You can also pick apart ‘definitions’ and bits and pieces of any argument, ensuring nothing ever gets done. Ignoring the reality of us changing our planet and overpopulating it won’t change anything. It may make you sleep better at night though.
global climate change.
- Thread starter lonewolf
- Start date
-
- Tags
- climate change
Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:
I'm glad you get it, unless you're being sarcastic in which case well, yes, doing that would in effect pollute your lawn, damaging it through too much of a good thing.
There was definitely sarcasm there. I really don’t sweat it. All the denial in the world isn’t going to change the fact that we are damaging the only place we have to live. Like I said though, I’m not concerned for me. I’m a prepper for one so I’m better set to deal with problems than most. It’s our kids that are going to pay the price for this,
I agree. A few years ago, I read a paper that suggested that one of the primary driving forces behind climate change denial was fear of the pain of loss. Much of the literature on the subject concerns not doing this, no longer do that, giving up the other... people fear loss, and in materialist, consumption-driven societies they fear the loss of the material and material-based things around which they build their identities such as the car they drive, clothes they wear, size of house, overseas holidays. If one's identity is built on these things then losing them becomes emotionally damaging and painful. The paper encouraged two complementary approaches to this problem: a) a process of pre-emptive mourning for these perceived losses, alongside b) a process of exploring the gains to be made, and the healthier and more robust identities to be forged, in making the necessary changes.
It's one of the reasons that I enjoy prepping. Rather than aiming to survive in a some sort of post-apocalyptic wasteland, being a classicist I prefer the original Greek meaning of apokálypsis: a revealing of secrets. My positive prepping contributes to ending the current Culture of Maximum Harm and developing a kinder, gentler, fairer, more supportive society of eudaimonia, human flourishing, within a wider context of global environmental flourishing. If all does go horribly wrong and we end up in a wasteland then at the very least I, personally, will have lived a kinder and gentler life, and my preps might help me to live a while longer with dignity. And if people call me daft to have this as my goal then fair enough, I'd rather be daft and kind than sensible and mean.
@Brent, thats your incorrect opinion that Im burying my head in the sand and ignoring it. What exactly do you think the world can do with enough resources used to solve this? How much is enough? Got an estimate?
Why dont you start making a difference? Why are you buying food from retail markets instead of growing all that you eat? That food is transported using diesel/gasoline. So many resources are used up to grow that food, process it and get it to your table. The same with meat and dairy. Why do you drive vehicles? Dont you realize how much they pollute the planet? Are you perhaps greedy like the others you accuse? No, its a matter of neccessity and convienence. You act like everyone is polluting the planet on purpose because they want to just be evil. You live the same way as they do.
I think you would understand if you research how much of what you call pollution is released during a volcanic eruption in a short period of time in a reletive small area and see how long it takes the eviroment to recover. Compare that to any man made pollution of the same significance. Look at chernobyl and fukushima, cant get much worse than that. All those enviromental disasters have no effect on global climate change or factor into the earth having a global ice age or heat wave. Pollution is a localized affect not a global one. Global climate change has to do with orbital rotationtion of our solor system, cosmic ray fluxuations and solor radiation cycles from our sun.
My advise is to be as enviramentaly conservative as possable while still maintaining your quality of life, because what you suggest we as a human race is doing or not doing to our planet has no significance on the global enviroment or climate change of a exstinctional event. We as a species can and will adapt to most anything short of that.
Why dont you start making a difference? Why are you buying food from retail markets instead of growing all that you eat? That food is transported using diesel/gasoline. So many resources are used up to grow that food, process it and get it to your table. The same with meat and dairy. Why do you drive vehicles? Dont you realize how much they pollute the planet? Are you perhaps greedy like the others you accuse? No, its a matter of neccessity and convienence. You act like everyone is polluting the planet on purpose because they want to just be evil. You live the same way as they do.
I think you would understand if you research how much of what you call pollution is released during a volcanic eruption in a short period of time in a reletive small area and see how long it takes the eviroment to recover. Compare that to any man made pollution of the same significance. Look at chernobyl and fukushima, cant get much worse than that. All those enviromental disasters have no effect on global climate change or factor into the earth having a global ice age or heat wave. Pollution is a localized affect not a global one. Global climate change has to do with orbital rotationtion of our solor system, cosmic ray fluxuations and solor radiation cycles from our sun.
My advise is to be as enviramentaly conservative as possable while still maintaining your quality of life, because what you suggest we as a human race is doing or not doing to our planet has no significance on the global enviroment or climate change of a exstinctional event. We as a species can and will adapt to most anything short of that.
I hope your right and we can adapt to whatever comes. As far as living less wasteful as the average I do live with less than most. LED lights, energy conservation appliances, recycling and compost, gardening, etc. am I a eco nut, no. But I do try to live less wasteful than most. As far as giving up electricity, I’m not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the govt start taking money from stupid ideas like building a 30billion dollar wall and start subsidizing industries to develope solar, wind and water energy production. Battery technology would be a good one too. I think the govt allready has enough money, it just should be reallocated to more important uses.
I agree when man had small villages the pollution was locally contained. The problem is with as large as our population has grown, it has become a global problem now. I have a saying in life about why would you piss in the pool you swim in.
And yes you are right about volcanoes adding large amounts of gasses to the atmosphere. The thing with this is they are usually one big event, and then go dormant again for a long while. Mans pollution is 24/7, non ending and ever increasing. Add the natural events to this and it has reached a point that the planet can’t absorbe it all anymore.
I don’t think we all need to stop living with AC and move into caves here. I do think we need to seriously increase our research into cleaner energy, and the sooner the better.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,167
My primary driving force is science Bluejoy. And the lack of good scientific integrity among MOST so called "Climate Change Experts" is appalling. They have been caught RED HANDED cooking the books on multiple occasions.
If you are interested in real science and not pseudoscience, listen to a bona fide expert, Roy Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
world wide the vast majority agree that we are the primary reason. Of course there will always be 10% that disagree. I’m going with the vast majority most times.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,167
Climate Change Science globally is driven by one main motivation: Suck as much money as possible from the U.S.
Imagine the planet with no people on it at all. It would revert back to clean water, clean soil and nature again after a time. I remember reading how the Europeans were astonished that Native Americans were able to drink from the rivers, it was not polluted like it was in Europe. Of course it is polluted now. How sad one can't drink from the creek. All I can say to the argument is try to reduce, reuse and recycle, not only is that budget wise but environmentally smart. Of course there are people who refuse to do it.
He hasn't published any papers since 2014, presumably after his last paper, co-authored with Braswell, was panned and his climate modelling methods shown to be utterly pointless. His pronouncements about climate change have been shown time and again to be overly-simplistic, irrelevant, unscientific and often downright wrong. He's also a supporter of Intelligent Design, which is a bit of a giveaway when it comes to wondering whether someone is lacking in the science department.
People don't really want US money as such. They want clean water, productive soil, breathable air, pollination, forests, sufficient homes, thriving communities, healthy ecosystems. US money, know-how and decency, along with those same things from other countries, could help to provide that for everyone, including those in the US.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,167
"lacking in the science department" eh?
Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
He is the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.
He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.
In 2001, he designed an algorithm to detect tropical cyclones and estimate their maximum sustained wind speed using the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU).
He was a member of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), the TOVS Pathfinder Working Group, the NASA Headquarters Earth Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee, and two National Research Council (NRC) study panels.
"lacking in the science department" my lilly white Irish Arse!
Now, you give me the names of his critics and tell me what their credentials are...
Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
He is the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.
He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.
In 2001, he designed an algorithm to detect tropical cyclones and estimate their maximum sustained wind speed using the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU).
He was a member of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), the TOVS Pathfinder Working Group, the NASA Headquarters Earth Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee, and two National Research Council (NRC) study panels.
"lacking in the science department" my lilly white Irish Arse!
Now, you give me the names of his critics and tell me what their credentials are...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Messages
- 15,374
This "Man caused" global warming scam is a lot like religion. It was designed to fool the ignorant and gullible. It seems to have worked quite well.
Those who have fallen for this scam want to focus on a perceived unproven global disaster, but will do nothing themselves or put their own money where their mouth is.
I still haven't heard from a single believer say what they are personally doing in their life to set an example for the rest of us to curb global warming. Typical, all mouth and no action.
Those who have fallen for this scam want to focus on a perceived unproven global disaster, but will do nothing themselves or put their own money where their mouth is.
I still haven't heard from a single believer say what they are personally doing in their life to set an example for the rest of us to curb global warming. Typical, all mouth and no action.
It's okay, I read his Wikipedia page before commenting, so I've already seen his credentials. Intelligent Design, however, means lacking in the science department, regardless of a) whatever else he may have done or b) the status of your arse
You can look up the science that debunks his claims all over the place. A good place to start is: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm, which gives information on his quotes and arguments, and links to commentary about his work. Good luck, it's a lot of links.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,167
Names and credentials, Bluejoy. I'm waiting...
too much arguing not enough discussing, i'm right, your wrong sort of dialogue.
the subject matter sort of gets lost.
the gases that are causing the climate to heat up are mostly caused by big business and industry , like chopping down the rain forest to grow palm oil and burn and slash to make room for ranches in the forests , nothing the little man in his house in the suburbs can do about that , more wind and solar farms are needed not coal and diesel power stations, that's a government decision not something that can be influenced by the guy and girl in the street.
the subject matter sort of gets lost.
the gases that are causing the climate to heat up are mostly caused by big business and industry , like chopping down the rain forest to grow palm oil and burn and slash to make room for ranches in the forests , nothing the little man in his house in the suburbs can do about that , more wind and solar farms are needed not coal and diesel power stations, that's a government decision not something that can be influenced by the guy and girl in the street.
Last edited:
I’m not bashing any one scientists credentials, but am certainly pointing out he is in the minority of an overwhelmingly grouped consensus that the world is in trouble and we are the cause of it. I’m comfortable with the averages of most saying he’s wrong.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Messages
- 15,374
That's BS BP. There are lot of things that the "little man in the suburbs" can do. Unfortunately most believers just want a government solution, rather than doing anything for themselves.
Just what do you think that "big business and industry" are doing?? They are manufacturing and producing products that people, just like you and me, buy and need! Again, what are you doing without in order to "save" the planet?
Apparently you don't get out much either, otherwise you'd see all of the enormous wind and solar farms that are popping up everywhere. Have you converted over to wind and solar yourself yet? Have you done without that evil internal combustion motor vehicle yet? I'm guessing that you use a bicycle or horse for transportation. Have you eliminated all products that use oil or gas in the manufacturing or transportation process?
Once again, believers should put their money where their mouth is. Set an example.
BTW, my homestead is on 100% solar power. Are you?
You are all missing the point. Right or wrong, Happening or bunk, it does not matter. Limiting birth is not going to happen. Modern man is not going to give up his modern life style. Developing countries are going to use what ever resources they have or can purchase at the lowest cost, no matter the pollution cost. If the planet starts going to heck in a hand basket, then the population will be reduced through water and air pollution, killing off whole groups of people. When it gets bad enough, the governments will then band together to start working on alternate solutions. Problem solved, lower population, new technology, cleaner environment and the start of a whole new way to over whelm the planet. Fact or fiction does not matter. People will do what they can to improve their immediate lives and are not going to give up their dreams and wants for the betterment of their fellow men. Point being, I am not going to loose any sleep or gain a single gray hair on this issue. You don't control the outcome, you can't change the outcome, so why get excited about it.
exactly, nothing will be done until SHTF then its already too late.
sure I use a motor car, you have to when you live in the middle of nowhere, everything is that much further away, if I lived in a city I would cycle or use public transport more but I don't so I cant.
I don't have a homestead I live in a house.
most pollution seems to come from places like Indonesia and Japan, some of the smogs have to be seen to be believed.
maybe one day we will all go over to electric cars but not whilst they are the price they are and the charging points are few and far between. at least I don't drive a nasty pollution diesel car
Sometimes I’ve wondered if this is why Trump pulled out of the agreement.
Yep, it could well be. I have read stories with that premise...
If everyone did a bit more to conserve we would all benefit. But we need to get everyone on board, especially industry. We don’t need to encourage coal use and lower emissions standards... glad I don’t have kids to worry about....
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,167
My intentions for going to graduate school were to do alternate fuels research. The bottom dropped out of that field about the time I graduated and there was no money in it anymore.
Don't even get me started on why we are in the situation we are energy wise. And a lot of it is the opposite of what you think. There NEVER was an energy shortage! All we had was a supply chain problem PERIOD.
I'll give you a good example:
We've all heard about the evil BIG OIL suppressing research into improved efficiencies for automobiles right?
What if I told you that way back in the 1970s, Texaco was doing research into automobile engine design, and came up with a design that solved several problems for automobile engines. It was called the Texaco Controlled Combustion System (TCCS). It was what's called a "stratified charge" engine that used a diesel type injection system. Google it...or use this link to a Popular Mechanics article on it: https://books.google.com/books?id=mdgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA94&dq=Popular+Mechanics+Science+installing+linoleum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BAjZT-rpNYOe8gTth_jqAw&sqi=2&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Popular Mechanics Science installing linoleum&f=true
They went to all the big auto companies with the design, and got the cold shoulder from all of them. They ended up teaming up with White Engines to produce engines for UPS delivery vans. The reason? The engine idled very efficiently, and UPS vans spend a lot of time idling.
The engine would run on just about any hydrocarbon fuel. Gasoline, diesel, kerosene, peanut oil...they even ran it on motor oil.
The U.S. Army expressed interest in the engine due to it's multi-fuel capability...then suddenly lost interest...no explanation...
So, why would an OIL COMPANY want to push the design of an engine that did not need gasoline, and in fact did not even need petroleum based fuel?
BECAUSE, one of the very expensive processes in manufacturing gasoline is getting the octane rating high enough for use in automobile engines. At that time, tetraethyl lead was still being used to boost octane ratings, and they knew that was going to have to change at some point. Refracting gasoline to raise the octane rating was very energy intensive (read very expensive)
If the refineries could just pull off a gasoline fraction from a fractionating column at, say, 70 octane, and then sell it like that without having to raise the octane. WELL...
And the TCCS engine would run just fine on 70 octane.
The oil company wins by having a product that is not as expensive to make. Consumers win by getting a more efficient engine. The environment wins by having fewer emissions.
But NOPE. For reasons unknown and baffling to Texaco, it never went anywhere in consumer automobiles.
And nowadays, if we started using that type of engine, we wouldn't need ethanol added, which would eliminate a major market for corn, which would be totally unacceptable politically, so...
Don't even get me started on why we are in the situation we are energy wise. And a lot of it is the opposite of what you think. There NEVER was an energy shortage! All we had was a supply chain problem PERIOD.
I'll give you a good example:
We've all heard about the evil BIG OIL suppressing research into improved efficiencies for automobiles right?
What if I told you that way back in the 1970s, Texaco was doing research into automobile engine design, and came up with a design that solved several problems for automobile engines. It was called the Texaco Controlled Combustion System (TCCS). It was what's called a "stratified charge" engine that used a diesel type injection system. Google it...or use this link to a Popular Mechanics article on it: https://books.google.com/books?id=mdgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA94&dq=Popular+Mechanics+Science+installing+linoleum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BAjZT-rpNYOe8gTth_jqAw&sqi=2&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Popular Mechanics Science installing linoleum&f=true
They went to all the big auto companies with the design, and got the cold shoulder from all of them. They ended up teaming up with White Engines to produce engines for UPS delivery vans. The reason? The engine idled very efficiently, and UPS vans spend a lot of time idling.
The engine would run on just about any hydrocarbon fuel. Gasoline, diesel, kerosene, peanut oil...they even ran it on motor oil.
The U.S. Army expressed interest in the engine due to it's multi-fuel capability...then suddenly lost interest...no explanation...
So, why would an OIL COMPANY want to push the design of an engine that did not need gasoline, and in fact did not even need petroleum based fuel?
BECAUSE, one of the very expensive processes in manufacturing gasoline is getting the octane rating high enough for use in automobile engines. At that time, tetraethyl lead was still being used to boost octane ratings, and they knew that was going to have to change at some point. Refracting gasoline to raise the octane rating was very energy intensive (read very expensive)
If the refineries could just pull off a gasoline fraction from a fractionating column at, say, 70 octane, and then sell it like that without having to raise the octane. WELL...
And the TCCS engine would run just fine on 70 octane.
The oil company wins by having a product that is not as expensive to make. Consumers win by getting a more efficient engine. The environment wins by having fewer emissions.
But NOPE. For reasons unknown and baffling to Texaco, it never went anywhere in consumer automobiles.
And nowadays, if we started using that type of engine, we wouldn't need ethanol added, which would eliminate a major market for corn, which would be totally unacceptable politically, so...
Last edited:
You can trace nearly every problem back to greed. That is why they say that money is the root of all evil. It is all, "I want, I want, I want". The thing about money is you never have enough, ever. Human beings are greedy and destructive creatures compared to other creatures.
Ignore the cause, focus on the effect. Anyone notice there is less and less insects, and reptiles outside? Our ecosystem is crippling. Before long it will have serious implications on our ecosystem.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,167
I WISH I had less insects outside. I stopped putting diatomaceous earth on some collards when they bolted so I wouldn't kill the bees. Damned insects stripped them bare.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Messages
- 15,374
Yeah your right. I noticed a huge insect die off several months ago. Oh wait..that was winter. Happens every year around here. And they always come back in the spring.
I could live with a few less reptiles too, namely rattlesnakes.
Don't know about anybody else's area but my friendly reptiles and bugs are out and about. I have a little lizard that come out every spring and stays until winter. It hangs out on the balcony and eats all the bugs that are attracted by our lights. I do keep my eyes open for his bigger brothers.
The worlds animal populations are plummeting, including insects. Why everyone isn’t concerned about this is beyond me. Anytime you break a link in a chain it stops working, and this chain is our food supply.
