charlie hebdo Euclid I don’t think climate change is a reality to anywhere near the extent of the imminent destruction of the planet that we are being lectured about daily. And it discredits the belief that “Climate Scientists” are subject to bias by labeling that as a “conspiracy,” a word that heaps contempt upon everything. Scientists are not hunched over a big table in a darkened room secretly hatching a plan to get their hands on everyone’s money. But they are often directly funded by Government. They know which side their bread is buttered. The bias is in their blood. They don’t even have to discuss it. If you question their science, you are immediately ridiculed as someone who questions science. Anyone with eyes open can see that is not science. Government speaks as though those scientists are supporting a cause that is pushed by Government. Government is right there with solutions such as the Green New Deal. Government loves to grow and prosper, so it offers to fix things. The more fixing the better, so it loves a crisis. What a coincidence that we have a crisis that will end all life on the planet in a decade if we don’t change our entire way of life. Spoken like a true right winger who believes in evil conspiracies of one-world socialists. Would you care to echo the blowhard, drug-addled Rush Douchebag's attack on Ms Thunberg while you are in high gear?
Euclid I don’t think climate change is a reality to anywhere near the extent of the imminent destruction of the planet that we are being lectured about daily. And it discredits the belief that “Climate Scientists” are subject to bias by labeling that as a “conspiracy,” a word that heaps contempt upon everything. Scientists are not hunched over a big table in a darkened room secretly hatching a plan to get their hands on everyone’s money. But they are often directly funded by Government. They know which side their bread is buttered. The bias is in their blood. They don’t even have to discuss it. If you question their science, you are immediately ridiculed as someone who questions science. Anyone with eyes open can see that is not science. Government speaks as though those scientists are supporting a cause that is pushed by Government. Government is right there with solutions such as the Green New Deal. Government loves to grow and prosper, so it offers to fix things. The more fixing the better, so it loves a crisis. What a coincidence that we have a crisis that will end all life on the planet in a decade if we don’t change our entire way of life.
I don’t think climate change is a reality to anywhere near the extent of the imminent destruction of the planet that we are being lectured about daily. And it discredits the belief that “Climate Scientists” are subject to bias by labeling that as a “conspiracy,” a word that heaps contempt upon everything. Scientists are not hunched over a big table in a darkened room secretly hatching a plan to get their hands on everyone’s money. But they are often directly funded by Government. They know which side their bread is buttered. The bias is in their blood. They don’t even have to discuss it. If you question their science, you are immediately ridiculed as someone who questions science. Anyone with eyes open can see that is not science.
Government speaks as though those scientists are supporting a cause that is pushed by Government. Government is right there with solutions such as the Green New Deal. Government loves to grow and prosper, so it offers to fix things. The more fixing the better, so it loves a crisis. What a coincidence that we have a crisis that will end all life on the planet in a decade if we don’t change our entire way of life.
Spoken like a true right winger who believes in evil conspiracies of one-world socialists. Would you care to echo the blowhard, drug-addled Rush Douchebag's attack on Ms Thunberg while you are in high gear?
The Earth will survive anything and everything humanity does to it, as it has for the last 4.5 Billion trips around the Sun. The question is will humanity and the other life forms of the planet survive!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid BaltACD Receding glaciers and increasing sea levels tell no lies. The causes can be argued but the results are fact. Glaciers are always either advancing or receding. The results may be a fact, but those facts do not prove the theory of MMGW. But, we are now told that there is a normal climate, and we have made it abnormal.
BaltACD
Receding glaciers and increasing sea levels tell no lies. The causes can be argued but the results are fact.
The causes can be argued but the results are fact.
Glaciers are always either advancing or receding. The results may be a fact, but those facts do not prove the theory of MMGW. But, we are now told that there is a normal climate, and we have made it abnormal.
