Climate Change [Solved!]

This forum is for anything not Reason related, if you just want to talk about other stuff. Please keep it friendly!
User avatar
Boombastix
Posts: 823
Joined: 18 May 2018
Location: Bay Area, CA

Post 20 Sep 2019

EnochLight wrote:
20 Sep 2019
Boombastix wrote:
20 Sep 2019


GMO and cultivation should not be mixed up, it kind of saying all oils are OK to drink, so olive oil and motor oil is OK... Nope.
GMO is very very different from old school cultivation.
I’m not talking about cultivating. I am talking about literal GMO’s. There is overwhelming evidence that eating GMO food is completely safe.
Well, slight confusion then. GMO's has only been sold for just over 20yrs, and not really in any sort of large scale sales to the public until more recently, i.e. that is not decades, more like maybe 10yrs in larger quantity for a limited number of crops. Also, the low number of safety studies does not imply it is safe.

Discoveries how miRNA affects human DNA is still in early discovery. If you say GMO is completely safe, you then imply you know what the miRNA research will put out in 10-20 yrs from now. How do you know that? By the way GMO engineering have already used the miRNA method to re-engineer plants to kill insects that eat the GMO crop. There is no way to know what random GMO changes does to human DNA expression at this time, unless it has been fully researched, and that is yet to come.
10% off at Waves with link: https://www.waves.com/r/6gh2b0
Disclaimer - I get 10% as well.

User avatar
Jagwah
Posts: 1556
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 20 Sep 2019

Some of you would be pleased to see Australia just yesterday had massive protests with people demanding government action on the environment. Lots of young people walked out of school for this. Personally I wish they were as passionate about other things. It shows you how powerful the fear machine media is. I've had enough of it personally, just look at the fear propagating from Time magazine over the years - the great drought, the great freeze just to name a relevant two, it's so powerful because people are desperately attracted to anything apparently dangerous because there is a need to understand it to be safe. I don't deny it or advocate it, I just don't buy it anymore and I tell my friends to always be sceptical when the fear machine is pushing fear. People should understand fear better, the impact it has on their bodies and psyche, and how strong a tool it is to control / influence people. Not interested in debating it at all, but that's my 2 cents. Pics from yesterday's protests in Aus somewhere.
1.jpg
2.jpg

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

reggie1979
Posts: 952
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 20 Sep 2019

Soylent green is PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Lol, we were headed there, but Nixon moved us away from............climate wise.

Our rivers/lakes and such were being choked to death. The EPA saved us from SG in the near future. Who knows if it's not in out future in decades past!

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5732
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 20 Sep 2019

Jagwah wrote:
20 Sep 2019
Some of you would be pleased to see Australia just yesterday had massive protests with people demanding government action on the environment. Lots of young people walked out of school for this. Personally I wish they were as passionate about other things. It shows you how powerful the fear machine media is. I've had enough of it personally, just look at the fear propagating from Time magazine over the years - the great drought, the great freeze just to name a relevant two, it's so powerful because people are desperately attracted to anything apparently dangerous because there is a need to understand it to be safe. I don't deny it or advocate it, I just don't buy it anymore and I tell my friends to always be sceptical when the fear machine is pushing fear. People should understand fear better, the impact it has on their bodies and psyche, and how strong a tool it is to control / influence people. Not interested in debating it at all, but that's my 2 cents. Pics from yesterday's protests in Aus somewhere.

1.jpg

2.jpg


There were similar protests in the US on the same day. My wife attended one (I couldn’t get out of work due to a client meeting). What would you rather students be passionate about instead of changing society to be less reliant on fossil fuel? Just curious.
Win 10 | Reason 11 |  Studio One 4.5 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro | Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 and System 1 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion | Roland TB-3 | Roland VT-4 | Roland MX-1

User avatar
Jagwah
Posts: 1556
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 21 Sep 2019

EnochLight wrote:
20 Sep 2019
There were similar protests in the US on the same day. My wife attended one (I couldn’t get out of work due to a client meeting). What would you rather students be passionate about instead of changing society to be less reliant on fossil fuel? Just curious.
Corporate and government corruption. The world is in a bad state in that regard and there is no end in sight, money is power and they have it all. An end result of which our media is totally controlled, which will gladly talk about the end of the world through climate change along with any other 'endless' fears which massively impacts our psyches and will probably require austerity cuts and huge sums of money to 'fix', yet will never mention the corruption going on because they are financed by those very people.

