| << . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . >> |
| Author |
Message |
KelVarnsen
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Dec 2018 09:40
Reply
The denial about man made climate change on this site both astounds and disappoints me.
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Dec 2018 10:20
Reply
KelVarnsen, that does seem to be the case. Perhaps those who do believe the activities of man do affect the climate remain silent to avoid dissent?
How about what we eat and how it affects climate? It's quite related. Much of the US / Canada diet consists of red meat with nearly every meal. Our family raised beef on the ranch for a couple of hundred years. We don't anymore because I now believe beef is one of the most inefficient foods to raise, produce and market. Some family and friends believe me to be a traitor, others rejoice.
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Dec 2018 15:41 - Edited by: toyota_mdt_tech
Reply
Anything and everything we do can have some affect. I'd say plenty who don't buy into it are also quiet for the same reason.
If you think absolute govt control over every aspect of you life is the answer, then you have the right. But I am not going to surrender my liberties. I am a good steward of my land, manage a forest at a huge expense to me, (massive thinning operation in spring for a cost of 26K) member in good standing of the NWOA. I have loads of wildlife and I like it and even feed them too.
Then they can close in. Govt really hates those of us with remote land, water well, place to grow food, wildlife to hunt.
Next step, driverless cars, cars with no steering wheel. Soon, only allowed to travel certain times or face huge fees.
They are going after rural wells (already did in my state and you cant get cabin permit without water), already went after catching water, working on autonomous cars now. In your children's lifetime, it will be reality. May not even be able to have a remote chunk of land and a cabin legally.
|
|
Cowracer
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Dec 2018 15:46 - Edited by: Cowracer
Reply
Man affecting climate? Possibly. Even certainly if you use a fine enough gauge to measure it by. I could take a whizz in the ocean and it would technically be "impacting the environment" but in reality the effect is inconsequential.
I neither discount nor believe the science concluding we are affecting the environment in a significant way. I do have issue with those who fan
the flames of hysteria for their own financial ends. Take St. Al Gore for instance. Al was big a few years ago in the environmental crusade. He
wrote books, conducted lectures and generally advocated that the ONLY way to save the plant it is a Carbon Tax and Carbon Tax Credits. And
for those no fully in the know, carbon credits work like this: I have a factory and some government agency will authorize me to emit 10,000 tons of C02 a year. If I go over, I get fined. Likewise, my neighbor owns a factory with a 10,000 ton/year allowance. If I do real good and install
engineering controls and reduce my carbon emission to 8000 tons/year, and my neighbor does not, I can SELL him my 'unused' tons, so that he
can now emit 12,000 tons a year. So far so good, right? The total amount for both factories is capped at 20K tons, and I make some extra cash by selling my credits to help offset the cost of doing better.
But here's where it gets sketchy. Gore was a BIG proponent of this scheme, and it makes sense till you read the fine print. I cannot sell my
credits directly to my neighbor. It has to go thru a credit clearinghouse, which was to be a privately owned company operating under
government charter. The clearinghouse would make a percent or two off each exchange as payment for their service. And it didn't matter
which way the trades were going, A to B or B to A. They still made money. Take one guess who was proposed as owning the clearinghouse
company? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with Hal More.
Gore (along with David Blood) was a principle in GIR (Global Investment Management). GIR is based in London to take advantage of ownership
disclosure laws in the UK. In anticipation of Congress implementing Cap-and-Trade policies, GIR bankrolled the creation of the CCX (Chicago
Climate Exchange). CCX was a voluntary, legally-binding greenhouse gas reduction and trading exchange system. CCX had the head start as
getting the govt. charter to be the exchange for carbon credits as they were the only real game in town at that point. Al Gore stood ready to be
the world’s first Carbon Billionaire.
Except that congress balked at passing cap-and-trade laws due to intense public aversion to the idea. Even the GAO (Government Accounting Office) declared it's virtually impossible to verify whether carbon credits represent real emissions reductions. It's also not too much to imagine that someone well connected in the government (Like a former Senator and VP) would influence the system so that some companies got more credits than they really needed, and some got less than the really needed, just to drive the exchange of the credits (and then reap the profits on that exchange) The really funny (odd, not humorous) is how the CCX basically folded up like a lawn chair in 2010 after it became clear that cap-and-trade was not going to be passed.
