Climate policy

[Cinga]

A sure sign of the Global Warming meets the Apocalypse when Los Angeles is under a Blizzard Warning! 

 

https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2023/02/24/photos-snow-hits-southern-california-in-rare-blizzard-more-snow-expected/

[Hedge]

PSA for iPhone users who want to turn this off. 

 

This part gets cut off from the end of the tweet:

You can disable it under Settings > Battery > Battery Health & Charging

[Fansince88]

1 hour ago, Hedge said:

PSA for iPhone users who want to turn this off. 

 

This part gets cut off from the end of the tweet:

You can disable it under Settings > Battery > Battery Health & Charging

Daughters was off. Wifes was on. Thanks!

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

3 hours ago, Hedge said:

PSA for iPhone users who want to turn this off. 

 

This part gets cut off from the end of the tweet:

You can disable it under Settings > Battery > Battery Health & Charging

 

Well that's some serious bullshit.  Not the least of which being: what's the carbon footprint of Apple manufacturing a new iPhone version ever year?

[Nouseforaname]

4 hours ago, Hedge said:

PSA for iPhone users who want to turn this off. 

 

This part gets cut off from the end of the tweet:

You can disable it under Settings > Battery > Battery Health & Charging

Weird I just did an update and don’t have this option though hydro is considered renewable…

[Foxx]

I'm an Android guy, but I had to get a second phone that is an iPhone, so I've got a little bit of a learning curve ahead.

[devnull]

18 hours ago, Hedge said:

PSA for iPhone users who want to turn this off. 

 

This part gets cut off from the end of the tweet:

You can disable it under Settings > Battery > Battery Health & Charging

 

 

Another PSA for iPhone people, make sure your iOS is up to date

 

https://www.trellix.com/en-us/about/newsroom/stories/research/trellix-advanced-research-center-discovers-a-new-privilege-escalation-bug-class-on-macos-and-ios.html

 

Also applies to Mac OS people who think they're immune to malware

Edited February 27, 2023 by devnull

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

18 hours ago, Nouseforaname said:

Weird I just did an update and don’t have this option though hydro is considered renewable…

 

But is it considered renewable by Apple?

[Nouseforaname]

5 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

But is it considered renewable by Apple?

 
Apparently since I don’t have the option on my iPhone. 
 

Of course , as you noted, I change my iPhone every two years so I guess I’m doing my part.

[Cinga]

19 hours ago, Nouseforaname said:

Weird I just did an update and don’t have this option though hydro is considered renewable…

 

Weird though sine Bio-mass is also listed as renewable so I guess there is a difference between renewable and green?

 

But that poses the question, why is it okay to burn something like wood pellets, but not wood, or fossil fuels? Is it only because you can grow more grass to make more pellets?

[Nouseforaname]

18 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

Weird though sine Bio-mass is also listed as renewable so I guess there is a difference between renewable and green?

 

But that poses the question, why is it okay to burn something like wood pellets, but not wood, or fossil fuels? Is it only because you can grow more grass to make more pellets?

Are there other sources of energy available? We only have hydro here so there really isn’t any possibility of switching.

 

 

[Cinga]

3 hours ago, Nouseforaname said:

Are there other sources of energy available? We only have hydro here so there really isn’t any possibility of switching.

 

 

 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/what-is-energy/sources-of-energy.php

 

But the point I was trying to make is to ask how burning wood is green but burning other sources, oil, gas, coal, isn't? It obviously gives off CO2 as well so is it only because you can grow more?

Edited February 27, 2023 by Cinga

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 hour ago, Cinga said:

 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/what-is-energy/sources-of-energy.php

 

But the point I was trying to make is to ask how burning wood is green but burning other sources, oil, gas, coal, isn't? It obviously gives off CO2 as well so is it only because you can grow more?

 

The biggest differentiator - and least understood, for lack of communication - is that fuels taken out of the ground and burned are putting "old" or "fossil" carbon back into the ecosystem, from whence it was removed eons ago.

 

You burn wood, or corn ethanol, or algae-derived biodiesel, you're burning carbon that was immediately captured from the existing carbon lifecycle, to which it can immediately return.  You might be accelerating the lifecycle, but you're still operating within it, and not adding to it.  You burn oil or coal, though, you're putting sequestered carbon, that was trapped hundreds of millions ago and no longer available, back into the carbon lifecycle.  