Not that I want to debate the issue, but I notice you said something along the lines of 'there is a 90% consensus of scientists agreeing climate change is real.' Firstly, that statistic is almost impossible to attain, and second - scientists from 'whichever organization' can always be bought and paid for, or even blackmailed and threatened, something that would be reasonably easy if any one entity had enough power and money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the survival of the planet and our species, but I've been spoon fed fear all my life mostly at the hands of the media and unless some issue is strikingly obvious or there is undeniable evident proof, I refuse to have faith in the fear machine's stories any more, and I wish more people would be extremely sceptical when the media pushes those issues we apparently need to fear, like it does constantly.

*Edit - Not exactly sure it was you with the '90%' remark, somebody in this thread said it.

User avatar
way2cool
Posts: 60
Joined: 29 Aug 2019

Post 21 Sep 2019

those company that is rich can fix it but they don’t fix it they pollute the whole world and never gets in trouble

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5732
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 21 Sep 2019

Jagwah wrote:
21 Sep 2019
EnochLight wrote:
20 Sep 2019
There were similar protests in the US on the same day. My wife attended one (I couldn’t get out of work due to a client meeting). What would you rather students be passionate about instead of changing society to be less reliant on fossil fuel? Just curious.
Corporate and government corruption. The world is in a bad state in that regard and there is no end in sight, money is power and they have it all. An end result of which our media is totally controlled, which will gladly talk about the end of the world through climate change along with any other 'endless' fears which massively impacts our psyches and will probably require austerity cuts and huge sums of money to 'fix', yet will never mention the corruption going on because they are financed by those very people.
I know you’re not here to debate - let’s just call this a “friendly chat”. ;)

I totally agree corporate and government corruption are part of the problem at large, but one could easily argue that shifting our reliance on fossil fuel is a symptom that’s intertwined with that. Working to change human societies to be more sustainable can only help address that corruption, no? It certainly can’t hurt, IMHO.
Jagwah wrote:
21 Sep 2019
Not that I want to debate the issue, but I notice you said something along the lines of 'there is a 90% consensus of scientists agreeing climate change is real.' Firstly, that statistic is almost impossible to attain, and second - scientists from 'whichever organization' can always be bought and paid for, or even blackmailed and threatened, something that would be reasonably easy if any one entity had enough power and money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the survival of the planet and our species, but I've been spoon fed fear all my life mostly at the hands of the media and unless some issue is strikingly obvious or there is undeniable evident proof, I refuse to have faith in the fear machine's stories any more, and I wish more people would be extremely sceptical when the media pushes those issues we apparently need to fear, like it does constantly.
It’s well north of 90% actually (closer to 97%). While I agree that anyone can be “bought and paid for” by the person holding the purse strings, what you are suggesting seems counter to that logic. The purse strings, by far and by large, are held by the corrupt corporations (fossil fuel industry at large) and governments - many that were literally built on the fossil fuel industry.

The thing about the scientific method and solid science is, while it may not be 100% perfect, it’s the best approach we’ve got to figuring things out. There is a system of checks and balances built-in to the process that allows anyone (with the tenacity and drive to do the work) can either arrive at the same conclusions or prove the “theory” wrong. Human-caused climate change research and the papers that followed have been peer-reviewed time and time again, and the vast majority of scientists have arrived at the same conclusion.

This is the same process by which we know smoking causes cancer, ionizing radiation destroys DNA, and the speed of light.

I know it’s fashionable to believe there’s a “deep state” conspiracy that suggests we’re all being lied to (not that I’m suggesting you’re privy to this sort of thinking!), but human-caused climate change is not one of them. We have the data, it’s been peer-reviewed, and most every scientist agrees. The results are telling.

