[Joe_Stalin]

Random Thoughts
By Thomas Sowell

Since electricity is generated mostly by burning coal, has anyone calculated how much pollution is created by electric cars, even though none of that pollution comes out of their tailpipes?


Same with forest fires. Lightning must be banned or severely curtailed.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

Wullu Wullu:

martin14 martin14:

good lord.. first my beer fridge is the cause of global warming and now my fireplace.. gimme a break
only in America.. we hope

Don't forget bagpipes! They are a cause as well.


I am really beginning to think that the econuts are gonna talk themselves right out of an arguement with foolishness like this.

Quoted for truthiness. I thought the Sheryl Crow toilet paper thingy or the German whacko who wanted Knut (the orphaned polar bear cub) euthanized was the nadir of enviro-tardness but somehow they still mangage to get even dumber. Hopefully, one day, one of them will say or do something so stupid that even our cretinous Canadian media won't be able to ignore it.

I'm not really sure what the so-called enviro-tards have done here. I think banning fires in urban areas is pretty common. I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to burn wood where I live, in North Vancouver. I think the reason is particulate matter, not global warming.

I did a little bit of research and confimred that the purpose of the wood burning regualtion is to control PM, and climate chnage is not even mentioned. Actually the article to whihc this thread is linked is called "Should fireplace fires be banned?" Tritium, who started to this thread, inexplciably decided to add "Should fireplace fires be banned? (because they add to global warming)."

So it's not really an example of enviro-tardness, in my opinion, but an example of reactionaries going off without bothering to first investigate the issue.

[Zipperfish]

Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:

Random Thoughts
By Thomas Sowell

Since electricity is generated mostly by burning coal, has anyone calculated how much pollution is created by electric cars, even though none of that pollution comes out of their tailpipes?


Same with forest fires. Lightning must be banned or severely curtailed.

Why, yes. Quite a few people have considered that. It's called, among other things, full life cycle analysis, and it's been around for many years. Glad to see that Mr. Sowell has decided to jump on board.

[Joe_Stalin]

If it has been around that long then you will no have no trouble in answering his question.

[Zipperfish]

Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:

If it has been around that long then you will no have no trouble in answering his question.

Sorry, I'm not here to do your research for Mr. Sowell. He presumably makes some kind of living writing about this stuff, so perhaps he should look it up. Perhaps he should considering researching his pieces PRIOR to printing them, but then I suppose they would lose some of their visercal appeal.

[Joe_Stalin]

same old same old..

You mentor Slick Willie? Dodge and duck.

[Zipperfish]

Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:

same old same old..

You mentor Slick Willie? Dodge and duck.

Actually, Bill Clinton is one of personal mentors, yes. I'm not ducking. If you want the information, then get off your lazy ass and get it yourself; don't expect me to do it for you. I'm just telling you its out there.

[BartSimpson]

Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:

same old same old..

You mentor Slick Willie? Dodge and duck.

Zip was actually a campaign strategist for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Did a good job, too. Unfortunately, Al Gore didn't listen to his sage advice and ended up on unemployment after January 2001.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:

same old same old..

You mentor Slick Willie? Dodge and duck.

Zip was actually a campaign strategist for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Did a good job, too. Unfortunately, Al Gore didn't listen to his sage advice and ended up on unemployment after January 2001.

Well, I guess Al Gore proved you don't have to find an honest job even after politics.

[Winnipegger]

Trees convert carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and wood. When you burn wood you undo it. When you grow a new tree you undo what the fireplace did. It's called sustainability. Or it can be called carbon neutral.

Technical details (I love science, I live for this stuff):
6 CO2 + 6 H2O -> 6 O2 + C6H12O6
That last molecule is a monosaccharide, such as glucose, fructose, or galactose. They can be combined in pairs to form disaccharides such as sucrose (table sugar), or long chains such as starch or cellulose. When you combine two sugar molecules a hydrogen atom from one sugar combines with an OH group from the other to form a water molecule; the exposed bonds from both sugar molecules attach to each other. Cellulose can be further modified by ripping open each monosaccharide ring to form something called lignin. Grass is primarily cellulose, wood is made of cellulose and lignin with some minerals added. When you burn wood the carbohydrates become carbon dioxide and water, the minerals remain as ash.

Tree roots soak up that ash to use the minerals to make new wood. So growing trees undo what burning wood does. It's a cycle.

I spent 10 months in Miami, Florida, from June 1st 1999 through March 31 2000. I managed to escape winter that one year. Every winter since then I keep asking why I came back, then I look at what George W. is doing down there: oh yea. Every Winnipeg winter I keep asking where is this global warming thing, can we bring a little here please? But there are real damaging effects to global warming.

I don't want to get preachy, let's just say there are practical alternatives. Banning beer fridges or fireplaces are not among them.

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Thanos Thanos:

Wullu Wullu:

martin14 martin14:

good lord.. first my beer fridge is the cause of global warming and now my fireplace.. gimme a break
only in America.. we hope

Don't forget bagpipes! They are a cause as well.


I am really beginning to think that the econuts are gonna talk themselves right out of an arguement with foolishness like this.

Quoted for truthiness. I thought the Sheryl Crow toilet paper thingy or the German whacko who wanted Knut (the orphaned polar bear cub) euthanized was the nadir of enviro-tardness but somehow they still mangage to get even dumber. Hopefully, one day, one of them will say or do something so stupid that even our cretinous Canadian media won't be able to ignore it.