I can't help but think that the whole climate change hysteria was caused by people looking to perpetrate the largest financial scheme since
Charles Ponzi found out about international postal reply coupons. Some people got emotionally duped by this (as opposed to financially duped) and took up "Climate Change" as a cri du cour for a movement they got swept up in. Those people are moving heaven and earth to prove its happening and happening at the hand of man. And I feel that if you look hard enough... At a small enough sample... with a predetermined notion... you will find data that supports your position.
Tim
|
|
Borrego
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Dec 2018 22:47
Reply
Quoting: KelVarnsen The denial about man made climate change on this site both astounds and disappoints me.
Get over it. Not really your business what other people think. And you sir, are way too easily astounded and disappointed.
None of us have said specifically that mankind has had no impact upon the earth's climate. Read what we really said before you critique.
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Dec 2018 23:06 - Edited by: ICC
Reply
Quoting: toyota_mdt_tech They are going after rural wells (already did in my state and you cant get cabin permit without water)
Is that related to this, copied from WA state document,
"Water is not a property right in Washington state. There are many competing uses of water; parts of the state may not have enough water available for new wells or may be closed to future withdrawals" https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Wells
That seems reasonable, many western locations are on the verge of not having enough water. Some may have already reached or passed the tipping point
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Dec 2018 23:09 - Edited by: ICC
Reply
sorry......something was making it difficult to complete the post, got duplicated
|
|
sha748
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 00:36
Reply
Why do some feel the need to come to a website, where we are literally interested in simple ,low key,affordable, self sustained "small cabin" living to get into disputes about why some of us don't share their exact environmental view..
It would seem that we are already doing far more to help these reported environmental causes then the morally superior people in the environment-destroying city, that donate $20 to the Sierra club, then complain and berate those of us who " literally" do meet the very example of reduced footprint impact they say they espouse...
Finding off grid property and living without government restrictions is tough enough ,,then consider most current environmental arguments and future related regulations will only regulate this literal " smaller- footprint -self substainable"
lifestyle even more(i.e. rain collection)...hence the reason some here may have very different views of this situation.
|
|
|
KelVarnsen
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 07:58 - Edited by: KelVarnsen
Reply
Quoting: Borrego Get over it. Not really your business what other people think. And you sir, are way too easily astounded and disappointed.
Unfortunately, your ignorance and the ignorance of people like you affects everyone globally. Including me, my children, etc. This is not a conspiracy, it is a fact. Most people on this site seem quite intelligent. Please turn off Fox News and apply some of that intelligence to some critical thinking.
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 08:15 - Edited by: toyota_mdt_tech
Reply
Quoting: KelVarnsen This is not a conspiracy, it is a fact.
Science is science, computer models is not science. Theory and guessing is not science, neither is altering inputs to get desired outputs.
We all know its been both much warmer and much colder than it is now.
So what is the ideal temp and how did you come to that conclusion?
I'd like to see this remain civil too.
|
|
KelVarnsen
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 08:34
Reply
I would love the conversation to remain civil also. Here is a good starting point for those that willing to take a look as some good science and interpretation of the issue.
Highlights of the Findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report
My hope is that people are willing to look at the information with an open mind. "Confirmation bias" is a real and troubling trend with all of access to information that we have. It is much easier to look at opinions that match our existing thoughts. I try to be aware of my own biases when examining an issue from multiple points of view.
|
|
95XL883
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 09:03
Reply
I was going to stay out of this but Kel's accusation of ignorance, dire global effect, blaming Fox News and accusing non-believers of being ignorant got to me.
It is safe to say we are all for a clean environment. We can even reliably say that most here are very good stewards of the land we own. We may not agree on specifics but we all want to take care of and enjoy our land.
Kel's post strikes me as strong partisanship, a type of believe as I do or you are an ignorant savage who isn't entitled to opinion other than the one being espoused.
A long time ago (50 years or so) I used to believe as Kel, that man was destroying the earth. I remember vividly the dire predictions that cities would be basically uninhabitable, a supposed population crisis would result in mass starvation and war, that DDT was causing the extinction of bald eagles by fatally thinning their egg shells, a coming ice age would wipe out most of humanity, my personal favorite that there was only 50 more years of oil and natural gas left and there were other claims that I just can't recall right now.
Of course cities are still habitable and due to health care advances the life expectancy in cities now exceeds the life expectancy of country folk, farming improvements increased food supplies faster than the population expanded (yes, hunger still exists but it isn't the mass extinction event that was loudly pushed in the 1960's), it was since learned that DDT didn't thin egg shells and it actually allowed malaria to be eliminated from North America (and it would greatly reduce malaria in Africa if the greenies would only allow it to be used), we've gone from a coming ice age to catastrophic global warming to climate change (geez, the greenies now won't be embarassed when the claims they make don't come true) and of course today we still have only a 50 year supply of oil and natural gas (Hint, known oil and gas reserves are inventory and businesses only carry so much inventory; excess inventory is very expensive and our own government puts exploration off-limits in large areas).