Full disclosure: I’m actually in total agreement that fear-mongering is not helpful, and many of the claims that some scientists make - and the claims that politicians like to make - are far removed from reality. Obviously New York City, Miami, Singapore, etc aren’t going to be under 5 feet of water in the next 50 years, and the Earth turning into Venus isn’t going to happen anytime soon (unless we’re talking billions of years), but the overall arc of what is happening (the planet is getting warmer faster than it has at any time in recorded history; the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is getting larger faster than anytime in recorded history; this is all happening due to burning fossil fuels) is quite real, and the environmental impact is very evident.

I dunno’... maybe it’s because I’m a parent.. maybe I’m just thinking of my grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren... I just feel that change needs to happen, and to not change is irresponsible. I’m glad we agree that the survival of the human species is paramount.

We have a fiduciary responsibility to the humans that follow us centuries down the line, regardless of whether we have children or not, IMHO.
Win 10 | Reason 11 |  Studio One 4.5 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro | Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 and System 1 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion | Roland TB-3 | Roland VT-4 | Roland MX-1

User avatar
ShelLuser
Posts: 145
Joined: 25 Aug 2019

Post 21 Sep 2019

I don't doubt climate change because you can see it happening all around us, but I do question the easy conclusion that this is proof that we're all on the highway to hell (some pun intended).

Thing is... whenever you read about heat records being broken these records usually boil down to half or a quarter of a degree Celsius. And the previous record can sometimes be traced back to over 100 years ago. Ergo: this isn't all completely new, there have been days in the past before where heat was soaring and pretty much "abnormal" in comparison to what we were used to.

Doesn't mean that I don't support the efforts to try and reduce pollution and littering and all that, but I do question the sometimes fanatic movements who stop to think about anything other than their own opinions and plain out ignore other aspects involved. It's either their way or the highway, making me sometimes think that climate change is a modern religion: leaving no room open for other opinions, even if those can be backed up by scientific facts.

So yah, I don't think climate change is going to wipe out humanity, I think we're perfectly capable of doing that all on our own through acts of intolerance and hostility.
--- :reason:
Using the 'Big trio': Ableton Live 10 suite (+ Push & Max 8), Reason 10 and Komplete 12.

User avatar
Boombastix
Posts: 823
Joined: 18 May 2018
Location: Bay Area, CA

Post 21 Sep 2019

Jagwah wrote:
21 Sep 2019
EnochLight wrote:
20 Sep 2019
What would you rather students be passionate about instead of changing society to be less reliant on fossil fuel? Just curious.
Corporate and government corruption.
I agree, they economical divide may be our biggest threat, to democracy (rich corps buys politicians), to stability (riots / wild protests), to fairness in life, to avoid hunger/poverty. An elite group of super rich has been built up that gobble up more corporations, land, real estate, media. No stop in sight. Pushing salaries lower and housing costs up. A new form of aristocracy is building up, just like in pre-democratic times when kings/priests/aristocrats ruled and decided things and owned nearly all wealth.

At the moment nothing seems to be on the horizon to start a re-balancing of wealth. Maybe a capitalistic system needs it every 200yrs, unless a slightly better system is put in place. Can probably be fixed with a new inheritance law that has a cap. Maybe $5-10m cap per child is a good number.

AFAIK a lasting re-balancing has only happened once in history - the French revolution, and the fix was to chop the heads off the super rich...
10% off at Waves with link: https://www.waves.com/r/6gh2b0
Disclaimer - I get 10% as well.

reggie1979
Posts: 952
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 21 Sep 2019

All that and you have a "waves link" for 10% off? :lol:

Anyways, 99.9% of people who claim to know something about the subject know nothing. Are you a pretender?

User avatar
Jagwah
Posts: 1556
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 23 Sep 2019

EnochLight wrote:
21 Sep 2019
I totally agree corporate and government corruption are part of the problem at large, but one could easily argue that shifting our reliance on fossil fuel is a symptom that’s intertwined with that. Working to change human societies to be more sustainable can only help address that corruption, no? It certainly can’t hurt, IMHO.
Sure more greener energy solutions would be great, no one could really dispute that. I have a feeling this is all going to be very expensive and the huge oil companies will just happen to be the ones providing the solutions, but that's just speculation.
EnochLight wrote:
21 Sep 2019
It’s well north of 90% actually (closer to 97%). While I agree that anyone can be “bought and paid for” by the person holding the purse strings, what you are suggesting seems counter to that logic. The purse strings, by far and by large, are held by the corrupt corporations (fossil fuel industry at large) and governments - many that were literally built on the fossil fuel industry.

