Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#34|
Started by #485312 [Ignore] 15,Dec,20 18:50
New Comment Rating: -1 Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest 5.YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos) Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
When it's because you ate beans, I'll allow it.
If not, go plant a tree now.
A single cow emits roughly 200–1,000× more methane than an average human.
(Most of the cow’s methane comes from burps, not farts.)
(Most of the human's methane comes from gut microbes.)
There are now roughly on Earth:
Humans: 8.3 billion
Cows: 1.4 – 1.5 billion
In total, humans produce: 0.8–4.2 million tonnes of methane per year.
In total, cows produce: 140–180 million tonnes of methane per year.
That means that our livestock cows produce between 33× - 225× more methane
than we do ourselves.
Other livestock animals:
Sheep: ~8–12 million tonnes/year
Goats: ~5–7 million tonnes/year
Pigs: ~1 million tonnes
Horses: minor impact, because the global population is relatively small
Chickens & poultry: Almost negligible methane, because their digestion doesn’t produce much CH₄ at all
Fun fact; a recent global biomass census of mammals (wild and domestic)
shows that this is the distribution of total mammal biomass on Earth:
Livestock (domesticated mammals): ~60–62 %
Humans themselves: ~34–36 %.
Wild mammals (land and ocean combined): ~4 %
(so the CH₄ emission of e.g. deer, bears, lions and apes will probably be negligible)
I believe in my cock!
The on air tv channels in the UK are weak centrist capitalism supporters and their papers are right-wing propaganda. Most people are waking up from right-wing lies, PURELY FROM EXPERIENCE.
And now the Green Party is surging, because they are telling the TRUTH:
your fascist views other than
just repeat what I'm telling you
about yourself. The reason that you
can do nothing is because (a) you're ignorant about the world,
(b) your mind is poisoned with
anti-democratic ideas, (c) you hate
your country, (d) you support
violation of laws and stability,
(e) you're illiberal and reactionary,
(f) you're unable to distinguish
reality from fiction and lies.
Moreover, I've apply demonstrated
all of the above and you've only
resorted in ad hominem inconsequential attacks.
I want secure borders and legal immigration, not folks swimming a river and taking what doesn't belong to them.
I live in reality, not a dream world where cops give out candy to the kids riding bicycles.
Reactionary? PREVENTION of problems begins by having a secure border. that is Proactive.
So many wrongs you spew, but continue to to be you. it helps the world see who's the idiot. and who not to rely on when the shit hits the fan.
However, our cops ride bike a lot, especially in Amsterdam center.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Dutch police primarily use bicycles in busy city centers and in locations where quick contact with citizens is desired. Bicycles are maneuverable in areas where car traffic is restricted or prohibited, such as shopping streets, squares, or during events. This makes bicycle patrols effective for visible presence and prevention in urban areas.
No candy, but this is comparable:
only registered users can see external links
Keep in mind that trump is also college educated and yet he's an idiot.
Back to my original post.
Nothing will change your beliefs in this dick.
You're glued to fascism.
--------------------------------------- added after 3 hours
Right
I guess if a fascist said don't drink the koolaid you would run to walmart and grab some??
This is a prime example of how people like YOU think,
only registered users can see external links
All trumpets are fascist.
You're in the company
of unwanted trash.
Worldwide despised.
"Keep in mind that trump is also college educated and yet he's an idiot."
Show me that Trump is NOT an idiot, by linking to a video of Trump describing
BY HEAD; some policy that his administration is implementing, clearly, accurately and with enough detail to make people understand the purpose
or cause and the expected result.
Someone with an IQ of around 100, should be expected to be able to have something explained to them, so they understand it enough to explain it to others, especially if it's THEIR JOB to oversee people who are executing
THEIR PLANS.
If Obama were to explain Trumps ideas as his own, granted it would be much clearer as he is a great orator and communicator.
Cognitive decline, if Trump were to suffer it as some may theorize, doesn't mean he is dumb, it just means he has difficulty's getting his point across. Would you laugh at a kid trying to talk that has a disorder? If not,stop laughing at Trump. This is a free country with opportunity's for all. Including the ageing..