Glaciers reached a recent (geologically speaking) maximum some 150 to 250 years ago due to the effects of the "Little Ice Age" and quite a few have been receding since. As an example, Glacier bay was mostly dry land with little ice ca 1600, was completely covered with a glacier ca 1800 and glaciers have been receding since then. Most of the receding took place before the recent rise in CO2 levels, which suggests natural causes as the primary driver.
A simple first principles view of the effects of increased CO2 would suggest that the warming would be most pronounced in high latitudes and especially winter nights. That appears to be happening for the north polar region, but rates less than predicted by the numerical clmate models. Warming in the tropics appears to be limited by tropical thunderstorms both providing "shade" and by transporting heat to the stratosphere where it gets radiated into space. With the vapor pressure of water doubling every 20F, evaporation provides a strong limiting effect for temperature.
Condsidering that the human induced portion climate change can also be caused by variations in land/water use and particulates/aerosols, it would be wise to focus on the whole climate picture rather than just gases with high IR attenuation.
BaltACD Euclid I don’t think climate change is a reality to anywhere near the extent of the imminent destruction of the planet that we are being lectured about daily. And it discredits the belief that “Climate Scientists” are subject to bias by labeling that as a “conspiracy,” a word that heaps contempt upon everything. Scientists are not hunched over a big table in a darkened room secretly hatching a plan to get their hands on everyone’s money. But they are often directly funded by Government. They know which side their bread is buttered. The bias is in their blood. They don’t even have to discuss it. If you question their science, you are immediately ridiculed as someone who questions science. Anyone with eyes open can see that is not science. Government speaks as though those scientists are supporting a cause that is pushed by Government. Government is right there with solutions such as the Green New Deal. Government loves to grow and prosper, so it offers to fix things. The more fixing the better, so it loves a crisis. What a coincidence that we have a crisis that will end all life on the planet in a decade if we don’t change our entire way of life. Receding glaciers and increasing sea levels tell no lies. The causes can be argued but the results are fact.
Receding glaciers and increasing sea levels tell no lies.
EuclidI don’t think climate change is a reality to anywhere near the extent of the imminent destruction of the planet that we are being lectured about daily. And it discredits the belief that “Climate Scientists” are subject to bias by labeling that as a “conspiracy,” a word that heaps contempt upon everything. Scientists are not hunched over a big table in a darkened room secretly hatching a plan to get their hands on everyone’s money. But they are often directly funded by Government. They know which side their bread is buttered. The bias is in their blood. They don’t even have to discuss it. If you question their science, you are immediately ridiculed as someone who questions science. Anyone with eyes open can see that is not science. Government speaks as though those scientists are supporting a cause that is pushed by Government. Government is right there with solutions such as the Green New Deal. Government loves to grow and prosper, so it offers to fix things. The more fixing the better, so it loves a crisis. What a coincidence that we have a crisis that will end all life on the planet in a decade if we don’t change our entire way of life.
charlie hebdo tree68 Convicted One ...even though I am a firm believer that man made climate change is reality. I can't deny that mankind has had an effect on the climate - my objection is to those who seem to think that climate change is solely the result of mankind's actions. As I like to say - one Krakatoa... Strawman argument fallacy. No serious person concerned about AGW thinks that for obvious, logical reasons.
tree68 Convicted One ...even though I am a firm believer that man made climate change is reality. I can't deny that mankind has had an effect on the climate - my objection is to those who seem to think that climate change is solely the result of mankind's actions. As I like to say - one Krakatoa...
Convicted One ...even though I am a firm believer that man made climate change is reality.
I can't deny that mankind has had an effect on the climate - my objection is to those who seem to think that climate change is solely the result of mankind's actions.
As I like to say - one Krakatoa...
Strawman argument fallacy. No serious person concerned about AGW thinks that for obvious, logical reasons.
So if both sides acknowledge that. The question is are we 10% of the cause or 90% of the cause? And can we have a measurable effect by changing our behavior? And if we are only 10%, then maybe our efforts should be directed at adapting, rather than controlling?
I don't claim to know, but I question dramatically expensive changes without knowing?
Sheldon
Tree: a serious discussion is pointless with someone who doesn't understand logical reasoning.
CO: Apparently you really like ridiculous conspiracy theories. I wonder why?
Paul of Covington Atlantic Central, you spoke about the "temporary" nature of buildings earlier, which is something that has long bugged me. In Europe, I understand there are many buildings hundreds of years old, continuously occupied, sometimes by generations of the same families. I am far from being an expert in financial matters, but I suspect that tax policies, which seem to be set up to encourage new development (a carryover from "settle the wilderness" attitude) promote the "build and run" busness model. Depreciation claims and temporary tax incentives are the driving factors, and when those run out, so do the businesses. I was going on with this, but I get carried away and keep erasing and re-writing, so I'll quit now.
Atlantic Central, you spoke about the "temporary" nature of buildings earlier, which is something that has long bugged me. In Europe, I understand there are many buildings hundreds of years old, continuously occupied, sometimes by generations of the same families. I am far from being an expert in financial matters, but I suspect that tax policies, which seem to be set up to encourage new development (a carryover from "settle the wilderness" attitude) promote the "build and run" busness model. Depreciation claims and temporary tax incentives are the driving factors, and when those run out, so do the businesses. I was going on with this, but I get carried away and keep erasing and re-writing, so I'll quit now.
I think for rentals, especially single family residences, the accelerated depreciation schedule for taxes makes the cash flow great for the landlord, but after 7 years it's smart to sell. So there is a disincentive to build lasting structures.
Convicted One...even though I am a firm believer that man made climate change is reality.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Plus, just because somebody is a credentialed "scientist" is no guarantee that they are neutral and/or objective.
Scientists working on behalf of industries who stand to profit from carbon credits trading is not unthinkable.
tree68Nah - You can't provide the proof either, or you would. And, as I said, I was speaking more of the folks like Al Gore, who did make money off the whole deal. But I still wouldn't be surprised to find some correlation.
We have grown accustomed to being fed "spin" and outright disinformation from official sources, at least since 1947, if not earlier (I could itemize a list, but that might be construed "political" by some, so I'll remain general)
So, it's VERY relevant that people being fed a story they personally are at odds with, might suspect a possible second agenda......and a perceived conspiracy between scientists and the politicians who stand to reap benefits while orchestrating the "fix" is not hard to fathom.
Money makes things happen...sometimes hiddeous, unthinkable things., so your argument is not irrelevant, even though I am a firm believer that man made climate change is reality.
greyhounds Gramp I think we as railfans can just look to the history of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and its destructive impact on transportation here in the US. I recall that there was a Chicago zone (there may have been others elsewhere) that it chose to not rate-regulate because it found it to be too complex to control. (Others here no doubt know more than I). If the ICC only had thought more wisely about its own effect everywhere else, but that gets lost in that dynamic. I know nothing about heat pumps, but I did buy a new Lenox two stage furnace this year. The old furnace was 41 years old. Anyway, with regard to the "Chicago Zone" I do know something. It was actually a "Commercial Zone" and similar "Zones" existed around major cities. Within the "Zones" freight rates were unregulated. It worked fine. But go one block outside the zone and big brother showed up. Freight got moved within the zones efficiently and safely. This, along with things such as the agricultural exemption, gave credence to the idea of deregulation. The ag exemption made agricultural products moved by truck free from rate regulation. Rail rates were tightly regulated. Guess which mode won the lettuce business. There is a very silly US Supreme Court decision about the movement of dead chickens. The issue was whether chickens that had been killed, plucked, and cleaned were exempt from regulation. And it went to the Supreme Court! How incredibly stupid. The court said something like: "A chicken that has been plucked and cleaned is still a chicken." And chicken movement by truck was free from rate regulation forevermore.
Gramp I think we as railfans can just look to the history of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and its destructive impact on transportation here in the US. I recall that there was a Chicago zone (there may have been others elsewhere) that it chose to not rate-regulate because it found it to be too complex to control. (Others here no doubt know more than I). If the ICC only had thought more wisely about its own effect everywhere else, but that gets lost in that dynamic.
I think we as railfans can just look to the history of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and its destructive impact on transportation here in the US. I recall that there was a Chicago zone (there may have been others elsewhere) that it chose to not rate-regulate because it found it to be too complex to control. (Others here no doubt know more than I). If the ICC only had thought more wisely about its own effect everywhere else, but that gets lost in that dynamic.
I know nothing about heat pumps, but I did buy a new Lenox two stage furnace this year. The old furnace was 41 years old.
Anyway, with regard to the "Chicago Zone" I do know something. It was actually a "Commercial Zone" and similar "Zones" existed around major cities. Within the "Zones" freight rates were unregulated. It worked fine. But go one block outside the zone and big brother showed up.
Freight got moved within the zones efficiently and safely. This, along with things such as the agricultural exemption, gave credence to the idea of deregulation.
The ag exemption made agricultural products moved by truck free from rate regulation. Rail rates were tightly regulated. Guess which mode won the lettuce business.
There is a very silly US Supreme Court decision about the movement of dead chickens. The issue was whether chickens that had been killed, plucked, and cleaned were exempt from regulation. And it went to the Supreme Court! How incredibly stupid.
The court said something like: "A chicken that has been plucked and cleaned is still a chicken." And chicken movement by truck was free from rate regulation forevermore.
Greyhounds did you read this article? https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/stb-heed-seriously-the-yak-fat-ghost/
Thx, greyhounds
It's still completely possible to 'build for the ages' with modern technology; in fact, in many ways it's easier and better than at any previous age, even 'net' of the relative absence of some historic skilled trades (e.g. good stonemasons and finish carpenters). The problem is that a given mortgage holder, whether 'prequalified' or actively involved, is likely to want the maximum 'bang for his buck' over the term he's paying for it, and so may want to put the money into showy amenities or 'more space' than into good framing details or a better foundation. Some of the houses in Memphis were built with steel beams in the floors on 15" centers with steel-mill slag as aggregate for concrete between them; they have hardwood floors that a century later are still dead flat and true. These don't have much more resale value than comparable floorplans built in much cheaper framing. If you had paid 'up front' and then expected your investment to appreciate, you might regret making the 'more permanent' choice for someone you don't or can't know to live in with dollars that had much better opportunity value elsewhere.
Tax policies aren't the thing that promotes 'new development' so much as they facilitate it as building costs rise and rise: to the extent they make homeowning 'free' by allowing tax deductions corresponding to mortgage expense, they subsidize new construction right along with inflationary realtor action. We've seen the periodic effect of this several times in my lifetime, in both commercial and residential real estate and construction. You could also implicate the models that mortgage companies and back-end servicers use to calculate the 'value' in LTV and other measures for new construction as at least tending to make quality 'unseen' construction details less valued.
Note that there are people, like Sheldon, who understand these things and are not seduced by them. It is always a pleasure to find honest, competent craftsmen in the industry.
I could fill a book, I will answer you more tomorrow.
Well, I think I knew most of that, but what happens at the end of the 30 years?
Here in Baltimore the most common use of conventional heat pumps is high density town homes? How do we ground loop them?
My 1901 house, pictured above, had a 1964 Stwart Warner steel boiler and one loop of baseboard when we bought it in 1995.
Today it has a new Burnham Series 8 Boiler, 5 zones of baseboard heat, two totally seperate cooling zones, and that 4,000 sq ft of living space uses 1/3 of the heating oil it was using in 1995.
We also made a lot of other energy/insulation upgrades, but without damaging the historic fabric of the building any more than was necessary for other repairs.
The boiler also provides the domestic hot water.
Personally, I don't see the totally separate heating and cooling idea as a problem....
