I’m replacing my led bulbs every couple of months, they start blinking and it drives me crazy. Those bulbs are garbage.

What are you talking about? I used cheap as dirt home brand LED light-bulbs from DIY store for 10 years. They had nice warm-white light, but after 10 years they were not as bright anymore. I have replaced them Philips Master 2700K 2.3W, that produce 485 lumen, at $4.37 a piece. They are a bit more expensive, but have almost the double efficiency. Their light is just as nice as the former incandescent light-bulbs.

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.

That's capitalism. The best companies survive, the rest perish.
Could we maybe think of a system that reduces the waste and suffering?

It's a nice one dude, but you cannot survive on belief in your cock, alone.

They'll have to do better, or it's the end of Ford, in at most two decades.

Thunberg was banned from Venice after she participated in a protest that dyed the
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.

✅ 2. How accurate have the old climate models been?

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.

They are talking about the Milankovitch cycles, which I explained about in the
'YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos)' topic.

There are three main cycles:
1) ~100,000 years for changes in orbital eccentricity (shape of Earth's orbit)
2) ~41,000 years for changes in axial tilt (obliquity)
3) ~23,000 to 26,000 years for the wobble of the Earth's axis (precession)

They are completely irrelevant for human made climate change, that has the potential
to decimate humanity in a few HUNDRED years, from increasing the temperature,
many thousands of years before the next ice age is due, if humanity DOESN'T ACT.

The reassuring article from Bill Gates, that you posted a while back, takes into account
that humanity DOES ACT, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN WE ARE ACTING NOW.

This is very interesting. I hope it continues

ok, so things turned green and things look much better. Which I agree, looks great!

So why all the hate for cows in the green movement ,but bison are ok? Buffalo's and cows are very similar, similar enough that they are bred to each other.

only registered users can see external links


only registered users can see external links
methane from buffalo

only registered users can see external links

Yes, buffalo belch (or burp—the terms are often used interchangeably for the same action of expelling gas from the stomach).
Buffalo are ruminants, a group of herbivores that includes cattle, sheep, goats, bison (often called American buffalo), and water buffalo. Ruminants have a specialized four-chambered stomach where microbes ferment plant material, producing large amounts of gas (mostly carbon dioxide and methane) as a byproduct. To release this gas and prevent dangerous bloating (a condition called bloat that can be fatal if belching stops), ruminants continually eructate—belching silently about once per minute, unlike the louder human version.
This applies to both major types of buffalo:

American bison (commonly called buffalo in North America): They eructate during specific rumen contractions, similar to cattle. Their belches contribute methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Water buffalo (Asian buffalo): As ruminants, they follow the same digestive process and belch regularly.

In short, belching is a normal, essential part of how buffalo (and all ruminants) digest food—without it, they'd swell up like a balloon and potentially die.


Yes, buffalo do fart. This includes both American bison (often called buffalo in North America) and other species like water buffalo. They are ruminants, meaning they have multi-chambered stomachs where microbes ferment plant material, producing gases like methane as a byproduct. While most of this gas is released through belching (eructation), some does exit as flatulence from the rear.
Scientific studies on bison herds have measured significant enteric methane emissions (from digestion), with per-animal outputs comparable to or sometimes higher than cattle, and flatulence is explicitly part of how this gas is released. Historic estimates suggest pre-colonial bison populations (tens of millions) produced methane equivalent to modern livestock, including through farts.

Not yet, but they will, sooner than later.
Do understand that folks that actually USE trucks for their purposes,
are a tiny minority of truck users.

A study by Strategic Vision found that nearly 90 % of truck buyers said they never use their truck for business towing, mobile-office or worksites.
only registered users can see external links

Another summary shows:

Only about 7 % of pickup-truck owners frequently use their trucks to tow.
About 28 % frequently haul personal items; 47 % do so occasionally.
only registered users can see external links

According to a report by the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), only about 28 % of pickup owners say they see their truck as a “true work vehicle”.
only registered users can see external links

One statistic cited by an automotive-facts site: “Only 15 % of truck owners use their pickup trucks for work.”
only registered users can see external links

I don't own an electric car myself, because they don't provide me what I need for the price I am willing to pay. However, looking at the fast pace development of EV's, I'm confident that they will, when my current car has reached the end of it's economic repair lifetime.

The statement you quoted is partially true but also contains elements of unverified claims and sensationalism that should be treated with caution. Here’s a breakdown of what is known and what is not fully substantiated:

✅ What is true

1. The feed additive Bovaer (active ingredient 3-nitrooxypropanol, 3-NOP) is being used in Denmark in dairy cattle feed as part of efforts to reduce methane emissions.

2. Denmark has put in place policies to reduce methane emissions from dairy farming — including subsidies/confidence for feed additives — as part of its climate / agricultural emissions strategy.

3. There are reports from Danish farmers of animal health problems (e.g., reduced milk output, cows „sluggish“, some rumen-failure, some culls) after the introduction of Bovaer in some herds.

4. The manufacturer (DSM‑Firmenich) and Danish authorities have acknowledged and are investigating the reports of problems (though they do not conclude causation yet).

⚠️ What is not (yet) clearly proven

1. While farmers report cows “collapsing” and being euthanized, I did not locate independent, peer-reviewed or official veterinary data that confirms widespread collapses/euthanization directly caused by the additive. The media reports and farmer complaints are there, but causality is not established.

2. The claim that the policy “after Jan. 1 2025” mandated the additive in “large dairy farms” and that cows “started giving less milk, collapsing and in some instances getting so ill that they need to be euthanized” is a strong version of the claim and appears to be more sensational than the evidence currently supports. For example:

- The requirement noted in ­Agriland: “Since January 1, 2025, all conventional dairy farmers in Denmark with more than 50 cows are required to reduce methane emissions by either adjusting feed (increasing fat) or adding Bovaer for 80 days a year.”

- The phrase “collapsing cows” appears in certain farmer-complaint articles and blogs,
but not in official statistical data indicating a systemic collapse across Danish dairy herds.

Also be aware: Some of the articles you quoted (and similar ones) come from outlets with strongly charged language (“cows drop like flies,” etc). These may amplify or interpret anecdotal reports without full vetting.

only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links

Feeding cows "processed food" has been going on for a long time, with the goal
of maximizing profits. Your mental image of cows grazing in the pasture is obsolete.
31% of cows in The Netherlands never comes outside, the rest only (a small) part
of the year.



When they are inside, they are eating processed feed. Most farmers have their own production pasture or grain field to grow ingredients for the feed, but almost all of them
add large scale produced feed and additives.

De Heus Animal Nutrition
only registered users can see external links

ForFarmers
only registered users can see external links

Agrifirm
only registered users can see external links

The animal feed industry in The Netherlands has an estimated annual revenue of approximately $16.5 Billion.

Cows are milk and meat factories and don't get treated as animals that can suffer.
It's your side of politics that created that, and it's NOT your side of politics that is
aiming to make farming less cruel to animals. You celebrate 'profit over people',
so why would you care that profit hurts animals?

Feed additives like Bovaer are an alternative for reducing cattle.
Denying the reality of climate change is not helping anyone.
At least in Denmark they are trying a compromise. You better hope it works,
or you can say goodbye to milk and beef altogether.

Is there ANY actual scientific argument against climate change in there?

The kind of arguments that you are pushing are flat earth level arguments.

In one post you are proposing that climate change action is a waste of money and bad investments, but here you are saying that the whole goal of them are making money.
That doesn't compute, you cannot make money with bad investments.

How many threats and harassment do you think the OG Greta receives?

Throw yourself on your fainting couch for getting some hate back.
My side should stop being tolerant towards intolerance.

The side that you think is brainwashed, has science, facts and logic on its side.
Your side has nothing besides conspiracy theories and projection.