Elon Musk is 1 of the richest men around, but he has a disorder, his communications skills are not the best. So I give Trump plenty of room in that department as well,
Even though he is even worse now, he was not able to do this in his first term.
Biden in his last few days as president could do that job better.
Even if Obama explained it, Trump's plans still don't make sense.
Blanket tariffs, with percentage calculations that fit on a stamp,
do not make sense.
I don't laugh at mentally disabled kids (Trump does), but I don't pick them for president. Elon Musk's disorder is being exaggerated, he's mostly just not as smart as you think, and has a bad case of not giving a fuck about other people. He's probably on the spectrum somewhere, but the spectrum is incredibly broad. Our best friend (who I talk about a lot) is on the spectrum too, but he is fully capable of caring about other people. The fact that Elon Musk was able to become the wealthiest person in the world, is NO qualification for being president. A president NEEDS to be highly intelligent, a great communicator, have lots of general and specific knowledge, a quick learner, and very much needs to care about people.
That's not discrimination, because that's not associated with being in a specific group. People CAN be old and (still) have all of that. They can be young and have none of that.
I don't give my representatives ANY room. Live up to my expectations or I will vote for someone who does. Everyone I have ever voted for lived up to those expectations, and then some.
We expect our operators in production to do what I described, even now we have lowered our standards, because of tightness in the labor market.
They are still required to understand complicated processes and instructions, and to be able to train them to others later. That's a qualification on intelligence and communication, for production personnel. Can I NOT expect that, from the man who controls the most powerful military in the world? DAMN!!!
You are literally advocating for 'DEI' for stupid, demented, racist, perverted,
white ass-holes, as long as they are on your side.
DEI means ignoring people's race, gender, sexual orientation and disabilities, as long as they are NOT disqualifying for the job. Someone who is on the spectrum, in a way that makes them lack an important social skill, that is required for the job, would not be hired anyway because of DEI. That's you misunderstanding or intentionally straw-manning DEI.
I would not have voted for Biden in the primaries, and I would have supported
the 25th Amendment. He was STILL 100x better than Trump.
I would also not have voted for Kamala in the 2020 primaries, because there were better candidates. Because of Biden, there were no better candidates in 2025. Kamala was STILL 100x better than Trump. That's not saying much, because a potted plant is 20x better than Trump.
7.7 billion MWh/year in electricity. That is much more than the complete US energy grid produced in 2023 (4.18 billion MWh). If used to charge up electric cars, that would be much more than required by all cars on the road in the US, today.
The only problem is that electric cars are not affordable enough yet. But, it won't take long.
Here is a video that discusses ALL the other 'problems' you might think are applicable.
only registered users can see external links
Tesla is mostly failing to sell their cybertruck and many people 'still' don't like buying
their car from a horrible ped0phile fascist.
People are working harder than ever. They just want their jobs to pay the bills.
Worldwide, EV sales still grew in 2025, with over 20 million units sold and share ~20-25 % of new car sales in many estimates. Growth overall was still strong year-over-year.
Major industry forecasts still expect millions more EVs on the road in 2026, and long-run growth remains positive.
At the moment, electric cars are still an expensive purchase. The infrastructure is also still lacking a lot. Those 2 factors will change, making electric cars as the standard inevitable.
that are used to convict people of crimes every single day.
It's good strategy to support releasing the Epstein files publicly.
If you know that Trump is in there 100X more, you know to be protected.
And there are still many whole pages redacted, which they would definitely not do
if the names of Democrats are on there.
There looks to be not enough evidence to indict him on, but there is certainly enough
to start digging for more. Piles of testimony is considered evidence too.
There is such a difference between your opinions for people you consider on your side and on the other side. Grasping at straws leading to Clinton. Obama is in those files ZERO times.
How can we be sure clinton was in epstein's pool?
As for testimony, if you hated Trump, but You saw something was wrong with what was being said about him,as in you read some papers or you saw something or heard something that would vindicate the man, would your hatred for him not stand in the way of you telling the truth?
Well, if you hated him,and wanted to see him go down, would you not be more than happy to spew whatever the courts wanted to hear to put him under a jail?
Testimony is word of mouth. And the oath means little anymore. People lie about everything everyday and enjoy it, I trust little about the papers, took WAY to long to get them out in the public.
It also took the "survivors" way to long to talk for firm convictions as there is little to NO physical evidence , unless they are like Monica and kept the dress. Still trying to figure out what kind of pervert would keep a dress with a cum stain on it from the President unless she PLANNED to use it later on to HER advantage.Not unless she was going to sell it like a Autograph! "Here is Bill clintons sperm on a blue dress, let the bidding begin"
Don't you think it would be all over your 'news', if they found even a hint to Obama?
They were outraged for days once, for wearing a tan suit!!!
He couldn't lift a finger without Fox 'News' crying about it.
You can be sure they would 'talk' about it, if he used that finger on a girl.
Hell, because he was so incredibly boring, they mostly made up shit.
Those were even the first political bowel moves of Trump; the birther shit.
Bill Clinton had the gravitas to get a grown women to suck him off out of free will.
He didn't need to pay models or porn-stars, or peep on teenage models, or grab unwilling women by the pussy, or use the services of a ped0phile sex-slave provider, like a small, insecure man, who needs to dominate young girls to feel better about himself. None of the release photo's or texts in the Epstein files is a claim of Bill Clinton doing something illegal, while there are many claims in the Epstein files of Trump doing something illegal. None of it is proven, but Trump's name is in ~5,300 files with references and ~38,000 total mentions. How the fuck did that happen?
only registered users can see external links
It is a known fact flashing lights at a certain frequency can cause seizures. Most of the flashing is due to lousy solder joints on the circuit board inside the bulb.
We had regulations for the arch of a banana and the sharpness of corkscrews.
I think it's more a lack of regulation, allowing manufacturers to sell you crap.
Good, modern LED lamps have a constant-current driver and sometimes a buffer capacitor. These exhibit little to no 50/100 Hz (60/120 Hz in the US) flicker.
I asked ChatGPT. Here's the answer:
1. Cheap drivers behave worse at 120 V than at 230 V.
120 V systems give LED drivers:
- Less voltage headroom
- Higher current for the same power
This makes it:
- Harder and more expensive to smooth the output
- Easier for cost-cutting designs to flicker
At 230 V, it’s easier to design a stable, low-flicker power supply.
2. Regulations and labeling
The EU:
- Has stricter flicker and power-quality standards for consumer lighting
- Requires better disclosure
The US:
- Standards exist, but enforcement and labeling are looser
- Many ultra-cheap bulbs reach the market
This affects average quality, not technical capability.
In my kitchen, I need a light of about 2000 lumen. The brightest E27 LEDs are about 1500 lumen. So, I removed the E27 fitting and put in an aluminium cooling block for commercial LED grow cob chips, that greenhouses use. They are between $1.00 and $1.50, and I buy them at least 4 at the time, all different brands. I had one blow up immoderately, 1 burn out within 6 months, but I have had several now work great for 1 to 4 years. It just requires a little bit more work, because you have to weld on wires. I do that for all 4 of them, when they are delivered. It takes me about 10 minuten to exchange them, because they are screwed onto the cooling block, and sometimes the screw holes don't line up perfectly, and then I have to file out the holes a bit. In any case, that gives us about 2000 lumen for 20 Watt of power. That's about a $65 savings in electricity per year, on an average of 5 hr/day of use.
LED lights are now just as good, but a bit more expensive to purchase. They compensate their higher purchase price with a lower electricity bill. If they are lasting shorting than incandescent light-bulbs, your buying crap products.
They used to be too expensive, but competition forced their prices down.
I also really like the WiZ RGB Smart-bulbs in the bedroom.
Filtering out the blue light at night helps me read without disturbing my sleep, or to have minimal light when I wake up, or to have romantic colored light for "sexy time".
I think I found the product that you are describing. Something like that is using hundreds of LEDs, which increases the risk of failure. I see one for $14 online. That can only be cheaply made in China. You cannot expect it to last. I have a LED construction lamp, with 144 LEDs on it. It gets damn hot very quickly. It's still working, but I don't expect it to last long.
However, all LED-filament bulbs that I have ever bought, at least work for several years. The one in the ceiling light on the landing of the first floor must be about 10 years old.
It's true that you cannot expect to buy the same product again, if you have a set of several and want to exchange one broken one, with the exact same color and intensity.
I always buy them in bulk for that application, so I have spares.
only registered users can see external links
Could we maybe think of a system that reduces the waste and suffering?
I just hate to see the tech and research wasted.
only registered users can see external links
It is refreshing to read more sensible statements about the environmental subject.
"“None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.”
The conclusion of the past five decades of failed apocalyptic predictions was that the false prophets shrieking about climate change were doing so to push partisan political agendas.
Just as they have with the overused “Race Card,” Democrats have weaponized “climate change” to stoke public panic in order to push leftist policies that have little to do with the environment and more to do with raising taxes and taking money from one group to give to another.
Brainwashed puppets such as Greta Thunberg should realize they are merely props being used to push destructive, left-wing agendas.""
Grand Canal green. But calling that “polluting historic waterways” is a loaded portrayal;
the demonstrators say they used non-toxic dye, and there is no proof of long-term pollution or damage. In other words: the “ban” and “dyeing” are real, but the “pollution of historic treasures” claim is more rhetorical spin than verified fact.
You are pushing a destructive right-wing agenda; Climate Change is real and destructive
and it's NOT left-wing to want to protect nature, and humanity that is dependent on it.
“None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.”
That's an absolute lie, climate change is progressing as scientists predicted.
Many past “predictions” have already come true.
Climate scientists’ projections from the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s included:
✔ Continued global warming
Predicted since the 1970s.
Outcome: Correct. The planet has warmed about 1.2°C relative to pre-industrial levels — almost exactly what early models projected.
✔ More frequent and intense heatwaves
Predicted in the 1980s–1990s.
Outcome: Correct. Heatwaves are now more frequent, longer, and more intense on every continent except Antarctica.
✔ Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline
Predicted in the 1980s.
Outcome: Correct — the summer sea-ice minimum has declined by ~40% since satellite records began in 1979.
✔ Sea-level rise accelerating
Predicted since the First IPCC Report (1990).
Outcome: Correct — global sea level is rising faster today than in the late 20th century.
✔ Heavier rainfall & flooding
Predicted in the 1990s under a warming atmosphere with more water vapor.
Outcome: Correct — extreme rainfall events have increased globally.
✔ Increased wildfire risk
Predicted since the 1990s due to higher temperatures and drier vegetation.
Outcome: Correct, especially in western North America, Australia, Mediterranean, Siberia.
So the claim that “none of the predictions came true” is simply misinformation.
A 2019 study (Hausfather et al., Geophysical Research Letters) evaluated 17 climate models from 1970–2007.
Results:
Most models predicted today’s warming almost exactly once you account for real-world CO₂ emissions.
Their average accuracy was remarkably high.
Classic examples:
James Hansen’s 1988 model: Today’s temperatures fall between his middle (“Scenario B”) and high (“Scenario C”) projections — because emissions grew faster than expected in the 1990s–2000s.
IPCC 1990–2001 models predicted ~0.15°C warming per decade.
Actual warming since the 1990s is about 0.18–0.20°C per decade.
In short:
👉 The warming has tracked very closely to mainstream predictions.
✅ 3. Which scenario are we currently on (best case, worst case, or middle)?
Climate models use different emissions pathways (formerly “SRES,” now “RCPs” or “SSPs”). Here’s where humanity actually is:
🌍 We are not on the best-case trajectory
SSP1-1.9 (≈1.5°C world) → Humanity is not reducing emissions fast enough.
🌍 We are also not on the worst-case trajectory
The old “business-as-usual” high-end scenario
RCP8.5 / SSP5-8.5
is now considered unlikely because energy systems have shifted somewhat away from coal.
👉 We are currently closest to a middle-to-high emissions scenario
Most analyses put us near:
SSP2-4.5 (medium emissions)
or
SSP3-6.0 (high but not catastrophic emissions)
This corresponds to:
~2.4–3.0°C warming by 2100 if current policies continue.
If countries meet their long-term pledges, possibly ~2°C — but pledges are not policy.
So climate change today is playing out extremely close to what mid-range models from decades ago predicted.
New Comment Go to top