NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (2 Viewers)

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:26
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
16,244

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:26
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
16,244
Whatever happened to Rx_ the original poster of this notorious thread?
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:26
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
16,244
Technology will reduce CO2...

This looks promising:-

 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:26
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
16,244
No one knows how to cut their CO2 emissions!

And look at the minuscule effect!

Well the sneaky bar stewards !

A link to a Financial Times article which I just posted here, appears here as a sign-up form for the financial times!

The link appeared as if I am promoting the Financial times. I am not, and after this sneakiness, I will not! And I won't view any more of their articles, I will remove the Financial Times from my newsfeed!

Bad move ft, bad move!

If you're interested you might be able to search for the article yourself here is the article name and a short extract:-

Clothes dryer vs the car: carbon footprint misconceptions

Landmark survey of 21,000 people in almost 30 countries shows perception gap on climate impact of personal actions
 
Last edited:

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:26
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
16,244
Going vegan to combat climate crisis? definitely naivety at work.

I mean what about animal rights? If we start eating plants then we won't have any cows they will all die. Oh wait a minute, they are all going to die anyway!

 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:26
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
16,244
Global warming is NOT a Big Problem...

There are other problems that should be solved first:-

 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:26
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
16,244
FIVE Things we can do to combat climate change:-

Fly MORE not Less!
Get Rich and Consume MORE!

 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 09:26
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
Today, I ran across another article that points to the Global Warming Crowds hysterical fixation on CO2 as being a "Wag the Dog" distraction to avoid realpolitik solutions. As I have iterated in the past, the problem is people. People require resources to live, one being water. People, also generate CO2 gases, the purported cause of global warming, as a by-product of simply living. Want to solve global warming, control the population. In doing that you also "solve" other resource concerns, such as the availability of water. Controlling CO2 emissions, as the grandiose "solution", will not solve your other resource which are declining due to population demand.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:26
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
16,244
Did you know that viruses are responsible for creating a lot of CO2?


I found this completely by accident. I wanted to know how big viruses were on a nanoscale, and I was surprised to note that the article says seaborne viruses are responsible for creating millions of tons of CO2,

Extract
causing the release of 10 to the 8 to 10 to the 9 tonnes of carbon per day from the biological pool

that's if I've interpreted it correctly. I'm sure someone else will have a different interpretation and I would love to hear it!
 
Last edited:

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 09:26
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
The shallowness of the "global warming" zealots concerning the environment is shameful. Two headlines scrolled by this morning to that effect. To add context, the theme of many of my posts has been that people require resources, energy, and space to live. One of the by-products, of simply living, is the generation of CO2 (greenhouse) gases which the "global warming" alarmists claim will devastate the Earth. That is a "wag the dog" non-solution distraction.
This headline is grossly misplaced, especially for the Times. The Times' is a strong advocated for the "war" on eliminating greenhouse gases to prevent global warming. China is also a major polluter. Based on those concerns and the fact that China's birthrate is falling, it would seem that the Times headline should be giving China a thumbs up (y) for reducing population growth. That would contribute to lessening the generation of those evil greenhouse gases.

The quickie answer, the cars don't need lithium. Humans do, to maintain their quality of life. Again, less people means less competition to acquire and use these resources thereby lessening the environmental degradation. Also see the previously discussed topic on China controlling the rare earth mineral resources necessary for electric car production.
The fate of Tiehm's buckwheat highlights the tradeoffs and tough decisions surrounding "green technologies." Businesses that talk of helping the environment may not be above putting a species at risk of extinction. Ioneer argues that from a big-picture perspective, building its lithium mine is good for the environment. It believes the plant can survive being largely relocated, a claim the environmentalists question.
PS: Electric cars require a significant amount of toxic rare earth minerals (heavy metals). Currently we are just ramping-up the production of new electric cars. Eventually these cars will become old and will need to be recycled (disposed of). So what are we going to do with the toxic heavy metals? Hopefully they can be recovered for re-use.
 
Last edited:

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:26
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,970
The other problem with the rare earth minerals is that China has the bulk of the world's resources. The US is lacking in internal sources so we are reliant on China for supplies.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 08:26
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,998
Pat, we cannot forget how Japan, which was resource-poor after WW II, became a pre-eminent maker of steel: Reclamation and recycling.

When China raises the cost of the rare-earth minerals, eventually it becomes economically feasible to reclaim them from older electronics.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:26
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,970
Reclamation is a very dirty job. Not saying we shouldn't do it though. We seem to have outsourced all that work to extremely poor areas of the far east where they beach large ships and take them apart piece by piece with the workers living in horrible conditions and doing dangerous work with no protective gear.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 08:26
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,998
Absolutely no dispute - as has been found many times, if something becomes expensive enough, "dirty" methods of reclamation become feasible.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 06:26
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
Pat's post reminds me of the heartbreaking stories of exploitation I have read. We know we must allow the existence of labor which is paid at different rates in different markets in order to keep the economic engine moving along, but it is always sad to hear of desperate/hungry people having to make terrible choices to feed their family. The most poignant story of abuse of a desperate person that I can think of that comes to mind is one from within the past year or two, where some yahoo (making a social media VIDEO, of course) paid a homeless person $10 to attempt extremely dangerous "back flips" over the pavement. He broke his neck (or something along those lines), and everyone was trying to think of a way to prosecute the video-maker, but coming up short. What a gut wrenching story of the ultimate "using" of a human being & their plight. Hunger & addiction are Master Negotiators.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:26
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
16,244
Laughing Gas, an ignored source of global warming:-

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom