as normal temperature. We are past the present warming and are about to start a pretty dramatic cooling by 2050 +/- 11 years. Though you will see some rather stupid articles that the cooling started circa 2014.

Be cautious and skeptical about article misrepresented by the media about things they do not know about and get from interviews with other idiots that have little to no training or even worse are trying to get government research grants by making the most grandiose claims to achieve that.


So, basically, the Climatologist knew all along, that we would being hitting a cooling cycle soon after the 2030 'deadline', to cut man-made CO2 production in half, which would prove that they're saving the planet. They figure they can show definite progress, and completely cut carbon fuels soon after, with little resistance.

Unfortunately, they failed to provide an attractive alternate, that wasn't going to cause considerable hardship. Our electric production, and power grid, is only mostly adequate, but needs some major upgrades, to accomodate all the electric vehicles. Pretty sure there is no alternate to carbon, that can keep up with our current demand, no chance to feed our new, greener needs. There aren't going to be enough electric vehicles, to replace carbon-burners, not to mention producing the batteries. 10 years, and need to replace hundreds of millions of vehicles, private and commercial. Isn't jet fuel carbon based? Not many electric planes.

How do they plan to get people to kick the carbon addiction, in 10 years? Carbon tax isn't working so well in France, and will likely meet similar resistance globally. So, what's plan 'B'? Carbon Fuel has to be less attractive than green, but super-high prices, will cause violent resistance. There is something in the works, but not sure what, but think it sort of flopped. Obama's 'Public Works' spending, was mostly a 50/50 mass transit system, which didn't go over too well in Florida. He sold Gov. Christ a light-rail system, that was to run coast-to-coast, East/West. And, there was to be a bullet-train North-to-South, connecting to one of the northern neighbor states. Fortunately, Christ didn't get that started, and Gov. Scott stopped that project, but got elected too late to kill the light-rail project, which isn't even half done. They just start running this year, but not many people using it. Been a lot of fatalities, and collisions this first year. They'll have to sink a few more million into it, to keep people off the tracks... Guess, Obama was figuring to take away our person vehicles, and stuff us all on the death trains. Think those trains run on diesel, guess they'll need to spend a few more million on going 'green'.

I just don't see any practical way we could possible stop using carbon fuel in 10 years, with out some major hardship, and a lot of cash getting sunk into a non-issue. Think we need to start finding the folks, who are going to profit most, and make it public. Got a hunch most of them will be democrats, who are pushing this the hardest, eager to gets some 'green' out of our wallets.



And in Jacksonville, Florida they have some of the worst traffic congestion in the U.S. At least they're avoiding a light rail system that could get them where they want to go quicker and that's important. It'd lower the cost of automobile ownership but why care about that when they can spend more time in their cars just sitting in traffic, right?


San Francisco, New York City, and Los Angeles all have far worse traffic congestion than Jacksonville! So does Seattle (at least we're better than Chicago traffic!).

Guess you don't get to Miami much.


I have plenty of job offers in Sunnyvale and Mountain View area. This is only about 30 miles away but on a GOOD commute day with no accidents of any sort it would be between 3 and 4 hours to commute one way.
12-12-2018 02:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Yomi wrote:
Here in Norway, we had over 34 degrees in Mai. It has not been that warm in over 100 years! That is proof enough for me!


You do realize that if it was that warm 100 years ago that disproves global warming? The Little Ice Age ended approximately 1850 and the effects of that are still being felt. What we are witnessing isn't anything unusual but the Earth returning to its normal temperatures after the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The "warm periods" that occur about every thousand years aren't so much warm as normal temperature. We are past the present warming and are about to start a pretty dramatic cooling by 2050 +/- 11 years. Though you will see some rather stupid articles that the cooling started circa 2014.

Be cautious and skeptical about article misrepresented by the media about things they do not know about and get from interviews with other idiots that have little to no training or even worse are trying to get government research grants by making the most grandiose claims to achieve that.


So, basically, the Climatologist knew all along, that we would being hitting a cooling cycle soon after the 2030 'deadline', to cut man-made CO2 production in half, which would prove that they're saving the planet. They figure they can show definite progress, and completely cut carbon fuels soon after, with little resistance.

Unfortunately, they failed to provide an attractive alternate, that wasn't going to cause considerable hardship. Our electric production, and power grid, is only mostly adequate, but needs some major upgrades, to accomodate all the electric vehicles. Pretty sure there is no alternate to carbon, that can keep up with our current demand, no chance to feed our new, greener needs. There aren't going to be enough electric vehicles, to replace carbon-burners, not to mention producing the batteries. 10 years, and need to replace hundreds of millions of vehicles, private and commercial. Isn't jet fuel carbon based? Not many electric planes.

How do they plan to get people to kick the carbon addiction, in 10 years? Carbon tax isn't working so well in France, and will likely meet similar resistance globally. So, what's plan 'B'? Carbon Fuel has to be less attractive than green, but super-high prices, will cause violent resistance. There is something in the works, but not sure what, but think it sort of flopped. Obama's 'Public Works' spending, was mostly a 50/50 mass transit system, which didn't go over too well in Florida. He sold Gov. Christ a light-rail system, that was to run coast-to-coast, East/West. And, there was to be a bullet-train North-to-South, connecting to one of the northern neighbor states. Fortunately, Christ didn't get that started, and Gov. Scott stopped that project, but got elected too late to kill the light-rail project, which isn't even half done. They just start running this year, but not many people using it. Been a lot of fatalities, and collisions this first year. They'll have to sink a few more million into it, to keep people off the tracks... Guess, Obama was figuring to take away our person vehicles, and stuff us all on the death trains. Think those trains run on diesel, guess they'll need to spend a few more million on going 'green'.

I just don't see any practical way we could possible stop using carbon fuel in 10 years, with out some major hardship, and a lot of cash getting sunk into a non-issue. Think we need to start finding the folks, who are going to profit most, and make it public. Got a hunch most of them will be democrats, who are pushing this the hardest, eager to gets some 'green' out of our wallets.



And in Jacksonville, Florida they have some of the worst traffic congestion in the U.S. At least they're avoiding a light rail system that could get them where they want to go quicker and that's important. It'd lower the cost of automobile ownership but why care about that when they can spend more time in their cars just sitting in traffic, right?


San Francisco, New York City, and Los Angeles all have far worse traffic congestion than Jacksonville! So does Seattle (at least we're better than Chicago traffic!).

Guess you don't get to Miami much.



That's not it at all. As harvey said, he doesn't care how much he spends on transportation costs or how much time he spends in traffic. Yet all you said is that as long as someone spends more money and time in or on your car than you do, that's all you care about. All this means is that people like you don't have something better to do.


We do.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2018 02:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Yomi wrote:
Here in Norway, we had over 34 degrees in Mai. It has not been that warm in over 100 years! That is proof enough for me!


You do realize that if it was that warm 100 years ago that disproves global warming? The Little Ice Age ended approximately 1850 and the effects of that are still being felt. What we are witnessing isn't anything unusual but the Earth returning to its normal temperatures after the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The "warm periods" that occur about every thousand years aren't so much warm as normal temperature. We are past the present warming and are about to start a pretty dramatic cooling by 2050 +/- 11 years. Though you will see some rather stupid articles that the cooling started circa 2014.

Be cautious and skeptical about article misrepresented by the media about things they do not know about and get from interviews with other idiots that have little to no training or even worse are trying to get government research grants by making the most grandiose claims to achieve that.


So, basically, the Climatologist knew all along, that we would being hitting a cooling cycle soon after the 2030 'deadline', to cut man-made CO2 production in half, which would prove that they're saving the planet. They figure they can show definite progress, and completely cut carbon fuels soon after, with little resistance.

Unfortunately, they failed to provide an attractive alternate, that wasn't going to cause considerable hardship. Our electric production, and power grid, is only mostly adequate, but needs some major upgrades, to accomodate all the electric vehicles. Pretty sure there is no alternate to carbon, that can keep up with our current demand, no chance to feed our new, greener needs. There aren't going to be enough electric vehicles, to replace carbon-burners, not to mention producing the batteries. 10 years, and need to replace hundreds of millions of vehicles, private and commercial. Isn't jet fuel carbon based? Not many electric planes.

How do they plan to get people to kick the carbon addiction, in 10 years? Carbon tax isn't working so well in France, and will likely meet similar resistance globally. So, what's plan 'B'? Carbon Fuel has to be less attractive than green, but super-high prices, will cause violent resistance. There is something in the works, but not sure what, but think it sort of flopped. Obama's 'Public Works' spending, was mostly a 50/50 mass transit system, which didn't go over too well in Florida. He sold Gov. Christ a light-rail system, that was to run coast-to-coast, East/West. And, there was to be a bullet-train North-to-South, connecting to one of the northern neighbor states. Fortunately, Christ didn't get that started, and Gov. Scott stopped that project, but got elected too late to kill the light-rail project, which isn't even half done. They just start running this year, but not many people using it. Been a lot of fatalities, and collisions this first year. They'll have to sink a few more million into it, to keep people off the tracks... Guess, Obama was figuring to take away our person vehicles, and stuff us all on the death trains. Think those trains run on diesel, guess they'll need to spend a few more million on going 'green'.

I just don't see any practical way we could possible stop using carbon fuel in 10 years, with out some major hardship, and a lot of cash getting sunk into a non-issue. Think we need to start finding the folks, who are going to profit most, and make it public. Got a hunch most of them will be democrats, who are pushing this the hardest, eager to gets some 'green' out of our wallets.


Before this was about "global warming" it was environmentalism and the most vocal at that time were crying that there were too many people on this planet. Now consider that in light of the demand to cut energy use.

Today there is remarkably little starvation on this planet opposed to the large scale starvation in China and India and the African continent in the past. We still have a long way to go but while the world's population increased 50% starvation dropped to a tiny fraction of what it was.

Presently the IPCC demand for limiting energy would put people in the US - a family of four - limited to the same energy use as in 1909. This would effectively totally end any energy use by the Chinese or the subcontinent of India. It is murder on a level that would make Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot look like pikers.

This is the demand of the IPCC and the Democrat half of Congress. So when you think of this gobal warming hoax consider what the true drive behind it is.

And to give you some history: At the end of the Civil War, Republicans held everything in the government. But the previous Democrat Party was restarted by - the KKK. Yep, those white hoodies. Then the hangings and cross burnings began. Woodrow Wilson came into the Presidency on the Democrat vote and move, seconded and passed the "Separate But Equal" laws. These are the ones that put blacks into the backs of the buses and able only to use Blacks Only public facilities such as toilets and even drinking fountains. Most Americans opposed this so they passed laws punishing any whites or white business owners that didn't comply with these laws.

Franklin Roosevelt was voted in during the depression promising to make jobs. He did - he fired almost all of the black civil service workers and hired whites in their stead. Those blacks that were maintained had low and insulting jobs like janitorial work cleaning white toilets and the like.

Later Franklin Roosevelt put ALL Americans of Japanese extraction into concentration camps seizing all their property and distributing it among the elite whites. At this same time that our people were fighting Germans because they were putting Jews in Concentration Camps Roosevelt had 100,000 Americans in those kinds of camps. At the time only the highest secrecy surrounded the German Camps and it wasn't until American troops marched into those camps that the full shock was felt. They don't speak much of American commanding officers having all of the German troops lined up and shot down.

Even the MILITARY was segregated and it wasn't until General Eisenhower was elected to the office of President that he took full measures to desegregate the military.

Lyndon Johnson was supposed to be elected. But John Kennedy ran away with it with his message of real equality and the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. So there was always a lot of suspicion about Lee Harvey Oswald actually being a paid assassin since he was murdered in turn by Jack Ruby. Both of these people were easily prey to manipulation and the war had taught psychological warfare to a lot of CIA operatives. In any case we went to Johnson as President after all.

Johnson did everything he could to overthrow that Civil Rights bill but the Republicans actually passed it despite the Democrats taking credit for it because it was Kennedy's bill and Johnson's Presidency. When the law passed Johnson was heard to say, "Well, we got the nigger vote for 200 years" as compensation. I'm sure you remember Clinton catering to the black vote by passing the government loan guarantee law. Previously this service had only been available to veterans.

That act caused banks to make loans that any common sense would have prevented. But the government was there to pay them off so they made themselves available. Eventually the banks crashed and the largest losers were again the blacks.

Then along came Obama. His open borders policy totally wiped out the black community. Men could not get a job when they were always undercut by illegals. Because of the poor education received as leftovers from the segregation period they were mostly low level workers so it couldn't be more plainly written to say that Obama knew full well what he was doing. Remember he was supposed to be a community organizer familiar with the plight of blacks. Also he could pretend to himself be a black when he was in reality half white and half MORO - middle easterners of the Muslim faith who took harems and sold slaves and still do.

So the Democrat Party has a long and storied history of doing the very worse they can to anyone but the White Rich Elite who also use the non-working non-tax paying suckers to give them electoral power.

The fact that they are using the hoax of AGW to kill off a third of the world's population should come as no surprise.


That actually sums up these administrations pretty good, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2018 02:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Yomi wrote:
Here in Norway, we had over 34 degrees in Mai. It has not been that warm in over 100 years! That is proof enough for me!


You do realize that if it was that warm 100 years ago that disproves global warming? The Little Ice Age ended approximately 1850 and the effects of that are still being felt. What we are witnessing isn't anything unusual but the Earth returning to its normal temperatures after the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The "warm periods" that occur about every thousand years aren't so much warm as normal temperature. We are past the present warming and are about to start a pretty dramatic cooling by 2050 +/- 11 years. Though you will see some rather stupid articles that the cooling started circa 2014.

Be cautious and skeptical about article misrepresented by the media about things they do not know about and get from interviews with other idiots that have little to no training or even worse are trying to get government research grants by making the most grandiose claims to achieve that.


So, basically, the Climatologist knew all along, that we would being hitting a cooling cycle soon after the 2030 'deadline', to cut man-made CO2 production in half, which would prove that they're saving the planet. They figure they can show definite progress, and completely cut carbon fuels soon after, with little resistance.

Unfortunately, they failed to provide an attractive alternate, that wasn't going to cause considerable hardship. Our electric production, and power grid, is only mostly adequate, but needs some major upgrades, to accomodate all the electric vehicles. Pretty sure there is no alternate to carbon, that can keep up with our current demand, no chance to feed our new, greener needs. There aren't going to be enough electric vehicles, to replace carbon-burners, not to mention producing the batteries. 10 years, and need to replace hundreds of millions of vehicles, private and commercial. Isn't jet fuel carbon based? Not many electric planes.

How do they plan to get people to kick the carbon addiction, in 10 years? Carbon tax isn't working so well in France, and will likely meet similar resistance globally. So, what's plan 'B'? Carbon Fuel has to be less attractive than green, but super-high prices, will cause violent resistance. There is something in the works, but not sure what, but think it sort of flopped. Obama's 'Public Works' spending, was mostly a 50/50 mass transit system, which didn't go over too well in Florida. He sold Gov. Christ a light-rail system, that was to run coast-to-coast, East/West. And, there was to be a bullet-train North-to-South, connecting to one of the northern neighbor states. Fortunately, Christ didn't get that started, and Gov. Scott stopped that project, but got elected too late to kill the light-rail project, which isn't even half done. They just start running this year, but not many people using it. Been a lot of fatalities, and collisions this first year. They'll have to sink a few more million into it, to keep people off the tracks... Guess, Obama was figuring to take away our person vehicles, and stuff us all on the death trains. Think those trains run on diesel, guess they'll need to spend a few more million on going 'green'.

I just don't see any practical way we could possible stop using carbon fuel in 10 years, with out some major hardship, and a lot of cash getting sunk into a non-issue. Think we need to start finding the folks, who are going to profit most, and make it public. Got a hunch most of them will be democrats, who are pushing this the hardest, eager to gets some 'green' out of our wallets.



And in Jacksonville, Florida they have some of the worst traffic congestion in the U.S. At least they're avoiding a light rail system that could get them where they want to go quicker and that's important. It'd lower the cost of automobile ownership but why care about that when they can spend more time in their cars just sitting in traffic, right?


San Francisco, New York City, and Los Angeles all have far worse traffic congestion than Jacksonville! So does Seattle (at least we're better than Chicago traffic!).

Guess you don't get to Miami much.


I have plenty of job offers in Sunnyvale and Mountain View area. This is only about 30 miles away but on a GOOD commute day with no accidents of any sort it would be between 3 and 4 hours to commute one way.


