Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

ab348

Interesting story but unfortunate the news report was all about the fight back and never mentioned how he got that way in the first place.

abacomike

I don’t know how many of you were able to watch “60 Minutes” this evening, but the first segment reported on the progress of a 2015 lawsuit on behalf of several dozen youngsters and young adults to force the federal government to institute policies that would safeguard an environment that is healthy and conducive to safeguarding the planet’s atmosphere (climate change) for the future protection of their lives.  It seemed, at first, that the government would easily be able to get the suit dismissed, however federal courts have refused, including the Supreme Court, to dismiss the case.

According to the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, there is so much supporting evidence in favor of their cause that if the case gets to court and is heard by a jury there is no doubt that the verdict would be in favor of the plaintiffs.  In other words, if the case is finally heard in a court of law, even the federal government has misgivings about their ability to effectively defend their (the government’s) position.

I only bring this up because the plaintiffs accuse the US Government of failing to protect their rights to a healthful environment because of the burning of fossil fuels and the policies that provide federal funds in support of the use of fossil fuels.

My thoughts on this, as the report was being televised, centered on the fact that China, India, and other large polluters account for 75% of the air pollutants causing climate change on our planet.  Thus, even if the US eliminated all use of fossil fuels within its borders, the problem of climate change caused by pollutants would not solve the progression of an unhealthy atomphere.  The  attorney acknowledged that the US is not the major cause of climate change, but is still irresponsible in safeguarding the environment.

This lawsuit, if successful, would force the US Government to implement policies that would eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  But there is still the problem of methane gas being released by the millions of cows (farting) as well as volcanic eruptions around the world.  I am slowly beginning to side with environmentalists who claim the planet’s atmosphere is being polluted with gases that are causing climate changes that can be cataclysmic.  

As as a postscript, I do not want to politicize this!  I brought this up in order to stimulate rational and apolitical thought and discussion about the prospects of a future for our children and grandchildren that could be catastrophic due to an unhealthful atmosphere and climate change.

jmonroe1

tjc78 said:

jmonroe1 said:

tjc78 said:

explorerx4 said:

@abacomike,
Took my wife's MKC in for service today and took a quick stroll of the Ford/Lincoln showroom.
It was pretty dismal. Black base Focus sedan, 2016 Mustang GT350(used), white Expedition, Black Fiesta ST hatch, 2018 black Continental, 2017 black MKX.
This was the most interesting thing in there.

I’d take one of those to cruse around on a Sunday afternoon.  


Ahh. Food coma exists right now.  Wife and I were good all week.  Had the butcher at the local supermarket cut up a few 1.5” thick rib eyes.  So damn good.  This nice red blend washed it down well. 

Hope everyone having a nice Sat night!! 

C'mon man, you're making me hungry. That's exactly the way I like mine cut. I flame mine on the grill with oak wood strips. 3 minutes each side turning diagonally half way through then flip it and do the same thing on the other side...perfect medium rare on my grill.

Hint: For a better taste, I don't call mine rib eyes. I call them Delmonicos. Try it and see.

jmonroe

We like medium rare too! I did mine for a minute each side in a screaming hot cast iron and then two mins each side in a hot oven (in same pan). I prefer the grill, but we don’t have good lighting out there so had to do inside.

When I went to buy them yesterday every one in the meat case was 3/4” thick. Pretty hard to get a nice sear on that and still have it medium rare.

I always thought a Delmonico was without bone?

@stickguy ... where? Somewhere in Collingswood?

I would have responded earlier but I just finished dinner after returning home from helping Son #1 at his flip house. Before I get into responding to your post, I have to tell you guys what happened today at the flip house. Son #1 got there before I did this morning and was wiring up a receptacle because he didn't drop the power wire from the attic to this new receptacle when we finished working on Thursday night like he was supposed to do so he was in the process of cutting off the wire from the roll so he could put the wire into the receptacle box. Guess what, maybe you already guess this. He didn't turn off the circuit breaker so when he squeezed the side cutters, zip-zap, he cut through a live wire and the breaker tripped but not before arching at the side cutters and leaving a smoke stain on about 3 inches of the wires outer insulation. No big deal, he was wearing gloves and using my heavy duty rubber insulated side cutters. So, in a way, I guess you can say he was double insulated. Just another lesson learned and yes I have done that just like anyone who has dealt with wiring in a house where you turn the breaker on and off as you are doing work and you lose track about what position the breaker was in the last time you touched it. He just proved that the breaker never forgets.

Now about your grilling. You are going to have to get good lighting so you can grill year round like I do. It's hard to beat steaks done on a flaming grill. I have a 500 watt flood light aimed at my grill and I can't tell you how many times over the years that I have shoveled a path to my grill when there was snow on the deck.

Now about the steaks. I said Delmonico's because you said rib eyes and that means without a bone in my hood. So they are actually the same piece of meat but saying Delmonico's just sounds more upscale.

I got an idea, since it is becoming more and more obvious that @abacomike is not going to send me airfare money to come visit him, what do you think of this? To kick off the new grill season on Memorial Day, if you send me gas money and provide the Delmonico's, I'll bring along some of the oak wood strips that I use to flame grill my steaks. Then you will see firsthand how I do it. I'm sure after you have given this some thought you'll be all over my offer. See you at the start of the new grilling season.

Your poster buddy,

jmonroe

jmonroe1

driver100 said:

Sorry to change the topic but I got my Halloween costume for October. I'll take a picture with me in front of the C250 on Halloween....for the fans!

If JMonroe isn't careful I will post it earlier...it arrives on Wednesday.

