This ought not make the Flat Earthers happy

[archives]

Then there's this:

Data center hubs are producing more emissions than a million homes
https://www.techradar.com/pro/data-center-hubs-are-producing-more-emissions-than-a-million-homes

The massive increase in computing power and data storage requires massive amounts of electricity worldwide, most of which is produced by coal fired power plants. This electrical usage dwarfs any savings from tiny improvements in home appliances.

“The business technology experts,” it is a blog, guess they just can’t process the requested please, no posts with “proof” from some obscure nobody supposedly invalidating the Scientific consensus

 

[BartenderElite]

We're really careless about protecting the only planet we have.

People will be scratching their heads a few decades from now, wondering how we ignored the very obvious warning signs and failed to act.

 

[ExpressLane]

And this would flat earther religion

Elaborate please.

 

[archives]

Arsecheese you're a wanker!

And to respond accordingly, I’m rubber, your glue, whatever you say to me bounces off and sticks to you, want to exchange some more elementary playground insults or do you have any content to offer

 

[ExpressLane]

We're really careless about protecting the only planet we have.

People will be scratching their heads a few decades from now, wondering how we ignored the very obvious warning signs and failed to act.

So we should not use 3 TIMES the natural gas to make the electricity to boil a gallon of water than to use the natural gas to boil a gallon of water directly.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You back every single thing the far right says. The gas problem is that it does slow damage to people's lungs and bodies. https://www.govtaccountabilityproje...o6vMijElZacSGwNYAQab_Xtkb5eyUByIaAohNEALw_wcB

So those wanting these new regulations claim. They made similar claims about miniscule reductions in ozone pollution too. But when confronted by Congress, they refuse to produce the data they used to get those numbers.

US House Republicans blast EPA refusal to appear at EV hearing
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ep...se-hearing-evs-emissions-proposal-2023-05-16/

EPA to Reconsider “Do Nothing” Ozone Rule
https://earthjustice.org/press/2021/epa-to-reconsider-do-nothing-ozone-rule

The Black Box
EPA defies Congress on “secret science” used to justify environmental regulations
https://capitalresearch.org/article...ce-used-to-justify-environmental-regulations/

The EPA led the way in "Black Box" science, something other agencies have taken notice of and followed suit in. That is, they produce some "study" showing that the cost of a regulation is offset--magically--by the savings somewhere else. Oh! If we tighten rules on appliances there'll be x number fewer asthma cases saving the amount of this regulation's cost, so it will break even and cost nothing! What could be better? At the same time, they refuse to release the data they used to make the study citing some flimsy excuse or another for not doing so.

Unlike you, I'm done listening to these so-called "experts" who don't know their asshole from their elbow and think we'll just meekly go along with whatever they say. Fuck them. I want total openness on their part. I want others not beholden to them to review the data and not just some meaningless "peer review" where other like-minded "experts" nod in agreement without even reading the material.

Your source cites the usual suspects in this Black Box science, in the CPSC, another quack science agency.

So, while using gas appliances like a stove does create small amounts of pollution, a vent hood running takes care of that. The concurrent pollution from the act of cooking itself can easily match that the stove produces. What I see are the usual suspects lining up, head nodding, and agreeing with each other. Well, I for one aren't buying their bullshit because they've lied or fudged the numbers too many times in the past.

 

[cawacko]

We're really careless about protecting the only planet we have.

People will be scratching their heads a few decades from now, wondering how we ignored the very obvious warning signs and failed to act.

That there are issues doesn’t mean all legislation is good legislation and all money spent is money well spent.

I’ll offer a local example. We have a huge homeless problem in San Francisco that we’ve spent billions (with a B) on that is not only not improving, but it getting worse. There are even people here now who are saying just throwing more money at it isn’t working, we need a new approach.

You hear people on the right often say we need to better fund the military. Often that can be accurate. But that does not mean the military should receive a blank check.

The government spending money on (pick an issue) doesn’t necessarily mean it’s money well spent.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Burning gas in turbine to make electricity takes THREE times as much gas and using the gas directly to cook with.

And there is this:

CH 4 ( g ) Methane + 2 O 2 ( g ) Oxygen → CO 2 ( g ) Carbon dioxide + 2 H 2 O ( g ) Water.

So explain to me how CO2 and water hurts lungs. As far as I know CO2 and water are normally products of respiration.

Well, if the combustion process is not complete (ie there is a mismatch and not enough oxygen present) you can get CO as a byproduct too...

 

[T. A. Gardner]

We're really careless about protecting the only planet we have.

People will be scratching their heads a few decades from now, wondering how we ignored the very obvious warning signs and failed to act.

Compared to the 50's and 60's the air and water are far, far cleaner than they were. When was the last time a river in the US caught fire because of the pollution in it?

We don't have rivers and lakes turning orange or covered in thick oil slicks today. The skies over our cities are grey-brown clouds of pollution like a fog. Today we're quibbling over removing tiny amounts of pollution using massive amounts of money. The results aren't worth the cost.

 

[BartenderElite]

That there are issues doesn’t mean all legislation is good legislation and all money spent is money well spent.