I'm not really sure what the so-called enviro-tards have done here. I think banning fires in urban areas is pretty common. I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to burn wood where I live, in North Vancouver. I think the reason is particulate matter, not global warming.

I did a little bit of research and confimred that the purpose of the wood burning regualtion is to control PM, and climate chnage is not even mentioned. Actually the article to whihc this thread is linked is called "Should fireplace fires be banned?" Tritium, who started to this thread, inexplciably decided to add "Should fireplace fires be banned? (because they add to global warming)."

So it's not really an example of enviro-tardness, in my opinion, but an example of reactionaries going off without bothering to first investigate the issue.

Zippy:

Sorry for the error on my part. As an earth-raper who spends a bit of time each year up in the tarsands I've become like the rest of the folks up there and tend to see the anti-GW-boogeymen everywhere. Mea culpa. I didn't really even read the linked article/column until just now, so yeah, it was mostly an attack of knee-jerkyism on my part, No offense to you personally, but unfortunately what I see of environmentalism is either the blatant religious cultism of star-fuckers like Al Gore or Suzuki, or the ridiculous appeal to neo-Marxism to solve these issues. IMO anyway. I'll make a better effort from now on to read these things more thoroughly before I start venting.

Is it an OK excuse if I admit rright now that I've been drinking heavily for most of the afternoon/early evening and really can no longer be trusted?

PS: You gotta admit that environmentalists say some really dopey things. Like what kind of sadist would even utter something along the lines of wanting to do a hit on the Official Ambassador of CuteyPieLand?

[ridenrain]

This isn’t really an eco-weeney issue. Some communities have poor wind patterns and the smoke and ash get trapped under a low cloud layer. I remember reading an article about some mountain town, stuck in a little valley, and they all got sick of the constant smog all their cabins made. This was about 8 years ago, far before the green Nazi’s showed up.

[Ripcat]

I have an EPA approved woodstove with a primary and secondary burn. Once the stove is up to temperature no smoke leaves the chimney as it's burned during the secondary burn. The purple jets of flame are neat to watch. I also use well seasoned, dry wood with virtually no bark left on it.

Oh, and the heat is amazing. It feels warmer than the gas furnace does at the same temperature.

[ridenrain]

That's the best kind of stove you can get though.
I've got nothing against wood but not everyone is going to pay that much for a quality stove or fuel. Usually, it's an old, unused mess that people burn garbage in untill someone gets a mess of pressure treated scraps then stokes it up till the paint peels off.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Thanos Thanos:

Wullu Wullu:

martin14 martin14:

good lord.. first my beer fridge is the cause of global warming and now my fireplace.. gimme a break
only in America.. we hope

Don't forget bagpipes! They are a cause as well.


I am really beginning to think that the econuts are gonna talk themselves right out of an arguement with foolishness like this.

Quoted for truthiness. I thought the Sheryl Crow toilet paper thingy or the German whacko who wanted Knut (the orphaned polar bear cub) euthanized was the nadir of enviro-tardness but somehow they still mangage to get even dumber. Hopefully, one day, one of them will say or do something so stupid that even our cretinous Canadian media won't be able to ignore it.

I'm not really sure what the so-called enviro-tards have done here. I think banning fires in urban areas is pretty common. I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to burn wood where I live, in North Vancouver. I think the reason is particulate matter, not global warming.

I did a little bit of research and confimred that the purpose of the wood burning regualtion is to control PM, and climate chnage is not even mentioned. Actually the article to whihc this thread is linked is called "Should fireplace fires be banned?" Tritium, who started to this thread, inexplciably decided to add "Should fireplace fires be banned? (because they add to global warming)."

So it's not really an example of enviro-tardness, in my opinion, but an example of reactionaries going off without bothering to first investigate the issue.

Zippy:

Sorry for the error on my part. As an earth-raper who spends a bit of time each year up in the tarsands I've become like the rest of the folks up there and tend to see the anti-GW-boogeymen everywhere. Mea culpa. I didn't really even read the linked article/column until just now, so yeah, it was mostly an attack of knee-jerkyism on my part, No offense to you personally, but unfortunately what I see of environmentalism is either the blatant religious cultism of star-fuckers like Al Gore or Suzuki, or the ridiculous appeal to neo-Marxism to solve these issues. IMO anyway. I'll make a better effort from now on to read these things more thoroughly before I start venting.

Is it an OK excuse if I admit rright now that I've been drinking heavily for most of the afternoon/early evening and really can no longer be trusted?

PS: You gotta admit that environmentalists say some really dopey things. Like what kind of sadist would even utter something along the lines of wanting to do a hit on the Official Ambassador of CuteyPieLand?

Environmentalists are a conflicted lot, granted. My favourite environmentalists are hunters, yet they are, for soem reason, loathed in much of the environmentalist community, even they do more for the environment than almost anyone, in my opinion. (Don't believe me? Check out the numbers for Ducks Unlimited, a group heavily fuinded by hunters.) I agree that there is far too much effort on socialist solutions to perceived or real environmental ills, without first considering free market mechanisms. On the other hand, no one has been able to do a very good job of internalizing environmental costs into the economic system ("What is a tree worth?"). And there's wingnuts to spare on both sides of the issue.