what are y'all saving from the wild to deal with coming crisis?

[room onthebroom]

Can somebody please wake me up when the soapboxes have been put away & the thread gets back on topic?

 

[clembone]

I like biomass as a renewable. Grass clippings, chicken poop, our table scraps, all kinds of stuff, closed up in a sealed, dark, warm, wet environment, will produce a great fuel. This process tracks the natural cycle of growth and decay. It provides clean water, high quality fertilizer, anything that will rot can be used as a source for fuel, extremely flexible to use for on site or for large scale, and finally: methane is eight times more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so capturing methane and burning it means the carbon dioxide released is net benefit.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=biomass_home
https://www.motherearthnews.com/ren...ewables/biomass-renewable-energy-ze0z1807zcoo

 

[Shadrach]

Thank you for posting suggestions on where to check facts.


from https://www.iste.org/explore/Digita...p-10-sites-to-help-students-check-their-facts

Here's a rundown of 10 of the top fact- and bias-checking sites to share with your students.

AllSides. While not a fact-checking site, AllSides curates stories from right, center and left-leaning media so that readers can easily compare how bias influences reporting on each topic.

Fact Check. This nonpartisan, nonprofit project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania monitors the factual accuracy of what is said by U.S. political players, including politicians, TV ads, debates, interviews and news releases.

Media Matters. This nonprofit and self-described liberal-leaning research center monitors and corrects conservative misinformation in the media.

NewsBusters. A project of the conservative Media Research Center, NewsBusters is focused on “documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.”

Open Secrets. This nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit website run by the Center for Responsive Politics tracks how much and where candidates get their money.

Politifact. This Pulitzer Prize winning website rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials. Run by editors and reporters from the independent newspaper Tampa Bay Times, Politicfact features the Truth-O-Meter that rates statements as “True,” “Mostly True,” “Half True,” “False,” and “Pants on Fire.”

ProPublica. This independent, nonprofit newsroom has won several Pulitzer Prizes, including the 2016 Prize for Explanatory Reporting. ProPublica produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

Snopes. This independent, nonpartisan website run by professional researcher and writer David Mikkelson researches urban legends and other rumors. It is often the first to set the facts straight on wild fake news claims.

The Sunlight Foundation. This nonpartisan, nonprofit organization uses public policy data-based journalism to make politics more transparent and accountable.

Washington Post Fact Checker. Although the Washington Post has a left-center bias, its checks are excellent and sourced. The bias shows up because they fact check conservative claims more than liberal ones.

Good list. I've added ProPublica to my bookmarks for US stories and facts. Thanks.

 

[Maugwa]

\

That is the biggest bunch of horse puckey that I ever heard. Mt Saint Helens HAS NOT put more Co2 in the air as mankind has putout in its entire history of burning fossil fuels. Not even by a longshot.


I agree with you that the government can't be part of the solution in dealing with climate change; it's up to individuals and society to start changing their consumption patterns. Our ancestors were mostly rural in the past and had a better idea of the limits of what the earth could sustain. I think the many ways we waste and squander resources would horrify them. Now the population in the developed world lives in cities, is completely disconnected from nature and has NO idea the amount of resources/costs it takes to produce the things they consume, nor the effect on the environment. 1/4 of the food that Americans buy doesn't even make it to the table. Food is so cheap, and so available, we can just throw 25% of it away, without a second thought. We throw it out without thinking of the water, nutrients, etc that went into to producing that food. People point to the stability of the past as proof that human civilization will go on as before, however, this grand experiment of rampant consumption, exploitation and convenience has never been tried before.

ttps://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

 

[Kiki]

Can somebody please wake me up when the soapboxes have been put away & the thread gets back on topic?

I can't tell what is what, but I'm sure enjoying the thread.

 

[HenOnAJuneBug]

I read by Marc Morano at the bottom.

He wrote the article, but Pielke did the analysis for a talk he gave. I should have linked to him instead (bottom of page) - https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2018/02/11/pielke-on-climate-8/

 

[Kiki]

He wrote the article, but Pielke did the analysis for a talk he gave. I should have linked to him instead (bottom of page) - https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2018/02/11/pielke-on-climate-8/

thanks.

 

[austroberta]

I like biomass as a renewable. Grass clippings, chicken poop, our table scraps, all kinds of stuff, closed up in a sealed, dark, warm, wet environment, will produce a great fuel. This process tracks the natural cycle of growth and decay. It provides clean water, high quality fertilizer, anything that will rot can be used as a source for fuel, extremely flexible to use for on site or for large scale, and finally: methane is eight times more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so capturing methane and burning it means the carbon dioxide released is net benefit.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=biomass_home
https://www.motherearthnews.com/ren...ewables/biomass-renewable-energy-ze0z1807zcoo

I agree. I think it makes more sense to use biomass as a renewable than composting it in the compost bin.

 

[Shadrach]

The polarizing nature of this debate at every level is concerning.
We don't know with any degree of certainty if the changes we see are extraordinary in the history of this planets climate because we don't have enough data to make a reasonable assessment.
We also don't know how much impact our activities have on the weather.
Other stuff we do have decent data on such as the decline in species and the changes we've brought about in the large rain forests for example.
Unfortunately politics has by it's nature a short term view and those involved in it do not seem overly concerned about long term strategies.
In the end I can't see the sense in the waste and destruction our species causes given currently there is no way off this planet and even if there were, there is nowhere to go.
A bit less concern about our individual 'freedoms' and a little more concern about at least attempting to moderate our impact would seem sensible to me.
So. I've done a bit. I built an earth bermed small dwelling that is energy efficient. I share a vehicle for the heavy stuff and use a low powered trail bike to get around.
Little things like remebering to take a shopping basket instead of buying carrier bags. I grow a small amount of food, eat less meat, don't buy the latest must have gadget.
What does irritate me is the view, well we can't prove one way or the other whether we are effecting the climate in any major way so lets all just carry on wrecking the place.

 

[austroberta]

ttps://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

Great article. No where in there does it make the claim that Mt. St Helen's emitted more co2 than our entire history of our use of fossil fuels, which is what you're trying to claim.