Donald J Trump sees Climate change as a Chinese hoax

[stevenl]

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If everyone had solar panels on their roofs there wouldn't be a need for either coal or wind ( and the birds wouldn't be dying either ).

Yes, I wouldn't mind more solar.

[jcsmith]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

I do know the difference between man made and natural and agree with you about man made pollution but CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessity of all life on this planet.   I don't want to pay into Scams that do nothing, however, given what is happening world wide, with the reduction in CO2 output, via government regulations, people are paying for it in the cost of services and goods and I, for one, have no problem with that

 

As for clean air and water, of course we all want that, however, neither is being polluted by CO2, but for sure by other man made chemicals.  Nothing man can do will stop climate change, it has been happening for millions of years so any of the alarmists who think they can, then they are living n cloud cuckoo land.  

Too much carbon dioxide is in fact dangerous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia The more general problem and closer issue with CO2 emissions though are that the greenhouse effect which is contributing to rises in temperature and the acidification of the oceans.

 

Climate change in general is something natural, that is true. The world isn't static and unchanging. However, the human footprint is causing rapid changes to it. We are taking a problem that may have been far in the distant future and making it something that will affect the next generations. 

 

To say that there is nothing man can do to prevent these issues is a fallacy. There are already numerous plans aimed at doing just that. It's one of the largest issues we face moving forward and there are a lot of ideas about how to minimize its effects. There are already ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere but they are not cost efficient and can not clean it up as quickly as we are adding it. There are other proposals that will deflect sunlight or shade it from space. Most importantly science is moving faster than ever and with each discovery new opportunities open up. Given time we can find a solution. This isn't going to happen over night though. Moving to cleaner forms of energy is something we can do now, to slow the problems before this becomes a larger problem.

Now the real question here is, why would anyone not want to work towards solving this problem or moving to clean energy? The only thing I can think of is either that they don't understand the seriousness of the issue, have been misled by companies profiting from fossils fuels, are financially benefiting from the use of fossil fuels (either as a politician receiving lobbyist money or due to ties or employment from a business in the industry), or are worried that a small increase to their taxes is not worth an issue that they are too old to see serious effects from. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by jcsmith

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They could be used to make lakes as well. Nature has a way of removing all signs of mankind in a very short time when people go away.

Full of highly acidic water which will be beautiful and crystal clear because there will be nothing living in it to make it murky

Edited November 22, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Si Thea01]

2 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Too much carbon dioxide is in fact dangerous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia The more general problem and closer issue with CO2 emissions though are that the greenhouse effect which is contributing to rises in temperature and the acidification of the oceans.

 

Climate change in general is something natural, that is true. The world isn't static and unchanging. However, the human footprint is causing rapid changes to it. We are taking a problem that may have been far in the distant future and making it something that will affect the next generations. 

 

To say that there is nothing man can do to prevent these issues is a fallacy. There are already numerous plans aimed at doing just that. It's one of the largest issues we face moving forward and there are a lot of ideas about how to minimize its effects. There are already ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere but they are not cost efficient and can not clean it up as quickly as we are adding it. There are other proposals that will deflect sunlight or shade it from space. Most importantly science is moving faster than ever and with each discovery new opportunities open up. Given time we can find a solution. This isn't going to happen over night though. Moving to cleaner forms of energy is something we can do now, to slow the problems before this becomes a larger problem.

Now the real question here is, why would anyone not want to work towards solving this problem or moving to clean energy? The only thing I can think of is either that they don't understand the seriousness of the issue, have been misled by companies profiting from fossils fuels, are financially benefiting from the use of fossil fuels (either as a politician receiving lobbyist money or due to ties or employment from a business in the industry), or are worried that a small increase to their taxes is not worth an issue that they are too old to see serious effects from. 

 

I will just have to agree to disagree with you as to CO2 being dangerous, I have my opinions, you have yours so I will just leave it at that.  It's not that I don't want to or cannot debate but given what is going on within this thread,  it will just see us going around in circles and given it is going off topic, which doesn't worry me but it might upset the mods.

