• Will Scotchgard waterproof a tent?
  Scotchgard can waterproof the fly and walls of a tent, but it will not seal the seams and floor of your shelter.

• How long does it take to waterproof a tent?
  From setting up the tent to the moment you can take it off and pack it back in its bag, waterproofing an entire tent – comprising floor and tarp – takes 24 hours. If you’re only resealing the seams or fly, account for about 6 hours.

• How often do tents need waterproofing?
  It depends on how often you use the tent. Casual campers using the tent for 2-3 weeks per year on average should waterproof their tent every 2 years. If you use your tent more often, consider sealing it every 6-12 months, or whenever it leaks.

• Do you seam seal inside or outside of tent?
  You should seal the seams with seam sealant on the inside of the tent or the inner side of the fly, applying approximately ¼-inch past the seams on either side.

The following is from an interview with GB News, which Epstein posted on Facebook, he argued “why COP 26 is not a progressive scientific conference but an anti-human, primitive-religious attempt to commit mass genocide,” according to his video description.16
“If you don’t admit that today’s world is amazing because of fossil fuels, you are totally unqualified to make any predictions about the future because either you are anti-human or ignorant.”

Epstein added:

“The fact that we have an impact doesn’t even mean that it’s net negative. I think the jury is out because there’s a lot of beneficial warming and then greening is good.” //

“I am actually an outspoken global warming affirmer. The real point of contention is not whether there is some global warming and whether human beings have some climate impact, but a) whether warming is a problem and b) whether fossil fuel energy should be restricted.

“When catastrophists label me and others ‘climate deniers,’ they aren’t trying to accurately characterize our views–they’re trying eliminate opposition to their political policies.”

April 2016

“If we look at what has been scientifically demonstrated vs. what has been speculated, the climate impact of CO2 is real — but mild and manageable.”

[…] while fossil-fuel use has only a mild warming impact, it has an enormous protecting impact. Nature doesn’t give us a stable, safe climate that we make dangerous. It gives us an ever-changing, dangerous climate that we need to make safe. And the driver behind sturdy buildings, affordable heating and air-conditioning, drought relief and everything else that keeps us safe from climate is cheap, plentiful, reliable energy, overwhelmingly from fossil fuels.”19

Stance on Climate Change
June 28, 2020

The following is from an article Shellenberger originally published at Forbes, \32 which was later retracted (in Shellenberger’s words, “Censored”). He later republished the article at Environmental Progress33 and elsewhere. He wrote:34
“On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.”

He went on to list “some facts few people know”:

“Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction’”
“The Amazon is not ‘the lungs of the world’”
“Climate change is not making natural disasters worse”
“Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003”
“The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
“The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California”
“Carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations for decades and peaked in Britain, Germany and France in the mid-seventies”
“Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor”
“We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter”
“Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change”
“Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels”
“Preventing future pandemics requires more not less ‘industrial’ agriculture”
Shellenberger added, “I know that the above facts will sound like ‘climate denialism’ to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.”

Another version of his article, titled “Sorry for misleading you, but I cried wolf on the global dangers of climate change,” was published at The Australian on June 30.35

Anthony Watts is a former television weatherman best known as the founder and editor of the blog Watts Up With That (WUWT), which primarily publishes articles critical of mainstream climate change science. Watts joined the Heartland Institute, a think tank proudly at the forefront of promoting doubt about climate change, as a Senior Fellow in 2019. [1], [121]

Watts is the director and president of IntelliWeather Inc., a weather graphics company alternatively known as Innovative Tech Works (ITWorks), and Weathershop. Watts also founded Surfacestations.org, a project with the stated purpose of documenting the siting quality of weather stations in the United States

Canvas is naturally waterproof, and I assumed it would arrive ready to resist all the rain in the world. Unfortunately, your canvas tent will certainly leak the first time it gets wet.

You need to season your canvas tent with water, soaking it thoroughly. Then you can move on to using silicone or fluoropolymer waterproofing spray. If you do not do this, then rain will leak through the tiny holes in the canvas fibers and drench the inside of your tent. //

How to Season a Canvas Tent
Step #1. Set Your Tent Up
Step #2: Get It Wet
Step #3: Soak It Again
Step #4: Test Your Tent
Step #5: Let It Dry
Step #6: Maintain The Seasoning

How to Waterproof a Canvas Tent
Step #1: Select a Product
Step #2: Lay Your Tent Out
Step #3: Spot Clean Your Tent
Step #4: Use Your Product
Step #5: Test Your Tent
Step #6: Let It Dry

By Joe McQueen jmcqueen@kpcmedia.com
Nov 5, 2021

Pictured are the three students from Central Noble who were recipients of the American Degree, the highest level of membership that a FFA member can achieve; Breanna Hull, Thad Foster and Sierra Gonzalez.

Environment
Climate change scepticism
Climate sceptics – who gets paid what?
Leaked documents show US thinktank the Heartland Institute has been making payments to experts and scientists to cast doubt on climate science. Here, we profile some of the figures

They especially wanted my input. I said I’d consider it, but was a bit hesitant given the Guardian’s reporting history. But, after some discussion with one of the reporters, it seemed like a genuine attempt at outreach. I suggested that if they really wanted to make a gesture that would make people take notice, they should consider banning the use of the word “denier” from climate discourse in their newspaper. Nobody I know of in the sceptic community denies that the earth has gotten warmer in the past century. I surely don’t. But we do question the measured magnitude, the cause, and the scientific methods. //

The claims made that skeptics are connected to tobacco companies is ludicrous. It is especially ludicrous in my case.

So here’s my challenge to Professor Sachs. Give me ten minutes in a room with you. That’s all I need. I’ll tell you about my story related to tobacco. I’ll tell you how secondhand smoke most likely contributed to my profound hearing loss through a series of badly treated ear infections as a child, I’ll tell you about my efforts to get my parents to stop smoking , and then, I’ll tell you how I watched both of my parents die of tobacco related disease. I’ll tell you what I think of tobacco products and companies. I’ll tell you to your face. I promise you it won’t be pretty, I promise you that you’ll feel my pain caused by tobacco.

In a blog post on climate science denier Anthony Watts’ website Watts Up With That, Monckton wrote: [138]

“If there is going to be little more than 1 K anthropogenic warming over the next century or so, there is absolutely no need to do anything to prevent it. The flight of major manufacturing industries to China, which profiteers mightily from the climate scam sedulously promoted in the West by the fawning front groups that it subsidizes, can and should be reversed.”

Stance on Climate Change
“My study is NOT as a climatologist, but from a completely different perspective in which I am an expert … For decades, as a professional experimental test engineer, I have analyzed experimental data and watched others massage and present data. I became a cynic; My conclusion – ‘if someone is aggressively selling a technical product who’s merits are dependent on complex experimental data, he is likely lying’. That is true whether the product is an airplane or a Carbon Credit.” [2]

In an interview by “Conversations that Matter,” Dyson argued that CO2 is beneficial due to “greening” vegetation and that continuing to burn fossil fuels will probably “do us good”: [13]

“The fact is, carbon dioxide will increase. We will continue to burn oil and coal, and probably it does us good. The Earth will get greener as a result.”

“CO2 is so beneficial […] it would be crazy to try to reduce it,” Dyson said. “Man-made climate change is, on the whole, good.”

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less
by Alex Epstein

Edwin A. Locke 5.0 out of 5 stars

The best book on environmentalism I have ever read

Reviewed in the United States on May 24, 2022
Verified Purchase

I am a scientist (psychology), so I know how science works even though I am not a climatologist. But for many decades I have read widely in many fields including the physical sciences. I have read about twenty books and scores of articles on climate issues. For many years I suspected that something seemed wrong. There were so many contradictions. Everyone seemed to report findings, using selected data, which supported their side but not findings that contradicted it. It seemed that a political agenda was constantly mixed in with a science agenda. Soon one view became dominant: that fossil fuels were destroying the earth, maybe even in the next ten years, and needed to be abandoned to prevent a world-wide catastrophe. People who disagreed with this could be harassed, mocked, and even risked job loss. Scientific findings could only be published in some journals if they came out with the “right” results. Organizations were pressured to sell their oil stocks. Reporters for many leading newspapers learned quickly that only certain types of articles were acceptable. Opposing oil became a moral crusade, a virtual dogma. Eminent catastrophizers included: Paul Erlich, Al Gore, James Hansen, Paul Krugman, Bill McKibben, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. There have been many distortions of scientific data. But since our Constitution says we have a right to freedom of speech, all critics of the anti-oil crusade could not be silenced. Some catastrophizers openly advocate being dishonest in order to further their agenda. Epstein refutes all the crtics. He presents a list of recommendation for evaluating climate claims

Epstein’s book is a brilliant antidote to the assault on fossil fuels. Its theme is that fossil fuels are one of the greatest benefits to human civilization ever and that there is, for now, no viable substitute. Epstein covers all the relevant issues from every angle, so I will only give a brief summary here.

1. The earth, absent the benefits of machines powered by fossil fuels and electrical energy created by fossil fuels is a very dangerous place, characterized by mass poverty, recurring starvation, death from the cold, poor medical care, poor sanitation, exhausting manual labor, bad water, inadequate shelter, devastating natural disasters, and low life expectancy.
2. The nations that suffer the most today are those that lack such technology. Without fossil fuels, people who lack them will keep suffering because they will stay poor.
3. Coal, oil, and gas are responsible for almost all the energy created today-- about 80%. Solar and wind provide only about 3%. Fossil fuels have allowed humanity, insofar it has advocated reason, to master nature (following the laws of nature and science) thus enabling the human race to multiply and thrive.
4. Fossils fuels are abundant in nature: plentiful, cheap, and reliable when production and transportation are not opposed by government regulations. They supply on demand electricity.
5. The championed substitutes for fossil fuels are: wind, solar and batteries. Epstein notes, as have others, the many problems with these sources. Windmills do not work without wind. Solar panels do not work without sunlight. Batteries are nowhere near cost-effective enough or efficient enough to store and provide sufficient energy when the wind isn’t blowing enough and the sun isn’t shining enough. So in practice, solar, wind, and batteries are not replacements for fossil-fueled grids, they are inefficient, cost-adding add-ons to fossil-fueled grids.
6. Epstein calls the idea that all power would be created by wind, solar, and batteries to be divorced from reality, just from the aspect of cost alone.
7. What about pollution? Epstein shows that it has been decreasing for decades thanks to technology. Further, he identifies the ways that side effects can be mitigated.
8. What other alternatives are there for power? Epstein favors two: waterpower from dams and nuclear. Both are safe, dependable, non-polluting and do not take up much land or harm birds and animals. Unfortunately, both are roundly opposed by the public. He shows that biomass and geothermal are at least decades away from becoming even significant supplements to fossil fuels, let alone replacements.
9. There is a long section on dealing with climate side effects including evidence that fossil fuels lead to fewer storm-related deaths, e.g., floods. Sea level rise today is radically less than in previous history (and can be coped with) and the danger has been greatly exaggerated as with the case of ocean acidification.
10. The book ends with a call for freedom of production and a critique of companies, including oil companies, which have conceded the anti-fossil agenda.

I consider this book to be, by far, the best—most honest, most accurate-- statement of the fossil fuel issue written so far. But each reader will have to decide what to believe by using their own rational judgment.