The thing about the scientific method and solid science is, while it may not be 100% perfect, it’s the best approach we’ve got to figuring things out. There is a system of checks and balances built-in to the process that allows anyone (with the tenacity and drive to do the work) can either arrive at the same conclusions or prove the “theory” wrong. Human-caused climate change research and the papers that followed have been peer-reviewed time and time again, and the vast majority of scientists have arrived at the same conclusion.

This is the same process by which we know smoking causes cancer, ionizing radiation destroys DNA, and the speed of light.

I know it’s fashionable to believe there’s a “deep state” conspiracy that suggests we’re all being lied to (not that I’m suggesting you’re privy to this sort of thinking!), but human-caused climate change is not one of them. We have the data, it’s been peer-reviewed, and most every scientist agrees. The results are telling.

Full disclosure: I’m actually in total agreement that fear-mongering is not helpful, and many of the claims that some scientists make - and the claims that politicians like to make - are far removed from reality. Obviously New York City, Miami, Singapore, etc aren’t going to be under 5 feet of water in the next 50 years, and the Earth turning into Venus isn’t going to happen anytime soon (unless we’re talking billions of years), but the overall arc of what is happening (the planet is getting warmer faster than it has at any time in recorded history; the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is getting larger faster than anytime in recorded history; this is all happening due to burning fossil fuels) is quite real, and the environmental impact is very evident.

I dunno’... maybe it’s because I’m a parent.. maybe I’m just thinking of my grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren... I just feel that change needs to happen, and to not change is irresponsible. I’m glad we agree that the survival of the human species is paramount.

We have a fiduciary responsibility to the humans that follow us centuries down the line, regardless of whether we have children or not, IMHO.
Wow so now it's 97% of scientists :O Again I disagree with this one, regardless of the logic you believe is involved in attaining such an unattainable statistic. It's like the world is divided on this - with a larger amount in your favour right now sure - but to claim 97% of scientists are in agreement just doesn't help your argument. I hope you aren't limiting your information to mainstream media, that would be silly in this age of information, and I doubt you do but I do wonder with a quote like that.

Yes I do understand how science works. Usually there isn't a massive debate on 'whether the science is real or not' because these things are usually agreed on the world over, not debated to no end, and right there is a big question mark for lots of people. Why wasn't there an immediate consensus the world over, just like there would have been with your examples like 'smoking causes cancer' and pretty much anything else, and why would the fossil fuel companies really not care about killing the only planet they have (rhetorical) :) .

It's funny how this end of the world theory is in no way related to a 'conspiracy theory' simply because it is the media that pushes the issue.

So in short, I agree that being greener is a good thing for us and future generations, but I doubt there is a global emergency that will obviously require tons of money for whatever reason - mostly because I have lost faith in the fear machine media. I am also disappointed to see so many people passionately protesting something the media has pushed out, rather than an issue like I mentioned above.

reggie1979
Posts: 952
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 23 Sep 2019

Apparently, according to a recent study, we're DOWN in oil consumption in the USA.

boomer
Posts: 46
Joined: 09 Nov 2016

Post 23 Sep 2019

You wanna fix this? Let the scientists do it free from politicians, religious zealots, well meaning ignorant people like you and me.

Andy
Posts: 62
Joined: 03 May 2017

Post 24 Sep 2019

Jagwah wrote:
20 Sep 2019
Some of you would be pleased to see Australia just yesterday had massive protests with people demanding government action on the environment. Lots of young people walked out of school for this. Personally I wish they were as passionate about other things. It shows you how powerful the fear machine media is.
Useful idiots. Nothing more, nothing less.



LOL. My God.

Don't forget to eat other humans to help the climate guys. After all a scientist says so.

There is no climate emergency: https://clintel.nl/brief-clintel-aan-vn-baas-guterres/

User avatar
Boombastix
Posts: 823
Joined: 18 May 2018
Location: Bay Area, CA

Post 24 Sep 2019

Are people implying that the warming of the Gulf and the stronger storms as a consequence is fake science, and that the wipe out of Bahamas were fake images?
Or the super hot temperatures in India causing drought and people starting to kill each other - for water? Is that fake?
For those people affected it is kind of "the end of the world" - at least for those who die, no!?

Will the trans-Atlantic Gulf stream re-route itself due to cold water flowing the opposite way due to melting ice - putting northern Europe into a north Canada climate (that is cold as f¤&ck, by the way)? We don't know until it happens, but scientist have warned it can happen, just as they warned for stronger storms... Still fake?
Drought/high temp/high winds causing big fires, isn't that a thing too, or just fake news (California/Sweden/Greece/Russia/Chile...)?
10% off at Waves with link: https://www.waves.com/r/6gh2b0
Disclaimer - I get 10% as well.

User avatar
miscend
Posts: 1372
Joined: 09 Feb 2015

Post 24 Sep 2019

diminished wrote:
20 Sep 2019
EnochLight wrote:
20 Sep 2019


I’m not talking about cultivating. I am talking about literal GMO’s. There is overwhelming evidence that eating GMO food is completely safe.
Depends on the GM - a plant that's modified to produce poison is not safe, of course :D

And while a plant, modified to withstand herbicides and pesticides like Round-Up and the like, is most likely safe and safe for consumption, the chemicals used and their residues are NOT and have severe and unpredictable impact on the environment. Just saying this because these things get mixed up a lot, especially in internet discussions..
Classic fails are:
"Monsanto bad [yup] = GMO bad [probably not]" and
"We need GMO because overpopulation!!11! and therefore everything that comes with it is good and you can drink a glass of Round-Up for breakfast"
There's always negatives when you modify food crops. Some of this won't be apparent for decades. There was a change made to wheat in the 60's to make it produce higher yields benefiting the agriculture industry. Many of these varieties have higher amounts of glutenin which is indigestible by humans and has negative effect on our health.

A very good book on the topic

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5732
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 24 Sep 2019

Jagwah wrote:
23 Sep 2019
Sure more greener energy solutions would be great, no one could really dispute that. I have a feeling this is all going to be very expensive and the huge oil companies will just happen to be the ones providing the solutions, but that's just speculation.
Oh it will certainly be expensive, and it will certainly be a pain in everyone's arse, for sure. If the oil companies are the ones providing the solutions, that would be splendid. They've certainly prospered from destroying the climate, so it only makes sense that they provide the solution.
Jagwah wrote:
23 Sep 2019
Wow so now it's 97% of scientists :O Again I disagree with this one, regardless of the logic you believe is involved in attaining such an unattainable statistic.
It's always been 97% as far as I know, Jagwah (at least for the past decade). You can disagree all you want, but the science is real, proven, and factual. No media-induced fear-mongering required. But don't believe some bloke on an Internet music forum; do the research yourself. A cursory Google search will likely give you all the data you need.
Jagwah wrote:
23 Sep 2019
It's like the world is divided on this - with a larger amount in your favour right now sure - but to claim 97% of scientists are in agreement just doesn't help your argument. I hope you aren't limiting your information to mainstream media, that would be silly in this age of information, and I doubt you do but I do wonder with a quote like that.
When you say "the world is divided on this", what does that mean? The population at large? Or the scientific community? If it's the world at large, it's only divided due to political agenda, religious dogma, and plain old fashioned scientific ignorance. If it's the scientific community, then sorry friend - you're wrong on that. The scientific community is not divided at all. But if they were - there would be an acceptable counter-theory that would be presented. To my knowledge, there has not.

If you know of an acceptable counter-theory to "humans are causing climate change", then please share! You could be famous if the theory stands up to scientific scrutiny.
Jagwah wrote:
23 Sep 2019
Yes I do understand how science works. Usually there isn't a massive debate on 'whether the science is real or not' because these things are usually agreed on the world over, not debated to no end, and right there is a big question mark for lots of people. Why wasn't there an immediate consensus the world over, just like there would have been with your examples like 'smoking causes cancer' and pretty much anything else, and why would the fossil fuel companies really not care about killing the only planet they have (rhetorical) :) .
For starters, the only debate going on is between politicians who are ignorant (along with their supporting voter base), and the scientific community at large. Debate between us Plebes can be chalked up to a myriad of other reasons. :lol:

But to answer your question why: MONEY. Everyone knows this isn't going to be cheap to fix, and the fossil fuel industry will cease to exist as we know it when it comes down to it.
Jagwah wrote:
23 Sep 2019
It's funny how this end of the world theory is in no way related to a 'conspiracy theory' simply because it is the media that pushes the issue.

So in short, I agree that being greener is a good thing for us and future generations, but I doubt there is a global emergency that will obviously require tons of money for whatever reason - mostly because I have lost faith in the fear machine media. I am also disappointed to see so many people passionately protesting something the media has pushed out, rather than an issue like I mentioned above.
You make a lot of assumptions that the media is solely to blame for the fear-mongering. I don't disagree to an extent, but why would you assume that those fearful of what's happening are only getting their data from the news? Visit any accredited university that isn't backed by a church, and almost certainly the science curriculum will mention human-caused climate change and that it is an issue negatively affecting our planet (as well as teach core facts like evolution, but that's an entirely different thread). Hell, my kid's middle school - which is publically funded - even touches on the subject in science class! These are not academic institutions getting their data from CNN or The Guardian; they get their data from real research done by real academics.
boomer wrote:
23 Sep 2019
You wanna fix this? Let the scientists do it free from politicians, religious zealots, [and] well meaning ignorant people like you and me.
^^ THIS ^^
Andy wrote:
24 Sep 2019
Useful idiots. Nothing more, nothing less.



LOL. My God.

Don't forget to eat other humans to help the climate guys. After all a scientist says so.

There is no climate emergency: https://clintel.nl/brief-clintel-aan-vn-baas-guterres/
My knee-jerk reaction is to say: it takes a real "man" to make fun of a 16 year old girl with Aspergers just because you don't agree with her activism. But I'll refrain from saying that and just say: would people treat this kid differently if instead she was a middle aged white man who spoke less passionately? (side note: Greta Thunberg is a much better human than the vast majority of people who heckle her, I'd wager).

Also, posting a link to one scientist who disagrees does not invalidate an entire body of evidence that human-caused climate change is real, and a problem. But nice try! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Boombastix wrote:
24 Sep 2019
Are people implying that the warming of the Gulf and the stronger storms as a consequence is fake science, and that the wipe out of Bahamas were fake images?
Or the super hot temperatures in India causing drought and people starting to kill each other - for water? Is that fake?
For those people affected it is kind of "the end of the world" - at least for those who die, no!?

Will the trans-Atlantic Gulf stream re-route itself due to cold water flowing the opposite way due to melting ice - putting northern Europe into a north Canada climate (that is cold as f¤&ck, by the way)? We don't know until it happens, but scientist have warned it can happen, just as they warned for stronger storms... Still fake?
Drought/high temp/high winds causing big fires, isn't that a thing too, or just fake news (California/Sweden/Greece/Russia/Chile...)?
EXACTLY. THIS.
Win 10 | Reason 11 |  Studio One 4.5 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro | Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 and System 1 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion | Roland TB-3 | Roland VT-4 | Roland MX-1

User avatar
jappe
Posts: 2213
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 24 Sep 2019

reggie1979 wrote:
23 Sep 2019
Apparently, according to a recent study, we're DOWN in oil consumption in the USA.
I'm curious:
Are there initiatives to increase biking in US cities?
Bike Lanes in New York etc?
Here in Sweden bikers are everywhere in the cities, all seasons.
In the city of Lund in fact so much that it's sometimes scary. I can hear a car at distance, but a bike is like "* swooosh * what was that!? Lucky it didn't hit me!"
And each biker has an own unique set of traffic rules.

And how about oil stoves for houses, still in use in US?

Some decades ago oil stoves were very common in Sweden but hardly used now I think.

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5732
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 24 Sep 2019

jappe wrote:
24 Sep 2019
And how about oil stoves for houses, still in use in US?

Some decades ago oil stoves were very common in Sweden but hardly used now I think.
Oil stoves haven't been a thing in the US for almost 100 years. They're either natural gas or electric, depending on the region.
Win 10 | Reason 11 |  Studio One 4.5 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro | Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 and System 1 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion | Roland TB-3 | Roland VT-4 | Roland MX-1

User avatar
jappe
Posts: 2213
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 24 Sep 2019

If the world has two nations, it would be simple to agree on the measures needed to battle climate change.

With three nation's harder, but achievable.

With 195 countries?
I don't understand how that's going to work.

A world government would make really important things easier to implement

reggie1979
Posts: 952
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 24 Sep 2019

jappe wrote:
24 Sep 2019
reggie1979 wrote:
23 Sep 2019
Apparently, according to a recent study, we're DOWN in oil consumption in the USA.
I'm curious:
Are there initiatives to increase biking in US cities?
Bike Lanes in New York etc?
Here in Sweden bikers are everywhere in the cities, all seasons.
In the city of Lund in fact so much that it's sometimes scary. I can hear a car at distance, but a bike is like "* swooosh * what was that!? Lucky it didn't hit me!"
And each biker has an own unique set of traffic rules.

And how about oil stoves for houses, still in use in US?

Some decades ago oil stoves were very common in Sweden but hardly used now I think.
People bike all the time. There are bike lanes almost everywhere, but the weather isn't always conducive.

Oil Stoves? Everywhere I've ever been it's electric or gas.

We also have very good recycling for the most part. Unlike many other countries (South America, China, India)

We use a lot of renewable energy too. People are investing heavily in Solar for example.

reggie1979
Posts: 952
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 24 Sep 2019

jappe wrote:
24 Sep 2019
If the world has two nations, it would be simple to agree on the measures needed to battle climate change.

With three nation's harder, but achievable.

With 195 countries?
I don't understand how that's going to work.

A world government would make really important things easier to implement
Agreed. Especially the big polluters (like I mentioned in the other post)

User avatar
jappe
Posts: 2213
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 24 Sep 2019

EnochLight wrote:
24 Sep 2019
jappe wrote:
24 Sep 2019
And how about oil stoves for houses, still in use in US?

Some decades ago oil stoves were very common in Sweden but hardly used now I think.
Oil stoves haven't been a thing in the US for almost 100 years. They're either natural gas or electric, depending on the region.
Oh really!
I live in a house with an oil stove, the house is built 1968.
But I use a heat pump these days.

User avatar
jappe
Posts: 2213
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 24 Sep 2019

reggie1979 wrote:
24 Sep 2019
jappe wrote:
24 Sep 2019

I'm curious:
Are there initiatives to increase biking in US cities?
Bike Lanes in New York etc?
Here in Sweden bikers are everywhere in the cities, all seasons.
In the city of Lund in fact so much that it's sometimes scary. I can hear a car at distance, but a bike is like "* swooosh * what was that!? Lucky it didn't hit me!"
And each biker has an own unique set of traffic rules.

And how about oil stoves for houses, still in use in US?

Some decades ago oil stoves were very common in Sweden but hardly used now I think.
People bike all the time. There are bike lanes almost everywhere, but the weather isn't always conducive.

Oil Stoves? Everywhere I've ever been it's electric or gas.

We also have very good recycling for the most part. Unlike many other countries (South America, China, India)

We use a lot of renewable energy too. People are investing heavily in Solar for example.
Solar is becoming popular here too.
The government has offered some funding for people who buy solar cells, but unfortunately that has been like a lottery: you can't be sure there's any money left in the fund when you apply for it after buying the cells.

Why can't we just have the scientists find a way to use the dark energy that's supposed to be surrounding us.

reggie1979
Posts: 952
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 24 Sep 2019

jappe wrote:
24 Sep 2019




Why can't we just have the scientists find a way to use the dark energy that's supposed to be surrounding us.
We can't even get scientists to agree on what is really happening with climate change :lol:

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest