Category Archives: IPCC

The 5 Most Common Plastics And Their Everyday Uses


I think the forecasts that tell us that wind and solar will put fossil fuels out of business by 2050 are pipedreams. Plastics are typically made from oil and natural gas liquids.  Although there have been attempts to use biomass as substitutes for fossil fuels in the making of plastics, they show little promise. So, fossil fuels making plastics will be around for a long time.

To give the reader an overview at how pervasive plastic are, here is a posting by Cutplasticsheeting.com-uk:

The 5 Most Common Plastics & Their Everyday Uses

Despite being all but unheard of until the 1920’s, plastic materials have effectively permeated every aspect of modern day life, from the microchips in your computer to the bags you carry your shopping in. The reason why it seems like plastic can be used just about everywhere is that it is not actually just one material, but a group of materials. There are so many different types of plastic material, and a lot of them, like polyethylene , PVC, acrylic, etc., have incredibly useful and versatile properties.

You would be amazed by just how many types of plastic there are, and how some, like Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK), are quickly taking the place of metals in a wide range of applications. Having said that, plastics with these characteristics are still being developed, and though they’re useful they are not used widely just yet due to their generally higher costs. There are a great many plastics however that don’t have this problem, and though they may not seem quite as impressive now at one time they were practically revolutionary.

The following are the 5 most common plastics along with some of their everyday uses. Just think how much different life was and would be without them, and what inferior materials we would have to use in their place…

1: Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)

One of the plastics you are most likely to come into physical contact with on a daily basis, depending on how it is made PET can be completely rigid or flexible, and because of its molecular construction it is impact, chemical and weather resistant and a terrific water and gas barrier.

Common uses of PET: Soft drink, water, cooking oil bottles, packaging trays, frozen ready-meal trays, First-aid blankets, polar fleece.

2: High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)

Incredibly strong considering its density, HDPE is a solid material that can tolerate high temperatures and strong chemicals. One of the reasons that HDPE is used so regularly is that it can be recycled in many different ways and therefore converted into many different things.

Common uses of HDPE: Cleaning solution and soap containers, Food and drink storage, shopping bags, freezer bags, pipes, insulation, bottle caps, vehicle fuel tanks, protective helmets, faux-wood planks, recycled wood-plastic composites.

3: Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)

Cost effective to produce and highly resilient to chemical and biological damage, PVC is easy to work with and mould into shapes; making it an extremely practical material. In terms of properties, PVC is one of the most versatile. It can be used to create rigid, lightweight sheets, like Foamex, but it can also be used to make faux-leather materials like leatherette and pleather.

Common uses of PVC: Signage, furniture, clothing, medical containers, tubing, water and sewage pipes, flooring, cladding, vinyl records, cables, cleaning solution containers, water bottles.

4: Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE)

At general living temperatures LDPE is a highly non-reactive material, which explains why it has become one of the most common plastics in use at the moment. It can withstand temperatures approaching 100°C, and though it is not as strong as HDPE (its high density counterpart), it is certainly more resilient.

Common uses of LDPE: Trays, containers, work surfaces, machine parts, lids, ‘6-ring’ drink holders, drink cartons, protective shells, computer hardware casings, playground fixtures (slides and the like), bin-bags, laundry bags.

5: Polypropylene (PP)

Strong and flexible, polypropylene is a very hard wearing plastic that, when melted, is one of the most effective materials for injection moulding. Having said that, it has quite a high tolerance to high temperatures, relative to other plastics, and is considered to be a food safe material.

Common uses of Polypropylene: Clothing, surgery tools and supplies, hobbyist model, bottle caps, food containers, straws, crisp bags, kettles, lunch boxes, packing tape.

Next we will look a little deeper into fossil fuel use in plastics.

cbdakota

Repeal The Endangerment Finding–Talk To The RINOs


Somehow, I am on Climate Home’s email list.  The news in this edition is several months old, but a couple of its postings bother me a lot.  While the postings do not address repeal of the Endangerment Finding, they do leave me wondering how committed are the Congressional Republicans to the draining of the EPA swamp”?

Several years ago, a hearing before the Supreme Court was being conducted, that wanted CO2 to be added, as a pollutant, in the Clear Air Act. Congress had passed and the President had signed the Clear Air Act into law a number of years prior to the case in question.  Despite the fact that the legislative body of the US Government had considered CO2 and had rejected it being included, the Supreme court said that the EPA should determine if CO2 was a danger to the nation.  The EPA cherry picked the science from the IPCC, in particular, and announced that indeed CO2 was endangering the nation.  So, the Supremes, ignoring the separation of powers, said ok, it’s now the law of the land that CO2 is a pollutant. From that moment, the EPA has been writing the laws about CO2. They have carte blanc to do whatever they want. 

By now the Trump Administration should have acted to repeal this inclusion of CO2 on several bases.  One: the science is bogus and two: the Supremes overstepped their Constitutional authority.

Continue reading

If you are trying to decide if you should go to Al Gore’s new documentary,  read this first.


Al Gore’s new documentary titled “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” opened on July 28 with a limited engagement. Beginning in August, the documentary will be opening in many theaters.  I don’t know how many, as it has not been getting great reviews, but it will be in many more than the initial 4 theaters.

The critics being mostly being quite liberal tend to give this kind of movie a big “thumbs up”. Science has little to do with their ratings of a movie like this, because they are sure if Al Gore produced it, it must all be true. However, the liberal website, VOX said, “Even An Inconvenient Sequel seems a little light on facts at times.” Many of the movie reviewers said it was, in effect, boring.  Maybe that was reflected in the boxofficemojo data published on Sunday, 30 July.  That they said ticket sales for the first day were $61,000, the second day were $43,000 and today (the third day) were $26,000 might reflect the boring viewpoint. 

But Gore did receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his first film, didn’t he?  Yes, he did. However, it was the same Nobel Peace Prize Committee that presented the award to the newly elected Barrack Obama before he got into office. They awarded the Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat of the PLO, too.  That Committee has a very transparent political agenda. It has very little to do with peace.

But never fear gentle reader, Al Gore will not let you down.

Bjorn Lomborg’s comments on just a few of Al Gore’s many prediction misses in his posting “Al Gore’s Climate Sequel Misses A Few Inconvenient Facts”:

Continue reading

Do Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the UK know what they have gotten into?


 

The Manhattan Contrarian posted “Looks Like Global Action On “Climate Change” Is Dead by Frances Menton.  There is not much in the posting that I have not already covered.  However, there are two things that do standout that I want to pass on. Menton’s posting is relative to the members of the G 20, that have just reaffirmed their support for the Paris Agreement in the Summary statement at the end of the G 20* meeting.  The US did not join in the reaffirmation.

Menton notes that Russia’s intended reduction is based upon their CO2 emissions in 1990 before they collapse in 1991 of the Soviet Union.

“Then they closed down all that inefficient Soviet industry.  According to a graph at Climate Action Tracker here, by 2000 their emissions were down by almost 40% from the 1990 level, and they have only crept up a little from there since.”

That was their ploy back in the days of the Kyoto Pact, too.

Continue reading

Al Gore Continues His Charade With His New Documentary.


Who made the following statement?

“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there is a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening an audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”  (I added the emphasis in bold. cbdakota)

None other than Al Gore.  There’s no reason to waste a perfectly good crisis, even if you have to invent one to make a strong argument for it. As Al Gore told Grist Magazine in May, 2006

The quote and the source are from a posting on Newsmax titled “Decades of Climate Hysteria Unsupported by Data,”

Continue reading

Sun And Global Temperature Change


In an earlier posting, the case for CO2 controlling global temperature change was discussed. Several cases were examined that suggest that CO2 probably is a minor factor.  Yes, I do have a bias that the Sun is most likely the main driver of global climate. But I believe that bias is well founded.

As I began to prepare a posting on this topic, on 10 June a new posting on WattsUpWithThat by Mike Jonas appeared.   It covers, most of what I had planned to say.  He says it very well, albeit in a lot of words.  His Figure 7, “Correlation of sunspot cycle length with temperature” is thought by some to have been disproven, so you may want to tread lightly on that. I also think that he should have used an article from December 2016 CERN publication that strengthened his case for the Svensmark theory of galactic cosmic rays/cloud formation/cooling.  See my comment on that by clicking here.

My thoughts on this topic would be less informative than those by Mike Jonas.  Thus I am reblogging his posting:

WattsUpWithThat

Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth’s Climate

By Mike Jonas  10 June 2017

For a long time, I have been bitterly disappointed at the blinkered lopsided attitude of the IPCC and of many climate scientists, by which they readily accepted spurious indirect effects from CO2-driven global warming (the “feedbacks”), yet found a range of excuses for ignoring the possibility that there might be any indirect effects from the sun. For example, in AR4 2.7.1 they say “empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change” but there is nothing in the models for this, because there is “ongoing debate“, or it “remains ambiguous“, etc, etc.

In this article, I explore the scientific literature on possible solar indirect effects on climate, and suggest a reasonable way of looking at them. This should also answer Leif Svalgaard’s question, though it seems rather unlikely that he would be unaware of any of the material cited here. Certainly just about everything in this article has already appeared on WUWT; the aim here is to present it in a single article (sorry it’s so long). I provide some links to the works of people like Jasper Kirkby, Nir Shaviv and Nigel Calder. For those who have time, those works are worth reading in their entirety.


Table of Contents:

1. Henrik Svensmark

2. Correlation

3. Galactic Cosmic Rays

4. Ultra-Violet

5. The Non-Linear System

6. A Final Quirk

Abbreviations

References

 

To read the entire posting click here

 cbdakota

 

 

ExxonMobil Ripped At Stockholders Meeting


I have come across a posting on JunkScience titled “Milloy rips at ExxonMobil management for supporting climate alarmism” by Steve Milloy.  The content of  his address at the recent ExxonMobil stockholders meeting can read by clicking here.

Here is a part of what Milloy said this at the meeting:

“My fellow shareholders, we can defeat the activists as they:

  • Hype the climate hoax;
  • Lobby governments for anti-oil policies;
  • Force investment funds to divest from Exxon;
  • Campaign to stop oil production; and
  • Pressure regulators to force companies to write down their reserves.

A handful of others and I have been fighting these anti-capitalist activists for decades.

Our efforts helped produce a President who knows climate hysteria is unfounded and who wants the oil industry to thrive. “

Read  Milloy’s address, or listen to it on the YouTube (I found that difficult so that is why I have put the transcript in.)

cbdakota