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
ATLANTIC CENTRALPlease explain why I should settle for more expensive equipment to provide crappy heat?
You evidently don't know much about ground-source heat pumps, and I recommend you read up on them.
The point of the exercise is that at or below a certain distance below ground, the temperature of the soil doesn't vary very far with seasons, and is interestingly close to an ideal temperature to serve as the source and sink for a heat pump (about 55 degrees F at New Jersey latitude, 56 degrees in Tennessee, off the top of my head; more precise data do exist). If you provide adequate heat exchange via a sufficiently large heat-transfer area, this can be used in a liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger on a typical heat-pump, after being used directly to temper or preheat/cool any exchange air. There's a variety of techniques for providing and then assuring the long-term integrity of these loops (some involving deep drilling, some 'slinky' loops in trench, some under lakes or other bodies of water) but the basic idea is to replace the air heat transfer in conventional heat pumps (reversing or single) at much better transfer efficiency with a low-cost source.
At least one company in Pennsylvania was building equipment they claimed would have a 30-year service life. My own development was to use comparatively small permanently-split systems (one dedicated to heating, one to cooling, with the refrigerant loops sealed as they are for refrigerators instead of using reversing valves) which could correspondingly be made to run extended periods. There are interesting relatively-nonpolluting materials to be used as nonpolluting 'antifreeze' in the ground loops, so that various types of trouble with long-term integrity of flow in them can be assured.
My whole point in research was to develop a system, perhaps with high nominal first cost, that could be realistically guaranteed to run without component replacement or required periodic service for either 15 or 30 years, the term of a conventional mortgage, with the specific intent that a 'rider' at similar terms to the main mortgage could be provided to amortize the cost of the high-efficiency system. Without this, or truly astounding levels of explicit Government subsidy (that I doubt would be forthcoming if indeed ever available) it is unlikely that this comparatively expensive alternative will gain much traction; with it, it becomes possible to finance very substantial and progressive change in both new and old construction.
I assume everyone here is familiar with the concept of COP in "heat-pump" systems, and why it is possible to achieve several hundred percent "efficiency" for a given BTU or kW of actual heat generation from fuel or electricity sources. That is a large part of why even comparatively simple split heat-pump systems can provide equivalent space conditioning to even the best flutter-burner furnace systems (and there are indeed some very good and efficient ones out there!)
Another specific point is that Sheldon has evidently never seen a correctly-designed heat-pump system running in heat mode. Our test unit (intended for use in a RECD subsidized home) was good for 92 degree heat measured at the outlet within no more than 15 seconds from thermostat command. It is hard to imagine any kind of forced-air furnace even remotely approximating that performance.
In addition, by separating the air exchange from air circulation in a relatively well-sealed building envelope, and providing some form of countercurrent heat exchange between exhaust and makeup air, it becomes possible at least to eliminate much of the conventional 'sick house' problems without significant impact on makeup heat balance. This could be done, of course, with conventional heat or dual-fuel setups, but at an added cost that without effective financing most families would be reluctant to add to the cost of new space conditioning.
Meanwhile, the system lends itself relatively easily to variable-speed modern fans in zone operation: complex commands from a 'smart-home thermostat system' rebalance all the duct vanes and motors and then adjust the overall speed of the main zone circulation fan(s) to suit. This would be difficult without the existence of cheap ubiquitous computing; it becomes actually trivial in the age of pervasive communication with cloud systems.
Incidentally, I grew up in a house with circulated hot-water hydronic retrofit, and taught myself to maintain it (it was converted in the late Forties, and had a circulation pump so old the manufacturer had no idea what it was even after being presented with the pump body and dataplate!), did extensive work on ducted exchangers from legacy steam systems in several houses, and rebalanced a house in Doylestown with oil heat (and 185-degree tankless hot water when I got there!) that used '60s-era hydronic circulation, so I have at least some idea of the use of water as heat-exchange for heating. Problem is, that's all it does, unless you set up for chilled water and a different fan/blower proportioning and circulation pattern in the cooling season. Most so-called HVAC installers or technicians have not been able to figure that stuff out in my now 45-year experience.
I am still working on ways to make radiant flooring more energy-efficient and cost-effective to construct. Once you have been in a house with even supplemental underfloor heat, you'll be dissatisfied with drafty forced-air ever after...
SD60MAC9500Scientist are paid generally by grants. Some by salary..The rest a combination of both. If the EPA grants the University of Michigan $25 million to develop a carbon offset scheme then yes those scientists are benefitting as they're getting paid from the grant money involved with the project..
In this example it has already been accepted that it is desirable to reduce carbon emissions. In the studies that established that carbon emissions were a problem, was it implied at the start that it would be desirable to make a certain conclusion? When researchers employed by energy companies make a study, do they approach it with an unbiased attitude? My point is that some deniers are claiming that scientists that express concern about the climate are in it for the money.
Overmod ATLANTIC CENTRAL But is there any noise from the climate change crowd to build more sustainable buildings? to be less "frivolous" about remoding?, build more "timeless" quality buildings? Not really. The single greatest thing that could affect climate change due to American consumption of fossil fuel is the implementation of widespread ground-source heat-pump HVAC, backed up by financing ability to amortize the installation expense as part of a mortgage. Do that and within about 35 years you could cut the United States 'carbon footprint' by about 35% absolute. Where is the political and organizational will to start setting that up and 'incentivizing' it for the mortgage companies? I gave up due to heart condition. None of you should settle for the status quo.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But is there any noise from the climate change crowd to build more sustainable buildings? to be less "frivolous" about remoding?, build more "timeless" quality buildings? Not really.
The single greatest thing that could affect climate change due to American consumption of fossil fuel is the implementation of widespread ground-source heat-pump HVAC, backed up by financing ability to amortize the installation expense as part of a mortgage. Do that and within about 35 years you could cut the United States 'carbon footprint' by about 35% absolute.
Where is the political and organizational will to start setting that up and 'incentivizing' it for the mortgage companies? I gave up due to heart condition. None of you should settle for the status quo.
I don't know the numbers on that, and I will trust your information. But as someone with HVAC design and operational experiance, I have cost concerns about that approach for the average homeowner.
I would agree it is the only effective way to put heat pumps in colder climates and get the necessary efficiency. But how are we generating this extra electricity?
Here in Baltimore most of the electricity comes from fossil fuels?
But my bigger concern is the long term maintanence costs to homeowners with ground source heat pumps.
Regular heat pumps have a short life span compared with oil or gas boilers (my prefered heating system) or even oil or gas hot air systems.
A/C only equipment lasts much longer and is much simpler when not asked to be part of a heating system. Especially in systems that do not use the air handler for heat at all - hydronic heat.
So you are asking people to use a more exspenive, more complex heating/cooling system with only limited long term maintenance experiance, and build that cost into mortgages that are already sinking people into a lifetime of debt?
The average mortgage today is 30 years and cost 3 to 4 times the price of the home.
In 1900 the average mortgage had a 30% down payment and was for 8-12 years..........
And again I respectfully ask, where is all this non fossil fuel electricity going to come from after I take the oil fired boiler out of the 1901 house and the gas fired one out of my new to me 1964 house?
Both boilers by the way are less than 15 years old and pretty efficient.
When I run my boilers, 85-95% of the btu's goes into the system water, and into my house.
Electricity must be used when it is generated? Yet around here most of it is generated with fossil fuels? How can the electric based approach be more efficient with fossil fuel generation?
And then there are transmission losses with electricity.
Not challenging, just asking.
Working on old homes like I do, I have extensive knowledge of hydronic heat, I have designed and build a number of systems. While more expensive to install than forced air systems, it generally has very low repair/maintenance costs for a very large time window, 40-50 years. Even the simplest boilers are dramaticly more efficient these days, and the best boilers are VERY efficient with little added complexity.
And the comfort level is superior to anything that blows hot (or warm) air out of a duct.
Additionally, A/C only systems require simpler ductwork, are more efficient duct work wise, and also have more attractive maintenance and life span histories.
Please explain why I should settle for more expensive equipment to provide crappy heat?
SD60MAC9500 charlie hebdo tree68 Paul of Covington When I said "scientists who are out to make big bucks", I was being facetious. Look up "carbon credits..." They are traded like other commodities... And they didn't exist until 2005-ish. Somebody has to handle the transactions, and someone has to set the price. Irrelevant. Carbon credits are not to the benefit of research scientists in climatology. Do you think the Pentagon was not struck by a hijacked airliner on 9-11? Scientist are paid generally by grants. Some by salary..The rest a combination of both. If the EPA grants the University of Michigan $25 million to develop a carbon offset scheme then yes those scientists are benefitting as they're getting paid from the grant money involved with the project.. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays
charlie hebdo tree68 Paul of Covington When I said "scientists who are out to make big bucks", I was being facetious. Look up "carbon credits..." They are traded like other commodities... And they didn't exist until 2005-ish. Somebody has to handle the transactions, and someone has to set the price. Irrelevant. Carbon credits are not to the benefit of research scientists in climatology. Do you think the Pentagon was not struck by a hijacked airliner on 9-11?
tree68 Paul of Covington When I said "scientists who are out to make big bucks", I was being facetious. Look up "carbon credits..." They are traded like other commodities... And they didn't exist until 2005-ish. Somebody has to handle the transactions, and someone has to set the price.
Paul of Covington When I said "scientists who are out to make big bucks", I was being facetious.
Look up "carbon credits..." They are traded like other commodities... And they didn't exist until 2005-ish. Somebody has to handle the transactions, and someone has to set the price.
Irrelevant. Carbon credits are not to the benefit of research scientists in climatology.
Do you think the Pentagon was not struck by a hijacked airliner on 9-11?
Scientist are paid generally by grants. Some by salary..The rest a combination of both. If the EPA grants the University of Michigan $25 million to develop a carbon offset scheme then yes those scientists are benefitting as they're getting paid from the grant money involved with the project..
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays
Well obviously. Grants come from all over. As I said, a right wing denial group paid a climatologist to opine that there was little evidence for AGW. He changed his mind once he studied the research.
Grants come from the government agencies, in science especially from the NSF and private sources. The money is used to find a lot more than summer salaries. It's used for often expensive equipment, stipends to graduate research assistants and post-docs as well as travel to specialized research facilities.
Your example in no way gave evidence that scientists are paid through carbon credits, which are more the province of economists in graduate business schools.
Pardon me, Charlie. I thought you were a professor of history. You know it all.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut is there any noise from the climate change crowd to build more sustainable buildings? to be less "frivolous" about remoding?, build more "timeless" quality buildings? Not really.
charlie hebdoYou are the guy who made the claim. Thus it is on you to show some evidence not for me to prove the negative. I await your documentation but I doubt if you have anything reputable.
Nah - You can't provide the proof either, or you would. And, as I said, I was speaking more of the folks like Al Gore, who did make money off the whole deal.
But I still wouldn't be surprised to find some correlation.
BaltACD charlie hebdo You seem to have made that claim. Documentation? Documentation on your counterclaim? Dueling Documents at the OK Corral, High Noon!
charlie hebdo You seem to have made that claim. Documentation?
Documentation on your counterclaim?
Dueling Documents at the OK Corral, High Noon!
Electroliner 1935 charlie hebdo When you have evaluated and treated patients Are you claiming that you treat patients? What is your specialty?
charlie hebdo When you have evaluated and treated patients
Are you claiming that you treat patients? What is your specialty?
Clinical psychologist and professor for over 35 years.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.