Everybody relax. Humans simply don’t have the power to fuck up the entire planet. It might be possible to fuck it up for ourselves living here, granted, but even that isn’t a foregone conclusion.
Everybody relax. Humans simply don’t have the power to fuck up the entire planet. It might be possible to fuck it up for ourselves living here, granted, but even that isn’t a foregone conclusion.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
My argument with climate change is simple. I won’t even debate if it’s real or not, but for my point let’s say it’s real. What can we do about it? The real polluters are China, India, and other developing countries that are not going to lower a thing. Then we have population growth and populations graduating more and more to semi middle class lifestyles. No matter what you did just the population boom is going to keep heating the planet up. Without population control in the plan I cannot take it seriously. You’d think real climate change people would be against immigration.
Poor people want to live the American lifestyle with two cars and home with AC. The more people the more food you’ll need and cars.
Conspiracy theory time:
But why is it only up to Europe and America to reduce emissions but everyone else is okay? I believe as we slide further and further into debt they’ll use climate change as a precursor to things you cannot afford. Remember the green new deal? The items listed I believe regular Americans will not be able to afford some of those in 2032 with a falling dollar. I’m poor but at least the planet is okay and I’m doing my part. By 2032 social security, Medicaid, Medicare, interest on our debt, welfare, will be over 3 trillion dollars. By 2040 just the interest alone will be over 3 trillion. Simply they need future tax payers to support this mess along with cheap labor. Future tax payers used to living with less. This explains why all the brain washing. Why it’s only targeted at western nations. You may think I’m crazy, if you do I won’t defend my theory. I’m still trying to figure it out myself. Let’s say climate change is bullshit, what’s the end game for the bullshit? I believe it possibly could be to get people to welcome in a lower standard of living while they feel good about it and don’t overthrow the government. You can tie gun control into this as well. It’s why they want it. I’m not debating my theory as it’s crazy and I admit it.
I am relaxed because I really don't care. I'll be long dead when you can no longer breath clean air and drink unpolluted water. I'll leave this environmental brouhaha to the Millennials. They're the ones who will have to deal with it in real time. I'm sure they will think of something.Originally Posted by Sidheshooter
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
I never understood the tree hugger mentality until I returned to the area of my youth. The entire county had undergone clear cutting as had adjacent counties and those adjacent to them. A few decades before this activity, 1000's of beautiful hardwood trees were killed by having a circular girdle cut out and removed around its circumference.The reason was making room for more profitable pines. I have seen numerous 150 year old oaks cut down to create more pasture land. In these instances the land was privately owned. This was in Mississippi, and there we be ignorant so that is the best reason I can give.
I’m actually a bit of a tree hugger, myself. The reason being: I’ve met very few healthy trees that I didn’t actively like, and that’s a rare thing in a kingdom, phylum, or class. OMMV.
PS. https://babylonbee.com/news/impeachm...greta-thunberg
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Rep. Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee called on their first star witness to prove that Donald Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors: Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg.
Last edited by Totem Polar; 12-14-2019 at 11:55 PM.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
Red Oaks reach a height of 75 feet in under 30 years. Forest lands are incredibly resilient and will return to a natural state in an amazingly short time period once humans move on. I had a pasture that we ran cattle on (yes there's cows in Alaska) 25 years ago. We got out of cows 20 years ago. You couldn't tell we were there now. It is completely grown up in 50' tall cottonwoods and as they mature, birch trees and spruce have started to move in as well.
I was born in 1948. Growing up, I saw oil well drilling operations dump their wastes into local creeks, streams, and rivers. Cities along the Mississippi River dumped raw sewage into it. Over the years as activists lobbied for laws promoting air and water quality, industry shills and others viewed the efforts as being led by communists and socialists. Frequently I heard the expression they want this and they want that. Unfortunately, advocating for environmental protection is linked to a liberal agenda, and the adverse is true. I noticed that the climate change controversy from the start has been polarized in this fashion. I was trained as a zoologist but never got beyond teaching the subject. I am out of date for sure. The however part is that my dissertation was related to environmental concerns, and I never ceased reading in the area. From an ultra conservative, Republican voting son of the South who frets about Confederate monuments, I submit that, yes, there is great essence to the current so called liberal hypotheses on climate change. Your children and grandchildren and their offspring will be affected. Me? I'll be warm and toasty as I rest in a nice clean urn in a heated and cooled columbarium.
Last edited by willie; 12-15-2019 at 01:39 AM.
Keeping things generalized, the Earth's climate is categorized into periods for a reason, the current one began 12k years ago and in the middle of the period, temperatures were warmer than during the industrial period. Why? Because of solar activity and changes in the Earth's orbit. I have no doubt that we humans contribute to things, but to discount the effects of the sun and the changes as we float through space and to attribute them to human activity is just silliness. I'm not a part of the "All Scientists Are Evil" thing, but I would say that there are many scientist dependent on funding for their living and not all groups offering funding want un-biased reporting of fact. When we've had these discussions in the past, I've posted quotes from leading "climate officials" from the UN saying that the question isn't about the climate but whether we can use climate change to successfully change how wealth is distributed. I can put them back up if you'd like to discuss them.
As you're shoveling snow from your walks and scraping your windshield, please take a second to reflect on how the sun and the Earth's orbital activity effect things on a very immediate basis and how long term changes in those factors effect our climate trends.
-All views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect those of the author's employer-
I've cut down a few trees myself but I've also planted twice as many as I've cut down. I have some acreage where I live and enjoy the wildlife that depend on the canopy and underbrush. I will leave my acreage in a better environmental state than when I found it with more trees and better habitat for the critters that live here. I see deer and eagles almost everyday. I have about 10 different species of birds that live on my property, mostly because I feed them.
I'm not an environmental activist though like the assholes that leave nasty notes on pickups because they just don't like people who drive vehicles that take up a lot of space and get less than 20 MPG. I suspect those people are all pavement dwellers. We have more than our share of Eco-Nazis around here.
Last edited by Borderland; 12-15-2019 at 09:29 AM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
@HCM has a good point. Has there been any attempt at anova on the impact of humans to see if human activity is/is-not driving the change? It'd be interesting to see how this was configured.
I am a climate change agnostic. I'm open to there being a possibility that human activity is driving an incremental change in climate patterns. I'm also open to the hypothesis that human activity is a 'signal alias' such that the observations are really natural phenomenon.
Conclusions were drawn about climate change before ctrl-s was hit on the academic material. That it meant large scale policy changes down to the day-by-day level of every human, was and is blown so far out of proportion to what current thinking is in climate change, it cast serious, and plausible, doubt on the process undertaken to arrive at such conclusions.
Policy makers, politicians, actors, and associated political interests numbering in the thousands, had all lined up with their preferred countermeasures. All of them suggest some form of drastic change to every day human life.
All this when climate change is still in the realm of the hypothetical.
If there was as serious attempt at proving the null hypothesis, that climate change is not driven by human activity, or that it isn't even occurring, then I could by into climate change wholesale.
It simply isn't the case that there is serious academic effort at understanding the null hypothesis. I'd actually find it deeply satisfying to be proven substantially incorrect about this.
Past the science of climate change, there are far too many powerful people and institutions that are taking a hypothesis and extrapolating to absurdity. The extrapolations are all derivatives of a Malthusian scare: Population growth control is discussed as a real countermeasure. It makes some sense--if people are the problem, then stop the growth.
However--the more people on earth the greater the probability that creative solutions to a multitude of problems is found. It is axiomatic that people precede technology. That technology doesn't develop itself, is never considered in the hyperbolic Malthusian one-up-manship.
So if stifling human activity via population growth controls or authoritarian controls of daily life is meant to be a viable countermeasure; and a countermeasure to something that is hypothetical at this point; it is certainly the case that these prescriptions are massively counterproductive to the intent. This is a significant paradox.
Watson and Crick (and Rosalind Franklin) developed the explanation and a mechanism for human DNA. The helical nature and the amino acids connecting in discrete ways, proportions, and through hydrogen bonding; transcription and translation phenomenon through RNA and proteins...this was a massively important elucidation of a fundamental aspect of every human.
If the current political climate was prevalent during the 1950s
April 26th, 1953...one day after their initial publication:
DNA found. We must change all diets to pure amino acids and find new sources of phosphate for all diets.
Or...all foods to have reduced protein...your system won't be able to produce new proteins.
If you resist these necessary dietary changes, you are a DNA deny-er. You are against the science.
If elected, I will ensure that there is a 200% increase in phosphates in all foods.
yeah that didn't happen. We didn't knee-jerk the holy fuck out of a very important scientific discovery.
We are doing that now with climate change. Its unfortunate because what could be an important discovery is being highly polluted with jackassed suggestions for stopping climate change. It will make the scientific process so much harder.
Last edited by fixer; 12-15-2019 at 10:39 AM.
Reply With Quote