Stanford scientists find the climate and health impacts of natural gas stoves are greater than previously thought

[PoliticalChic]

It is surprising that those that think themselves scientists, that those that believe, that they can control the climate, that they can change the climate, it is surprising that those great minds, cut down trees to make room for their solar panels and wind turbines.

You seem pretty confused as to what you wish to say, are you trying to be insulting? Is that your idea of being clever?

I do know, that good Christians have fought evil, that of the marxist ideology. And good Christians, have entertained our children, unlike the marxists.

"It is a great irony of communism that those who did not believe in God believed that godlike knowledge could be concentrated at a central point. It was believed that government could be omnipotent and omniscient. And in order to justify the idea that all lives should be determined by a single plan, the concomitant tendency of communist regimes was to deify the leader- whether Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-sung."

Tom Bethell, "The Noblest Triumph," p. 144

 

[MisterBeale]

If your yellow circle graph is even accurate?
You have no appreciation of the required balance.
And even less appreciation of the fact that what is categorized as natural, fits into deforestation!

But none of that is of any importance to the denial side is it!
Fill your boots Beale, it will be a pleasure to take you down.

I'm perfectly willing to concede it might not be accurate.

If you want to post last years natural vs human generated Co2, with the sources, including states figured in for deforestation? I will have a look at it. On top of that, I would also like to look at a sources for your unsubstantiated statements.

IMO? You just don't like the fact, that the planet contributes far more to the Co2 cycle, and your hyperbole about, "balance," is just that. The faulty assumption that the amount of Co2 produced by humanity is somehow "unnatural," and can throw off a the planetary balance, which is a specious argument, with no evidence to support it.

Post some proof, I will look at it.

Otherwise, your dogmatic adherence to your cult looks like? What it exactly it is. . . the cult of AGW climate change.

 

[Donald H]

I'm perfectly willing to concede it might not be accurate.

If you want to post last years natural vs human generated Co2, with the sources, including states figured in for deforestation? I will have a look at it. On top of that, I would also like to look at a sources for your unsubstantiated statements.

IMO? You just don't like the fact, that the planet contributes far more to the Co2 cycle, and your hyperbole about, "balance," is just that. The faulty assumption that the amount of Co2 produced by humanity is somehow "unnatural," and can throw off a the planetary balance, which is a specious argument, with no evidence to support it.

Post some proof, I will look at it.

Otherwise, your dogmatic adherence to your cult looks like? What it exactly it is. . . the cult of AGW climate change.

There is lots of ground to cover but I'm content to just accept that you accept that your graph might not be accurate.
My main premise is that deforestation continues, albeit it may be at a reduced rate in 2021?

Does that contribute to a rise in CO2? We are agreed that it does and the rise is recorded.

Does more manmade CO2 contribute to climate change? That's a very detailed discussion that you may be interested in debating further.

I'm not a climate scientist or a climate expert, and I'm assuming that you aren't either. My argument will therefore need to be based on the opinions of mainstream science.

 

[MisterBeale]

There is lots of ground to cover but I'm content to just accept that you accept that your graph might not be accurate.
My main premise is that deforestation continues, albeit it may be at a reduced rate in 2021?

Does that contribute to a rise in CO2? We are agreed that it does and the rise is recorded.

Does more manmade CO2 contribute to climate change? That's a very detailed discussion that you may be interested in debating further.

I'm not a climate scientist or a climate expert, and I'm assuming that you aren't either. My argument will therefore need to be based on the opinions of mainstream science.

I'm only willing to accept it's inaccuracy in lieu of dated material with a link to source.

I have repeatedly asked those who are a part of the AGW cult for such information, and none of the members of the AGW cult want to supply said data.



The point here? The planet contributes manifold sources of Co2 that way over-shadow the percent of all of human activities contributed, in orders of magnitudes that make talking about the amount of climate producing gas that gas burning stoves produce, a silly waste of tax paying dollars, or even money contributed by foundations or student admission dollars to said research, just a waste of time.

IT IS PROPAGANDA.

Yet? You will not admit it. Nor will you supply alternative data, because you know it would blow a hole in your cult like religion.

 

[Rigby5]

Not arguing against the uselessness of crypto mining, but energy can be produced without the need for fossil fuels.

