THIS dumbass is our new speaker?

[azucena]

Yeah, so stupid to want to save the planet.

[Opti]

Oct 28, 2023 10:40:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Oct 28, 2023 7:24:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

Reading can be your friend. Cows producing methane are an easier avenue to fix much like car emissions. Depending on the source, cows make up 20 to 30+% of the methane produced. That's pretty significant even if you want to deny that too.


letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-in-context/cows-methane-and-climate-change


One of the most commonly known greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless gas. It is released when fossil fuels are burned. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The carbon in the carbon dioxide was stored for millions of years under the ground in the form of hydrocarbons.



After carbon dioxide, the next most abundant greenhouse gas is methane (CH4). Although carbon dioxide is much more abundant in the atmosphere than methane, methane traps roughly 30 times more heat than carbon dioxide. This makes methane an important gas to keep an eye on.

What are the sources of methane emissions?

Methane comes from both natural sources and anthropogenic (human-related) sources. Natural sources include:



Wetlands

bodies of water

Plant-eating animals (such as elephants, kangaroos, and termites!)

Human-related sources fall into four main categories:



Natural gas-based

Petroleum-based

Agriculture-based

Other sources



Agriculture-based sources include rice production, livestock, and manure management. Other sources include the burning of biomass, coal mining, and the treatment of waste in landfills and wastewater.

Just the fact that someone would do a study on animal farts for methane gas is fucking stupid. No wonder common sense people wanted Trump.

There's no common sense involved with Trump though. Many of the people Jordan Klepper interviews have no sense let alone "common" sense.

I think it's stupid to assume one knows things they do not. That's not common sense it is a false belief that they know things they don't. Totally like Trump who thinks he's way smarter than he actually is. Truly wise people know they can be wrong and are open to finding information that conflicts with their previous views of the world. I thought at one time my BMW windows surely had to work differently than they did. I still think its stupid that electricity from the battery is required to keep the windows up and the constant needed contact then does mean components can fail at any time. I don't design cars, so I don't know why this choice was made or if it is industry standard. But unlike you I was willing to accept what I thought should be true was not. 

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 28, 2023 10:40:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Oct 28, 2023 7:24:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

Reading can be your friend. Cows producing methane are an easier avenue to fix much like car emissions. Depending on the source, cows make up 20 to 30+% of the methane produced. That's pretty significant even if you want to deny that too.


letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-in-context/cows-methane-and-climate-change


One of the most commonly known greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless gas. It is released when fossil fuels are burned. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The carbon in the carbon dioxide was stored for millions of years under the ground in the form of hydrocarbons.



After carbon dioxide, the next most abundant greenhouse gas is methane (CH4). Although carbon dioxide is much more abundant in the atmosphere than methane, methane traps roughly 30 times more heat than carbon dioxide. This makes methane an important gas to keep an eye on.

What are the sources of methane emissions?

Methane comes from both natural sources and anthropogenic (human-related) sources. Natural sources include:



Wetlands

bodies of water

Plant-eating animals (such as elephants, kangaroos, and termites!)

Human-related sources fall into four main categories:



Natural gas-based

Petroleum-based

Agriculture-based

Other sources



Agriculture-based sources include rice production, livestock, and manure management. Other sources include the burning of biomass, coal mining, and the treatment of waste in landfills and wastewater.

Just the fact that someone would do a study on animal farts for methane gas is fucking stupid. No wonder common sense people wanted Trump.

The new speaker is a proponent of "young earth creationism", which believes that man and dinosaurs co-existed, the bible is a completely factual story, and that evolution does not occur, but the people studying cow farts are fucking stupid. Yeah, you are freaking smart! You probably also criticized the studies done on fruit flies, notwithstanding the fact that they helped lead us to a better understanding of genetics.

Knowledge for knowledge's sake is rarely stupid. Science overlaps in many ways. And if you are studying sources of methane production, and the numbers do not add up, you need to find it elsewhere, including studying, in your so eloquent words, "cow farts". Nothing stupid about that. It is called science.

[Opti]

If she checked out the article, she would have found out some of the methane cows produce comes from them eating, not just their output.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 28, 2023 10:40:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Oct 28, 2023 7:24:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

Reading can be your friend. Cows producing methane are an easier avenue to fix much like car emissions. Depending on the source, cows make up 20 to 30+% of the methane produced. That's pretty significant even if you want to deny that too.


letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-in-context/cows-methane-and-climate-change


One of the most commonly known greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless gas. It is released when fossil fuels are burned. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The carbon in the carbon dioxide was stored for millions of years under the ground in the form of hydrocarbons.



After carbon dioxide, the next most abundant greenhouse gas is methane (CH4). Although carbon dioxide is much more abundant in the atmosphere than methane, methane traps roughly 30 times more heat than carbon dioxide. This makes methane an important gas to keep an eye on.

What are the sources of methane emissions?

Methane comes from both natural sources and anthropogenic (human-related) sources. Natural sources include:



Wetlands

bodies of water

Plant-eating animals (such as elephants, kangaroos, and termites!)

Human-related sources fall into four main categories:



Natural gas-based

Petroleum-based

Agriculture-based

Other sources



Agriculture-based sources include rice production, livestock, and manure management. Other sources include the burning of biomass, coal mining, and the treatment of waste in landfills and wastewater.

Just the fact that someone would do a study on animal farts for methane gas is fucking stupid. No wonder common sense people wanted Trump.

trump supporters have common sense? What an ignorant statement.

[thyme4change]

Science is hard for some to understand.

[tallguy]

Oct 28, 2023 11:20:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 28, 2023 10:40:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Just the fact that someone would do a study on animal farts for methane gas is fucking stupid. No wonder common sense people wanted Trump.

trump supporters have common sense? What an ignorant statement.

Yeah.  Nobody in the world makes less sense than a Trump supporter.

[scgal]

Oct 28, 2023 10:51:48 GMT -5 azucena said:

Yeah, so stupid to want to save the planet.

It is not about saving the planet that is total bullshit. It is about saving ourselves! We are going to die off one day. Actually we are going to destroy ourselves one way or another. The planet on the other hand will still be here. It is very arrogant to think that people will save the planet all we are doing is making it so we are unable to sustain life on this planet. I'm ok with it at least i'm honest about it.

[tallguy]

Oct 29, 2023 7:45:26 GMT -5 scgal said:

Oct 28, 2023 10:51:48 GMT -5 azucena said:

Yeah, so stupid to want to save the planet.

It is not about saving the planet that is total bullshit. It is about saving ourselves! We are going to die off one day. Actually we are going to destroy ourselves one way or another. The planet on the other hand will still be here. It is very arrogant to think that people will save the planet all we are doing is making it so we are unable to sustain life on this planet. I'm ok with it at least i'm honest about it.

But what gives those who are "okay with the idea of us destroying ourselves" the right to decide that for those who aren't?  Isn't that at least somewhat equivalent to, "We are all going to die eventually so I have the right to kill you"?

[gacpa]

The new speaker is hand picked and approved by T-rump and his minions.  I expect he will do Trump's bidding.  That is why none of the other nominees succeeded and why Gaetz managed to oust McCarthy.  He will work from inside Congress to help T-rump reach his goals.  That should scare all of us.  Any republican with a shred of integrity needs to speak up now or be complicit in the "you know what" storm that MAGA repubs will stir up.  T-rump is working behind the scenes to steer the political environment his way.  I cannot even type the name of the former German leader he reminds me of from WWII.

I hate sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but my brain and gut instinct are telling me no good will come from the new speaker.  I am expecting the government to shut down in November, arranged by the republicans.

And I am sorry, but I cannot grasp the logic behind some of the right wing theories floated around here.  Not OK to have reproductive rights, but OK to destroy the planet because it is going up in flames anyway.  I don't understand being pro gun and anti abortion either.  A life is a life, right?  

[Opti]

So its about saving us and the planet in a state better than what it currently is in. I don't see anything wrong with that especially since NJ has been subject to more frequent storm disasters and other weather events like an ice storm on Halloween one year. Not doing anything can seriously hurt agriculture's ability to feed us. I would think most people like eating and being able to buy food at reasonable prices. Do nothing almost guarantees scarcity of some foods and the expected higher prices.

Maybe some people like to pooh pooh ideas instead of actually solving problems. 

[tallguy]

Oct 29, 2023 10:12:06 GMT -5 Opti said:

So its about saving us and the planet in a state better than what it currently is in. I don't see anything wrong with that especially since NJ has been subject to more frequent storm disasters and other weather events like an ice storm on Halloween one year. Not doing anything can seriously hurt agriculture's ability to feed us. I would think most people like eating and being able to buy food at reasonable prices. Do nothing almost guarantees scarcity of some foods and the expected higher prices.

Maybe some people like to pooh pooh ideas instead of actually solving problems. 

Yes, they're called Republicans now.   

[scgal]

Oct 29, 2023 8:47:08 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 29, 2023 7:45:26 GMT -5 scgal said:

It is not about saving the planet that is total bullshit. It is about saving ourselves! We are going to die off one day. Actually we are going to destroy ourselves one way or another. The planet on the other hand will still be here. It is very arrogant to think that people will save the planet all we are doing is making it so we are unable to sustain life on this planet. I'm ok with it at least i'm honest about it.

But what gives those who are "okay with the idea of us destroying ourselves" the right to decide that for those who aren't?  Isn't that at least somewhat equivalent to, "We are all going to die eventually so I have the right to kill you"?

Devils advocate what gives those who "want to save the world" the right impose on those who are good the way it is? It works both ways. 

No one is killing anyone. Some more failed fallacies. 

Yet call it for what it is saving the human race not saving the planet. The planet will be here long after we are gone. 

[chiver78]

Oct 28, 2023 11:56:33 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Science is hard for some to understand.

ikr? I don't think she understands science. all kinds of things are studied, that don't make sense to the average Joe or Jane, until the information gleaned from those studies is needed for something else.

[chiver78]

Oct 29, 2023 7:45:26 GMT -5 scgal said:

Oct 28, 2023 10:51:48 GMT -5 azucena said:

Yeah, so stupid to want to save the planet.

It is not about saving the planet that is total bullshit. It is about saving ourselves! We are going to die off one day. Actually we are going to destroy ourselves one way or another. The planet on the other hand will still be here. It is very arrogant to think that people will save the planet all we are doing is making it so we are unable to sustain life on this planet. I'm ok with it at least i'm honest about it.

I'm having a hard time parsing your claim that the idiots currently running the GOP are the "common sense folks" that aren't actively trying to kill off this planet with their bills to remove EPA regulations to actively protect the environment.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 29, 2023 13:53:56 GMT -5 scgal said:

Oct 29, 2023 8:47:08 GMT -5 tallguy said:

But what gives those who are "okay with the idea of us destroying ourselves" the right to decide that for those who aren't?  Isn't that at least somewhat equivalent to, "We are all going to die eventually so I have the right to kill you"?

Devils advocate what gives those who "want to save the world" the right impose on those who are good the way it is? It works both ways. 

No one is killing anyone. Some more failed fallacies. 

Yet call it for what it is saving the human race not saving the planet. The planet will be here long after we are gone. 

So will Mars. Just look at all the greenery and fauna living on the planet with no atmosphere.

[tallguy]

Oct 29, 2023 13:53:56 GMT -5 scgal said:

Oct 29, 2023 8:47:08 GMT -5 tallguy said:

But what gives those who are "okay with the idea of us destroying ourselves" the right to decide that for those who aren't?  Isn't that at least somewhat equivalent to, "We are all going to die eventually so I have the right to kill you"?

Devils advocate what gives those who "want to save the world" the right impose on those who are good the way it is? It works both ways. 

No one is killing anyone. Some more failed fallacies. 

Yet call it for what it is saving the human race not saving the planet. The planet will be here long after we are gone. 

1.  First, do no harm.  There is no right to destroy that which belongs either to all or to none.

2.  It is an analogy, and logically it fits.

3.  a) Why is "saving the human race" not a laudable, or at least a desirable, goal?  And b) The planet may still be here after we are gone, but it will not be the same planet we began with.  Why is that okay?  It doesn't matter what we do, or what we destroy, as long as we are not around to deal with the aftermath?  Is that really your contention?  

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 29, 2023 13:53:56 GMT -5 scgal said:

Oct 29, 2023 8:47:08 GMT -5 tallguy said:

But what gives those who are "okay with the idea of us destroying ourselves" the right to decide that for those who aren't?  Isn't that at least somewhat equivalent to, "We are all going to die eventually so I have the right to kill you"?

Devils advocate what gives those who "want to save the world" the right impose on those who are good the way it is? It works both ways. 

No one is killing anyone. Some more failed fallacies. 

Yet call it for what it is saving the human race not saving the planet. The planet will be here long after we are gone. 

The arrogance in this post is truly astonishing. We can destroy anything we want because we want to. Nature does not need any help from us to kill us. You do not care about future generations, including your own grandchildren. Keeping up what we are doing will lead to a demonstrably worse planet, quality of life, and a whole host of other problems. But that is ok as long as you get yours.

Oh, that’s right. You don’t believe in global warming, science, altruism, or about anyone else. Why should I be surprised by anything you post

[thyme4change]

In defense of SC - the planet will likely heal itself in some form or another. But, the longer the human race lingers, the harder it will be for the planet to deal with the waste we leave behind.

That all said - I believe we should fight to keep the planet inhabitant-able for humans. The end will be painful and I would like to push that off for as many generations as I can.

[toomuchreality]

I wouldn't want to be one of the last humans to be alive on Earth. Without a whole lot of changes, no one could keep everything going by themselves. It would be incredibly hard and boring. The only thing you'd have to look forward to is death. (Assuming you still have your wits about you and are in good health.)
I'll pass. I don't even like the thought of being an old person. I never have.
I never wanted to get/be old.
Yet, here I am. Thankfully, I am still somewhat productive and independent.
Death doesn't scare me. The thought of not being able to care for myself and be independent scares the bejesus out of me.

I'm so glad we were able to care for my parents, at their home, even through years of dementia, Alzheimers and cancer. I'd rather no one had to care for me. I would like to make that choice and decision, for myself. Euthanasia.

Honestly, I don't know all the details about how it would work, but I support euthanasia.
That's just me, for me.

[billisonboard]

Oct 29, 2023 23:20:51 GMT -5 toomuchreality said:

I wouldn't want to be one of the last humans to be alive on Earth. Without a whole lot of changes, no one could keep everything going by themselves. It would be incredibly hard and boring. The only thing you'd have to look forward to is death. (Assuming you still have your wits about you and are in good health.)
I'll pass. I don't even like the thought of being an old person. I never have.
I never wanted to get/be old.
Yet, here I am. Thankfully, I am still somewhat productive and independent.
Death doesn't scare me. The thought of not being able to care for myself and be independent scares the bejesus out of me.

I'm so glad we were able to care for my parents, at their home, even through years of dementia, Alzheimers and cancer. I'd rather no one had to care for me. I would like to make that choice and decision, for myself. Euthanasia.

Honestly, I don't know all the details about how it would work, but I support euthanasia.
That's just me, for me.

We have a good law here in Washington state:

The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, passed on November 4, 2008, and went into effect on March 5, 2009. This Act allows some terminally ill patients to request and use lethal doses of medication from qualified medical providers as part of their end-of-life care. link

[tallguy]

Oct 29, 2023 23:52:45 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 29, 2023 23:20:51 GMT -5 toomuchreality said:

I wouldn't want to be one of the last humans to be alive on Earth. Without a whole lot of changes, no one could keep everything going by themselves. It would be incredibly hard and boring. The only thing you'd have to look forward to is death. (Assuming you still have your wits about you and are in good health.)
I'll pass. I don't even like the thought of being an old person. I never have.
I never wanted to get/be old.
Yet, here I am. Thankfully, I am still somewhat productive and independent.
Death doesn't scare me. The thought of not being able to care for myself and be independent scares the bejesus out of me.

I'm so glad we were able to care for my parents, at their home, even through years of dementia, Alzheimers and cancer. I'd rather no one had to care for me. I would like to make that choice and decision, for myself. Euthanasia.

Honestly, I don't know all the details about how it would work, but I support euthanasia.
That's just me, for me.

We have a good law here in Washington state:

The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, passed on November 4, 2008, and went into effect on March 5, 2009. This Act allows some terminally ill patients to request and use lethal doses of medication from qualified medical providers as part of their end-of-life care. link

Yes we do, and I am proud of our citizens that we actually passed it by the citizen's initiative process.  Gratifying to live in a state that so respects the rights of its people.   

[tbop77]

Mike Johnson's Already Making MAGA Mad


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mike-johnson-s-already-making-maga-mad/ar-AA1j5Iu6?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c6d8f0b88b164b30894d7033945aaaee&ei=9


Good!  Let the American public see that nothing can please the MAGA madness!  

[andi9899]

He's also getting Madison Cawthorned currently. Rumors about him being gay a sexually harassing men that have worked for him have already started. Everyone is waiting for the receipts to come out. I'm sitting back and enjoying the show.

[scgal]

Oct 29, 2023 14:30:03 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 29, 2023 13:53:56 GMT -5 scgal said:

Devils advocate what gives those who "want to save the world" the right impose on those who are good the way it is? It works both ways. 

No one is killing anyone. Some more failed fallacies. 

Yet call it for what it is saving the human race not saving the planet. The planet will be here long after we are gone. 

1.  First, do no harm.  There is no right to destroy that which belongs either to all or to none.

2.  It is an analogy, and logically it fits.

3.  a) Why is "saving the human race" not a laudable, or at least a desirable, goal?  And b) The planet may still be here after we are gone, but it will not be the same planet we began with.  Why is that okay?  It doesn't matter what we do, or what we destroy, as long as we are not around to deal with the aftermath?  Is that really your contention?  