OK,OK. I give up.

jmonroe

snakeweasel

abacomike said:

I don’t know how many of you were able to watch “60 Minutes” this evening, but the first segment reported on the progress of a 2015 lawsuit on behalf of several dozen youngsters and young adults to force the federal government to institute policies that would safeguard an environment that is healthy and conducive to safeguarding the planet’s atmosphere (climate change) for the future protection of their lives.  It seemed, at first, that the government would easily be able to get the suit dismissed, however federal courts have refused, including the Supreme Court, to dismiss the case.

According to the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, there is so much supporting evidence in favor of their cause that if the case gets to court and is heard by a jury there is no doubt that the verdict would be in favor of the plaintiffs.  In other words, if the case is finally heard in a court of law, even the federal government has misgivings about their ability to effectively defend their (the government’s) position.

I only bring this up because the plaintiffs accuse the US Government of failing to protect their rights to a healthful environment because of the burning of fossil fuels and the policies that provide federal funds in support of the use of fossil fuels.

My thoughts on this, as the report was being televised, centered on the fact that China, India, and other large polluters account for 75% of the air pollutants causing climate change on our planet.  Thus, even if the US eliminated all use of fossil fuels within its borders, the problem of climate change caused by pollutants would not solve the progression of an unhealthy atomphere.  The  attorney acknowledged that the US is not the major cause of climate change, but is still irresponsible in safeguarding the environment.

This lawsuit, if successful, would force the US Government to implement policies that would eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  But there is still the problem of methane gas being released by the millions of cows (farting) as well as volcanic eruptions around the world.  I am slowly beginning to side with environmentalists who claim the planet’s atmosphere is being polluted with gases that are causing climate changes that can be cataclysmic.  

As as a postscript, I do not want to politicize this!  I brought this up in order to stimulate rational and apolitical thought and discussion about the prospects of a future for our children and grandchildren that could be catastrophic due to an unhealthful atmosphere and climate change.

The issue I have is that for the last 50 years I have been bombarded with warnings of immediate dire consequences of which 100% failed to happen so I am extremely skeptical of any catastrophic environmental event predictions.

suydam

In 2017 thr US and China produced together over 40% of the world’s pollutants. But probably more to the point of the suit, the US pulled out of the world wide Paris Agreement to scale back pollution.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/how-us-carbon-pollution-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world.html

abacomike

snakeweasel said:

I don’t know how many of you were able to watch “60 Minutes” this evening, but the first segment reported on the progress of a 2015 lawsuit on behalf of several dozen youngsters and young adults to force the federal government to institute policies that would safeguard an environment that is healthy and conducive to safeguarding the planet’s atmosphere (climate change) for the future protection of their lives.  It seemed, at first, that the government would easily be able to get the suit dismissed, however federal courts have refused, including the Supreme Court, to dismiss the case.

According to the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, there is so much supporting evidence in favor of their cause that if the case gets to court and is heard by a jury there is no doubt that the verdict would be in favor of the plaintiffs.  In other words, if the case is finally heard in a court of law, even the federal government has misgivings about their ability to effectively defend their (the government’s) position.

I only bring this up because the plaintiffs accuse the US Government of failing to protect their rights to a healthful environment because of the burning of fossil fuels and the policies that provide federal funds in support of the use of fossil fuels.

My thoughts on this, as the report was being televised, centered on the fact that China, India, and other large polluters account for 75% of the air pollutants causing climate change on our planet.  Thus, even if the US eliminated all use of fossil fuels within its borders, the problem of climate change caused by pollutants would not solve the progression of an unhealthy atomphere.  The  attorney acknowledged that the US is not the major cause of climate change, but is still irresponsible in safeguarding the environment.

This lawsuit, if successful, would force the US Government to implement policies that would eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  But there is still the problem of methane gas being released by the millions of cows (farting) as well as volcanic eruptions around the world.  I am slowly beginning to side with environmentalists who claim the planet’s atmosphere is being polluted with gases that are causing climate changes that can be cataclysmic.  

As as a postscript, I do not want to politicize this!  I brought this up in order to stimulate rational and apolitical thought and discussion about the prospects of a future for our children and grandchildren that could be catastrophic due to an unhealthful atmosphere and climate change.

The issue I have is that for the last 50 years I have been bombarded with warnings of immediate dire consequences of which 100% failed to happen so I am extremely skeptical of any catastrophic environmental event predictions.

The one consequence I have observed firsthand is the rising sea levels - especially here on the east coast of Florida.  The beach erosion is also serious due to rising sea levels.  The melting icecaps and glaciers are more evidence of the global warming.

I am a skeptic as well, snakeweasel. Changes are gradual but when looked at over the last 100 years, there have been changes suggesting climate change due to increased levels of CO2.  I guess what the environmentalists are telling us is that unless we start attacking the increased levels of pollutants, it will eventually be too late to do anything to change the direction.

I don’t have answers to these questions or solutions to the problem.

qbrozen

abacomike said:

I don’t know how many of you were able to watch “60 Minutes” this evening, but the first segment reported on the progress of a 2015 lawsuit on behalf of several dozen youngsters and young adults to force the federal government to institute policies that would safeguard an environment that is healthy and conducive to safeguarding the planet’s atmosphere (climate change) for the future protection of their lives.  It seemed, at first, that the government would easily be able to get the suit dismissed, however federal courts have refused, including the Supreme Court, to dismiss the case.

According to the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, there is so much supporting evidence in favor of their cause that if the case gets to court and is heard by a jury there is no doubt that the verdict would be in favor of the plaintiffs.  In other words, if the case is finally heard in a court of law, even the federal government has misgivings about their ability to effectively defend their (the government’s) position.

I only bring this up because the plaintiffs accuse the US Government of failing to protect their rights to a healthful environment because of the burning of fossil fuels and the policies that provide federal funds in support of the use of fossil fuels.

My thoughts on this, as the report was being televised, centered on the fact that China, India, and other large polluters account for 75% of the air pollutants causing climate change on our planet.  Thus, even if the US eliminated all use of fossil fuels within its borders, the problem of climate change caused by pollutants would not solve the progression of an unhealthy atomphere.  The  attorney acknowledged that the US is not the major cause of climate change, but is still irresponsible in safeguarding the environment.

This lawsuit, if successful, would force the US Government to implement policies that would eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  But there is still the problem of methane gas being released by the millions of cows (farting) as well as volcanic eruptions around the world.  I am slowly beginning to side with environmentalists who claim the planet’s atmosphere is being polluted with gases that are causing climate changes that can be cataclysmic.  

As as a postscript, I do not want to politicize this!  I brought this up in order to stimulate rational and apolitical thought and discussion about the prospects of a future for our children and grandchildren that could be catastrophic due to an unhealthful atmosphere and climate change.

1. What are the plantiffs suing for? Meaning, are they asking for money? To what end?

2. I’d like to know what the plantiffs are utilizing in their everyday lives. They must be pedaling bikes, reading by candlelight ... no, wait, candles give off pollutants. Hmmm... 

abacomike

qbrozen said:

abacomike said:

I don’t know how many of you were able to watch “60 Minutes” this evening, but the first segment reported on the progress of a 2015 lawsuit on behalf of several dozen youngsters and young adults to force the federal government to institute policies that would safeguard an environment that is healthy and conducive to safeguarding the planet’s atmosphere (climate change) for the future protection of their lives.  It seemed, at first, that the government would easily be able to get the suit dismissed, however federal courts have refused, including the Supreme Court, to dismiss the case.

According to the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, there is so much supporting evidence in favor of their cause that if the case gets to court and is heard by a jury there is no doubt that the verdict would be in favor of the plaintiffs.  In other words, if the case is finally heard in a court of law, even the federal government has misgivings about their ability to effectively defend their (the government’s) position.

I only bring this up because the plaintiffs accuse the US Government of failing to protect their rights to a healthful environment because of the burning of fossil fuels and the policies that provide federal funds in support of the use of fossil fuels.

My thoughts on this, as the report was being televised, centered on the fact that China, India, and other large polluters account for 75% of the air pollutants causing climate change on our planet.  Thus, even if the US eliminated all use of fossil fuels within its borders, the problem of climate change caused by pollutants would not solve the progression of an unhealthy atomphere.  The  attorney acknowledged that the US is not the major cause of climate change, but is still irresponsible in safeguarding the environment.

This lawsuit, if successful, would force the US Government to implement policies that would eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  But there is still the problem of methane gas being released by the millions of cows (farting) as well as volcanic eruptions around the world.  I am slowly beginning to side with environmentalists who claim the planet’s atmosphere is being polluted with gases that are causing climate changes that can be cataclysmic.  

As as a postscript, I do not want to politicize this!  I brought this up in order to stimulate rational and apolitical thought and discussion about the prospects of a future for our children and grandchildren that could be catastrophic due to an unhealthful atmosphere and climate change.

1. What are the plantiffs suing for? Meaning, are they asking for money? To what end?

2. I’d like to know what the plantiffs are utilizing in their everyday lives. They must be pedaling bikes, reading by candlelight ... no, wait, candles give off pollutants. Hmmm... 

They are suing for changes in policy - no grants for fossil fuel industry; elimination of fossil fuel usage; strict protections for safe drinking water; etc.

driver100

Son #1 got there before I did this morning and was wiring up a receptacle because he didn't drop the power wire from the attic to this new receptacle when we finished working on Thursday night like he was supposed to do so he was in the process of cutting off the wire from the roll so he could put the wire into the receptacle box.

Now about the steaks. I said Delmonico's because you said rib eyes and that means without a bone in my hood. So they are actually the same piece of meat but saying Delmonico's just sounds more upscale.
jmonroe

1) Glad your son survived - better review how to remember if breaker is off.
2) Delmonico Steak - Delmonico steak (or steak Delmonico) was one of several cuts of beef (usually the ribeye), with a thick-cut preparation popularized by Delmonico's restaurant in New York City during the mid-19th century.[1] Controversy exists about the specific cut of steak that Delmonico's originally used.

I thought it meant regular cut of steak but with a fancy name and higher price.

Delmonico's steak may now, in the 21st century, refer to various cuts of beef steak, using preparations that vary regionally in the United States. The term "Delmonico steak" might refer to any thick-cut steak

jmonroe1

driver100 said:

Son #1 got there before I did this morning and was wiring up a receptacle because he didn't drop the power wire from the attic to this new receptacle when we finished working on Thursday night like he was supposed to do so he was in the process of cutting off the wire from the roll so he could put the wire into the receptacle box.

Now about the steaks. I said Delmonico's because you said rib eyes and that means without a bone in my hood. So they are actually the same piece of meat but saying Delmonico's just sounds more upscale.
jmonroe

1) Glad your son survived - better review how to remember if breaker is off.
2) Delmonico Steak - Delmonico steak (or steak Delmonico) was one of several cuts of beef (usually the ribeye), with a thick-cut preparation popularized by Delmonico's restaurant in New York City during the mid-19th century.[1] Controversy exists about the specific cut of steak that Delmonico's originally used.

I thought it meant regular cut of steak but with a fancy name and higher price.

Delmonico's steak may now, in the 21st century, refer to various cuts of beef steak, using preparations that vary regionally in the United States. The term "Delmonico steak" might refer to any thick-cut steak

I'm going to stick with what I have always heard concerning a Delmonico steak, which is, a boneless rib steak that is cut thicker than a normal rib steak. No sense in muddying up what it is just because some millennial had to put their two cents worth into something they know nothing about. I doubt that if I asked a butcher to cut me a nice Delmonico steak, he's not going to ask me what cut of steak I want it to come from. You can't change history just because you want to but some will try.

jmonroe

oldfarmer50

ab348 said:

Interesting story but unfortunate the news report was all about the fight back and never mentioned how he got that way in the first place.

From what I’ve read it started with a small scratch or wound that became infected. By the time they realized it wasn’t healing, he was in real trouble.

oldfarmer50

abacomike said:

I don’t know how many of you were able to watch “60 Minutes” this evening, but the first segment reported on the progress of a 2015 lawsuit on behalf of several dozen youngsters and young adults to force the federal government to institute policies that would safeguard an environment that is healthy and conducive to safeguarding the planet’s atmosphere (climate change) for the future protection of their lives.  It seemed, at first, that the government would easily be able to get the suit dismissed, however federal courts have refused, including the Supreme Court, to dismiss the case.

According to the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, there is so much supporting evidence in favor of their cause that if the case gets to court and is heard by a jury there is no doubt that the verdict would be in favor of the plaintiffs.  In other words, if the case is finally heard in a court of law, even the federal government has misgivings about their ability to effectively defend their (the government’s) position.

I only bring this up because the plaintiffs accuse the US Government of failing to protect their rights to a healthful environment because of the burning of fossil fuels and the policies that provide federal funds in support of the use of fossil fuels.

My thoughts on this, as the report was being televised, centered on the fact that China, India, and other large polluters account for 75% of the air pollutants causing climate change on our planet.  Thus, even if the US eliminated all use of fossil fuels within its borders, the problem of climate change caused by pollutants would not solve the progression of an unhealthy atomphere.  The  attorney acknowledged that the US is not the major cause of climate change, but is still irresponsible in safeguarding the environment.

This lawsuit, if successful, would force the US Government to implement policies that would eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  But there is still the problem of methane gas being released by the millions of cows (farting) as well as volcanic eruptions around the world.  I am slowly beginning to side with environmentalists who claim the planet’s atmosphere is being polluted with gases that are causing climate changes that can be cataclysmic.  

As as a postscript, I do not want to politicize this!  I brought this up in order to stimulate rational and apolitical thought and discussion about the prospects of a future for our children and grandchildren that could be catastrophic due to an unhealthful atmosphere and climate change.

Better save up your pennies. The bill for all that is $93 trillion. Who do you think will actually pay for that? I wonder if a devastated economy is conducive to a healthy environment.

As an aside, the US is the only country that has actually reduced CO2 emissions.

oldfarmer50

qbrozen said:

abacomike said:

I don’t know how many of you were able to watch “60 Minutes” this evening, but the first segment reported on the progress of a 2015 lawsuit on behalf of several dozen youngsters and young adults to force the federal government to institute policies that would safeguard an environment that is healthy and conducive to safeguarding the planet’s atmosphere (climate change) for the future protection of their lives.  It seemed, at first, that the government would easily be able to get the suit dismissed, however federal courts have refused, including the Supreme Court, to dismiss the case.

According to the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, there is so much supporting evidence in favor of their cause that if the case gets to court and is heard by a jury there is no doubt that the verdict would be in favor of the plaintiffs.  In other words, if the case is finally heard in a court of law, even the federal government has misgivings about their ability to effectively defend their (the government’s) position.

I only bring this up because the plaintiffs accuse the US Government of failing to protect their rights to a healthful environment because of the burning of fossil fuels and the policies that provide federal funds in support of the use of fossil fuels.

My thoughts on this, as the report was being televised, centered on the fact that China, India, and other large polluters account for 75% of the air pollutants causing climate change on our planet.  Thus, even if the US eliminated all use of fossil fuels within its borders, the problem of climate change caused by pollutants would not solve the progression of an unhealthy atomphere.  The  attorney acknowledged that the US is not the major cause of climate change, but is still irresponsible in safeguarding the environment.

This lawsuit, if successful, would force the US Government to implement policies that would eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  But there is still the problem of methane gas being released by the millions of cows (farting) as well as volcanic eruptions around the world.  I am slowly beginning to side with environmentalists who claim the planet’s atmosphere is being polluted with gases that are causing climate changes that can be cataclysmic.  

As as a postscript, I do not want to politicize this!  I brought this up in order to stimulate rational and apolitical thought and discussion about the prospects of a future for our children and grandchildren that could be catastrophic due to an unhealthful atmosphere and climate change.

1. What are the plantiffs suing for? Meaning, are they asking for money? To what end?

2. I’d like to know what the plantiffs are utilizing in their everyday lives. They must be pedaling bikes, reading by candlelight ... no, wait, candles give off pollutants. Hmmm... 
2.

Those who talk the talk often don’t walk the walk.

driver100

jmonroe1 said:

driver100 said:

Son #1 got there before I did this morning and was wiring up a receptacle because he didn't drop the power wire from the attic to this new receptacle when we finished working on Thursday night like he was supposed to do so he was in the process of cutting off the wire from the roll so he could put the wire into the receptacle box.

Now about the steaks. I said Delmonico's because you said rib eyes and that means without a bone in my hood. So they are actually the same piece of meat but saying Delmonico's just sounds more upscale.
jmonroe

1) Glad your son survived - better review how to remember if breaker is off.
2) Delmonico Steak - Delmonico steak (or steak Delmonico) was one of several cuts of beef (usually the ribeye), with a thick-cut preparation popularized by Delmonico's restaurant in New York City during the mid-19th century.[1] Controversy exists about the specific cut of steak that Delmonico's originally used.

I thought it meant regular cut of steak but with a fancy name and higher price.

Delmonico's steak may now, in the 21st century, refer to various cuts of beef steak, using preparations that vary regionally in the United States. The term "Delmonico steak" might refer to any thick-cut steak

I'm going to stick with what I have always heard concerning a Delmonico steak, which is, a boneless rib steak that is cut thicker than a normal rib steak. No sense in muddying up what it is just because some millennial had to put their two cents worth into something they know nothing about. I doubt that if I asked a butcher to cut me a nice Delmonico steak, he's not going to ask me what cut of steak I want it to come from. You can't change history just because you want to but some will try.

jmonroe

Your reality can be whatever you want it to be.

houdini2

abacomike said:

qbrozen said:

abacomike said:

I don’t know how many of you were able to watch “60 Minutes” this evening, but the first segment reported on the progress of a 2015 lawsuit on behalf of several dozen youngsters and young adults to force the federal government to institute policies that would safeguard an environment that is healthy and conducive to safeguarding the planet’s atmosphere (climate change) for the future protection of their lives.  It seemed, at first, that the government would easily be able to get the suit dismissed, however federal courts have refused, including the Supreme Court, to dismiss the case.

According to the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, there is so much supporting evidence in favor of their cause that if the case gets to court and is heard by a jury there is no doubt that the verdict would be in favor of the plaintiffs.  In other words, if the case is finally heard in a court of law, even the federal government has misgivings about their ability to effectively defend their (the government’s) position.

I only bring this up because the plaintiffs accuse the US Government of failing to protect their rights to a healthful environment because of the burning of fossil fuels and the policies that provide federal funds in support of the use of fossil fuels.

My thoughts on this, as the report was being televised, centered on the fact that China, India, and other large polluters account for 75% of the air pollutants causing climate change on our planet.  Thus, even if the US eliminated all use of fossil fuels within its borders, the problem of climate change caused by pollutants would not solve the progression of an unhealthy atomphere.  The  attorney acknowledged that the US is not the major cause of climate change, but is still irresponsible in safeguarding the environment.

This lawsuit, if successful, would force the US Government to implement policies that would eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  But there is still the problem of methane gas being released by the millions of cows (farting) as well as volcanic eruptions around the world.  I am slowly beginning to side with environmentalists who claim the planet’s atmosphere is being polluted with gases that are causing climate changes that can be cataclysmic.  

As as a postscript, I do not want to politicize this!  I brought this up in order to stimulate rational and apolitical thought and discussion about the prospects of a future for our children and grandchildren that could be catastrophic due to an unhealthful atmosphere and climate change.

1. What are the plantiffs suing for? Meaning, are they asking for money? To what end?

2. I’d like to know what the plantiffs are utilizing in their everyday lives. They must be pedaling bikes, reading by candlelight ... no, wait, candles give off pollutants. Hmmm... 

They are suing for changes in policy - no grants for fossil fuel industry; elimination of fossil fuel usage; strict protections for safe drinking water; etc.

Just part of the global wealth re-distribution plan to take money from the poor people in a rich country and send it to the rich people in a poor country.

ab348

After seeing several pieces recently about China's explosive development, any thought that North America can make any kind of meaninful dent in emissions without China doing its part is ludicrous. We see the same thing here with Canadian groups (and our embattled Prime Minister) trying to force similar measures on Canadians. As if our 35 million people, the population of one large Chinese city, would be able to make any difference at all.

stickguy

Every little bit counts though. And longer term will benefit the US to be out in front of something like this for a change.

One positive about China though. If they decide it’s in their best interests to do something, it can happen really quickly!

berri

Air and sea currents from Asia travel up the Pacific into our northwest and Canada. Then they can work their way down into the central and eastern portion of the US where they often collide with Gulf fronts. I personally feel that climate change has been exacerbated by the growth in Asia, but I also note that China is a leader in pursuing electric vehicles. That same pollution is choking many of their cities. It hasn't helped that some environmental extremists were over zealous and loose with the facts. But now it appears our government sometimes does the same in the opposite direction. What we need is a logical and pragmatic approach, which unfortunately isn't always what politicians are giving us. America is great when it is moderate and bipartisan. We definitely need more of that in this area of concern.

abacomike

I checked my grandson’s team schedule for March 7-12 (when the team is in Kissimmee) and saw 6 games scheduled (all double-headers) which are regularly scheduled with competing colleges in their division.  So I am assuming those games will be counted in their rankings.

He said he is scheduled to pitch at least one of those games and be the DH for the remaining games.  He won’t know about free time until Thursday.  I have a sneaking suspicion that the coaches are discouraging off campus free time.  I will just have to see what he says when he gets to central Florida.

bwia

The college debt crisis is even worse than we think.

In 1971, the average price for tuition, fees, and room and board at a private four-year college was just shy of $3,000 per year. If that price tag had increased at the rate of inflation, it would be only around $17,000 today. Instead, it is nearly $44,000.

And here’s a little-appreciated truth about the college debt landscape: It’s more of a regional crisis than a national one. In states where there has long been a history of robust public support for the state education system and where most students attend public colleges, the student debt loads tend to be considerably less than they are in the Northeast. States with deep rosters of private colleges have historically invested far less in their public higher education systems. Read the full but lengthy article at:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2016/05/18/hopes-dreams-debt/fR60cKakwUlGok0jTlONTN/story.html

berri

It will ripple into the economy in areas like vehicles and housing for awhile I'm afraid. Maybe as the boomers die off, their estates will bail some of this out for the heirs.

ab348

Post-secondary education and health care are areas where almost any price being charged still finds a market willing to pay it.

My experience with universities locally (we have something like 8 of them in Nova Scotia, too many of them being small ones, all of whom receive approximately 50% of their funding from the taxpayer) is that they exercise virtually no economy in their spending, and provide questionable value much of the time. But they seem to be impossible to reform.

imidazol97

houdini2 said:

Just part of the global wealth re-distribution plan to take money from the poor people in a rich country and send it to the rich people in a poor country.

X2

oldfarmer50

ab348 said:

After seeing several pieces recently about China's explosive development, any thought that North America can make any kind of meaninful dent in emissions without China doing its part is ludicrous. We see the same thing here with Canadian groups (and our embattled Prime Minister) trying to force similar measures on Canadians. As if our 35 million people, the population of one large Chinese city, would be able to make any difference at all.

That’s not a reason for failure to try and that’s coming from from an extreme human caused climate change skeptic. I come from a generation where polluted rivers caught fire and some of the Great Lakes were fish dead zones. We can’t do nothing but we also have to consider the human cost of some of the more extreme positions. The intolerance of the “with us or against us” stance where some extremists want to stifle free speech or even jail “deniers” is insane.

tjc78

@jmonroe
Yes, need better lighting for the grill area!! You can give me a hand with that too!!!

As for the electrical mishap... Happens to the best of us. Good insulated pliers are a must during a job like that.

berri

I wonder if bachelor degrees could be reduced to 3 years by eliminating some (not all) of the gen ed type stuff?

ab348

oldfarmer50 said:

That’s not a reason for failure to try and that’s coming from from an extreme human caused climate change skeptic. I come from a generation where polluted rivers caught fire and some of the Great Lakes were fish dead zones. We can’t do nothing but we also have to consider the human cost of some of the more extreme positions. The intolerance of the “with us or against us” stance where some extremists want to stifle free speech or even jail “deniers” is insane.

I'm not taking an extreme position on it either. But many of the things the activists want will make a tremendous dent in our quality of life and cripple the economy. If another superpower is not doing those same things the result will not be pretty. I don't know of a way to take action on a global scale but that is what's required here.

jmonroe1

tjc78 said:

@jmonroe
Yes, need better lighting for the grill area!! You can give me a hand with that too!!!

As for the electrical mishap... Happens to the best of us. Good insulated pliers are a must during a job like that.

So, does that mean it's a go for Memorial Day or are you still thinking about that? Don't get me wrong about still thinking about it because I'm pretty sure that @abacomike hasn't thought about sending me airfare money for months now.

jmonroe

jmonroe1

berri said:

I wonder if bachelor degrees could be reduced to 3 years by eliminating some (not all) of the gen ed type stuff?

I'm sure that can be accomplished but don't think for a minute that the cost of that degree is going to go down.

jmonroe

abacomike

jmonroe1 said:

@jmonroe Yes, need better lighting for the grill area!! You can give me a hand with that too!!! As for the electrical mishap... Happens to the best of us. Good insulated pliers are a must during a job like that.

So, does that mean it's a go for Memorial Day or are you still thinking about that? Don't get me wrong about still thinking about it because I'm pretty sure that @abacomike hasn't thought about sending me airfare money for months now. jmonroe

I’ve thought about it every time you’ve mentioned it in one of your posts - but quickly dismissed the thought 2 seconds later! 

ruking1

berri said:

I wonder if bachelor degrees could be reduced to 3 years by eliminating some (not all) of the gen ed type stuff?

The short answers are yes! It should be VERY easy, once the extremely difficult BS is/are washed away. The process should really start @ understanding that colleges and universities were not designed to lead to jobs. In a bygone era, they were designed to park kids of the wealthy & job givers for four years. The educational arm that actually DOES LEAD to jobs have mainly been all shut down.

I personally was on target to get BA/ &/BS in 2.5 years. (47 years ago) my daughters got BA/& BS in 4 years. (11/8 years ago)

The real issue that $1.5 T to $2 T (essentially wasted & deadbeat) student debt exposes are the utter uselessness of the majority of USA College/University/community college, etc. degrees, even as they are STILL & probably remain to be considered some the best in the world.

jmonroe1

abacomike said:

jmonroe1 said:

tjc78 said:

@jmonroe
Yes, need better lighting for the grill area!! You can give me a hand with that too!!!

As for the electrical mishap... Happens to the best of us. Good insulated pliers are a must during a job like that.

So, does that mean it's a go for Memorial Day or are you still thinking about that? Don't get me wrong about still thinking about it because I'm pretty sure that @abacomike hasn't thought about sending me airfare money for months now.

jmonroe

I’ve thought about it every time you’ve mentioned it in one of your posts - but quickly dismissed the thought 2 seconds later! 

:@ :@

jmonroe

abacomike

jmonroe1 said:

jmonroe1 said:

@jmonroe Yes, need better lighting for the grill area!! You can give me a hand with that too!!! As for the electrical mishap... Happens to the best of us. Good insulated pliers are a must during a job like that.

So, does that mean it's a go for Memorial Day or are you still thinking about that? Don't get me wrong about still thinking about it because I'm pretty sure that @abacomike hasn't thought about sending me airfare money for months now. jmonroe

I’ve thought about it every time you’ve mentioned it in one of your posts - but quickly dismissed the thought 2 seconds later! 

:@ :@ jmonroe

😜😎🤪

ruking1

oldfarmer50 said:

ab348 said:

After seeing several pieces recently about China's explosive development, any thought that North America can make any kind of meaninful dent in emissions without China doing its part is ludicrous. We see the same thing here with Canadian groups (and our embattled Prime Minister) trying to force similar measures on Canadians. As if our 35 million people, the population of one large Chinese city, would be able to make any difference at all.

That’s not a reason for failure to try and that’s coming from from an extreme human caused climate change skeptic. I come from a generation where polluted rivers caught fire and some of the Great Lakes were fish dead zones. We can’t do nothing but we also have to consider the human cost of some of the more extreme positions. The intolerance of the “with us or against us” stance where some extremists want to stifle free speech or even jail “deniers” is insane.

We can thank the Clinton POTUS administrations (who made great FEES) for committing China’s miracle growth to coal fired power plants. One can google to find out how many years past 50 years do coal fire plants last. & here is an old article from 2017. 1600/700 China coal fired plants. http://www.mining.com/chinese-companies-build-700-coal-plants-outside-china/

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

tjc78

jmonroe1 said:

@jmonroe Yes, need better lighting for the grill area!! You can give me a hand with that too!!! As for the electrical mishap... Happens to the best of us. Good insulated pliers are a must during a job like that.

So, does that mean it's a go for Memorial Day or are you still thinking about that? Don't get me wrong about still thinking about it because I'm pretty sure that @abacomike hasn't thought about sending me airfare money for months now. jmonroe

Ha ha .. I’m sure the last thing you want to do on Memorial day is head to south jersey, install a flood light, and train me how to grill.... all the awhile with a 3 and 5 year old tearing up the joint!!! 

Mr_Shiftright

abacomike said:

snakeweasel said:

I don’t know how many of you were able to watch “60 Minutes” this evening, but the first segment reported on the progress of a 2015 lawsuit on behalf of several dozen youngsters and young adults to force the federal government to institute policies that would safeguard an environment that is healthy and conducive to safeguarding the planet’s atmosphere (climate change) for the future protection of their lives.  It seemed, at first, that the government would easily be able to get the suit dismissed, however federal courts have refused, including the Supreme Court, to dismiss the case.

According to the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, there is so much supporting evidence in favor of their cause that if the case gets to court and is heard by a jury there is no doubt that the verdict would be in favor of the plaintiffs.  In other words, if the case is finally heard in a court of law, even the federal government has misgivings about their ability to effectively defend their (the government’s) position.

I only bring this up because the plaintiffs accuse the US Government of failing to protect their rights to a healthful environment because of the burning of fossil fuels and the policies that provide federal funds in support of the use of fossil fuels.

My thoughts on this, as the report was being televised, centered on the fact that China, India, and other large polluters account for 75% of the air pollutants causing climate change on our planet.  Thus, even if the US eliminated all use of fossil fuels within its borders, the problem of climate change caused by pollutants would not solve the progression of an unhealthy atomphere.  The  attorney acknowledged that the US is not the major cause of climate change, but is still irresponsible in safeguarding the environment.

This lawsuit, if successful, would force the US Government to implement policies that would eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  But there is still the problem of methane gas being released by the millions of cows (farting) as well as volcanic eruptions around the world.  I am slowly beginning to side with environmentalists who claim the planet’s atmosphere is being polluted with gases that are causing climate changes that can be cataclysmic.  

As as a postscript, I do not want to politicize this!  I brought this up in order to stimulate rational and apolitical thought and discussion about the prospects of a future for our children and grandchildren that could be catastrophic due to an unhealthful atmosphere and climate change.

The issue I have is that for the last 50 years I have been bombarded with warnings of immediate dire consequences of which 100% failed to happen so I am extremely skeptical of any catastrophic environmental event predictions.

The one consequence I have observed firsthand is the rising sea levels - especially here on the east coast of Florida.  The beach erosion is also serious due to rising sea levels.  The melting icecaps and glaciers are more evidence of the global warming.

I am a skeptic as well, snakeweasel. Changes are gradual but when looked at over the last 100 years, there have been changes suggesting climate change due to increased levels of CO2.  I guess what the environmentalists are telling us is that unless we start attacking the increased levels of pollutants, it will eventually be too late to do anything to change the direction.

I don’t have answers to these questions or solutions to the problem.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point to be Mentioned Here: It is not "environmentalists" telling us. That is IMO a political statement. It is "scientists" telling us, which requires opposing arguments to then offer their scientific rebuttal---if indeed the debate is to remain nonpolitical.

The scientific debate (such as it exists) has enormous consequences for the automobile industry globally, so it is extremely important to operate on the basis of factual data.

Mr_Shiftright

ab348 said:

After seeing several pieces recently about China's explosive development, any thought that North America can make any kind of meaninful dent in emissions without China doing its part is ludicrous. We see the same thing here with Canadian groups (and our embattled Prime Minister) trying to force similar measures on Canadians. As if our 35 million people, the population of one large Chinese city, would be able to make any difference at all.

So what does that mean? Just give up? There was a time, you know, when the USA was a huge global influencer. The massive industrial changes in China are even part of that influence. If we could say that Tesla "invented" the workable, usable, stylish, modern EV, then look who is adopting it like crazy----China.

ruking1

Mr_Shiftright said:

ab348 said:

After seeing several pieces recently about China's explosive development, any thought that North America can make any kind of meaninful dent in emissions without China doing its part is ludicrous. We see the same thing here with Canadian groups (and our embattled Prime Minister) trying to force similar measures on Canadians. As if our 35 million people, the population of one large Chinese city, would be able to make any difference at all.

So what does that mean? Just give up? There was a time, you know, when the USA was a huge global influencer. The massive industrial changes in China are even part of that influence. If we could say that Tesla "invented" the workable, usable, stylish, modern EV, then look who is adopting it like crazy----China.

Well, the math/s does/do NOT add up, 35 M CN population vs 1.4 B China. CN could have plants that have ZERO ( fantasy ) pollution & what would that change in China or the rest of the coal fired world for that matter?

So Hollywood could do a (set in) Canadian special forces fiction movie where the teams are sent to as many of others & China coal plants to blow them up using guns and explosives etc., to save dah planet. Gee how many $ tax credits would they get filming in Canada? The picture would show a (working) Starbucks in Vancouver, CN as the headquarters.

stickguy

Missing now seems to be any sense of compromise, or meeting in the middle. 2 extremes fighting, nothing gets done. Obviously can’t eliminate fossil fuel entirely any time soon. But, you can discuss and implement plans to scale back, make incremental progress, etc. and if it means some big companies take a hit, well tough noogies. Adapt are die, the capitalist way!

If Exxon is making less on gas, figure out how to cash in on electric or solar. Or go out of business. Either works.

Even if can make a 20% improvement in the next decade, that’s better than nothing, or back sliding. Though might be fun to see the rivers in Chicago on fire again!

Mr_Shiftright

China is currently rolling out the world's largest investment in solar and wind power. It is certainly in China's best interest to grab ahold of the pollulion problem, because it is killing their own population in record numbers. I think air pollution is one of the very few issues in China where there is actual public dialogue.

ruking1

??? NYC made it practically impossible to let natural gas lines in to satisfy the natural gas energy demand! So it’s taken to using Russian natural gas ships to meet demand. Now that beyond fool hearty on many different levels.

abacomike

stickguy said:

Missing now seems to be any sense of compromise, or meeting in the middle. 2 extremes fighting, nothing gets done. Obviously can’t eliminate fossil fuel entirely any time soon. But, you can discuss and implement plans to scale back, make incremental progress, etc. and if it means some big companies take a hit, well tough noogies. Adapt are die, the capitalist way!

If Exxon is making less on gas, figure out how to cash in on electric or solar. Or go out of business. Either works.

Even if can make a 20% improvement in the next decade, that’s better than nothing, or back sliding. Though might be fun to see the rivers in Chicago on fire again!

I tend to agree with you stick. Slow, steady progress toward less dependence on fossil fuels makes more sense than doing nothing - i.e. ignore the "possibility" that greenhouse gases are causing climate change - melting of icepack and glaciers and rising sea levels, not to mention severe droughts and heavier than normal rainfall. I just feel we should be precautionary - it certainly can't hurt.

Mr_Shiftright

You have to admit--whoever is perpetrating the climate change hoax--they have some excellent production values on TV.

ruking1

Mr_Shiftright said:

China is currently rolling out the world's largest investment in solar and wind power. It is certainly in China's best interest to grab ahold of the pollulion problem, because it is killing their own population in record numbers. I think air pollution is one of the very few issues in China where there is actual public dialogue.

China state owned cigarette production literally fuels smoking addiction that is probably much more deadly %’s wise. Again the math is 326 M USA pop vs 1.4 B China. The % of smokers in China far out exceeds the % of smokers in the US.

Meanwhile those high speed rail trains ?? High-Speed Rail in the U.S. Remains Elusive: Illinois Shows Why
A $2 billion Chicago-St. Louis project will offer a top speed of just 110 mph and shave an hour off the trip
64 COMMENTS
By Shayndi Raice and Pa

driver100

tjc78 said:

@jmonroe

As for the electrical mishap... Happens to the best of us. Good insulated pliers are a must during a job like that.

Or do as I do............and call the guy.

oldfarmer50

ruking1 said:

berri said:

I wonder if bachelor degrees could be reduced to 3 years by eliminating some (not all) of the gen ed type stuff?

The short answers are yes! It should be VERY easy, once the extremely difficult BS is/are washed away. The process should really start @ understanding that colleges and universities were not designed to lead to jobs. In a bygone era, they were designed to park kids of the wealthy & job givers for four years. The educational arm that actually DOES LEAD to jobs have mainly been all shut down.

I personally was on target to get BA/ &/BS in 2.5 years. (47 years ago) my daughters got BA/& BS in 4 years. (11/8 years ago)

The real issue that $1.5 T to $2 T (essentially wasted & deadbeat) student debt exposes are the utter uselessness of the majority of USA College/University/community college, etc. degrees, even as they are STILL & probably remain to be considered some the best in the world.

What gets me is the apparent disconnect between degrees and real world jobs. Certainly the social sciences don’t connect to actual careers. Many young clueless students ( me included) are shocked when they can’t turn their expensive degrees into an income.

If a car salesman sold you a car and later you found out it had no engine he’d be charged with fraud. Don’t know why colleges get a pass.

driver100

Mr_Shiftright said:

ab348 said:

After seeing several pieces recently about China's explosive development, any thought that North America can make any kind of meaninful dent in emissions without China doing its part is ludicrous. We see the same thing here with Canadian groups (and our embattled Prime Minister) trying to force similar measures on Canadians. As if our 35 million people, the population of one large Chinese city, would be able to make any difference at all.

So what does that mean? Just give up? There was a time, you know, when the USA was a huge global influencer. The massive industrial changes in China are even part of that influence. If we could say that Tesla "invented" the workable, usable, stylish, modern EV, then look who is adopting it like crazy----China.

Like I said....they don't invent but they know how to make copies even better than the originals.

Mr_Shiftright

It's hard to live "pure" these days unless you're hangin' out with the Amish. It's like if a cop followed you around all day behind your car, he'd be able to write you 10 tickets, sooner or later.

The only thing I regret about dying someday is that I don't get to see how it all turns out! Will there be bullet trains? Life on Mars? A reliable Alfa Romeo?

oldfarmer50

stickguy said:

Missing now seems to be any sense of compromise, or meeting in the middle. 2 extremes fighting, nothing gets done. Obviously can’t eliminate fossil fuel entirely any time soon. But, you can discuss and implement plans to scale back, make incremental progress, etc. and if it means some big companies take a hit, well tough noogies. Adapt are die, the capitalist way!

If Exxon is making less on gas, figure out how to cash in on electric or solar. Or go out of business. Either works.

Even if can make a 20% improvement in the next decade, that’s better than nothing, or back sliding. Though might be fun to see the rivers in Chicago on fire again!

Interesting factoid, in the early days of oil refining the desired product was kerosene for lamps. Gasoline was considered a worthless byproduct and was dumped in the river.