Switching natural gas stoves to induction is a good idea.

Wrong.
There is only nuclear power or bio fuels, if we do not use fossil fuels.
Electricity is not a power source, but a media, and VERY inefficient one.
Solar and wind are not really viable, not only because they are so expensive, but because their inconsistency requires incredibly expensive and inefficient batteries.

So switching from natural gas to induction is a really, really terrible idea.
Electric stoves emit about 3 times the pollution.
And induction is much worse than heating element conduction.
Induction moves the food further from the energy source and adds EMF radiation losses to space.

 

[Donald H]

I'm only willing to accept it's inaccuracy in lieu of dated material with a link to source.

Referring to the yellow pie graph? Sorry but I don't remember what point it was making. What page is it on?

I have repeatedly asked those who are a part of the AGW cult for such information, and none of the members of the AGW cult want to supply said data.

So what are you asking for specifically? Once I know I'll try to find the info.

The point here? The planet contributes manifold sources of Co2 that way over-shadow the percent of all of human activities contributed, in orders of magnitudes that make talking about the amount of climate producing gas that gas burning stoves produce, a silly waste of tax paying dollars, or even money contributed by foundations or student admission dollars to said research, just a waste of time.

The gas stoves example was pure nonsense and was laid to rest based on the fact that it's comparison to half a million cars was ridiculous. Let's not wast any more time on that! However, you have taken it and used it to make some point on tax payer dollars and research??

IT IS PROPAGANDA.

Yet? You will not admit it. Nor will you supply alternative data, because you know it would blow a hole in your cult like religion.

If you need to be abusive with your debating points then this won't last long and won't accomplish anything. Stop that!

Just state clearly what it is that you're asking me for and I'll try to find some reference to answer your question.

I can't help noticing that you are claiming that AGW can't be significant based on other larger influences causing the 'A' part to be insignificant. I can't help but suspect you base that belief on religious claims of only a god can change climate.

If that has some bearing on your argument then we might just as well stop debating right now!

 

[Rigby5]

I'm only willing to accept it's inaccuracy in lieu of dated material with a link to source.

I have repeatedly asked those who are a part of the AGW cult for such information, and none of the members of the AGW cult want to supply said data.



The point here? The planet contributes manifold sources of Co2 that way over-shadow the percent of all of human activities contributed, in orders of magnitudes that make talking about the amount of climate producing gas that gas burning stoves produce, a silly waste of tax paying dollars, or even money contributed by foundations or student admission dollars to said research, just a waste of time.

IT IS PROPAGANDA.

Yet? You will not admit it. Nor will you supply alternative data, because you know it would blow a hole in your cult like religion.

The reason is that we do not have to worry about MOST sources of CO2 because there is a natural equilibrium.
Things like plants and fresh lava, absorb CO2 in massive quantities.
We only have to look at and worry about an increase of CO2 beyond the normal annual uptake, that then accumulates.
It is only the INCREASE in CO2 from accumulation of new excess CO2 that is a problem, not all CO2.

So I agree that worrying about minor things like gas stoves, is not just silly, but way wrong since the electric stoves they are pushing instead, produce more emissions than gas stoves do.

 

[martybegan]

Not arguing against the uselessness of crypto mining, but energy can be produced without the need for fossil fuels.

Switching natural gas stoves to induction is a good idea.

The heat control sucks, gas stoves are better than electric, but electric ovens are better than gas.

Why do progs feel the need to ban things like this, and why do idiots like you support it?

 

[22lcidw]

The heat control sucks, gas stoves are better than electric, but electric ovens are better than gas.

Why do progs feel the need to ban things like this, and why do idiots like you support it?

This is dangerous because they live off of theories and not sense. Look at the last year. New technologies will come. They want it yesterday and for the peasant to pay through the nose.

 

[MisterBeale]

The reason is that we do not have to worry about MOST sources of CO2 because there is a natural equilibrium.
Things like plants and fresh lava, absorb CO2 in massive quantities.
We only have to look at and worry about an increase of CO2 beyond the normal annual uptake, that then accumulates.
It is only the INCREASE in CO2 from accumulation of new excess CO2 that is a problem, not all CO2.

So I agree that worrying about minor things like gas stoves, is not just silly, but way wrong since the electric stoves they are pushing instead, produce more emissions than gas stoves do.

Are you serious with such an argument? I read that explanation excuse from others, and that is the argument that the "skepticalscience," website gives, and it defies logic.

It makes the assumption, somehow, that AGW Co2, is qualitatively different, than natural Co2. How does the planet tell the difference? What is the tipping point? How does the planet know what the balance is? If the planet absorbs "massive quantities," of Co2, why does it magically stop, when it comes to AGW produced Co2? How does it distinguish between the two? And why does it?



No where has anyone ever proved any of these species claims. . . or have they?

 

[Rigby5]

"It is a great irony of communism that those who did not believe in God believed that godlike knowledge could be concentrated at a central point. It was believed that government could be omnipotent and omniscient. And in order to justify the idea that all lives should be determined by a single plan, the concomitant tendency of communist regimes was to deify the leader- whether Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-sung."

Tom Bethell, "The Noblest Triumph," p. 144

It would help if you did not constantly get this wrong from inappropriate propaganda stereotypes.
All really religious people believe in communism, and communists believe in decentralized power, to the point of Anarchism.

All families, relatives, small tribes, etc. are usually communist, (not profit motivated and share instead).
Religious groups, like Kibbutzim, monasteries, cloisters, etc. are almost always communist, (not profit motivated and share instead).

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-sung were not at all communists.
Lenin was a German agent to destroy the Tzarist dynasty, and Stalin was an ultra capitalist bank robber.

 

[Donald H]

Are you serious with such an argument? I read that explanation excuse from others, and that is the argument that the "skepticalscience," website gives, and it defies logic.

It makes the assumption, somehow, that AGW Co2, is qualitatively different, than natural Co2. How does the planet tell the difference? What is the tipping point? How does the planet know what the balance is? If the planet absorbs "massive quantities," of Co2, why does it magically stop, when it comes to AGW produced Co2? How does it distinguish between the two? And why does it?



No where has anyone ever proved any of these species claims. . . or have they?

Something new to me too so I tried to find an answer:

https://ecometrica.com/assets/GHGs-CO2-CO2e-and-Carbon-What-Do-These-Mean-v2.1.pdf

Maybe but I'm not claiming to be the expert. Except maybe on where Polar bears live?

 

[Donald H]

It would help if you did not constantly get this wrong from inappropriate propaganda stereotypes.
All really religious people believe in communism, and communists believe in decentralized power, to the point of Anarchism.

All families, relatives, small tribes, etc. are usually communist, (not profit motivated and share instead).
Religious groups, like Kibbutzim, monasteries, cloisters, etc. are almost always communist, (not profit motivated and share instead).

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-sung were not at all communists.
Lenin was a German agent to destroy the Tzarist dynasty, and Stalin was an ultra capitalist bank robber.

Good one Rigby. It's about time somebody bothered to set her back on track on some facts.

Obviously her biggest problem is in posting other people's information and not grasping the finer points herself.

 

[Dragonlady]

I've never owned a gas stove beyond propane. They cook better, but a pain in the ass IMO, you have to worry about leaks, leaving it on, open flame etc.

As someone who has been raised with both gas furnaces and gas stoves, I don't find them any different in terms of dangers from open flames, as an electric stove has of catching something on fire left on a hot stove. Leaks can be an issue with older appliances that haven't been properly maintained, but new appliances have lots of safety features to prevent leaks.

As a cook, I much prefer cooking with gas. It's simply superior. Not waiting for your burner to warm up and start cooking. All restaurants and commercial cooking places cook with gas stoves.

When you get a new electric stove, it takes a while to get used to how quickly it warms up, and what the various settings mean on you stovetop. But with gas, you turn it on and see the flame. It's also instant off. electric stoves take a LONG time to cool down.

 

[Dragonlady]

It would help if you did not constantly get this wrong from inappropriate propaganda stereotypes.
All really religious people believe in communism, and communists believe in decentralized power, to the point of Anarchism.

All families, relatives, small tribes, etc. are usually communist, (not profit motivated and share instead).
Religious groups, like Kibbutzim, monasteries, cloisters, etc. are almost always communist, (not profit motivated and share instead).

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-sung were not at all communists.
Lenin was a German agent to destroy the Tzarist dynasty, and Stalin was an ultra capitalist bank robber.

Please just stop with your bullshit. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground and you blither on like a fool.

 

[Rigby5]

Are you serious with such an argument? I read that explanation excuse from others, and that is the argument that the "skepticalscience," website gives, and it defies logic.

It makes the assumption, somehow, that AGW Co2, is qualitatively different, than natural Co2. How does the planet tell the difference? What is the tipping point? How does the planet know what the balance is? If the planet absorbs "massive quantities," of Co2, why does it magically stop, when it comes to AGW produced Co2? How does it distinguish between the two? And why does it?



No where has anyone ever proved any of these species claims. . . or have they?

No the argument that we only have to deal with human created CO2 does NOT require the planet telling the difference between natural and artificial CO2.
The point is the whole planet, including humans, adapted to the natural CO2 level and that causes no problem.
That is constant.
There is equilibrium, so the result does not change.

The problem is only the recent increase in CO2 in the last 100 years, that is beyond equilibrium and therefore ACCUMULATING.
That has increased the CO2 % in the atmosphere by over 35%.

Normally levels of CO2 are good.
We do not want the planet to be 100 degrees colder and 40 degrees colder at night.
Warm and consistent are good.
But if the frozen ocean bottoms and currently frozen tundra warm enough to release their greenhouse gases, then a runaway race condition of positive feedback, could end most life on the whole planet.

 

[MisterBeale]

No the argument that we only have to deal with human created CO2 does NOT require the planet telling the difference between natural and artificial CO2.
The point is the whole planet, including humans, adapted to the natural CO2 level and that causes no problem.
That is constant.
There is equilibrium, so the result does not change.

The problem is only the recent increase in CO2 in the last 100 years, that is beyond equilibrium and therefore ACCUMULATING.
That has increased the CO2 % in the atmosphere by over 35%.

Normally levels of CO2 are good.
We do not want the planet to be 100 degrees colder and 40 degrees colder at night.
Warm and consistent are good.
But if the frozen ocean bottoms and currently frozen tundra warm enough to release their greenhouse gases, then a runaway race condition of positive feedback, could end most life on the whole planet.

That argument logically makes no sense.

Let's say humans didn't even exist.

If the planet, through natural processes, started producing more Co2, then what, would that be bad? Would it then "accumulate?"

What if there were a particularly long stretch of droughts that caused a series of catastrophic wildfires around the globe, at the same time several super volcanoes erupted?

Then what?



I guess that is fine, because that would be "natural Co2," and the planet could tell the difference, right? It would maintain balance, as long as it is not human produced Co2.

 

[Rigby5]

Please just stop with your bullshit. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground and you blither on like a fool.

Wrong.
Go look Karl Marx.
His main motivation was to stop the economic slavery created by the industrial revolution making almost all cottage industries obsolete.
If you actually read what he wrote, he favored Anarchism for the political structure, where "the state would whither away and die".

{...
With the withering away of the state there will be no police force or army or any agency to suppress the proletarians. The withering away of state according to Marx and Engels is inevitable. The proletarians will overthrow the bourgeoisie from power which means an end of bourgeois rule and disintegration of state machinery.
...}

Withering Away of State: Meaning, Engels, Lenin and Stalin’s View (with Evaluation)

ADVERTISEMENTS: This article provides an overview on Withering Away of State:- 1. Meaning of Withering Away of State 2. Engels’s Version of Withering Away of State 3. Lenin’s Interpretation 4. Stalin’s Explanation 5. Evaluation. Meaning of Withering Away of State: The two models of Marxist...

www.politicalsciencenotes.com

Marx did not at all believe in the centralized state of Stalinism in any way.

 

[sparky]

What if there were a particularly long stretch of droughts that caused a series of catastrophic wildfires around the globe, at the same time several super volcanoes erupted?

Then what?

Methinks that's already been happening to a degree Mr B

~S~

 

[Clipper]

Yeah, we can use nuclear. Sunshine and unicorn farts, on the other hand, won't get it.

Who's going to handle the nuclear waste which has a half life of tens of thousands of years or longer. No one wants to deal with the waste from plants that are online now.