 

As I said, it is the scams that have sprung up together with the accompanying BS that I am not interested in debating.  If people cannot see this, then nothing I'll will say will change their beliefs.  I have no problem, as I've previously said, with man working to cut back actual pollutants, and this is being carried out in the motor industry, the airline industry and many others, so why would one deny this, I don't

 

Man is continuing to work towards making the world cleaner so why would anyone criticise those aspects.  Of course it's not going to happen overnight but it is happening but there is absolutely no need to go on a scaremongering campaign and tell people that certain things are happening, when even what they show is completely natural and has been happening for millenniums.  It is only being used to scare people and con the stupid politicians into financing those whose industries, which, if they weren't subsidised, would fail.

 

And, as I said, I not into Scams that are financing the lifestyles of some of the elites, whilst you have people like certain movie stars, who know nothing but put out propaganda films to help those who want to scare the bejesus out of the ordinary folk.  I also object to non-elected people telling me what to do and when to do it, to pay high utility costs and hurt the poorest of those on the planet.  If some think that is the right approach, then I am sorry, I do not.  Now maybe we should get back to what the thread is about before we get turfed or removed.  

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Too much carbon dioxide is in fact dangerous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia The more general problem and closer issue with CO2 emissions though are that the greenhouse effect which is contributing to rises in temperature and the acidification of the oceans.

 

Climate change in general is something natural, that is true. The world isn't static and unchanging. However, the human footprint is causing rapid changes to it. We are taking a problem that may have been far in the distant future and making it something that will affect the next generations. 

 

To say that there is nothing man can do to prevent these issues is a fallacy. There are already numerous plans aimed at doing just that. It's one of the largest issues we face moving forward and there are a lot of ideas about how to minimize its effects. There are already ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere but they are not cost efficient and can not clean it up as quickly as we are adding it. There are other proposals that will deflect sunlight or shade it from space. Most importantly science is moving faster than ever and with each discovery new opportunities open up. Given time we can find a solution. This isn't going to happen over night though. Moving to cleaner forms of energy is something we can do now, to slow the problems before this becomes a larger problem.

Now the real question here is, why would anyone not want to work towards solving this problem or moving to clean energy? The only thing I can think of is either that they don't understand the seriousness of the issue, have been misled by companies profiting from fossils fuels, are financially benefiting from the use of fossil fuels (either as a politician receiving lobbyist money or due to ties or employment from a business in the industry), or are worried that a small increase to their taxes is not worth an issue that they are too old to see serious effects from. 

People don't want to do it because it costs more and most people don't have a lot of spare money these days. The middle class is being destroyed, and they are the ones that would have been keen.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

People don't want to do it because it costs more and most people don't have a lot of spare money these days. The middle class is being destroyed, and they are the ones that would have been keen.

What's this got to do with middle class people?  Apparently there's so much money floating around that Donald Trump wants to give 5.5 trillion (minimum estimate) in tax reductions over the next 10 years.

[Xircal]

19 hours ago, Andreas2 said:

 

I actually read the article. That's what I always do if I reply. If I missed something, bad on me.

In the article it nowhere implies that the authorities did it in any relevance to man made global warming. It was totally made up by the poster.

 

Regarding your claim: "Global warming is irreversible".

I won't nail you on this claim by asking you: Why do you know this for a fact?

 

As I already mentioned, the Globalists are in panic mode. All I ask you for is one or two years to convince yourself that "global warming" has stopped and is reversing. Just don't panic. See it for yourself - And start questioning so-called "authorities".

Man made climate change is a hoax. The global climate is already about to cool down.

 

You can stick your head in the sand and listen to the pundits who try to proffer the idea that global warming isn't reversible and that it's all one big hoax. But all the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

You obviously don't want to accept the mountains of scientific evidence which is freely available and easily found using Google or any other search engine and that's your prerogative.

 

But just as a matter of interest, what are you basing your own ideas on that global warming isn't taking place?

[ClutchClark]

Can no one tell me how CC will affect America?

 

Of particular jnterest--Eastern CO.

 

Thanks

[boomerangutang]

On 11/21/2016 at 7:46 PM, jaidam said:

Not only is the Global Warming fiasco a huge hoax, it is a testament to the supreme arrogance these people have. Look at me, I'm so important and significant I can forever change the earths climate. Quite grotesque really. As if volcanos havent been spewing greenhouse gasses since time began, grazing animals emitting huge amountsvof methane, natural cycles. Humans are but a blip, a total insignificance in the grand scheme of things. I'm embarrased to be in the company of people that talk about humans changing the climate by spending money on schemes that by their very nature demand more mining, and burning of fossil fuels to create. Fools errands such as wind turbine manufacture. Groan.....

 

          What would it take for deniers to believe the earth is getting warmer, and humans are a big part of the cause.  Actually, I don't think there's anything that will convince them.  They've become so fixated on wanting to diss GW.  Whatever organization or group of scientists come out with new data which shows temps rising, they'll immediately wave their arms and say the scientists are all wrong or crooked, or whatever.  

 

          Now that Trump and his people will soon be in charge of the US, I've adopted a sort of fatalist view on climate issues.  I know if HRC had been elected, there would be tangible steps taken towards clean & renewable energy.  Now, with The Divider in the wings, and a man like Abell about to be given the nod for EPA, it's all good news for Big Oil and polluters in general.   The only silver lining, for me, is runaway GW will lessen numbers of people on the planet, and that will relieve some of the pressure of human overpopulation, and give other species a needed break.  

 

        Yet, lessening of human populations will be painful, particularly for those who are going to starve to death (or die from floods, droughts, forest fires, etc), but also sad for other humans (with a modicum of compassion) who are on the sidelines watching the mass misery.

 

         It's already happening to some degree; (migrants dying while trying to get to places with resources and jobs) ....and farmers in Australia and India killing themselves because they can't grow crops (too flooded, or too arid).   Expect worse, exponentially. 

[copa8]

On 11/20/2016 at 11:45 PM, williamgeorgeallen said:

this is a very good point. population growth i would say is the number 1 problem facing our species. it is interesting to see the contrary the western worlds birth rates falling. even thailand is no longer able to replace its own population. nice job thailand.

 

Not just mainly the Western world. Quite a few in the Eastern world have low birth rates: Singapore, South Korea, Japan, HK, etc.

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

What would it take for deniers to believe the earth is getting warmer, and humans are a big part of the cause.  

 

I belive it.

 

But until you can tell me this is bad for me and bad for America then I disagree that we need to make expensive changes and so far no one can tell me how it will impact America.

 

For all I know it will benefit America.

 

Better to identify how it will impact America and prepare by designing and implememting the modifications to adapt because GG production is going to continue to rise and CC is going to happen as long as China & India do not modify their output.

 

Fact.

 

So everybody has been led to believe if you accept CC as real then you have only this one solution . I say there are multiple responses to CC and which one a country chooses and invests depends on how they are affected.

 

All of you are acting like only one mresponse is possible and you don't even know if it will benefit you. 

[ClutchClark]

3 minutes ago, copa8 said:

 

Not just mainly the Western world. Quite a few in the Eastern world have low birth rates: Singapore, South Korea, Japan, HK, etc.

 

The world needs more Catholics.

[jcsmith]

49 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

Can no one tell me how CC will affect America?

 

Of particular jnterest--Eastern CO.

 

Thanks

 

Affects on the U.S. by region, from the  U.S. Global Change Research Program:

 

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

[ClutchClark]

20 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

 

Affects on the U.S. by region, from the  U.S. Global Change Research Program:

 

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

 

Genuine appreciation for this but it appears they omitted the American West.

[Andaman Al]

21 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

 

Affects on the U.S. by region, from the  U.S. Global Change Research Program:

 

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

 

It does kind of read a bit like a horoscope though doesn't it. I remember before we used to launch off flying the Met Man would brief us saying 'today we will have clear skies with the build up of some cloud mid morning, sunny then overcast with chance of rain, slight chance of fog and moderate to severe chance of icing in any Cumulonimbus. He always seemed proud he got some of it right each day  In fact he always seemed to say the same thing each day.

[surangw]

they control it by regulating the amount of pollution they generate ?

[kaorop]

anytime denialists want to give up medicine and other such "fallacies" created by scientists, i'll listen to your point of view.

but to find voice against just one thing, climate science, shows just how mislead you are.

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, kaorop said:

 

anytime denialists want to give up medicine and other such "fallacies" created by scientists, i'll listen to your point of view.

 

 

 

Thats actually an argument I have used myself 

 

I will provide a response ai have received to it that does make sense though.

 

All of this forecast for disasterous effect of greenhouse Gas is hypothetical. Its computer modeling. 

 

Conversely, medicine has gone through rigorous testing. How many hoped for pharmaceutical products that hypothetically "should work" never even make it to the testing stages let alone fail in the testing stages? 

 

In other words, hypothetical is not proven. 

 

Additionally, we have seen where scientists have completely fabricated their research on CC in order to receive recognition and funding. I don't recall the idiots who did this but I am pretty sure you may recall it. 

 

I am not a naysayer, I raise livestock and have been employed in the field of Wildlife management. I know first hand what overpopulation is and what occurs when you exceed carrying capacities. Humanity has long since passed that point and we are polluting ourselves to death. I do believe in CC and I do believe we are seeing an accelerated pace.

 

What I am not sold on is that there is even a chance to mitigate it and I do not think there is only one possible path to reverse or slow its progression as certain heavily invested interests suggest.

 

Recognizing that CC is valid does not automatically equate to the response all of you have been given is the correct one. 

 

But kudos for your argument above. Its the first time I have heard anyone but myself use it. Are you often described by your peers as brilliant? 

 

Only kidding.

[Grouse]

10 hours ago, stevenl said:

Yes, I wouldn't mind more solar.

 

To keep the maths simple, let's assume 1kW per square metre or 10 square feet. Peak demand is say 50kW for a family home,  so 50 square metres or 500 square feet of photovoltaic panels. Only work in day light though. Best to feed back to local distribution for optimum sufficiency ( kWh meter runs "backwards"). In practice solar is only one element in a sensible energy strategy. I can see renewables ultimately providing about 30%. (Hydroelectric, wave power, tidal power, direct solar)

 

Climate change IS real and I can't be bothered listening to the flat earth idiots.

 

Base load is best served by nuclear. Currently fission (usually PWR) fusion is 50 years out.

 

Only hope for coal is carbon sequestration but overall, coal is just not worth the effort just burn it. Maybe use for feedstock when oil eventually becomes too expensive.

 

Main thing for me is saving energy. Insulation is key and would be a worthwhile government support scheme.

 

Then we should use LED lighting including street lights and heat pumps for hot water.

 

So, in conclusion, it's a complex issue andI hope Trump listens to the pointy heads on this.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Grouse

[Ahab]

Who determined what the average temperature of the planet is supposed to be? It has been warmer and colder in the past, but now we know exactly what temperature is optimum? I don't by the modeling when it does not agree with observations.

 

Sorry, I know I am a caveman.

[Grouse]

Roughly 100,000 years ago we had the Stone Age. It's pointless talking about the climate a million years ago or a million years hence.

 

CO2 levels have oscillated with about a 100,000 year cycle between about 200ppm and 300pm

 

It has never previously risen above 300ppm. 

 

It is now rocketing above 400ppm

 

All the pointy heads are agreed that this is dangerous. It's an anthropocentric issue. We need climate that suits Homo sapiens ( not a slur ?).

 

Right now we have a goldilocks situation. Small changes could massively affect the livable areas and our ability to feed ourselves.

 

Trump playing God is a risk strategy.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Grouse

[ClutchClark]

25 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Small changes could massively affect the livable areas and our ability to feed ourselves.

 

 

 

Grouse,

 

Good post but how do you know small changes will be sufficient?

[balo]

If all the world leaders would be thinking like Donald Trump the future of this planet would be grim. 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by balo

[Grouse]

36 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Grouse,

 

Good post but how do you know small changes will be sufficient?

 

As I understand it, there as a "positive feedback" effect. Small inputs resulting in accelerating output effects. I'm inclined to go with the experts on this....

[car720]

On 11/22/2016 at 0:12 AM, Grouse said:

 

Population growth is rolling off and food production increasing 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

 

I have looked at the chart in this but it just doesn't make mathmatical sense to me.

If you look at the chart it shows a population peak around 1960 and then a steady decline since but the figures that I originally posted show that to be untrue.  In fact, the population growth has almost tripled.  I am always wary of statistical representation as it is so often biased.

[Catoni]

On 11/21/2016 at 9:07 PM, stevenl said:

You have sunk really low by trying to make this about left and right.

 

      You must be a pretty dim bulb to not see that Global Warming/Climate Change Alarmism is part of a politico-economic agenda to bring down western capitalist industrialised nations.    But as far as left and right. ? ?    I hate the far right wing extremist idiots as much as I hate the far left wing extremist idiots.  BOTH of them are dangerous to freedom and liberty.  Both of them lead to dictatorship of one form or another.          Here are some quotes for you:    

 

   Quote: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore...We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,"
- Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
Club of Rome

"The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”
Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.

"The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government." 
Mikhail Gorbachev, former leader of U.S.S.R.

"Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself."
UN's Commission on Global Governance

“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

           "All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide,"

Dr. Will Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University,  former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,  member of the National Academy of Sciences, Alfred P. Sloan fellowship in 1966,  Alexander von Humboldt award in 1976, the Herbert P.Broida Prize in 1997, the Davisson-Germer prize and the Thomas Alva Edison patent award in 2000.

 

"More Future, Less Capitalism",   "Capitalism Isn't Working,  Support Socialism", "Smash Capitalism, End Colonialism",  "Capitalism Isn't Working, It's Killing the Planet"    "Capitalism is Destroying the Planet:  Fight for a Socialist Future by International Socialist Organization: SOCIALISTWORKER.ORG"      signs at a global warming/climate change conference in Oakland, California 2014

We must keep the Alarm level high. We must keep people scared that there is a big problem. The reward for solving the problem, or for there not really being a problem, is to get your funding cut, to lose political influence, and to lose tenure.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Catoni

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

To keep the maths simple, let's assume 1kW per square metre or 10 square feet. Peak demand is say 50kW for a family home,  so 50 square metres or 500 square feet of photovoltaic panels. Only work in day light though. Best to feed back to local distribution for optimum sufficiency ( kWh meter runs "backwards"). In practice solar is only one element in a sensible energy strategy. I can see renewables ultimately providing about 30%. (Hydroelectric, wave power, tidal power, direct solar)

 

Climate change IS real and I can't be bothered listening to the flat earth idiots.

 

Base load is best served by nuclear. Currently fission (usually PWR) fusion is 50 years out.

 

Only hope for coal is carbon sequestration but overall, coal is just not worth the effort just burn it. Maybe use for feedstock when oil eventually becomes too expensive.

 

Main thing for me is saving energy. Insulation is key and would be a worthwhile government support scheme.

 

Then we should use LED lighting including street lights and heat pumps for hot water.

 

So, in conclusion, it's a complex issue andI hope Trump listens to the pointy heads on this.

You fail to mention battery storage to use in conjunction with solar panels, development of which is taking place.

Some bad things are coming out about LED lighting and anyway the next generation of lighting is under development.

[geriatrickid]

On 11/20/2016 at 8:24 PM, blazes said:

Not so long ago in the life of Earth, the "powers-that-be" [aka the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church] believed that the Earth was flat.  When a poor schmuck called Galileo came along and suggested that maybe the Earth goes around the Sun, he was incarcerated for his troubles (and for troubling the then elite).

 

In our age, there is a lot of academic research funding and promotion possibilities riding on us all believing that we are in the end times of climate heating.

In fact we are living in an Ice Age, but no one seems to point this out:

"There have been five known ice ages in the Earth's history, with the Earth experiencing the Quaternary Ice Age during the present time. Within ice ages, there exist periods of more severe glacial conditions and more temperate referred to as glacial periods and interglacial periods, respectively."

Timeline of glaciation - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation

 

Stop it. We are not living in an "Ice Age". If that was the case, glaciers would not be melting so quickly, the Arctic ice would not be melting, there would be fewer sever  storm events, and the average yearly temperature would not be increasing.

[ClutchClark]

10 hours ago, Grouse said:

Then we should use LED lighting including street lights and heat pump

 

Our small downtown just installed the LED streetlamps in the last month. 

 

Not only energy efficient but a high quality light with fewer shadows.

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You fail to mention battery storage to use in conjunction with solar panels, development of which is taking place.

Some bad things are coming out about LED lighting and anyway the next generation of lighting is under development.

 

Assuming you are saying batteries are environmentally taxing? 

 

Please discuss in further detsil your claim on LEDs.

 

I have not heard any negative and use them on my vehicles, in my home, for my barns and flashlights. Its a fantastic technology.