The point is that environmentalists have made lots of claims, very few of which come true and now make even more claims. With me, they have lost all credibility for a righteous cause. If they were serious, the EPA would have cleaned up numerous superfund sites (instead of "managing them by putting up off limits and danger signs"). Government, especially big government has lost credibility as a caretaker of land. (A valid argument is made that the recent California fires were that bad in large part to government forest management practices.)
This could go on and on. Kel's partisan derision of those not believing as he does only worsens the situation. ICC's belief that his past cattle raising practices is not a good way to proceed is a good example of somebody trying something different. Note ICC didn't say everybody has to go his way, he is saying he is looking for a different way. I wish ICC the best in his efforts (as long as he doesn't switch into forcing others to give up their ways.)
I'm following ICC's lead by trying different ways on my own ground but not with cattle. My concern are some invasive plant species, stink tree, Johnson grass, sericeza lespedeeza (sp?) and cheat grass. (I'm doing well with the Johnson grass and stink tree, think I've found a way to beat the cheat grass but the sericeza is a real challenge. Interestingly, the easiest way to control the weedy plants would be if I fenced my ground and ran cattle on it. Believe me, I have noticed that the neighboring meadows don't have the weed problems I have.) But I won't force my ways on anybody else. And I will strongly resist any demagogue who wants to force their ways on me and others.
|
|
95XL883
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 09:13
Reply
Kel refers us to the recent US Global Change Research Program as proof of the man-made global warming.
Interestingly, in the last week the Wall Street Journal has run several articles on that research. They came to a much different conclusion that the environmentalists. Their conclusion was that any damage that might be caused should global warming occur is much easier to deal with and correct if we have the economic resources available through economic growth. They point out very clearly that many environmentalist policies restrict economic growth.
Sorry Kel, I have just too much of the damage caused by large bureaucracies.
To use a personal example, the federal government says that part of my ground is emergent wetland subject to their regulation. The only problem with their contention is there never has been any surface water pooling on that particular area. I can say that safely not only because I'm on my ground regularly and have so observed no pooling but also because the specific area is on a hillside and short of gravity being suspended there is no way for water to pool on a sloping hillside.
I'm going to bow out now because I have a paying job that I need to give them their due.
|
|
KelVarnsen
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 09:22
Reply
Quoting: 95XL883 partisan derision of those not believing as he does only worsens the situation
I guess 97% of scientists are wrong. I must be partisan. Enjoy your increasing Category 5 hurricanes. Enjoy the rising sea levels. Enjoy the droughts, wildfires, etc. Stay in your bubble and keep telling yourself that it's all out of our hands.
|
|
Cowracer
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 09:24
Reply
I am pretty confident that in no world in the infinite multiverse will you find an organization that is called "US Global Change Research Program" which would issue a report that says "Climate is changing in accordance with the natural historical cycles" or in other words "we found nothing to fear, so stop sending us money"
Did you not read my above post? (I know... its long) "Climate Change" has pretty much become a billion dollar industry now. As with most thing in life, simply follow the money. The people telling you it's a dire issue are generally the same people profiting by it.
It's like the Y2K hysteria. The people telling you there was going to be a huge meltdown (the programmers) were the SAME people being paid to fix it. I personally made out like a bandit from Y2K checking compliance in factory systems. Hell, give me another Y2K and I could probably retire from it. But anyway, need I remind you how much of a non-issue Y2K really was?
The "Climate Change" industry is operating on the same business model, but without the built in deadline (very smart of them).
The sad part is there are some really good, really smart people who drank the Kool-Aid and now can't (or won't) see the forest for all the trees.
Tim
|
|
KelVarnsen
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 09:45
Reply
Quoting: Cowracer The sad part is there are some really good, really smart people who drank the Kool-Aid and now can't (or won't) see the forest for all the trees.
I can see that I'm not going to change anyone's mind here. I thought it was worth the attempt.
I no longer wonder why the US was the only country of the G20 to not pledge to fight climate change. I now know that the rest of the world has "drank the Kool-Aid". Thanks for enlightening me.
|
|
Borrego
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 10:19
Reply
I'm done.
I , for one, do not come to this forum for politics, but rather for the camaraderie and wisdom of like thinking people. I wonder about the wisdom of starting a thread on a topic as inflammatory as this......
|
|
creeky
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 10:23
Reply
There is real evidence that anyone can see. We are poisoning our land, our water and our air.
Some brave heroes (heroines) are standing up and saying, "look, we need to make some changes to our behaviours so that our grandkids and future generations can have the same opportunities we've had."
We get the honour of building a new and cleaner world for the coming generations to enjoy.
I'm really excited about this.
But it is tough to see folks deny the science. Making arguments that are senseless. You know, "temps are rising, the world temps have risen before, therefor man isn't responsible for this temp rise."
That's like saying "an apple is red. This rubber ball is red. Therefore I can use this rubber ball to bake this pie." Well. Its going to be a bit hard to cut up. And who here wants to feed it to their family?
And that's what it comes down to. What am I leaving behind for my family? Did I work my whole life building a civilization, working, sacrificing, only to leave a mess behind? Or did I clean up after myself?
We each make our own decision on that one.
Personally, I'm accepting the science. There's just too much of it. CO2 changes. Ocean acidification. Mass die offs and reduction in biomass.
I'm joining the heroes working for a cleaner future for my family.
|
|
darz5150
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 10:24
Reply
Quoting: Borrego I wonder about the wisdom of starting a thread on a topic as inflammatory as this......
Ask rockies.
|
|
KelVarnsen
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 10:30
Reply
Quoting: creeky Personally, I'm accepting the science. There's just too much of it. CO2 changes. Ocean acidification. Mass die offs and reduction in biomass. I'm joining the heroes working for a cleaner future for my family.
Well said Creeky. I wish that this topic wasn't inflammatory. I agree that this forum is a place for camaraderie and the exchange of ideas relating to our cabins. I just can't stand idly by when confronting such an important topic. Thank you for being one of the heroes working for a cleaner future.
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 10:34 - Edited by: ICC
Reply
Quoting: creeky There is real evidence that anyone can see. We are poisoning our land, our water and our air. Some brave heroes (heroines) are standing up and saying, "look, we need to make some changes to our behaviours so that our grandkids and future generations can have the same opportunities we've had." We get the honour of building a new and cleaner world for the coming generations to enjoy. I'm really excited about this. But it is tough to see folks deny the science. Making arguments that are senseless. You know, "temps are rising, the world temps have risen before, therefor man isn't responsible for this temp rise." That's like saying "an apple is red. This rubber ball is red. Therefore I can use this rubber ball to bake this pie." Well. Its going to be a bit hard to cut up. And who here wants to feed it to their family? And that's what it comes down to. What am I leaving behind for my family? Did I work my whole life building a civilization, working, sacrificing, only to leave a mess behind? Or did I clean up after myself? We each make our own decision on that one. Personally, I'm accepting the science. There's just too much of it. CO2 changes. Ocean acidification. Mass die offs and reduction in biomass. I'm joining the heroes working for a cleaner future for my family.
2X thanks
|
|
Cowracer
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 11:25 - Edited by: Cowracer
Reply
Just so we are clear... I am 100% in favor of things that help clean our world and improve our environment. While we can debate how much such actions will actually affect it, I think it absolutely crucial that we start thinking in those term sooner rather than later.
My only issue is the whole industry that has sprung up around it, that propose increasing taxes or otherwise impacting my life in a (usually futile) effort to stop something we may not fully understand yet.
And the most logical solution is the one that the people most calling for change simply detest with all their hearts.
Carbon credits, taxes on fossil fuels, unreasonable gas milage requirements, etc etc etc, are simply a drop in the bucket. Its a way for the do-gooders to claim "We must do SOMETHING, this is SOMETHING, so we MUST do it"
You really want to cut CO2 emissions? Then we should have Nuclear Power Plants from one coast of this nation to the other. Boom. Done.
But none of the "experts" in climate change wants that. A) the word Nuclear scares the bejeebus out of them, and B) there is really no way for them to continue to make millions of dollars if they actually fix the problem
I'll leave my position at that. Good day to you all!
Tim
|
|
KelVarnsen
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 11:45 - Edited by: KelVarnsen
Reply
Quoting: Cowracer You really want to cut CO2 emissions? Then we should have Nuclear Power Plants from one coast of this nation to the other. Boom. Done. But none of the "experts" in climate change wants that.
"A large number of prominent scientists warning about a climate crisis publicly support nuclear power as a zero-emissions power source. A large number of Democratic public policymakers warning about a climate crisis support zero-emissions nuclear power. And conservatives and skeptics who warn about the high costs and unreliability of wind and solar power support nuclear power as a reliable, cost-effective zero-emissions power source."
I think that it's very hyperbolic to say that none of the experts want nuclear. In fact it's quite the opposite. Many scientists and enviromentalists agree that nuclear power generation has a large part to play in reducing carbon emissions. I wish that more governments would embrace it. People like you and I should be letting our government officials know that, rather than endorsing "bring back coal" agendas. Fission reactors are a viable solution now. I personally hope that fusion reactors become viable within my lifetime. I've made some donations to a couple of promising research projects on fusion power.
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 12:45 - Edited by: ICC
Reply
Interesting, timely
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/acid-rain-bush-climate-change-mulroney-1.4934402
|
|
rockies
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 19:37
Reply
Well, darz, since you asked.....
The reason I posted the original article was to show how the climate in North America has already changed. The most interesting (to me) was the discovery of the 110th meridian, which basically divides the continent in half between a wetter "eastern" region and a drier "western" region.
People say it's quite a dramatic change as you head west, leaving behind forests and entering the grasslands.
That meridian has shifted about 140 miles east. Areas that once had consistently more water are drying out, and that can lead to larger and more frequent wildfires. However, the changing moisture levels throughout the center of the country can also affect where and how often tornadoes form as well as other weather related events.
So how does this drying out of the center of the country affect you personally? Well, it might not, depending on where you live, but using the recent devastating fires in California as an example I suspect that a lot of people's "safe" areas out in the wilderness are becoming a little less safe.
|
|
Borrego
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 20:50
Reply
Quoting: rockies but using the recent devastating fires in California as an example
Oh Jesus, do some research....there are millions of acres of uncleared dead forest and overgrowth because the environmentalists wouldn't allow it to be cleared (Obama's USFS in 2012) You have to apply for a permit and do a study to remove ONE tree.....
Excess timber WILL come out of the forest in one of only two ways. It is either carried out or it burns out....
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 21:37
Reply
Quoting: Borrego Excess timber WILL come out of the forest in one of only two ways. It is either carried out or it burns out....
We have a member in this forum who said logging or cutting any trees on his property has become nearly impossible, so full of costly regulation. I looked into it, what an absolute nightmare. No wonder no one logs on private land down there. The USFS has reduced logging on federal land by quite a bit also.
I have seen this first hand. We used to have logging trucks all over, its rare to ever see a one in years.
Nuclear power is great, but the same crowd stopping it are the same crowd stopping logging.
We have loads of hydroelectric, clean power, reliable too. Same crowd trying to stop it too.
Man made global warming and the carbon tax is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated by man.
|
|
rockies
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 22:23 - Edited by: rockies
Reply
No, the biggest hoax ever perpetrated by man is telling everyone "You're entitled to it. Whatever it is. Doesn't matter, there will always be more. Take as much as you want and don't bother about the mess."
Take the lovely oil industry as an example. Can you imagine the world we'd be living in if it weren't for oil? It would probably be the same as it was in the 1880's. Oil is responsible for just about every advance in technology (and every product) we enjoy now. It was a wonderful discovery except.....they aren't making any more of it. So what's going to happen when it runs out?
Just think, your grandchildren may live long enough to see the last of the oil being pumped out of the ground and sold off to the highest bidder (which won't be them)......and then what? Back to the 1880's?
Can people change their need for oil? Sure, but they won't. They like their life exactly the way it is now. They won't conserve, they won't do without. All the arguing about the environment and industry and Govt and conspiracies won't mean much when the lights turn off for the last time and the engines stop.
Since 1900 the population of the planet has gone from 1.6 billion to 7.6 billion people today. They all want oil. They feel entitled to have it. They won't conserve, they won't go without, and when it comes right down to it, neither will you.
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 22:45
Reply
Who says they wont conserve? I dont see that at all.Quoting: rockies No, the biggest hoax ever perpetrated by man is telling everyone "You're entitled to it.
I have never heard that quote. Made up.
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Dec 2018 23:35
Reply
Quoting: rockies Since 1900 the population of the planet has gone from 1.6 billion to 7.6 billion people today.
Eureka! The source of our environmental issues. Too many people. Many of whom want the lifestyle enjoyed by the US, Canada, the EU; the cars, the homes, the air conditioning......
Quoting: toyota_mdt_tech I have never heard that quote. Made up.
It may not be an actual quote, but it is a mindset.
|
|
| << . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . >> |
