Start another if one wants to do society comparisons.

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
  • Hope everyone has a wonderful and warm Thanksgiving!
  • Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
Status
Not open for further replies.

Doug MacIVER

Minister of Fire
Nov 21, 2012
1,018
se mass
Let's see if changing from ,"global Warming(agw), to Climate change, to Climate Change affects everything from( temp., migration, rain fall, increase in storm intensity, ect). This has all the topics. Science, social,political, ethical,on and on. The same topics shut down the
"In 5 years there will be no permanent Arctic ice left."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
Let's try this, the new dust bowl on the way NYT in this article from 2012.https://www.commondreams.org/news/2012/07/05/new-dust-bowl. Fast forward 2019. NYT says."The situation has been exacerbated by wetter rainstorms, which are expected to worsen over time and have been attributed to climate change."https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/31/us/midwest-floods-levees.html In between crop production bustin .
A blip in climatology, but NYT goes from dust bowl to floods the new norm?
Anybody want to explain the permanent Calif, drought?
 
Is it customary on this site for a Moderator (Begreen) to start a thread, throw out replies that other members find offensive, belittle any members that call out said Moderator, and then the moderator shuts down the thread?

Seems more than a bit wrong. Please show me the error in my reply.

Link to other thread: https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads...nt-arctic-ice-left.175446/page-3#post-2362097
There weren't any offensive posts in that thread. It just finally petered out and went into the weeds. IIRC it was Doug that complained it was off track. No point running on when it gets lost. If folks want to chat more, have at it. I'm bowing out, too much yard work to do. Here's a fun one:
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/16/coal-industry-climate-change-denial-cloud-peak-energy/
And no, the drought is not permanent.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/c...fficially-over-after-more-seven-years-n983461
 
There it is "FILING SHOWS THAT IT WAS FUNDING CLIMATE CHANGE DENIALISM." The crime of the century and the judge of that? From the stuff in other threads the judges of denialism will hit the FF harder than King Coal>industry. Pt here is the least question of the AGW movement uses dramatic rhetoric to put down any legit questions
love the embrace of over in Calif.. A med style climate in a state as lrg. as Calif. will always have water short problem somewhere. Unusual I would think to see the entire state drought free.Question is, where did the agw causes of the drought go. It was in this persons memory the prevailing driver of it's origin.
 
global warming changes to climate change. Human burning changes to cremation. Human composting changes to (fill in the blank)?

From the LA Times,"Some Washington residents are already lining up to be composted - when their day comes. And Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat focusing his presidential campaign on climate change, may sign the bill in order to cut carbon emissions from burials and cremations; he is expected to sign the bill Tuesday."

My take maybe a little extreme way to reduce co2, but I'm not very progressive. Dust to dust with no FF, guess it really makes no difference. Let the kids fight over who gets the benefit for their flowers or veggies. "Dad wanted to be a tomato plant","no he didn't he told me to put him with the pansies".

Personally, cremation. Then hopefully spread into the ocean or a pain in the ass sand trap on my favorite course!

link https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/w...-for-eco-friendly-human-composting/ar-AABzXSk
 
Last edited:
Why does your corpse deserve to waste a bunch of energy to make you into dust? Just have them dump your body in the ocean and give your kids an urn of dust, they won't know. When I was in the army I always wrote on my "blue sheet" that I wanted to be burned at sea in my dress uniform. The same would still be nice, but even just dumping my body in the woods would be nice. Then the energy stored in my body can be used or something rather than wasted.

This is why you get friction in the "Green Room" threads, Doug. Nobody can understand why you seemingly enjoy wasting energy for no discernable gain.

Also your posts are difficult to read and I'm not always sure what your point is.


Are you saying it's progressive to be conservative? If anything you sound to me like you prefer liberal use of energy, where I have a much more conservative opinion on energy. To each their own I guess.
 
Since this is a rant thread, I'll continue.

I was about to read the article, but the bait headline keeps me away. Nobody is bracing for anything. The headline itself imparts images of loved ones crying because they are being forced into an "eco burial" or whatever. Nobody in Washington state braced themselves for anything regarding this new idea, which isn't even new! It's called "what happens to everything BUT human corpses and those of their pets". What a load of nonsense sensationalism. Folks brace themselves for the impending death of a loved one, not environmentally friendly burial measures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vinny11950
Right there in blk/wht."Dust to dust with no FF, guess it really makes no difference"

Originally brought out a chuckle.

Never really thought of cremation as excessive use of FF. That leaves me way behind the progressive ideas to cut FF.
 
Right there in blk/wht."Dust to dust with no FF, guess it really makes no difference"

Originally brought out a chuckle.

Never really thought of cremation as excessive use of FF. That leaves me way behind the progressive ideas to cut FF.

Please explain to me what is progressive about reducing fossil fuel use. I don't understand what you mean. It would be conservative to use less energy, as you would be conserving the energy rather than wasting it.

Also, yeah, it takes a lot of energy to reduce a human body to dust, if you want it to be quick anyway. Have you ever seen an old timey funeral pyre? Because of the emissions and impractical nature of funeral pyres, it's done with propane or NG now. That is still energy being wasted (still less than the pyre) on a dead person. Rather than use energy to waste the little bit of energy a corpse contains, why not conserve that energy and let the corpses return their limited energy back to the earth?

Still, this is just me going with the example you pulled. It just happens that I have an opinion on the topic of after death care. I can't imagine many do.
 
Learn new stuff everyday, reading the story brought to me new info.. I remember reading about mushroom suits a few years back, the article now introduces me to composting and freezing with nitrogen. Having already experience death, I'm going to disappear the cheapest way possible.
 
Maybe they could use dead people instead of coal to make electricity. Cheap cremation and all the emissions equipment will probably do a good job of scrubbing grandpa from the air.
 
*fist pump*


Is it unseasonable for a June blizzard to crash his party? Only guy more fun than Gore to read about is Anthony Weiner/Carlos Danger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceBus
This should be a must watch for a lot of folks here. The house headline,"
Recovery, Resiliency and Readiness—Contending with Natural Disasters in the Wake of Climate Change (Climate Change, Part III)"

link (broken link removed to https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/recovery-resiliency-and-readiness-contending-with-natural-disasters-in-the-wake)

Drs. Curry and Mann the only science people involved. The balance of witnesses are all bureaucrats($$$$$$$$$$$).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This should be a must watch for a lot of folks here. The house headline,"
Recovery, Resiliency and Readiness—Contending with Natural Disasters in the Wake of Climate Change (Climate Change, Part III)"

link (broken link removed to https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/recovery-resiliency-and-readiness-contending-with-natural-disasters-in-the-wake)

Drs. Curry and Mann the only science people involved. The balance of witnesses are all bureaucrats($$$$$$$$$$$).

Climate change deniers are also getting rich. Supporting those who believe in climate change will obviously line many pockets, but it will also improve air quality, biodiversity, etc. It sounds like a losing game to argue about climate change. Burning fossil fuels and other unsustainable practices are inherently bad, and it makes no sense to support them. Pollution and over use of resources will kill us even if climate change doesn't. Why ride that sinking ship? It's committing suicide just to make money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Climate change deniers are also getting rich. Supporting those who believe in climate change will obviously line many pockets, but it will also improve air quality, biodiversity, etc. It sounds like a losing game to argue about climate change. Burning fossil fuels and other unsustainable practices are inherently bad, and it makes no sense to support them. Pollution and over use of resources will kill us even if climate change doesn't. Why ride that sinking ship? It's committing suicide just to make money.
[Hearth.com] Start another if one wants to do society comparisons.
[Hearth.com] Start another if one wants to do society comparisons.
just examples of the polluting money making fossil fuel era. Now it is the renewable turn to make the monies. Let's see how it will compare and while we compare?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bholler
Correlation is not the same as causation. Those statistics look much different when viewed with the lense of infant mortality. Adult human life expectancy is hardly any different now than it ever has been. Child and infant mortality rates are significantly lower than they ever have been, but that has way more to do with vaccines than fossil fuels and unsustainable resource use. Those child and infant deaths vastly skew any life expectancy rates. Don't fall for the hype, a cleaner planet will benefit everyone but the 1%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bholler
Correlation is not the same as causation. Those statistics look much different when viewed with the lense of infant mortality. Adult human life expectancy is hardly any different now than it ever has been. Child and infant mortality rates are significantly lower than they ever have been, but that has way more to do with vaccines than fossil fuels and unsustainable resource use. Those child and infant deaths vastly skew any life expectancy rates. Don't fall for the hype, a cleaner planet will benefit everyone but the 1%.
ok in your mind I'm killing people and could care less . good luck on the planet you live. I hope your like doesn't screw it all up and I accept your shame for thinking that your way is AFU. now stop exhaling all that pollution? then you should never cut a living tree, only dead wood.
 
Climate change deniers are also getting rich. Supporting those who believe in climate change will obviously line many pockets, but it will also improve air quality, biodiversity, etc. It sounds like a losing game to argue about climate change. Burning fossil fuels and other unsustainable practices are inherently bad, and it makes no sense to support them. Pollution and over use of resources will kill us even if climate change doesn't. Why ride that sinking ship? It's committing suicide just to make money.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.