Yeah. Traffic in pretty much the entire Bay Area sucks.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2018 03:40
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
Traffic jams? Well, I'll have to admit to having very little experience. I punch the time clock at 6:00 AM, so guess most of the jam car drivers are still sleeping. I also take the secondary roads, less traffic, but more importantly, less traffic control, light/signs. Speed limit is semi-optional, low risk, but tickets are still possible. Found that if you don't exceed the posted speed by more than 10 mph, almost never get a ticket, even when pulled over. I try to avoid the 'big city' experience, on top of all the usual unpleasantries, we have tourists, who flock to those destinations, and use the main roads. Most only have a vague idea of how to get to where they are going, and have all week to get there. Maps and GPS are useless, road construction/repairs, will most always take you off your planned path. My commute is about 40 minutes, done it in 25 (over-slept), but don't make it a habit. I think a 2 hour drive would be kind of pushing it, either move closer to work, or find another job closer to home. I'm not that pick about jobs, or limited by only one type of work. Can't really complain about traffic, you have other options, it's entirely your choice. We don't get everything we want, all the time, unless we still live with our parents...
12-12-2018 13:25
James___
★★★☆☆
(955)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Traffic jams? Well, I'll have to admit to having very little experience. I punch the time clock at 6:00 AM, so guess most of the jam car drivers are still sleeping. I also take the secondary roads, less traffic, but more importantly, less traffic control, light/signs. Speed limit is semi-optional, low risk, but tickets are still possible. Found that if you don't exceed the posted speed by more than 10 mph, almost never get a ticket, even when pulled over. I try to avoid the 'big city' experience, on top of all the usual unpleasantries, we have tourists, who flock to those destinations, and use the main roads. Most only have a vague idea of how to get to where they are going, and have all week to get there. Maps and GPS are useless, road construction/repairs, will most always take you off your planned path. My commute is about 40 minutes, done it in 25 (over-slept), but don't make it a habit. I think a 2 hour drive would be kind of pushing it, either move closer to work, or find another job closer to home. I'm not that pick about jobs, or limited by only one type of work. Can't really complain about traffic, you have other options, it's entirely your choice. We don't get everything we want, all the time, unless we still live with our parents...



You are out of touch. You don't know that as a % a lot less people under 25 are even getting a driver's license. The reason for traffic congestion is population growth and fewer freeway miles per capita. This is because downtown is still the place to be.
The internet was supposed to allow for decentralization of downtown areas but the fastest fiber optics usually are placed with the greatest infrastructure like a downtown.
You guys aren't aware of these issues, are you? From what a few of you are posting you seem to be completely unaware. And this would be one reason for the push for different types of mass transit. Yet the people who want to stay in their cars are becoming a vocal minority who apparently remember the 60's and the way it used to be.

Oh harvey, this is going to be unfair on my side of things. This is one of the problems I had with my parents. Didn't I want a car payment, an insurance policy, gas bills and maintenance costs? I didn't. That's all money I could've spent on something else. Like you, wake and itn, apparently there's not something else you'd rather be spending your money on so it's all climate change's fault when it's just that some people don't want to do things the way their parents did. Yet it can't be because of that, can it?
I read where the guy who owned Seabiscuit had the entire car dealership for a large area of California. He couldn't get people to buy a car in San Francisco. What changed all of that was the earthquake of 1906. The cars he couldn't sell because no one wanted them were used as ambulances. That's what changed things for him.
Kind of shows how much people are against change. This is where if someone reads the book about Seabiscuit, they become aware of this background information. Listening to the audio book or watching the movie, it'll be missed.
This is ironic in a way because the Seattle area used to have a rail system that went from south Seattle to Everett. I think it was called the Inter-Urban. This is funny because in King County, Washington state rail systems pre-date cars. It had nothing to do with climate change but everything to do with convenience.
http://www.historylink.org/File/2667
Edited on 12-12-2018 13:56
12-12-2018 19:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Traffic jams? Well, I'll have to admit to having very little experience. I punch the time clock at 6:00 AM, so guess most of the jam car drivers are still sleeping. I also take the secondary roads, less traffic, but more importantly, less traffic control, light/signs. Speed limit is semi-optional, low risk, but tickets are still possible. Found that if you don't exceed the posted speed by more than 10 mph, almost never get a ticket, even when pulled over. I try to avoid the 'big city' experience, on top of all the usual unpleasantries, we have tourists, who flock to those destinations, and use the main roads. Most only have a vague idea of how to get to where they are going, and have all week to get there. Maps and GPS are useless, road construction/repairs, will most always take you off your planned path. My commute is about 40 minutes, done it in 25 (over-slept), but don't make it a habit. I think a 2 hour drive would be kind of pushing it, either move closer to work, or find another job closer to home. I'm not that pick about jobs, or limited by only one type of work. Can't really complain about traffic, you have other options, it's entirely your choice. We don't get everything we want, all the time, unless we still live with our parents...



You are out of touch. You don't know that as a % a lot less people under 25 are even getting a driver's license. The reason for traffic congestion is population growth and fewer freeway miles per capita. This is because downtown is still the place to be.
Speak for yourself. I haven't been downtown for several years. Don't like putting up with the homeless, the filth, the socialism, etc. Downtown has nothing I need.
James___ wrote:
The internet was supposed to allow for decentralization of downtown areas but the fastest fiber optics usually are placed with the greatest infrastructure like a downtown.

Fiber is available in pretty much anywhere in Thurston, King, and most parts of Snohomish county. Most buy into coaxial service instead. It's cheaper and plenty fast enough. People in the country generally buy into satellite service.
James___ wrote:
You guys aren't aware of these issues, are you?
Neither are really issues.
James___ wrote:
From what a few of you are posting you seem to be completely unaware. And this would be one reason for the push for different types of mass transit.
Mass transit makes sense where it can be beneficial in crowded corridors. The best systems are based on central rapid service with bus service extending out from the central corridors. Seattle currently does not have that.
James___ wrote:
Yet the people who want to stay in their cars are becoming a vocal minority who apparently remember the 60's and the way it used to be.

