[QUOTE=S485122;419148]I do not understand you have been saying in numerous posts that freedom is a by-product of capitalism. Now you seem to say that the two concepts are independent after all ?
[/QUOTE]
Freedom and capitalism are not independent. In brief,
capitalism is the implementation of freedom into the
economic sphere. Freedom is defined by the political
protection of individual rights. Capitalism extends this
freedom to the economic sphere by protecting the
right to property and accumulation of personal wealth.

This could be discussed in the other thread if you wish.

[QUOTE=davar55;419096]Climate change? Bah. When it storms, I just put on an
old raincoat. Discussing this is beyond boredom.

Everybody does something about the weather,
but nobody wants to talk about it!

:smile::smile:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;419143]You did notice my double dose of smilies in that post...

My view on climate change is: it's slow, it's always been slow, it is
ultimately self-correcting but worth keeping tabs on, it is not an
emergency but keeping the environment cleaner is a nice goal,
and to the extent that this causes major social or political upheavals
it must be watched carefully. As long as science, technology, and
social change for the world are consonant with freedom and
capitalism, I have no problem with the future climate change accords.
And some climate change is desirable - a bit of glacier melting might
be good for the arid regions.[/QUOTE]

What if the small increase in average temperature is beneficial?

[QUOTE=davar55;419214]What if the small increase in average temperature is beneficial?[/QUOTE]Beneficial to whom? Polar bears?

North Carolina citizenry defeat pernicious [URL="http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/north-carolina-citizenry-defeat-pernicious-big-solar-plan-to-suck-up-the-sun/"]Big Solar plan to suck up the Sun[/URL]

(I guess this could have gone in the WTF thread. Life is full of hard choices. :smile:)

[QUOTE]The citizens of Woodland, N.C. have spoken loud and clear: They don't want none of them highfalutin solar panels in their good town. They scare off the kids. "All the young people are going to move out," [URL="http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2015/12/08/woodland-rejects-solar-farm/"]warned Bobby Mann[/URL], a local resident concerned about the future of his burg. Worse, Mann said, the solar panels would suck up all the energy from the Sun.


Another resident—a retired science teacher, no less—expressed concern that a proposed solar farm would block photosynthesis, and prevent nearby plants from growing. Jane Mann then went on to add that there seemed to have been a lot of cancer deaths in the area, and that no one could tell her solar panels didn't cause cancer. “I want information," Mann said. "Enough is enough."

These comments were reported not in The Onion, but rather [URL="http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2015/12/08/woodland-rejects-solar-farm/"]by the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald[/URL]. [/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.babwnews.com/2015/12/is-toxic-algae-responsible-for-ca-sea-lions-brain-damage/[/url]

[QUOTE]Algae on the Pacific Coast haven’t always been a problem; scientists think that climate change may be leading to the altered ocean conditions that make such blooms possible.[/QUOTE]

Guys, you need to fart less.

A typical breakdown of the chemical composition of farts is:

Nitrogen: 20-90%
Hydrogen: 0-50% (flammable)
Carbon dioxide: 10-30%
Oxygen: 0-10%
Methane: 0-10% (flammable)

Methane increases greenhouse effects.

Just my two cents....

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;419353]Guys, you need to fart less.

A typical breakdown of the chemical composition of farts is:

Nitrogen: 20-90%
Hydrogen: 0-50% (flammable)
Carbon dioxide: 10-30%
Oxygen: 0-10%
Methane: 0-10% (flammable)

Methane increases greenhouse effects.

Just my two cents....[/QUOTE]

Much more effective would be to stop keeping so many cattle around. They contribute a startling [URL="http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html"]share of the US methane releases[/URL]. "Enteric Fermentation" contributes 26%, and "Manure Management" another 10%, as does Coal Mining. Of course, not all animal waste is bovine-derived.

Kind of in the middle is Landfill at 18%. It seems to me that it were done correctly, landfill methane could be mostly captured, though if it were, it might well just be flared off.

It is also almost certain that the "Natural Gas and Petroleum Systems" (29%) are substantially under-reported, especially in the Fracking industry. :furious:

EDIT: The US cartoon South Park did an episode on the effects of farting too much or too little.

[QUOTE=kladner;419355]Kind of in the middle is Landfill at 18%. It seems to me that it were done correctly, landfill methane could be mostly captured, though if it were, it might well just be flared off.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely.
[URL]http://www.wastematters.eu/about-dwma/activities/landfill.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=kladner;419355]Much more effective would be to stop keeping so many cattle around.[/QUOTE]

I rarely eat meat. It scares the cats and the chickens...

I fart a lot. It annoys the girlfriend....

[QUOTE=kladner;419355]Kind of in the middle is Landfill at 18%. It seems to me that it were done correctly, landfill methane could be mostly captured, though if it were, it might well just be flared off.[/QUOTE]Conversion of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] to CO[SUB]2[/SUB] reduces the greenhouse effect by a fair bit. CH[SUB]4[/SUB] is generally considered to be between 9x and ~40x the warming power of CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. Gas from landfills is typically between 40% and 60% CH[SUB]4[/SUB] and 40% to 55% CO[SUB]2[/SUB] (YGMV). There are many projects that capture the gas and burn it to create power. This can have a net benefit, by converting waste to power, offsetting the need for fossil fuels. There are several other technologies that aim to accelerate the change and get a larger power capture. Even for locations that have flares, the emissions from the surface can be a significant source of gas.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;419353]Guys, you need to fart less.[/QUOTE]

The obvious solution here is for everyone to keep a lighter handy and flare 'em off as they exit, but that [a] requires proper technique (a thin layer of clothing helps here) to avoid burning oneself, and [b] the rules of social etiquette would require rather a profound change to render such habits acceptable.

Cows - no etiquette rules to worry about here - could be fitted with piezoelectric spark devices, but might also require regular tail-hair bobbing to prevent setting fire to themselves.