I’ll offer a local example. We have a huge homeless problem in San Francisco that we’ve spent billions (with a B) on that is not only not improving, but it getting worse. There are even people here now who are saying just throwing more money at it isn’t working, we need a new approach.

You hear people on the right often say we need to better fund the military. Often that can be accurate. But that does not mean the military should receive a blank check.

The government spending money on (pick an issue) doesn’t necessarily mean it’s money well spent.

I don't disagree w/ that. And I think it's too late to stop global warming just in general.

But it's more of a mindset. People who care about the planet shouldn't be compared to cultists. "Environmentalist" is almost a dirty word at this point, as though it's wacko to care about keeping our planet livable for this & future generations.

There is no way any objective person could look at the situation today and think it is in any way sustainable for the future. We are being irresponsible to those future generations right now.

 

[serendipity]

And to respond accordingly, I’m rubber, your glue, whatever you say to me bounces off and sticks to you, want to exchange some more elementary playground insults or do you have any content to offer

Just stating facts, I couldn't give a shit if you're offended.

 

[BartenderElite]

Compared to the 50's and 60's the air and water are far, far cleaner than they were. When was the last time a river in the US caught fire because of the pollution in it?

We don't have rivers and lakes turning orange or covered in thick oil slicks today. The skies over our cities are grey-brown clouds of pollution like a fog. Today we're quibbling over removing tiny amounts of pollution using massive amounts of money. The results aren't worth the cost.

This is such an inaccurate portrayal of reality.

In no way is the planet healthier today than it was 50 years ago. Look at ALL of the data, and all of the circumstances.

 

[serendipity]

Compared to the 50's and 60's the air and water are far, far cleaner than they were. When was the last time a river in the US caught fire because of the pollution in it?

We don't have rivers and lakes turning orange or covered in thick oil slicks today. The skies over our cities are grey-brown clouds of pollution like a fog. Today we're quibbling over removing tiny amounts of pollution using massive amounts of money. The results aren't worth the cost.

It's impossible getting these guys to understand that, they are beyond reasoning with.

 

[volsrock]

Just another sop to the dumbass science-deniers, fundies, and his rich buddies in the fossil fuel industry.

Since illegal immigration is such a RW boogeyman, why isn't the new speaker coming up with some solutions? Oh, that's right. They already tried to kill reproductive choice, which backfired badly on them in 2022. If they solve the illegal problem, what then will they have to scare their voters with?

dumbass science-deniers


you deny the DNA science that says Cathryn Jenner is a man

 

[T. A. Gardner]

This is such a dishonest portrayal of reality.
In no way is the planet healthier today than it was 50 years ago. Look at ALL of the data, and all of the circumstances.

Science denier you are...

Thanks to America’s free and prosperous economy, technological innovations, and reasonable environmental regulations, the U.S. has reduced the aggregate emissions of the six “criteria pollutants” listed in the Clean Air Act by 77% since 1970.
https://lifepowered.org/improvement...nological,the Clean Air Act by 77% since 1970.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139418/air-pollutant-emissions-by-type-us/

https://www.statista.com/topics/6819/environmental-pollution-in-the-us/#topicOverview

With Far Less Pollution Thanks to Strong Policy, Americans are Living Longer
https://epic.uchicago.edu/insights/...to-strong-policy-americans-are-living-longer/

Saving Our Dying Waters — 50 Years Ago and Today
https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2019/07/saving-our-dying-waters-50-years-ago-and-today/

The air and water in the US is cleaner today than it was in 1970, even more so than 1950. Where we are at today is the point where we are getting diminishing returns for increasingly massive spending on pollution. All the big chunks are cleaned up and we're quibbling over miniscule amounts that remain.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It's impossible getting these guys to understand that, they are beyond reasoning with.

Yep, no sense of history, no grasp of the past and knowledge of the present...

 

[cawacko]

After reading the idiocy posted by climate deniers, flat Earthers seems appropriate, and appropriating funds to address the reality of climate change seems appropriate, the five billion is a fraction of the over half trillion the Government hands out to Big Oil in subsidies

Appropriate funding levels and what that funding is spent on is certainly up for debate. Reasonable people can disagree but outside of a fringe group having issues with current legislation does not make one a flat earther.

 

[Nordberg]

If the earth was flat, by now cats would have shoved everything over the edge.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

 

[ExpressLane]

Didn’t I purposely request no posts with “proof” from some obscure bloggers supposedly invalidating the Scientific consensus, “Mr Appliance,” okie dokie

OK tard

When you choose natural gas as your source of energy, you’re choosing the most efficient energy that’s produced in America with minimum environmental impact. With natural gas, 93 percent of the original energy that leaves the ground reaches your home. Only seven percent is lost in the drilling and distribution processes.


Compare that to the electricity that is produced in this area by burning coal and natural gas. Only 28 percent of the original energy reaches your home as electricity. Seventy-two percent is lost in electricity’s less efficient conversion and transmission methods.

93/28 = 3.32


https://www.pensacolaenergy.com/energy-saving-tips/energy-efficiency

it takes 3.32 times as much gas to make an electric BTU as it does for gas to make a BTU and that is the science.