No, they are the majority. It's not about the 60's. It's about getting around. I have no practical mass transit where I live or where I work.
James___ wrote:
Oh harvey, this is going to be unfair on my side of things. This is one of the problems I had with my parents. Didn't I want a car payment, an insurance policy, gas bills and maintenance costs? I didn't.

Your choice. My choice is different. Meh.
James___ wrote:
That's all money I could've spent on something else. Like you, wake and itn, apparently there's not something else you'd rather be spending your money

But there is. I spend my money on my business, my cars, my various aircraft, my computers, and my machine shop equipment.
James___ wrote:
on so it's all climate change's fault when it's just that some people don't want to do things the way their parents did.

None of what are posting here has anything to do with climate change.
James___ wrote:
Yet it can't be because of that, can it?
I read where the guy who owned Seabiscuit had the entire car dealership for a large area of California. He couldn't get people to buy a car in San Francisco. What changed all of that was the earthquake of 1906. The cars he couldn't sell because no one wanted them were used as ambulances. That's what changed things for him.

No. Cars generally weren't widely available in 1906. What was available at the time were generally steam powered vehicles. They have a lot of limitations. Internal combustion vehicles didn't really become widely available until the 30's. What changed it for him was the coming of the practical internal combustion engine.
James___ wrote:
This is ironic in a way because the Seattle area used to have a rail system that went from south Seattle to Everett.
I think it was called the Inter-Urban.

Yup. It had streetcars just like San Francisco too.
James___ wrote:
This is funny because in King County, Washington state rail systems pre-date cars. It had nothing to do with climate change but everything to do with convenience.

Rail predated cars everywhere, dude. The first rail in Seattle was in 1871. It was part of the Northern Pacific line, the only privately built line across the United States.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2018 20:17
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
Into the Night wrote:
No. Cars generally weren't widely available in 1906. What was available at the time were generally steam powered vehicles. They have a lot of limitations. Internal combustion vehicles didn't really become widely available until the 30's. What changed it for him was the coming of the practical internal combustion engine.


Actually what triggered the large growth in cars wasn't the engines which were pretty refined by then but Henry Ford using the assembly line to make cars so cheaply that even his employees could buy and own one on their wages.

But sufficient cars to generate a lot of CO2 really weren't in the public purview until the late 60's. And indeed this is when they claim that CO2 levels began to climb.
12-12-2018 21:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. Cars generally weren't widely available in 1906. What was available at the time were generally steam powered vehicles. They have a lot of limitations. Internal combustion vehicles didn't really become widely available until the 30's. What changed it for him was the coming of the practical internal combustion engine.


Actually what triggered the large growth in cars wasn't the engines which were pretty refined by then but Henry Ford using the assembly line to make cars so cheaply that even his employees could buy and own one on their wages.

While that was a factor, cars weren't widely available across the United States until much later.
Wake wrote:
But sufficient cars to generate a lot of CO2 really weren't in the public purview until the late 60's. And indeed this is when they claim that CO2 levels began to climb.

I've most often seen the point in time used by the Church of Global warming for this to usually be the industrial revolution.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2018 23:29
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
So, why are we so focused on electric cars, if steam powered cars worked in the past? Seems like we have lighter, stronger materials. More efficient ways to burn stuff, contain the heat, better engine designs. Wood burning is carbon-neutral, apparently, although still think CO2, is still CO2, regardless of the sources. Don't necessarily need to just burn wood either, we could burn some of that trash, people chuck out the windows. Seems like it could be good for the environment, less trash for the landfills, and should comply with the dictates of the Climatologists. Maybe not perfect, but electric cars aren't going to be cheap, ever. To charge the battery is still going cost more than we spend on petroleum. Even those folk living in areas with hydro or nuclear, are going to pay more for electricity, price is based on demand. Some places already charge two rates, higher for peak hours. There will be a high demand, all the time, always peak demand rate, and they sell all they can, to customers willing to pay top dollar. Peak demand, also means higher failure rates, and maintenance costs.

Somebody was complaining about traffic jams, rush hour traffic, long transit times. Doubt mass transit will be much better, still have to get to a stop or station, wait. Wait some more, at each stop on the route. You probably are going to get door-to-door service, only get close to your actual destination, still need to find a way to finish your trip into town. Now, when our light-rail train hit somebody, or something, it's a 2-3 hour delay. SunRail, has been good enough to hire shuttle buses to take passengers to the next station.

Electric cars scare me a little, never really like lithium batteries, don't treat them right, they catch fire. They get damaged, they catch fire. Seems like there isn't a practical way to put out those fires either, just let them burn themselves out, try to keep everything else nearby from burning. Those batteries, are huge packs, of hundreds of individual cells, held together with plastic, which burns pretty good too. Heat makes lithium batteries explode and burn, well, it's more like roman candles, some fly a good ways, and burn long time.

I think if I had to choose between a modernized steam driven car, or an electric, I'd go with the steam. I'm sure it wouldn't be designed to burn garbage, they'd want you to use some sort of standardized fuel pellets, part for safety, and to avoid servicing problems. Just seems like it would be cheaper and safer than electric.
13-12-2018 01:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, why are we so focused on electric cars, if steam powered cars worked in the past?
Because internal combustion cars are more efficient than external combustion cars. Safer engines too. Also don't need water for the boiler.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Seems like we have lighter, stronger materials. More efficient ways to burn stuff, contain the heat, better engine designs.

It is not possible to 'contain' heat. All engines are heat engines. They all depend on a hot part of the engine and a cold part of the engine. You WANT heat to flow. That's what makes the engine run.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wood burning is carbon-neutral, apparently, although still think CO2, is still CO2, regardless of the sources. Don't necessarily need to just burn wood either, we could burn some of that trash, people chuck out the windows. Seems like it could be good for the environment, less trash for the landfills, and should comply with the dictates of the Climatologists.