Then call it that! Saving the human race. Not save the planet. The planet will survive certain other life forms will survive humans maybe not too good. It is the arrogance, stupidity, or bullshit to try to sell it as save the planet. Most of which the left uses for money total bullshit. I'm very skeptical of anything the left puts out as regulation all that is, a money grab. 

[pulmonarymd]

Yes, who cares about clean air, clean drinking water, pesticides in our food, preventing food born diseases, and a whole host of other maladies. Lets take us back to 1900!

Being good caretakers for the planet should be a no brainer. Destroying the environment just shows the arrogance of the human race. And you still show you do not care about future generations. You got yours so fuck everyone else, right? The conservative mantra.

[moon/Laura]

Nov 2, 2023 8:29:21 GMT -5 scgal said:

Oct 29, 2023 14:30:03 GMT -5 tallguy said:

1.  First, do no harm.  There is no right to destroy that which belongs either to all or to none.

2.  It is an analogy, and logically it fits.

3.  a) Why is "saving the human race" not a laudable, or at least a desirable, goal?  And b) The planet may still be here after we are gone, but it will not be the same planet we began with.  Why is that okay?  It doesn't matter what we do, or what we destroy, as long as we are not around to deal with the aftermath?  Is that really your contention?  

Then call it that! Saving the human race. Not save the planet. The planet will survive certain other life forms will survive humans maybe not too good. It is the arrogance, stupidity, or bullshit to try to sell it as save the planet. Most of which the left uses for money total bullshit. I'm very skeptical of anything the left puts out as regulation all that is, a money grab. 

WTF? They're not mutually exclusive. Humans need to save the planet so that we can continue to live on it. Why is this hard to understand? You save BOTH by saving the one!

[resolution]

OK so we knew all along that whoever was elected as Speaker would be a Republican, and Johnson repeats all the talking points that are now standard to the Republican party. I am more interested in the reports about his finances. On his mandatory finance reporting, he is reporting no bank accounts. He had reported a retirement account in 2021 but now he is reporting no retirement accounts. But he is somehow still paying his mortgage.

So far all the sources for this are left wing, but something to watch to see if more information comes out.

news.yahoo.com/happening-mike-johnson-money-165140588.html

The House Ethics Committee requires members of Congress to disclose all of their household’s bank accounts if the accounts each hold at least $1,000 and have a combined value of more than $5,000. Johnson has made at least $174,000 per year from the combination of his representative salary and any additional payments he received, such as from a teaching appearance. Johnson’s wife has two streams of income, from two different employers.

But on his financial disclosures, Johnson has listed only one asset: a retirement account. In 2016, he listed a state government Fidelity account valued between $1,000 and $15,000. He transferred those savings to a Thrift Savings plan, a federal program, the following year. Johnson appears to have cashed out the entire account in 2021, because he lists no assets at all on his 2022 form.

Johnson’s disclosure forms are remarkably sparse. He lists almost no travel reimbursements or gifts, and relatively little external income.

But Johnson does owe a lot of money. Every year, he has listed a mortgage on which he owes hundreds of thousands of dollars and a personal loan on which he owes tens of thousands. In 2019, he opened up a home equity line of credit, also worth tens of thousands of dollars.

[pulmonarymd]

Nov 2, 2023 9:19:31 GMT -5 moon/Laura said:

Nov 2, 2023 8:29:21 GMT -5 scgal said:

Then call it that! Saving the human race. Not save the planet. The planet will survive certain other life forms will survive humans maybe not too good. It is the arrogance, stupidity, or bullshit to try to sell it as save the planet. Most of which the left uses for money total bullshit. I'm very skeptical of anything the left puts out as regulation all that is, a money grab. 

WTF? They're not mutually exclusive. Humans need to save the planet so that we can continue to live on it. Why is this hard to understand? You save BOTH by saving the one!

Not only that, she is adamantly pro-life, yet does not care if humans live on, or the condition of the planet they live on. Talk about either complete cluelessness, hypocrisy or stupidity. Can't decide which

[Tennesseer]

Nov 2, 2023 9:19:31 GMT -5 moon/Laura said:

Nov 2, 2023 8:29:21 GMT -5 scgal said:

Then call it that! Saving the human race. Not save the planet. The planet will survive certain other life forms will survive humans maybe not too good. It is the arrogance, stupidity, or bullshit to try to sell it as save the planet. Most of which the left uses for money total bullshit. I'm very skeptical of anything the left puts out as regulation all that is, a money grab. 

WTF? They're not mutually exclusive. Humans need to save the planet so that we can continue to live on it. Why is this hard to understand? You save BOTH by saving the one!

Her posts indicate she exhales methane gas.