 

Or, to put it another way: all energy (save nuclear) on the planet is in some way leveraging captured sunlight - you burn wood or biodiesel, you're releasing energy that is ultimately sunlight trapped via photosynthesis.  You burn coal, you're releasing energy that is ultimately sunlight trapped hundreds of millions of years ago.  So in burning fossil fuels, we're effectively releasing a hell of a lot of old solar energy all at once, in addition to what we immediately get.  

 

That's the argument, at any rate.

[Cinga]

48 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

The biggest differentiator - and least understood, for lack of communication - is that fuels taken out of the ground and burned are putting "old" or "fossil" carbon back into the ecosystem, from whence it was removed eons ago.

 

You burn wood, or corn ethanol, or algae-derived biodiesel, you're burning carbon that was immediately captured from the existing carbon lifecycle, to which it can immediately return.  You might be accelerating the lifecycle, but you're still operating within it, and not adding to it.  You burn oil or coal, though, you're putting sequestered carbon, that was trapped hundreds of millions ago and no longer available, back into the carbon lifecycle.  

 

Or, to put it another way: all energy (save nuclear) on the planet is in some way leveraging captured sunlight - you burn wood or biodiesel, you're releasing energy that is ultimately sunlight trapped via photosynthesis.  You burn coal, you're releasing energy that is ultimately sunlight trapped hundreds of millions of years ago.  So in burning fossil fuels, we're effectively releasing a hell of a lot of old solar energy all at once, in addition to what we immediately get.  

 

That's the argument, at any rate.

 

And it might be a good argument it a static environment where nothing ever changes. No more plant growth, no more increase in population of anything that breaths, not just humans. 

 

But what happens when a volcano burps more CO2 into the atmosphere? Or population doubles as it seems to do every 50 years or so? Is it good then to remain at a static CO2 level? Seems to me, you would want to encourage plant growth which would need increased CO2, which in turn would increase the amount of oxygen they produce BEFORE reaching the oxygen level of need. 

 

So you could say that my argument against the current static model is that it is in fact population control by literal suicide

Edited February 28, 2023 by Cinga

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 hour ago, Cinga said:

 

And it might be a good argument it a static environment where nothing ever changes. No more plant growth, no more increase in population of anything that breaths, not just humans. 

 

But what happens when a volcano burps more CO2 into the atmosphere? Or population doubles as it seems to do every 50 years or so? Is it good then to remain at a static CO2 level? Seems to me, you would want to encourage plant growth which would need increased CO2, which in turn would increase the amount of oxygen they produce BEFORE reaching the oxygen level of need. 

 

So you could say that my argument against the current static model is that it is in fact population control by literal suicide

 

I wouldn't necessarily agree...but I wouldn't necessarily disagree, either.

 

Fact is, the modern environmental movement, hijacked by the carbon crowd, follows a "steady state" and "stewards of the planet" philosophy shockingly resembling the first two chapters of Genesis, which they deny and decry.

 

 

[Foxx]

... of course they are.

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

... of course they are.

 

 

The good news is that, since I breathe unhealthy air in DC, I can now self-identify as black in California, and get slavery reparations.

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

The good news is that, since I breathe unhealthy air in DC, I can now self-identify as black in California, and get slavery reparations.

What're they at now... $5mm or so?

[Spartacus]

https://www.outkick.com/kamala-harris-claims-kids-are-suffering-from-a-climate-mental-health-crisis/

 

Kamala Harris is at it again.

 

The vice president, who has frequently embarrassed herself with ridiculous stories, went a step further with a nonsensical assertion recently.

 

She says that through conversations with young people, she’s come to believe that they’re existentially terrified of climate change.

 

According to her, young children are facing a “climate mental health” crisis. They’re apparently so scared of climate change, it’s affecting their mental health

 

 

But it’s an infinitesimal minority compared to the overwhelming majority who aren’t even remotely thinking about it.

 

If anything, the mental health crisis among kids could be a direct result of the lockdowns, school closures and mask mandates Harris herself promoted.

 

 

[Spartacus]

https://www.outkick.com/climate-expert-greta-thunberg-deletes-2018-tweet-saying-world-will-end-in-2023-because-the-world-has-not-ended/

 

Well. It’s been five years, and uh…we’re all still here.

And in a stunning turn of events, instead of apologizing for the ridiculous prediction of catastrophe, Thunberg simply…deleted it.