Wood or trash are low grade fuels. They don't have a lot of energy in them. They are bulky for the energy you do get.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Maybe not perfect, but electric cars aren't going to be cheap, ever.
Not quite true. Electric cars are coming down in price. Some hybrid cars are some of the cheapest cars out there right now.
HarveyH55 wrote:
To charge the battery is still going cost more than we spend on petroleum.

Depends on what you charge it from. Sometimes it's dirt cheap to charge an electric car. The big problem is refueling time. It takes hours to refuel an electric car (charge it), while it only takes a minute or two to refuel a gasoline powered car. The charge rate on a battery won't improve either. Current requirements become enormous to ram that kind of wattage into a battery (even if the battery COULD take it without catching fire or blowing up!).
HarveyH55 wrote:
Even those folk living in areas with hydro or nuclear, are going to pay more for electricity, price is based on demand. Some places already charge two rates, higher for peak hours. There will be a high demand, all the time, always peak demand rate, and they sell all they can, to customers willing to pay top dollar. Peak demand, also means higher failure rates, and maintenance costs.

If everybody goes to electric cars, that will be a problem. Not going to happen, however. Electric cars make decent commuter cars, but they really suck at cross country travel.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Somebody was complaining about traffic jams, rush hour traffic, long transit times.
James.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Doubt mass transit will be much better, still have to get to a stop or station, wait. Wait some more, at each stop on the route. You probably are going to get door-to-door service, only get close to your actual destination, still need to find a way to finish your trip into town. Now, when our light-rail train hit somebody, or something, it's a 2-3 hour delay. SunRail, has been good enough to hire shuttle buses to take passengers to the next station.
Yup. This is a downside to commuter rail. Trains can't steer around an accident like cars can.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Electric cars scare me a little, never really like lithium batteries, don't treat them right, they catch fire.
This confusion about lithium batteries is quite common.

There are actually two kinds of lithium batteries: Lithium metal batteries, and lithium oxide batteries. Lithium metal batteries are not rechargeable. They are sensitive to overcurrent draw. If they catch fire, it's a class D fire. The only way to put it out is sand. It's burning metal. It's often just easier to let it burn itself out.

Lithium oxide batteries are rechargeable. If they are mishandled, they can catch fire (all batteries of any significant current capacity can catch fire, including lead-acid cells). A lithium oxide battery fire is a class C fire. You can put it out with monoammonium phosphate, potassium bicarbonate, or potassium chloride (commonly available chemical fire extinguishers), or carbon dioxide extinguishers. You can also just smother the fire. These are the same techniques you would use for a lead-acid battery fire.

HarveyH55 wrote:
They get damaged, they catch fire.

Same as any battery such as lead-acid batteries.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Seems like there isn't a practical way to put out those fires either, just let them burn themselves out, try to keep everything else nearby from burning.

Carbon dioxide is the most common method. It's just a class C fire (class E for you folks in Australia).
HarveyH55 wrote:
Those batteries, are huge packs, of hundreds of individual cells, held together with plastic, which burns pretty good too. Heat makes lithium batteries explode and burn, well, it's more like roman candles, some fly a good ways, and burn long time.

Heh. Roman candles are a specific type of firework, designed to shoot multiple stars one at a time. Though often hand held, it's safer to stick it in the ground or an old mortar tube (they sometimes explode).

Lithium oxide batteries don't have any greater explosion hazard than any battery of that current capacity. Such fires can be safely approached and put out like any large class C fire.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I think if I had to choose between a modernized steam driven car, or an electric, I'd go with the steam.

Boilers explode. They also require filling with water. They also require high maintenance (you have to clean out the inside of the boiler regularly, as water and steam are corrosive). You still need an efficient source of fuel (most steam cars used oil for fuel, similar to diesel oil). They take a long time to start (you have to build up a head of steam first, which can take quite a few minutes).

With electric cars, you just turn it on and go. Because they often use individual traction motors on each wheel, they can be great in the snow as well.

Personally, I prefer gasoline cars.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm sure it wouldn't be designed to burn garbage, they'd want you to use some sort of standardized fuel pellets, part for safety, and to avoid servicing problems. Just seems like it would be cheaper and safer than electric.

External combustion engines depend on available energy in the fuel for the bulk of the fuel you carry just like any engine. Trash is low energy fuel. Fuel pellets are difficult to automatically feed to the firebox. Most steam driven engines use No. 2 oil these days.

I used to work on the Lahaina-Kaanapali and Pacific railroad. That railroad uses steam locomotives pulling about three passenger cars, fired by No. 2 oil. The tender car for the boiler had to be filled with water for each run of six miles and back (12 miles total). The locomotive required boiler servicing every three months (cleaning it all out and inspection) and constant monitoring by the fireman to keep the water level at a safe level (too high or too low and the whole boiler would explode.

As well as people take care of their cars these days, steamer cars are extremely dangerous...much more so than electric cars.


The Parrot Killer
13-12-2018 03:40
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
Wasn't thinking about old locomotive style steam engines. Was thinking if we applied modern materials and technology, we should be able to improve and shrink it down to car sized, with decent mileage, before re-fueling/water. It's only if they cut off the carbon fuel, or make it insanely expensive. Those affordable hybrids, or electrics, are going to be in high demand, and production won't keep up, we only have 10 years to make it happen. High demand, low supply, usually means pay a high price, or do without. More than half our electricity is generated by carbon fuel, too high a CO2 source to let pass, because we really need them.

James, thanks for the lithium battery lesson, but why would anyone use non-rechargeable batteries in a car?

I fly a decent size quadcopter, and active on a forum. The batteries are a frequent topic, and a few fire videos, usually intentional though. Someone once shared a Tesla battery pack fire, and it was pretty much as described. It was daylight, yet could clearly see flaming cells flying a goo ways. Fire extinguisher didn't do much, but he was really close enough (flying cells), as with the garden hose. Even the fire department didn't really put out the fire, just cooled it off, until the burning cells got done. Most of the pack was destroyed. Have to look up that video, little amusing.

Basically, I was looking for other options, this doesn't look like it going way anytime soon, and likely going to be a real climatology crisis, if/when we get another demoncrat president. The only way they can cut carbon fuel use, is raising the price, controlling energy production. Figure if carbon fuel is going to get real expensive, for a while, electricity will be too. Would rather stay out of the government controlled energy empire, if possible.

* added link to battery fire video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdDi1haA71Q

Could have swore there was a shorter version, maybe I just skipped to the good parts. 12 minutes, takes a few minutes to get to the fire part.
Edited on 13-12-2018 04:27
13-12-2018 21:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wasn't thinking about old locomotive style steam engines.

These weren't old. They are contemporary engines. Despite the fact they run on rails instead of streets, everything about them does apply.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Was thinking if we applied modern materials and technology, we should be able to improve and shrink it down to car sized, with decent mileage, before re-fueling/water.

Already possible. Most cars were steam powered before the internal combustion became popular.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's only if they cut off the carbon fuel, or make it insanely expensive.

Steam powered cars won't help. Neither will electric cars. Both need carbon based fuel to run.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Those affordable hybrids, or electrics, are going to be in high demand,

A hybrid is not an electric car. It's a gasoline or diesel car that charges batteries for electric traction motor(s). Think Prius.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and production won't keep up, we only have 10 years to make it happen.

Why the time limit?
HarveyH55 wrote:
High demand, low supply, usually means pay a high price, or do without.

We have more oil than ever. Supplies are excellent. There is no reason for them to suddenly disappear.
HarveyH55 wrote:
More than half our electricity is generated by carbon fuel, too high a CO2 source to let pass, because we really need them.

CO2 is not a problem. It is incapable of warming the Earth.
HarveyH55 wrote:
James, thanks for the lithium battery lesson, but why would anyone use non-rechargeable batteries in a car?


I am not James. He doesn't know battery technology.

They wouldn't.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I fly a decent size quadcopter, and active on a forum. The batteries are a frequent topic, and a few fire videos, usually intentional though.

Yeah. It's usually more spectacular looking in the air!
HarveyH55 wrote:
Someone once shared a Tesla battery pack fire, and it was pretty much as described. It was daylight, yet could clearly see flaming cells flying a goo ways. Fire extinguisher didn't do much, but he was really close enough (flying cells), as with the garden hose. Even the fire department didn't really put out the fire, just cooled it off, until the burning cells got done. Most of the pack was destroyed. Have to look up that video, little amusing.

Lithium oxide battery fires can look pretty spectacular, but they really are just a class C fire. They can be put out with carbon dioxide fire extinguishers. When batteries are stored in enormous packs like this, the ones burning near the center of the pack have nowhere for expanding gases to go and so you get little explosions.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Basically, I was looking for other options, this doesn't look like it going way anytime soon, and likely going to be a real climatology crisis, if/when we get another demoncrat president.

I don't think a Democrat for a president is not going to have this kind of power. The market is bigger than he is.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The only way they can cut carbon fuel use, is raising the price, controlling energy production.

They can't really get away with that. Market forces will prevail.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Figure if carbon fuel is going to get real expensive, for a while, electricity will be too.

It's in their agenda to do so. It won't work.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Would rather stay out of the government controlled energy empire, if possible.

They don't control it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
* added link to battery fire video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdDi1haA71Q

Like I said...little explosions because of batteries arranged in packs. Any class C fire extinguisher could have put that fire out.


The government has already attempted to control prices on oil (under Carter). It was a miserable failure. Anyone who lived through that period remembers the gas lines, the black markets, etc.

OPEC attempted to act like a monopoly and fix oil prices in 1973. At the time, the United States did not have many developed wells and were importing oil. OPEC caused fuel prices to jump 350%. Carter's response was abysmal. In 1979, he ordered price controls on gasoline. The result was predictable. His order was either ignored, or those stations that complied stopped selling gasoline for less than cost completely. OPEC itself lost confidence in the dollar.

The rationing, the gas lines, the price controls all failed. Price controls never work.

What actually happened was the development of new supplies. OPEC suddenly realized they didn't have the power they thought they had, and the monopoly was broken.

Prices have remained stable since then. The 'new' price of gas remained high because the dollar fell so quickly during that time. It wasn't just a fuel supply problem. It was a dollar problem. Supplies became stable, but the dollar continued its downward slide.

Today, the dollar is worth about 11 cents from those days. Oil supplies remain high. The government really can't control oil. Not even OPEC could get away with it for long.

Today, the nation is a lot more polarized too. A crisis like that today would quite likely result in much more violence against the government (similar to what is happening in France right now).

Could it happen again? Sure. The cost this time against the government attempting it will be quite higher this time, though.

Speculating on whether the government or even a Democrat president is stupid enough to try this really becomes needless worry. If it happens, it happens. Deal with it when, and if, it does.

In the end, the free market is immortal. You can't kill it, even if you drive it underground. Just ask your local drug dealer for details.


The Parrot Killer
14-12-2018 02:47
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
The thing about a democrat president, is that he will get the support and votes to pass socialist agendas, like Climate Change legislation. Even though ObamaCare wasn't popular, it still got shoved through, many of the legislators, even the House Speaker, admitted they never read the bill (entirely, huge), or knew what all would change, still voted for it, and of course Obama signed it. The price hike wouldn't be anything to do with supply, it would taxes on carbon fuel usages, the control would come from who gets taxed, and how much. 2030 seems to be the deadline, to reduce CO2 emission by 50%.

Steam engines haven't been widely used in quite some time. I've never seen a steam engine car, in books, in movies, on TV. I have seen a steam locomotive, even ridden on the train, it was more like a museum/historical type thing. I don't doubt there were steam cars, but they were likely play things for the rich, or experimental.

The whole thing is about greed and control, carbon fuel, and energy production are just the tools being used, climate change is being used to grab control. While we fight it out over fuel and energy, there is going to be a lot of other things slipping past in our government, since we are going to be mad, and focused on the issue impacting us the most. Those that know the changes, and impacts can make a lot of money, which way to move their investments. It's going to be chaotic for a while, people are going to panic.

Drug dealers... Yeah, a $20-$30 prescription of a couple dozen pills, becomes $20 a pill, plus you don't get any guarantee it's actual what you think it is, or the dosage, not that it really matters, long as it does something... I'm not a fan of pharmaceuticals, legal or otherwise, seems like sort of a gamble either way. Street drugs never appealed to me at all, never really knew for sure what you were getting, until you used it, and it's too late. Even pot carries certain risks, since it can be sprayed with enhancements, to make a poor product appealing. Getting ripped off or robbed in the free market/black market scheme is part of the game, with little recourse, other than handling it yourself (violence). Public service, but the courts might not agree.

I don't believe carbon fuels will go away, don't think we are going to reduce CO2 emissions, in reality, but we are only going to get fed more bogus numbers, and robbed for a while. The 'climate change' non-issue will go away, but the economic damage will already be done, power grabbed, more people dependent on socialist handouts.
14-12-2018 04:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The thing about a democrat president, is that he will get the support and votes to pass socialist agendas, like Climate Change legislation. Even though ObamaCare wasn't popular, it still got shoved through, many of the legislators, even the House Speaker, admitted they never read the bill (entirely, huge), or knew what all would change, still voted for it, and of course Obama signed it. The price hike wouldn't be anything to do with supply, it would taxes on carbon fuel usages, the control would come from who gets taxed, and how much. 2030 seems to be the deadline, to reduce CO2 emission by 50%.
Won't happen in the United States. People will rebel long before then.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Steam engines haven't been widely used in quite some time.
They are used today. Most of them are statically placed, operating as machines to turn electrical generators. Every nuclear power plant uses steam turbines. The nuclear fuel is just the heat source for the boilers. The same is true of most oil and coal fired power plants.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've never seen a steam engine car,
They do exist. Jay Leno has several. Back in their day they were quite popular.
HarveyH55 wrote:
in books, in movies, on TV.
Try different movies or TV.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I have seen a steam locomotive, even ridden on the train, it was more like a museum/historical type thing.
Steam locomotives were still used on practical lines hauling freight and such until the 90's in some parts of the world.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't doubt there were steam cars, but they were likely play things for the rich, or experimental.

Nope. They were popular cars in their day. The internal combustion beat them because it was a lot less fuss and simpler to run than a steam car. Internal combustion engines didn't have to wait for a head of steam to build up either.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The whole thing is about greed and control, carbon fuel, and energy production are just the tools being used, climate change is being used to grab control. While we fight it out over fuel and energy, there is going to be a lot of other things slipping past in our government, since we are going to be mad, and focused on the issue impacting us the most. Those that know the changes, and impacts can make a lot of money, which way to move their investments. It's going to be chaotic for a while, people are going to panic.

If, and only if, the people of the United States allow it to happen.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Drug dealers... Yeah, a $20-$30 prescription of a couple dozen pills, becomes $20 a pill, plus you don't get any guarantee it's actual what you think it is, or the dosage, not that it really matters, long as it does something... I'm not a fan of pharmaceuticals, legal or otherwise, seems like sort of a gamble either way.

I was specifically referring to the illegal recreational drug dealers. Prohibition has failed. You can't stop the open market. People still buy and use these drugs, even though they're illegal.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Street drugs never appealed to me at all, never really knew for sure what you were getting, until you used it, and it's too late.
I don't like recreational drug for any reason, legal or otherwise. I don't drink, smoke, do pot, or use any other recreational drug.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Even pot carries certain risks, since it can be sprayed with enhancements, to make a poor product appealing.
True, the black market has this greater risk, but the market is still there. Someone cutting the drug will quickly get a reputation (and not a good one!).
HarveyH55 wrote:
Getting ripped off or robbed in the free market/black market scheme is part of the game, with little recourse, other than handling it yourself (violence).

It's the same recourse as always. Find another dealer that won't rip you off. That's true in any market, regardless of the product or whether it's legal or not.

Of course, in black markets, violence does seem to the the first choice option more often.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Public service, but the courts might not agree.
They won't.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe carbon fuels will go away,
They won't.
HarveyH55 wrote:
don't think we are going to reduce CO2 emissions, in reality, but we are only going to get fed more bogus numbers, and robbed for a while.
We don't need to reduce CO2 emissions.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The 'climate change' non-issue will go away,
No, it won't.
HarveyH55 wrote:
but the economic damage will already be done, power grabbed, more people dependent on socialist handouts.

Only if the people let them.

The nice thing about capitalism is that if someone tries to implement socialism and cut off supply, there is always someone willing to go around the limitations and provide the market with product.

I really don't think even the Democrats are dumb enough to completely shut down the economy. They need it to steal from it.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Prove It!:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Amy Kloubuchar uses snow to prove there is climate change. Now that's top level Marxism.613-02-2019 23:05
So there is no greenhouse effect, and I can prove it .. what to do next?6401-06-2017 10:26
Do man-made climate change deniers prove man-made climate change exists?10117-10-2015 17:54
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact