# Reality of Global Warming/Environmental Disaster Impending?



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

I was just wondering...how many people think that global warming / an environmental disaster is real and how many think it is fake?

If you do think it is fake, what reasoning do you give for the hoopla about it?

My personal opinion is that there is substantial evidence that humans actions are causing climate change on a massive scale.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Oooh.. oooh..oooh... I know the answer! Me. me. me!! Pick me!

The reason that many think it is fake is because of several things..

1. The terrible name..'global warming'. If it had been more accurately named 'global change' it would be easier to understand why snows are deeper and winters can be colder and some summers , like this one, can be colder in some areas. It is too hard.
2. The hoopla is for profit..obviously. Cap and trade and carbon tax etc.. the liberals stand to make millions off of trading carbon whatsits and they have fabricated all data to support their investments. And the future profits must be huge to counter all the billions that they must have spent to pay off all the scientists in all the countries for so many years now.
3. Because the earth is so big and we are so small and it is all on a cycle and it has been hotter and it will get cooler and this is just the way God's world works and has nothing to do with man whatsoever.
4. It is sunspots.. or the lack thereof.
5. Because people that they have never, ever, ever, ever met and have no training in any subject that is even remotely pertinent to this subject have told them that it is all a scheme. And in telling them it is a scheme have insured their paycheck yet once again because the more they can spew about things they have no formal training in, the better they get paid.

There are more reasons, but this should suffice.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Climate change is a natural phenonenon that has been ongoing for millions of years.
There is nothing humans can do to change it.

It's happening on *other planets*, so the human factor is moot

[ame]http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&source=hp&q=global+warming+mars&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=C3rzNKphyTPCPEIXyzASAsNz9DwAAAKoEBU_Q6CTL[/ame]


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

While global warming may be a fact I am not sure of the cause. I do know many of those who preach global warming are fakes. If they even believed their own words they would change their own lives. If they do not even believe themselves it is very hard for the every day person to believe them.

My personal opinion is man hasn't been around long enough to be sure what is happening to the world. They sure haven't been keeping records long enough to show anything for certain.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

All the above. Also tens of thousands os scientists around the world have signed a petition to the un stateing their objection to this hysteria. Look up Dr. S. Fred Singer for some unbiased info.


----------



## Daddyof4 (Jan 5, 2004)

I don't buy man-made warming at all. So much fraud is being exposed by Gore and his ilk and gw scientists that it makes the whole claim laughable. And once the rather wobbly supports were kicked out from under global warming, they then began calling it "climate change" so as to include any minor changes that naturally occur but can be falsely blamed on man. Too much heat? climate change $$$ Too much cold? climate change $$$$ Too much snow? climate change $$$$$ Too much rain? climate change $$$$$$ More hurricanes than normal? climate change $$$$$$$ Fewer hurricanes? climate change $$$$$$$$ Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

I do believe that global warming is occurring. I DON'T believe that it's a disaster or that we can do anything to change it.

Based on......1) the Climategate scandal and 2) the progressive who admitted that even if we shut down all industry and cars, it would have minimal impact on the climate. I can't remember his name so can't find the video link.....maybe somebody can help me out w/ that. 

And then there's the issue Chickenista mentioned about how all the loudest proponents are positioned to make fortunes from the legislation. I mean, if this were such a moral issue about saving us all from being burnt to a crisp, you gotta wonder why they ALL just happen to be in the position to make boatloads of money. Sounds like a bunch of greedy, fear-mongering capitalists to me.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

i keep saying this, but we(and the ecosystem) are in far more danger from polluted water, plastics/chemicals/antibiotics/hormones getting into the ecosystem--results in low sperm count, feminization of males and etc. seriously, how long does any species last without sperm? poof, gone in a generation.

i remember in outdoor school in the 70s how they were saying 2010 was going to be a desert dryed up smoggy wasteland. um, no. but we are well on the way to paying the piper regarding our trash/peeing away drugs. yay.

and that is why i got off the pill by the way.

so yeah, global warming, ffft, there is way bigger evil afoot. and i dont think this Titanic can be turned around in time.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Wow--I guess I am in the minority on this topic (and SO many other topics) on this board. I live in a liberal community where global warming/climate change is accepted as fact and many local people are working to solve it so it is a departure from my current reality to be in the midst of so many people who do not believe in climate change (or at least do not think it is an unnatural/manmade problem). I will be honest, I have researched the arguement FOR global warming/climate change/etc so I would be interested to have links to legitimate sites and scientific discussions about this problem being fake/not manmade. I would prefer sites that are NOT religious based. So if anybody has any links they can provide, I would appreciate it!


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Lest you misunderstand, phoebesmum, I was being sarcastic and poking fun at the ones that don't believe in the possibility of global change and man's ability to improve the situation.
Quite often too many people get hung up on the likelihood that man caused it and forget the more important notion that man can indeed repair the problem. 
I do believe in global change and I do believe that if we so chose, mankind could make a positive impact on the problems.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> Wow--I guess I am in the minority on this topic (and SO many other topics) on this board. I live in a liberal community where global warming/climate change is accepted as fact and many local people are working to solve it so it is a departure from my current reality to be in the midst of so many people who do not believe in climate change (or at least do not think it is an unnatural/manmade problem). I will be honest, I have researched the arguement FOR global warming/climate change/etc so I would be interested to have links to legitimate sites and scientific discussions about this problem being fake/not manmade. I would prefer sites that are NOT religious based. So if anybody has any links they can provide, I would appreciate it!


Mammoths, dinosaurs and the sabre tooth tiger all "worked to solve it" - maybe they needed the liberals there to do it for them. But, alas, they had to accept the fact of "reality" and "departed".


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> Wow--I guess I am in the minority on this topic (and SO many other topics) on this board. I live in a liberal community where global warming/climate change is accepted as fact and many local people are working to solve it so it is a departure from my current reality to be in the midst of so many people who do not believe in climate change (or at least do not think it is an unnatural/manmade problem). I will be honest, I have researched the arguement FOR global warming/climate change/etc so I would be interested to have links to legitimate sites and scientific discussions about this problem being fake/not manmade. I would prefer sites that are NOT religious based. So if anybody has any links they can provide, I would appreciate it!


Start by doing a search on 'climategate' (I can't believe you've not heard of that scandal). The emails among scientists clearly shows that the data (showing that the cause was manmade) was being distorted to fit the agenda. Repeatedly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I live in a liberal community where* global warming/climate change is accepted as fact*





> people who do not believe in climate change


Eveidently you haven't read anything anyone posted

"Change " is a fact, "human caused" is NOT.


> So if anybody has any links they can provide


I gave a link to "global warming on MARS" and your'e still talking about "your reality" is that it's "manmade"


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> Mammoths, dinosaurs and the sabre tooth tiger all "worked to solve it" - maybe they needed the liberals there to do it for them. But, alas, they had to accept the fact of "reality" and "departed".


Ummmm hate to be the bearer of bad news, but dinosaurs were killed when a large meteorite hit the earth (I think they decided it hit somewhere in South or Central America) causing instant death to many and death in the long term to all because of sunlight being blocked out from the ash. Mammoths and saber tooth tigers seemed to have died out from a combination of over-hunting by humans and climate change.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Eveidently you haven't read anything anyone posted
> 
> "Change " is a fact, "human caused" is NOT.
> 
> ...


I have read ALL the posts--evidently YOU did not read mine. I state CLEARLY "many people who do not believe in climate change (or at least do not think it is an unnatural/manmade problem). " 

Do I think there are natural climate change trends occuring simultaneously? Yes. But I also believe that man is contributing to this change.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

chickenista said:


> Lest you misunderstand, phoebesmum, I was being sarcastic and poking fun at the ones that don't believe in the possibility of global change and man's ability to improve the situation.
> Quite often too many people get hung up on the likelihood that man caused it and forget the more important notion that man can indeed repair the problem.
> I do believe in global change and I do believe that if we so chose, mankind could make a positive impact on the problems.


WHEW!!!! I was VERY confused by your posting because I THOUGHT we had common beliefs!! LOL THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for clearing that up!! :bouncy:


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> Wow--I guess I am in the minority on this topic (and SO many other topics) on this board. I live in a liberal community where global warming/climate change is accepted as fact and many local people are working to solve it so it is a departure from my current reality to be in the midst of so many people who do not believe in climate change (or at least do not think it is an unnatural/manmade problem). I will be honest, I have researched the arguement FOR global warming/climate change/etc so I would be interested to have links to legitimate sites and scientific discussions about this problem being fake/not manmade. I would prefer sites that are NOT religious based. So if anybody has any links they can provide, I would appreciate it!


make up your mind for yourself. i guess since you say you happily live/exist in a homogenous liberal community, and popping here into what you essentially call a homogenous conservative community is a culture shocker--i say both are simply two side of the same coin. BOTH are a blob of groupthink where people who question the chosen dogma are shunned. it is VERY hard to find real science and not get beguiled by junk science. observe for yourself, look at history. the 1400s were warmer than now(where were all the cars???) and the RennAisance was a result of more people being able to grow more food easier and since that stress was alleviated, other pursuits/discoveries could flourish. then poof, 300 years or so later there was a mini ice age--death and pestilence. thats just a historical example that knock global warming doomers on their butt.

the earth is on a cycle of warm and cold. life is all about cycle, nothing is ever static(except people stuck on dogma). learn to think for yourself, dont get stuck in sucking up to a label to fit in(i dont care who you are, lib or con). if more people would do this we could be farther along on solving our gluttony. the lib/con rock fight is a distraction to real solutions.


----------



## QoTL (Jun 5, 2008)

I believe it is a crock of poo.

I used to believe. Then I had a paper to write for a class, and decided just to amuse myself I would try to prove something I disagreed with. 

In the end, I had so many sources I had to leave quotes OUT. And after reading numerous scholastic papers, I was convinced.

We love drama. Most of us have pretty mundane lives, which is why we WATCH the news, or even movies. The media knows this. They also know that Fear Sells.

To me it's like last year's swine flu epidemic, but in slow motion. A few people get sick, and suddenly every single person in the ER is diagnosed with swine flu. If you called the hospital to ask if you should come in, around here they were telling you you had it over the phone... with no nose swab to prove it. The reports on who died from it failed to mention how many people die of the regular flu every year- leaving people to believe it was extra deadly and extra scary. And then.. nothing. 

In the case of 'Global Warming' though it has become an entirely different entity. EVERYTHING is seen as a sign that it is getting worse, even when the 'research' isn't supporting the claims. CO2 IS linked to temperature rise, but it's a warmer temp that causes more CO2 in the atmosphere rather than the other way around.

Are we experiencing changes? Hmmm.. the best I can say is maybe. At the end of the day our planet isn't a stagnant thing. There are cycles, so many different cycles, that are part it all. We laypeople don't generally know things like what happens every 10,000 years, or what happens every 125,000 years. We think in terms of the last 100, when we think that long at all.

Here is one of my favorite vids: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#

Here is a petition signed by scientists that it just ain't happening:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

I also bought this book, one of many on the market. Btw- the ONLY book in the local library was about acid rain and the ozone layer.. http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confu...=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282585056&sr=1-8


Phoebe's Mom- my father believes it is happening as well. And I'm certainly not pretending I have the answers. I just know what we are being spoonfed doesn't add up at all.

As for why: I think environmentalists want us to keep the world cleaner. I think the original reasons behind it- that we need to work harder to take care of the environment- was a good one. BUT it has become something else.


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

So,

Climate change (warming) is reality. One need only look at the data points available from a variety of sources. Set aside the politics and agendas.

On the issue of whether it is the result of human activity I fall in the camp that believes this is true. I also believe that it is somewhat irrelevent in that the effects will be the same regardless of whether it is true or not.

The effects include greater variability in weather patterns. Increased drought in some areas and increased storm cycles in others. Hold on to your hats folks.

As to whether changing behavior will have an impact, 6 billion (and icnreasing) of anything is going to have an impact. Some of the proposals make sense to me and others are BS.

Just my 2 cents.

Mike

A couple resources of interest:


Scientist at heart of 'Climategate' breaks silence
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...tist-at-heart-of-climategate-breaks-silence/1 


The Independent Climate Change Email Review 
http://www.cce-review.org/

This is an independent review of what happened with regard to the University of East Anglia and the allegations made in "climategate". The report (PDF) is an interesting read and goes into quite a bit of detail with regard to the various allegations. 

Mike


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

wyld thang said:


> make up your mind for yourself. i guess since you say you happily live/exist in a homogenous liberal community, and popping here into what you essentially call a homogenous conservative community is a culture shocker--i say both are simply two side of the same coin. BOTH are a blob of groupthink where people who question the chosen dogma are shunned. it is VERY hard to find real science and not get beguiled by junk science. observe for yourself, look at history. the 1400s were warmer than now(where were all the cars???) and the RennAisance was a result of more people being able to grow more food easier and since that stress was alleviated, other pursuits/discoveries could flourish. then poof, 300 years or so later there was a mini ice age--death and pestilence. thats just a historical example that knock global warming doomers on their butt.
> 
> the earth is on a cycle of warm and cold. life is all about cycle, nothing is ever static(except people stuck on dogma). learn to think for yourself, dont get stuck in sucking up to a label to fit in(i dont care who you are, lib or con). if more people would do this we could be farther along on solving our gluttony. the lib/con rock fight is a distraction to real solutions.



I have made up my mind for myself...I lived for ten years in a conservative town and only moved here about three years ago after my views on this and many other things were already established. I just didn't realize that climate change was still such a debated topic because it is not in my immediate environment.


----------



## Daddyof4 (Jan 5, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> Ummmm hate to be the bearer of bad news, but dinosaurs were killed when a large meteorite hit the earth (I think they decided it hit somewhere in South or Central America) causing instant death to many and death in the long term to all because of sunlight being blocked out from the ash. Mammoths and saber tooth tigers seemed to have died out from a combination of over-hunting by humans and climate change.


Actually the meteorite thing is just a theory along with others including bacteria and even climate change (likely not man-made since SUVs hadn't been invented yet.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Daddyof4 said:


> Actually the meteorite thing is just a theory along with others including bacteria and even climate change (likely not man-made since SUVs hadn't been invented yet.


Well, technically, yes it is a theory (just like evolution is a theory but also considered true) however it is the most widely accepted reason for the mass extinction of dinosaurs AND correlates precisely to the age of the crater in south/central america. I should mention that it is thought that there were actually TWO large impacts with the first being the one in south/central america. I can't remember the location of the second crater.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

I am open to the idea that climate change can and is being influenced by human activity. Sure, the climate of the earth changes by itself based on many factors we don't understand too well, but one does not preclude the other. This is similar to extinctions, which have happened naturally throughout earth's history but which have been accelerated by man's activity in the last few centuries.

I also am sympathetic to critics of global warming. The fact is that the earth's weather patterns are complex, and future outcomes for the climate are guesses based on current theory about how things work. We can't experiment. We can't study similar planetary systems for insight. I have a fair amount of faith in science at an everyday, practical level (i.e., this jet aircraft I am on will stay in the air), but on the other hand it seems nearly everything we think we know about a scientific subject gets overwritten periodically as we learn more about it. Are we so sure we know it all about global climate modeling? I'm not, and I don't think I need to have a high-level grasp of the state of the science to say so.

I reject as far-fetched the idea that scientists consciously lie en masse about global warming. I think we have a lot of very smart and sincere people doing modeling and reaching conclusions which might be true, but who also are likely to look at today's research in 50 years and say "boy, we've come a long way in understanding that."

What sucks about this situation is that if global warming is indeed being driven by human factors, indisputable proof may come too late for a change in course. This accounts for the panic critics detect in the efforts of those who want to take action now. Besides, humans seem to be great at short-term survival tests (like stepping out of the way of a bus) but for collective action to address far-off threats, the jury's really out. I am thinking that even if we all knew global warming and deforestation and soil depletion and peak oil and fisheries eradication and algal blooms were actual, conncrete threats to continued human existence, we still would fail to act to change course. Solving problems that impact our grandchildren never makes our list of the most important things to do today.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I am open to the idea that climate change can and is being influenced by human activity. Sure, the climate of the earth changes by itself based on many factors we don't understand too well, but one does not preclude the other. This is similar to extinctions, which have happened naturally throughout earth's history but which have been accelerated by man's activity in the last few centuries.
> 
> I also am sympathetic to critics of global warming. The fact is that the earth's weather patterns are complex, and future outcomes for the climate are guesses based on current theory about how things work. We can't experiment. We can't study similar planetary systems for insight. I have a fair amount of faith in science at an everyday, practical level (i.e., this jet aircraft I am on will stay in the air), but on the other hand it seems nearly everything we think we know about a scientific subject gets overwritten periodically as we learn more about it. Are we so sure we know it all about global climate modeling? I'm not, and I don't think I need to have a high-level grasp of the state of the science to say so.
> 
> ...


Very, very good post!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I reject as *far-fetched* the idea that *scientists consciously lie about global warming*.


LOL If I go to Google, and type in "scientists lie", it wants to add on "about global warming"
Evidently its a very popular subject, with lots of proof to back it up

[ame]http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&source=hp&q=scientists+lie+about+global+warming&aq=0&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=scientists+lie+&gs_rfai=CBiou9NFyTNXuJaeqgATettzWDwAAAKoEBU_QfB7_[/ame]


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL If I go to Google, and type in "scientists lie", it wants to add on "about global warming"
> Evidently its a very popular subject, with lots of proof to back it up
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?comple...fai=CBiou9NFyTNXuJaeqgATettzWDwAAAKoEBU_QfB7_


Hey, that's a fun game. Try "alien spacecraft."


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

If global warming is real, why are we still allowing people to live in flood prone areas? Why isn't the US building flood walls to protect cities in danger of flooding? Why is New Orleans allowed to rebuild?

One of the reasons I don't believe global warming is real is because neither our government nor any other government is taking realistic steps to protect its population. Even if we implemented the Democrats Cap & Trade Bill, their own studies show it would not be enough to stop and reverse global warming. So the only logical answer is that Cap & trade is simply another liberal plot to gain more control over the people.

I wish scientists would produce a study on global warming that stands up to professional scrutiny. I wish we knew one way or the other.

My personal opinion is that if global warming is taking place, it is natural and not man made.

I Love CO2

Climate Depot


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> If global warming is real, why are we still allowing people to live in flood prone areas? Why isn't the US building flood walls to protect cities in danger of flooding? Why is New Orleans allowed to rebuild?


Well, some would ask why would we build in flood prone areas/areas below sea level REGARDLESS of climate change! I know I would not want to live in those places. But we "allow" people to live in flood prone areas because they wish to, we are not building walls to protect cities for the same reasons that we are not doing any of a number of other prevention methods--too much controversy.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I reject as far-fetched the idea that scientists consciously lie en masse about global warming. I think we have a lot of very smart and sincere people doing modeling and reaching conclusions which might be true, but who also are likely to look at today's research in 50 years and say "boy, we've come a long way in understanding that."


I absolutely agree. But..........the scandal involving the scientists @ CRU/East Anglia has given science a black eye. The emails revealed that data was being alter/distorted to fit the agenda. Other data was completely missing. When asked to re-create the supposed findings, scientists could not make the data fit the required outcome. 

Personally, I suspect that the scientists were being pressured to produce a particular outcome. Regardless, the whole issue gave the profession, and more specifically, the issue of man-made global warming, a black eye. And that's a shame.

Add to that the revelation about the CCX, who is involved and who stands to gain tremendous fortunes from the legislation, and it's understandable why the public is suspicious of the whole mess.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

There is so much money to be made on this subject, it is unreal. And the current administration intends to try to tax it out of us, if possible. They already snuck a version of the Cap and Trade Bill through the back door for approval (I forget what it is called this week) while everyone was sidetracked with the Oil Spill.

We need to take better care of the earth, this is true. But I am more worried about overpopulation (at least the Health Care Bill will take care of that) driving various animal species to extinction by our unstoppable need to expand and encroach on territories, driving the animals out or giving people an excuse to kill them as they are forced to co-exist with us. I am worried that the lazy slovenly habits of humans (seriously-how hard is it to throw your trash into a trashcan? MUST you throw it out the window? Or toss it onto a sidewalk?) for the same reasons. But do I think that humans are causing the latest "global warming" cycle? No more than I think the first Ice Age stopped due to Mammoth flatulence. The earth itself will survive, like it has for several years now, and will go through it's cycles, like it has for several years now. For humans to think we are somehow altering the flow of Earth itself is really rather arrogant, considering we have only been around a tiny fraction of time, and have only been "damaging" the earth to the extent that Warmists believe for the last 80 years or so. So you are telling me that 80 years worth (give or take) of human abuse is altering the landscape and course of Earth negatively? Again, I say, arrogance and a rather bloated feeling of self importance.

We NEED to make changes, but not for global warming...errr...cooling...er...changing...er dancing? but rather for the sake of the wildlife and plantlife that we really ARE negatively impacting. 

I would have been a bit more impressed if the supposed "scientists" doing this investigating would not have changed terminology at every reported "crisis" to keep their point valid. I would have been impressed perhaps a bit more if I hadn't watched Obama blow a crisis sky high to further his agenda of taxing us into submission. I would have been more impressed if Guru Gore beleived in his own cause enough to practice what he preaches. 

I would have been impressed a bit more if I wasn't aware of the dramatic cycles the earth goes through, continuously, since it's very inception. And there IS proof of that, in sediment layers, proving that oceans once existed where deserts are now, glaciers once rose where oceans are, volcanos exploded, earthquakes rumbled and shaped our earth. Species lived and were killed off as they were unable to adapt to climate changes, whether the changes affected them directly, or affected their sources of food. I have said it before...I am pretty sure no one had cars back then. It took millions of years to bring us where we are now...so now I am to believe that in the last 80-100 years, we have destroyed what survived millions of years before us? Sorry, I am afraid I don't buy that, and I mean no harm to any one who DOES buy that; I just cannot see it. I DO see it as a way to suck even more money from us, once again under the guise of "for our own good."

We need to change our ways, but not for the reasons Warmists hold sacred, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I reject as far-fetched the idea that scientists consciously lie en masse about global warming.


I do, too. It just seems to be the small group @ East Anglia and the IPCC. Unfortunately, progressives were using their data to push their agenda.


----------



## Terminus (Aug 23, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> ...
> 
> Do I think there are natural climate change trends occuring simultaneously? Yes. But I also believe that man is contributing to this change.


What percent do you believe is contributable to man and what is percentage is naturally occurring? If this percentage is not quantifiable at this point does it make sense to discuss solutions? 

For a skeptics view try âThe Skeptics Handbookâ from http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ or for in depth discussion try http://climateaudit.org/


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> I absolutely agree. But..........the scandal involving the scientists @ CPU has given science a black eye. The emails revealed that data was being alter/distorted to fit the agenda. Other data was completely missing. When asked to re-create the supposed findings, scientists could not make the data fit the required outcome.
> 
> Personally, I suspect that the scientists were being pressured to produce a particular outcome. Regardless, the whole issue gave the profession, and more specifically, the issue of man-made global warming, a black eye. And that's a shame.
> 
> Add to that the revelation about the CCX, who is involved and who stands to gain tremendous fortunes from the legislation, and it's understandable why the public is suspicious of the whole mess.


Txsteader, that's a reasonable perspective.


----------



## QoTL (Jun 5, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> I absolutely agree. But..........the scandal involving the scientists @ CRU/East Anglia has given science a black eye. The emails revealed that data was being alter/distorted to fit the agenda. Other data was completely missing...



Please forgive my cropping of your post, Txsteader.


I completely agree with this. The e-mails didn't convince me that global warming was made up.. what they DID do was convince me that the scientists were tweaking the data. AND that they were not interested in hearing or being involved with any sort of debate on their findings. 

IMHO, and I thought the accepted dogma of science, scientists should follow the hypothesis/experiment/theory model (simplification there of 5th grade science). As a scientist, they should (and imho must) assume anything is equally possible/impossible until they do many experiments on the subject. Science is not about drowning out your critics by getting louder and louder. And it is not about 'dressing up' findings. If they were coming up with a cure for cancer, and their 'cure' killed 50 out of 100 mice, would they say oh well, we'll just talk about the 50 who lived? I would hope not.

And as Txsteader says, it really is unfortunate. We NEED our scientists.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Terminus said:


> What percent do you believe is contributable to man and what is percentage is naturally occurring? If this percentage is not quantifiable at this point does it make sense to discuss solutions?
> 
> For a skeptics view try âThe Skeptics Handbookâ from http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ or for in depth discussion try http://climateaudit.org/


I am not sure I can put it into percentage only because that involves so many variables, but if I had to I would conservatively guees 50/50. I am sure that people who have studied this far more than I have would be able to give a better estimate of the percentages. As far as whether it makes sense to discuss solutions, my opinion is I would rather discuss solutions and implement the solutions and then find out that the solutions were not needed or not needed as radically as they were thought to be rather than NOT discuss/take action on solutions and find out that we should have. The human population has exploded, we have increased our use of fossil fuels exponentially, we have increased our use of water, increased our deforestation, increased our coal mining...basically we are stripping the earth of anything and everything we can while not considering that these resources are not limitless and are not solely for our generations use/abuse.

If nothing else, I guess my thought is if we can transition to cleaner forms of energy and reduce our dependency on fossil fuels why not? Yes, some people will become wealthier as a result and some people will lose money but this is no different than oil drilling, coal mining, etc. I think people are frightened by change and scared that they will have to change their behaviors and therefore are resistant to any change.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

Um, how should I answer this? It just doesn't matter!

My family has spent the past 7 years preparing for a disaster. I couldn't begin to tell you what that disaster will be. It could be political. It could be evnironmental. It could be widespread, or local. It could be long term, or over quickly. 

It is the responsibility of each and every one of us to consider these scenarios and prepare for them.

I'm not where I want to be, so we are still working on certain aspects of this plan. We have taken the following steps though. We live on high ground, we have multiple sources of heat (including wood), we store drinking water, and the pantry is stocked with 2 years worth of food. We have a generator, and gasoline which is rotated to stay fresh. This is one area we are still working on, we'd like to be comfortable off-grid, but not there yet.

So, you see, I see no real difference between global warming, ice age, hurricanes, tornadoes, wild fires, political unrest, etc. Are any of these things real today? No. Tomorrow? Maybe. That's the best answer I can give. Not even the scientists know what the global climate is doing. Weather patterns seem to be changing though, and I believe we should all have an emergency plan in place. Not what you were looking for, but that's it.


----------



## QoTL (Jun 5, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> I am not sure I can put it into percentage only because that involves so many variables, but if I had to I would conservatively guees 50/50. I am sure that people who have studied this far more than I have would be able to give a better estimate of the percentages. As far as whether it makes sense to discuss solutions, my opinion is I would rather discuss solutions and implement the solutions and then find out that the solutions were not needed or not needed as radically as they were thought to be rather than NOT discuss/take action on solutions and find out that we should have. The human population has exploded, we have increased our use of fossil fuels exponentially, we have increased our use of water, increased our deforestation, increased our coal mining...basically we are stripping the earth of anything and everything we can while not considering that these resources are not limitless and are not solely for our generations use/abuse.
> 
> If nothing else, I guess my thought is if we can transition to cleaner forms of energy and reduce our dependency on fossil fuels why not? Yes, some people will become wealthier as a result and some people will lose money but this is no different than oil drilling, coal mining, etc. I think people are frightened by change and scared that they will have to change their behaviors and therefore are resistant to any change.


Again, there is a faction who assume if you don't believe in AGW than you hate and want to destroy the environment in favor of cash and corporations.

NOT TRUE. At heart I am an environmentalist. I don't let my dh cut down a single tree until he talks to me about it. I work hard to leave habitats intact, even on my own little acreage. I desperately want to switch to solar.

I want to do that because it's the RIGHT thing to do (imho.). I am not a child, and l resent being 'frightened' into behaving myself.

The AGW issue has clouded what really is best. I've read and heard about some of the 'alternative' fuels, how much they cost to produce, how much CO2 and other gases they emit, and just generally how much WORSE they are for our environment than what we are already using. I'll even go on a limb and admit I HATE nuclear energy. I hate the long term hazardous pollution. I hate the fact that it gets dumped in tiny poor towns who can't fight it. I hate that it could kill people if and when the reactor leaks. But I hear this being pushed as a 'clean' alternative. 

I say they all need to take a deep breath. Maybe a nap. Stop rushing into scary choices because they are in panic mode, and come up with a REAL alternative.


----------



## Terminus (Aug 23, 2005)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I reject as far-fetched the idea that scientists consciously lie en masse about global warming.




The US government has spent over $32 billion on climate research in the last 20 years, this might not be enough money to get all of the scientists to "consciously lie en masse about global warming", but itâs enough money for them to spin research results in a way that gets contracts renewed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I am not sure I can put it into percentage only because that involves so many variables, but if I had to I would conservatively guees 50/50.


Then why isn't Mars heating at a rate of at least one HALF of ours?
Seems to me you're forming your opinion based on what you already believe rather than on all the *data*

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Global_Warming_Hits_Mars_Too_999.html



> Global warming could be heating Mars four times faster than Earth due to a mutually reinforcing interplay of wind-swept dust and changes in reflected heat from the Sun, according a study released Wednesday.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

I'm convinced a minority of the scientific community has convinced the majority of the scientific community to stop looking critcally at anything except global warming. So whenever anything contrary comes out it is simply dismissed instead of tested. That's not right. You didn't have to warm the earth or kill rivers to state the obvious, polution is bad and should be reinged in. It just seems to me the only ones obliged to do anything in real terms are people in N America and Western Europe. Thats not right either.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> If nothing else, I guess my thought is if we can transition to cleaner forms of energy and reduce our dependency on fossil fuels why not? Yes, some people will become wealthier as a result and some people will lose money but this is no different than oil drilling, coal mining, etc. I think people are frightened by change and scared that they will have to change their behaviors and therefore are resistant to any change.


Good and fine. I doubt any of us have a problem w/ that. But to try to do it in a couple of years means a sudden upheaval of our energy system. Democrats seem to be oblivious to the fact that we're in the midst of a recession/bordering on depression. The last thing we need right now is any type of disruption/upheaval of anything until we regain our financial footings. 

And you're right, to a degree. People don't like *sudden* change. We've just had our healthcare system turned upside down, our insurance system turned upside down and now, they want to turn our energy system upside down based on questionable science.

Yeah......people are going to balk. And if the politicians weren't such elitists, they'd understand that. You don't disrupt peoples' way of life/incomes and not expect a fight.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/



> Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal* no definitive warming trend over the past two decades*. The slight *trend* that is in the data *actually appears to be downward*. The *largest fluctuations *in the satellite temperature data are *not from any man-made activity*, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El NiÃ±o. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but *actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity*.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Ross said:


> It just seems to me the only ones obliged to do anything in real terms are people in N America and Western Europe. Thats not right either.


Right. And that's another issue that Americans have a problem with. China refuses to abide by any agreements re: emissions. So, what's the point of punishing us? We've already reduced our manufacturing to almost nothing. So, in order to justify the GW argument, politicians are going to target cow farts??? It's like their dreaming up any excuse, no matter how ridiculous, to convince people that it's man-made and not cyclical.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> Ummmm hate to be the bearer of bad news, but dinosaurs were killed when a large meteorite hit the earth (I think they decided it hit somewhere in South or Central America) causing instant death to many and death in the long term to all because of sunlight being blocked out from the ash. Mammoths and saber tooth tigers seemed to have died out from a combination of over-hunting by humans and climate change.


Wow - thanks for the scientific update. I wasn't there.
But I DO know that even if it was a "large meteorite" it caused a great deal of natural "climate change".


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> I have read ALL the posts--evidently YOU did not read mine. I state CLEARLY "many people who do not believe in climate change (or at least do not think it is an unnatural/manmade problem). "
> 
> Do I think there are natural climate change trends occuring simultaneously? Yes. But I also believe that man is contributing to this change.


Didn't I read recently that termites and the great herds of ruminates that roam the planet have a great deal to do with this "change" - so, it seems that man is not the "only" pigeon pegged by the algores of causing this unprecedented "climate change". Let's wait until we get to the "re-education" camps to see if we need to thin the "man" problem - as has been suggested by the socialists.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Gercarson said:


> Didn't I read recently that termites and the great herds of ruminates that roam the planet have a great deal to do with this "change" - so, it seems that man is not the "only" pigeon pegged by the algores of causing this unprecedented "climate change". Let's wait until we get to the "re-education" camps to see if we need to thin the "man" problem - as has been suggested by the socialists.


I hope they feed us beans... lots of beans!


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I am open to the idea that climate change can and is being influenced by human activity. Sure, the climate of the earth changes by itself based on many factors we don't understand too well, but one does not preclude the other. This is similar to extinctions, which have happened naturally throughout earth's history but which have been accelerated by man's activity in the last few centuries.


But we do know that the earth is in a warming trend, one that will melt the poles as it has before, and then reverse us into a new glacial cycle. We know warming would be occurring even if man were not present on the earth.

We believe we have been in a rather long and unusually stable period where the warming has slowed, but that is not so clear due to lack of accurate data.



> Are we so sure we know it all about global climate modeling? I'm not, and I don't think I need to have a high-level grasp of the state of the science to say so.


We are sure we do not know it all, we don't even know what we don't know.

We also know most of our recorded temp data is very inaccurate, taken with instruments who's margin of error far outweighs the margin of error need to measure a half degree of temp change over several hundred years, or even 100 years. The instruments simply were not intended, nor calibrated, nor able to measure in the accuracy range needed.

We also have a vast lack of knowledge as to how the climate responds to warming and the time scales and feedback mechanisms.



> I reject as far-fetched the idea that scientists consciously lie en masse about global warming. I think we have a lot of very smart and sincere people doing modeling and reaching conclusions which might be true, but who also are likely to look at today's research in 50 years and say "boy, we've come a long way in understanding that."


I reject that scientists are lying, but I do not reject that many have a viewpoint that AGW is real and only seek data to prove it, rejecting out of hand any that does not. It a normal and common part of the human condition.



> I am thinking that even if we all knew global warming and deforestation and soil depletion and peak oil and fisheries eradication and algal blooms were actual, conncrete threats to continued human existence, we still would fail to act to change course. Solving problems that impact our grandchildren never makes our list of the most important things to do today.


Possibly, but then thinking even longer term we are an extinct species anyway. The earth is not permanent and will itself die. We will be extincted sooner or later as the sun burns out, or the moon leaves orbit or some other event does it sooner and advancing technology to allow for us to colonize another solar system is the only way to guarantee human survival indefinitely.

The natural cycle if we deplete the earths systems so they cannot sustain us is the same as it is with any organism, mass die off and then the earth systems recover. Think of us as an algal bloom...


----------



## Stann (Jan 2, 2005)

If Al Gore didn't invent it, it isn't true. But, he got the Nobel.

Why don't the Western World agree to reduce it's population by a significant margin? Everyone who believes in Global Warming should agree not to have children!!!

If China isn't halting it's massive industrial complex in order to save the world, it isn't true.

Oh, I can't make up my mind. Can't we just save the whales???


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Phoebes mom; can you name another scientific discipline where if you dont believe your labeled a "denier"? AGW has become a religion and not a scientific endeavor.

You posted that mammoths were driven to extinction through climate change and over hunting because you read that somewhere and assume its true but like most science; its a voyage of discovery. Newer research largely discounts the overhunting theory (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/05/10/mammoth-extinct.html) which was accepted as fact for decades. 

I believe in climate change but the science sure doesnt support the wild predicitons, causes and effects that hard core AGW proponents ascribe to.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

EasyDay said:


> I hope they feed us beans... lots of beans!


You're sick and twisted - now I know why I like you.


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

I am more worried about the after effects of the drilling boom going on and fracking in the Marcellus Shale region.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I am more worried about having to drive back and forth to work today.
Those other people are dangerous. Why can't they just get out of my way?


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Gercarson said:


> You're sick and twisted - now I know why I like you.


Birds of a feather....


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Of course the earth is warming up. Not as much as some people think. If you place your weather monitor stations up in urban areas, under asphalt, your temps will get skewered. 

The earth is warming up, because we're moving out of a glacial period (interglacial). Is it a disaster? Yes, for people that unwisely live very close to the ocean, or on low lying islands in the ocean.

With global warming, more regions in the North will be available for agriculture, that were unfit before.

Yada yada yada.

Global warming is an inconvenience.

The alternative, Global Cooling, is a disaster... as in the elimination of a high proportion of the human race. Let the glaciers start growing again, with the ice sheets advancing to it's historical levels, and humans as the dominant life force on the planet is no more.

My main problem with AGW enthusiasts is that their 'cure' is nothing but a bandaid. If humans are the problem, the problem must be eliminated... letting the 'problem' still exist but trying to change the 'problems' habits is just a fools zero-sum game. A lot of the AGW's cures actually make the problem Worse, by making life easier for many of the "problems", and when life gets easier for "problems", those "problems" breed even more "problems".

You can't be "For" and believe in AGW, and without being a hypocrite, be for any form of welfare, vaccines, or anything that helps humans. And therein lies my problem...


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

texican said:


> My main problem with AGW enthusiasts is that their 'cure' is nothing but a bandaid. If humans are the problem, the problem must be eliminated... letting the 'problem' still exist but trying to change the 'problems' habits is just a fools zero-sum game. A lot of the AGW's cures actually make the problem Worse, by making life easier for many of the "problems", and when life gets easier for "problems", those "problems" breed even more "problems".
> 
> You can't be "For" and believe in AGW, and without being a hypocrite, be for any form of welfare, vaccines, or anything that helps humans. And therein lies my problem...


LMAO!! Talk about taking it to an extreme!!! 

Okay--INSTEAD of eliminating the human race, what if we try something more like this to decrease the strain humans place on the environment:

--Encouraging conservative use of fossil fuels
--Convert to cleaner energy 
--Greatly reduce or stop deforestation, strip mining, etc
--Greatly reduce or stop monoculture farming, genetically manipulated seeds, factory farms, etc and return to more sustainable methods of farming/food production
--Work to slow the population growth explosion through a variety of methods such as easier access to birth control and possibly incentives to having fewer children
--Basically stop acting like the earth is human's and ONLY humans (and only this GENERATION of humans) to do with whatever/however we please

Of course, it may be easier to just wipe out humans, but not sure that we need to go to such a drastic measure.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Phoebesmum said:


> LMAO!! Talk about taking it to an extreme!!!
> 
> Okay--INSTEAD of eliminating the human race, what if we try something more like this to decrease the strain humans place on the environment:
> 
> ...


Pretty much the most sane post you've ever made.
Don't think htere's many on this board who doesn't think they should be good stewards of the earth.
Also don't think there's many on this board who think crap & tax will fix anything. You certainly cannot help the environment by letting folks w/the most $$$ buy the right to foul it up.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

Phoebesmum said:


> I was just wondering...how many people think that global warming / an environmental disaster is real and how many think it is fake?
> 
> If you do think it is fake, what reasoning do you give for the hoopla about it?
> 
> My personal opinion is that there is substantial evidence that humans actions are causing climate change on a massive scale.


Man made global warming is a fake. There is no scientific evidence that supports that idea. There are some models that do support it but models are not evidence, they are opinion. When those models have been checked against real numbers they have failed every time.

I happened to sit in the middle of several hundred "global warming experts" in Bali some time ago and shamelessly eavesdropping their conversations convinced me that more than 90% were very hard left radicals that were just looking for lever to impose their ideas on the rest of humanity, in particular the Western industrialized nations and most specifically the US. Frankly, they had about as much connection to reality as Darth Vader. It's all about leverage, "the sky is falling so you must do what I say" is the real end point of this whole movement. The man made global warming movement consists almost entirely of water melons, green on the outside and red on the inside.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Encouraging conservative use of fossil fuels
> --Convert to cleaner energy
> --Greatly reduce or stop deforestation, strip mining, etc
> --Greatly reduce or stop monoculture farming, genetically manipulated seeds, factory farms, etc and return to more sustainable methods of farming/food production
> ...


Most in the US do that already, but the rest of the world doesn't much care.
And none of that has anything to do with "global warming"


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Most in the US do that already, but the rest of the world doesn't much care.
> And none of that has anything to do with "global warming"


Not global warming specifically--although the issue of carbon dioxide IS a global warming issue and reducing our use of fossil fuels is one step to decreasing CO. 

As for "most in the US do that already" ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!?!?

People STILL drive HUGE GAS GUZZLING vehicles to go to the grocery, the mall, the park, work....very few people are using cleaner energy--myself included because I have no way of converting my apartment to solar, wind or other power.....monoculture farming, genetic manipulation of seeds (and seed patenting) and factory farming are at ALL TIME HIGHS and many other nations are actually being encouraged to adopt these practices by the U.S....there is no movement to slow population growth...and Americans are some of the WORST in the world to act like the Earth (not JUST the U.S.) is ours and only ours...so WHAT are you talking about?????????????????


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> As for "most in the US do that already" ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!?!?


I do think the U.S., like a lot of the developed world, has reined in population growth. Without immigration, we would be seeing very little population rise here.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I do think the U.S., like a lot of the developed world, has reined in population growth. Without immigration, we would be seeing very little population rise here.


We have reigned in population growth but not because we have done anything to purposely do that--sociology studies show that the reason for less population growth is due to improved outcomes/lower child mortality and a change in lifestyle (ie kids not needed to work the farm and such)...we could do better.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Wanderer0101 said:


> Man made global warming is a fake. There is no scientific evidence that supports that idea. There are some models that do support it but models are not evidence, they are opinion. When those models have been checked against real numbers they have failed every time.
> 
> I happened to sit in the middle of several hundred "global warming experts" in Bali some time ago and shamelessly eavesdropping their conversations convinced me that more than 90% were very hard left radicals that were just looking for lever to impose their ideas on the rest of humanity, in particular the Western industrialized nations and most specifically the US. Frankly, they had about as much connection to reality as Darth Vader. It's all about leverage, "the sky is falling so you must do what I say" is the real end point of this whole movement. The man made global warming movement consists almost entirely of water melons, green on the outside and red on the inside.


You are one smart wanderer my friend. You do recognize the whole scam/sham as control of the population and the weak minded who buy into this "the sky is falling so YOU MUST DO WHAT I SAY" scenario. We will just have to put up with the caterwauling and nonsense and do what we can - of course there are a LOT of weak minded voters who will go along with this carp. Let us pray.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> As for "most in the US do that already" ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!?!?


No, I'm not kidding.
Emissions are FAR less than they were 40 years ago, even with higher populations.



> so WHAT are you talking about?????????????????


Facts, instead of your emotional hype
Emissions were reduced 7% last year

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...n-dioxide-emissions-fell-record-7-last-year/1


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> LMAO!! Talk about taking it to an extreme!!!
> 
> Okay--INSTEAD of eliminating the human race, what if we try something more like this to decrease the strain humans place on the environment:
> 
> ...


If wishes were fishes, we'd all have plenty to eat.

The current population of this planet is based upon cheap and readily available petroleum.

Not many people, in the developing world, once they've seen the bright city lights, are going to go back to the subsistence existence level they left.

Not many people, in the developed world, are going to willingly give up anything. Taxing them into compliance will just make (at least the productive part of society) work (consume) even more to maintain their standard of living.

May not appear so, but I agree with you... it's just getting from point A (where we are now) to Point Z (where we ought to be) requires all those pesky points in between. Afraid to get to Z, there'll be Point D, disease, Point F, famine, Point P, pestilence, and a lot of unsavory points.

I don't believe any of the 'good stuff' you mentioned is possible with six + billion people.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

texican said:


> If wishes were fishes, we'd all have plenty to eat.
> 
> The current population of this planet is based upon cheap and readily available petroleum.
> 
> ...


It's always good to read/see that there are many here on HT's GC who actually "GET IT"!!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Phoebesmum said:


> Not global warming specifically--although the issue of carbon dioxide IS a global warming issue and reducing our use of fossil fuels is one step to decreasing CO.
> 
> As for "most in the US do that already" ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!?!?
> 
> People STILL drive HUGE GAS GUZZLING vehicles to go to the grocery, the mall, the park, work....very few people are using cleaner energy--myself included because I have no way of converting my apartment to solar, wind or other power.....monoculture farming, genetic manipulation of seeds (and seed patenting) and factory farming are at ALL TIME HIGHS and many other nations are actually being encouraged to adopt these practices by the U.S....there is no movement to slow population growth...and Americans are some of the WORST in the world to act like the Earth (not JUST the U.S.) is ours and only ours...so WHAT are you talking about?????????????????


Mostly you're talking about the folks YOU live around. That is what YOU are seeing in your community. The rest of us, the "ignorant, ineducated" conservatives, are being good stewards of the land. NOT buying & tossing bottled water, NOT driving huge gas-guzzlers to the grocery, NOT living in huge mcmansions, we're growing our own food-even in APARTMENTS.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Tricky Grama said:


> Mostly you're talking about the folks YOU live around. That is what YOU are seeing in your community. The rest of us, the "ignorant, ineducated" conservatives, are being good stewards of the land. NOT buying & tossing bottled water, NOT driving huge gas-guzzlers to the grocery, NOT living in huge mcmansions, we're growing our own food-even in APARTMENTS.


Just for the record, I grow a HUGE amount of my own food in a community garden plot near my apartment, I can/preserve as much food as I possibly am able, I collect rain water and condensation water to reduce my overal water use, I use CF bulbs, etc...I do A LOT to reduce my impact...as far as what I see---sorry, it is NOT just around here, I travel all over the country and what I say is true everywhere I go--if anything, the number of Prius' in my town border on amazing. So nice try.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

texican said:


> If wishes were fishes, we'd all have plenty to eat.
> 
> The current population of this planet is based upon cheap and readily available petroleum.
> 
> ...


I also believe it is VERY difficult to do many of these things with the current world population..but we have to start somewhere. I am not asking ANYONE to go back to having no lights, not using cars, etc. I just wish we would use solar, wind and other power rather than fossil fuels. As for the fossil fuels being cheap and readily available, that too is debatable.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> I also believe it is VERY difficult to do many of these things with the current world population..but we have to start somewhere. I am not asking ANYONE to go back to having no lights, not using cars, etc. I just wish we would use solar, wind and other power rather than fossil fuels. As for the fossil fuels being cheap and readily available, that too is debatable.


But you have to understand that renewables have their limitations, too. Just like New-Englanders (ironically, many liberals who are pushing for the technology) who don't want wind generators to mess up their nice ocean or mountain-top view, there's the issue of where to locate all those wind generators and solar panels. Do you realize how many of each would be necessary to meet the demands of this nation??? 

To put legislation in place that penalizes fossil fuels before we have alternatives in place is, IMO, downright treasonous. Add in the questionable motives (CCX) and you're pushing for a fight.

Personally, I don't think this administration has thought this through sufficiently. They obviously seem to be getting the cart before the horse.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Txsteader said:


> But you have to understand that renewables have their limitations, too. Just like New-Englanders (ironically, many liberals who are pushing for the technology) who don't want wind generators to mess up their nice ocean or mountain-top view, there's the issue of where to locate all those wind generators and solar panels. Do you realize how many of each would be necessary to meet the demands of this nation???
> 
> To put legislation in place that penalizes fossil fuels before we have alternatives in place is, IMO, downright treasonous. Add in the questionable motives (CCX) and you're pushing for a fight.
> 
> Personally, I don't think this administration has thought this through sufficiently. They obviously seem to be getting the cart before the horse.


Well, as you will notice, I said NOTHING about penalizing or taxing on fossil fuel use/carbon output. We just need to get started transferring power to cleaner sources and once that system is somewhat in place we can begin pulling back on fossil fuel consumption, and taxation should be the last resort. Before that I would like to see incentives being offered to convert to clean energy.

My parents live in Vermont and have told me about all the people there who are against windmills being placed due to their view being "ruined"--at some point we are going to have to accept that to continue to consume energy at the quantities we do (basically unlimited), SOMETHING will have to be sacrificed. And solar and wind power are only PART of the solution. Other cleaner forms of energy will need to be explored and implemented as well.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Phoebesmum said:


> Just for the record, I grow a HUGE amount of my own food in a community garden plot near my apartment, I can/preserve as much food as I possibly am able, I collect rain water and condensation water to reduce my overal water use, I use CF bulbs, etc...I do A LOT to reduce my impact...as far as what I see---sorry, it is NOT just around here, I travel all over the country and what I say is true everywhere I go--if anything, the number of Prius' in my town border on amazing. So nice try.


You told us you lived in a very liberal community. I was stating what you lived around, not what you did.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Tricky Grama said:


> You told us you lived in a very liberal community. I was stating what you lived around, not what you did.


Yes, I realize--but your last statement in which you emphasized "apartment" made me feel like I needed to explain that although I cannot convert my apartment to cleaner energy, I am doing all I can to reduce my impact. I do live in a liberal community, but have traveled throughout the U.S. and used to live in a very conservative city, and I see the same waste everywhere.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> Well, as you will notice, I said NOTHING about penalizing or taxing on fossil fuel use/carbon output. We just need to get started transferring power to cleaner sources and once that system is somewhat in place we can begin pulling back on fossil fuel consumption, and taxation should be the last resort. Before that I would like to see incentives being offered to convert to clean energy.
> 
> My parents live in Vermont and have told me about all the people there who are against windmills being placed due to their view being "ruined"--at some point we are going to have to accept that to continue to consume energy at the quantities we do (basically unlimited), SOMETHING will have to be sacrificed. And solar and wind power are only PART of the solution. Other cleaner forms of energy will need to be explored and implemented as well.


I didn't say that YOU said anything about penalizing fossil fuel, but if you've listened to Obama, he HAS.....so that costs would '"necessarily skyrocket" (his words). Democrats were more than willing to pass cap & trade w/o an alternative infrastructure being in place. Helloooo???? If not for public outcry/push-back, it would be law right now.

The comment about your parents made my point precisely and I've made this point before; it's blatantly hypocritical for Democrats to push the legislation yet not want the technology in their neighborhoods. Obviously, the idiots (Democrats) are clueless about the technology and the limitation/restrictions.

The clueless have NO BUSINESS making public policy that will affect the rest of us. :flame:


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Democrats were more than willing to pass cap & trade w/o an alternative infrastructure being in place. Helloooo???? If not for public outcry/push-back, it would be law right now.
> :


They are trying. The very quietly pushed a version through the house (IIRC) while we were all busy worrying about the spill. It was very quiet, news media never covered it or barely acknowledged it. I am still waiting for the outcome of this one. It was called something new so as to confuse the public, of whom this admin has so little regard as to think we are stupid enugh to be fooled by renaming it.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Txsteader said:


> The clueless have NO BUSINESS making public policy that will affect the rest of us. :flame:


True--but every group thinks the other group(s) are the clueless ones so we all get stuck with NOTHING being changed.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> I didn't say that YOU said anything about penalizing fossil fuel, but if you've listened to Obama, he HAS.....so that costs would '"necessarily skyrocket" (his words). Democrats were more than willing to pass cap & trade w/o an alternative infrastructure being in place. Helloooo???? If not for public outcry/push-back, it would be law right now.
> 
> The comment about your parents made my point precisely and I've made this point before; it's blatantly hypocritical for Democrats to push the legislation yet not want the technology in their neighborhoods. Obviously, the idiots (Democrats) are clueless about the technology and the limitation/restrictions.
> 
> The clueless have NO BUSINESS making public policy that will affect the rest of us. :flame:


Post of the day award.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I haven't read all of the responses but I do believe that we are seeing changes. However, having said that, I don't know if it's man made or not, what I do know is that anyone who is a Christian already knew this was going to happen because it talks about it in the Bible in regards to the last days.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> I haven't read all of the responses but I do believe that we are seeing changes. However, having said that, I don't know if it's man made or not, what I do know is that anyone who is a Christian already knew this was going to happen because it talks about it in the Bible in regards to the last days.


ound:


----------



## Hooligan (Jul 18, 2007)

Phoebesmum said:


> Well, as you will notice, I said NOTHING about penalizing or taxing on fossil fuel use/carbon output. We just need to get started transferring power to cleaner sources and once that system is somewhat in place we can begin pulling back on fossil fuel consumption, and taxation should be the last resort. Before that I would like to see incentives being offered to convert to clean energy.
> 
> My parents live in Vermont and have told me about all the people there who are against windmills being placed due to their view being "ruined"--at some point we are going to have to accept that to continue to consume energy at the quantities we do (basically unlimited), SOMETHING will have to be sacrificed. And solar and wind power are only PART of the solution. Other cleaner forms of energy will need to be explored and implemented as well.


Do your parents tell you that those same people are fighting the regions nuclear power provider which provides safe, clean and relatively inexpensive power to most of the state.

Ayup, they would like to shut down VT Yankee and buy expensive power produced by fossil fuels and hydro?

Why?

Because Vt Yankee is in their backyard while the coal burning plants and massive dams aren't.

And to address the point of the thread... Of course the climate is changing. Just like it has since the beginning of time. Only humans... especialy the subset humanure liberatus, would think they have any significant affect beyond the analogy of farting in the theater.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Hooligan said:


> And to address the point of the thread... Of course the climate is changing. Just like it has since the beginning of time. Only humans... especialy the subset humanure liberatus, would think they have any significant affect beyond the analogy of farting in the theater.


It is possible to have intelligent discourse without resorting to idiotic name calling....try it sometime--You might like it.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

It is possible to have intelligent discourse without resorting to idiotic name calling....try it sometime--You might like it.

Yeah, insults kind of suck, don't they? Like your little laughing smiley above on post # 78.
That was *real* nice, wasn't it? 

Glad I don't live in such a narrow-mided hypocritial liberal community full of Priuses. The stench of the enviro-righteous must be choking....


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

JuliaAnn said:


> The stench of the enviro-righteous must be choking....


Not so much...since we don't have the morals of the conservatives being shoved down our throats, breathing is actually EASIER!


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Not only do I not believe this "hoopla" as you called it...But even if I was wrong I still would not care...

How dare people concern themselves about the possible destruction of the future of mankind many decades or more into the future. I cannot waste my energy nor time to worry about something _that was created most likely to simply enhance the fortunes of an elite few..._when right in front of your very eyes is the economic destruction of our nation... we have destroyed the future economic survival of this country thereby destroying any future safety and security of those who will come after us. I can assure you this will be what the next generations will be dealing with and struggling to survive. It will not be this trumped up global warming nor the new more marketable phrasing.. _climate change_

:fussin:


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Not only do I not believe this "hoopala" as you called it...But even if I was wrong I still would not care...
> 
> How dare people concern themselves about the possible destruction of the future of mankind many decades or more into the future. I cannot waste my energy nor time to worry about something that was created most likely to simply enhance the fortunes of an elite few...when right in front of your very eyes is the economic destruction of our nation... we have destroyed the future economic survival of this country thereby destroying any future safety and security of those who will come after us. I can assure you this will be what the next generations will be dealing with and struggling to survive. It will not be this trumped up global warming nor the new more marketable phrasing.. _climate change_
> 
> :fussin:


If future generations do not have a liveable environment in which to exist, the economy will be the last thing on anyone's mind.


----------



## Hooligan (Jul 18, 2007)

Phoebesmum said:


> It is possible to have intelligent discourse without resorting to idiotic name calling....try it sometime--You might like it.


Well, that was a test to see if you would/could respond to the point with logic or emotion. Looks like the stereotype has been further reinforced.


Serious question.

Who is a better 'steward of the environment"?

A guy who drives a big V8 pickup ten thousand miles a year or one who drives a fuel sipping Honda thirty thousand miles a year?


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Hooligan said:


> Well, that was a test to see if you would/could respond to the point with logic or emotion. Looks like the stereotype has been further reinforced.
> 
> 
> Serious question.
> ...


Neither...the winner would be the person who drives, as little as possible, the most fuel efficient vehicle that they possibly can afford and utilizes public transportation / walking/ biking whenever possible.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> If future generations do not have a liveable environment in which to exist, the economy will be the last thing on anyone's mind.



And if you destroy the _economic_ future of the next generations who in the heck will *buy* into your wild enviro fantasies?????? You can ignore the train speeding head on towards you while worrying if the sun is a bit too hot these days but do you really think that is smart?

I was a long time member of the Sierra club...until I realized the brainwashing that was going on within those enviro circles...


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Aintlifegrand said:


> And if you destroy the _economic_ future of the next generations who in the heck will *buy* into your wild enviro fantasies?????? You can ignore the train speeding head on towards you while worrying if the sun is a bit too hot these days but do you really think that is smart?
> 
> I was a long time member of the Sierra club...until I realized the brainwashing that was going on within those enviro circles...


And I was raised in a household of conservatives, adopting some of those beliefs for myself, until I realized the brainwashing that occurs---every "movement", group, party, etc has their own agenda and purpose...including yours.


----------



## Hooligan (Jul 18, 2007)

Phoebesmum said:


> Neither...the winner would be the person who drives, as little as possible, the most fuel efficient vehicle that they possibly can afford and utilizes public transportation / walking/ biking whenever possible.




LOL

Yet another stereotype reinforced! You're just playing with me aren't ya?


It wasn't a win/lose question. It was a who is better at .... question.

You avoided it quite nicely.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Hooligan said:


> LOL
> 
> Yet another stereotype reinforced! You're just playing with me aren't ya?
> 
> ...


Well, based on sheer numbers, if I HAD to pick one of those two options as the better then obviously the driver of the V8 is the better--I looked and a Chevy Silverado 1500 with a V8 engine gets about 22 mpg while the "gas sipping" Honda Fit gets around 35 mpg--if the Honda driver is driving three times as many miles as the truck driver, then the answer is obvious BUT my question for the truck driver is, does he/she really "need" a V8 for routine use and, if not, switching to a smaller more fuel efficient vehicle would be good. Also I would ask the Honda driver if he/she "needs" to drive that many miles or if he/she could cut back in some ways. I average just under 700 miles a month currently but if I didn't make a conscious effort to group errands together and use buses then my mileage would be much higher...the ideal situation is that people conserve as much as possible and stop treating fossil fuels like water (not the best comparison since water availability is ALSO an issue for many areas but you get my meaning).


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Phoebesmum said:


> And I was raised in a household of conservatives, adopting some of those beliefs for myself, until I realized the brainwashing that occurs---every "movement", group, party, etc has their own agenda and purpose...including yours.


Yup everyone has their agenda and their colored glasses...

Mine is objectivist...

Fossil fuels are getting more expensive all the time, with higher global demand all the time, and less of it to go around, and harder to harvest. 

But alternative energy sources are even costlier with today's technologies and scale of production.

This all leads to two inevitable facts, two simple conclusions, for the objective observer.... 

1)The price of fossil fuel will climb, and likely start climbing at an accelerating rate in coming years and decades especially as Asia's demand increases.

2) People, being servants to human's nature will always use the cheapest, easiest energy available, and will switch en mass to alternative energy sources the minute fossil fuel prices surpass the cost of alternative energy and not a minute before.

So as technology lowers the cost of alternative energy, and the price of fossil fuels rise, the tipping point comes ever closer and closer...

Just as humanity went from man power, to animal power, to steam power, then to fossil fuel power, we will move on to the the next energy source when it becomes cheaper and more efficient to use than what we use now. The world will not end before we do, though we will likely have a bit more war and killing over resources in the process.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Phoebesmum said:


> ound:


I'm curious why you chose to mock my beliefs. Have I mocked yours? I have not told you what to believe, just that the Bible tells about the types of changes we are seeing. You don't have to believe that, but please show a little respect and don't make a mockery of what others believe. Thank you.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> I'm curious why you chose to mock my beliefs. Have I mocked yours? I have not told you what to believe, just that the Bible tells about the types of changes we are seeing. You don't have to believe that, but please show a little respect and don't make a mockery of what others believe. Thank you.


My issue with your reasoning is this:

I have heard Christians claim their foreknowledge of these events due to it being "in the Bible" but do you know how many different time periods and situations people have claimed this using the same "evidence"? If you truly believed that this is the end of times as predicted in the bible, are you suggesting that we should just sit by and allow the destruction to continue since it is ordained by God?

The other issue is that many of these people have claimed that we should use up everything simply because it IS the end of times so might as well use it--ie use it or lose it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Phoebesmum said:


> My issue with your reasoning is this:
> 
> I have heard Christians claim their foreknowledge of these events due to it being "in the Bible" but do you know how many different time periods and situations people have claimed this using the same "evidence"? If you truly believed that this is the end of times as predicted in the bible, are you suggesting that we should just sit by and allow the destruction to continue since it is ordained by God?
> 
> The other issue is that many of these people have claimed that we should use up everything simply because it IS the end of times so might as well use it--ie use it or lose it.


I see. You mock & use the hysterically funny icon b/c you disagree??? B/c you think Christians will "sit by & allow the destruction"? Did any of us say anything remotly like that? Did you not think that it offended every Christian on the forum to some degree?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Phoebesmum said:


> My issue with your reasoning is this:
> 
> I have heard Christians claim their foreknowledge of these events due to it being "in the Bible" but do you know how many different time periods and situations people have claimed this using the same "evidence"? If you truly believed that this is the end of times as predicted in the bible, are you suggesting that we should just sit by and allow the destruction to continue since it is ordained by God?
> 
> The other issue is that many of these people have claimed that we should use up everything simply because it IS the end of times so might as well use it--ie use it or lose it.


When have I ever said we should just sit back and allow destruction to continue? If you would get to know me before mocking me you would realize that I am a firm believer that God made us stewards of this land and we are suppose to take care of it. But instead you have chosen to mock me and my beliefs. I believe I have treated you with respect, please allow me the same courtesy.


----------



## moonspirit (Dec 22, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> I'm curious why you chose to mock my beliefs. Have I mocked yours? I have not told you what to believe, just that the Bible tells about the types of changes we are seeing. You don't have to believe that, but please show a little respect and don't make a mockery of what others believe. Thank you.


You are doing an excellent job mocking the decisions and choices of where muslims choose to worship, yet you come into this thread and ask other people to respect your choices and beliefs? how ironic.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

moonspirit said:


> You are doing an excellent job mocking the decisions and choices of where muslims choose to worship, yet you come into this thread and ask other people to respect your choices and beliefs? how ironic.


Please show me where I have mocked the decisions and choices of where muslims choose to worship. I may disagree with it, but have never mocked them. I have stated that under the constitution they have the right to build it there, but I didn't feel it was the proper thing to do, just like I don't think Christians should be burning the Koran. So PLEASE, show me where I have done an excellent job of mocking their decisions.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Tricky Grama said:


> I see. You mock & use the hysterically funny icon b/c you disagree??? B/c you think Christians will "sit by & allow the destruction"? Did any of us say anything remotly like that? Did you not think that it offended every Christian on the forum to some degree?


Considering that EVERYDAY people on this forum make statements that could offend me if I allowed them to, I guess I am not real concerned at this point whether or not I have offended the "Christians" on this board. 

BTW--I know I did NOT offend "every Christian on the forum to some degree" because I was not offended and I am a Christian. 

So just go give your famous POTDA to someone.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Phoebesmum said:


> Considering that EVERYDAY people on this forum make statements that could offend me if I allowed them to, I guess I am not real concerned at this point whether or not I have offended the "Christians" on this board.
> 
> BTW--I know I did NOT offend "every Christian on the forum to some degree" because I was not offended and I am a Christian.
> 
> So just go give your famous POTDA to someone.


This forum can be a rough place to be, but all I'm asking is since I have not mocked you for differing beliefs, please show the same courtesy. I really try to avoid the generalizations and name calling. I find it's childish and prefer to discuss our differences and the things we agree on in a manner that hopefully we can all learn from.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> BTW--I know I did NOT offend "every Christian on the forum to some degree" because I was not offended and I am a Christian.


You didn't offend YOURSELF?

LOL


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Phoebesmum said:


> I was just wondering...how many people think that *global warming / an environmental disaster is real* and how many think it is fake?
> 
> If you do think it is fake, what reasoning do you give for the hoopla about it?
> 
> My personal opinion is that there is substantial evidence that humans actions are causing climate change on a massive scale.


I don't think it's fake. I think the huge global population is THE number one environmental disaster and that the population is _contributing_ to global warming, but I don't think man is the direct cause of global warming. If there wasn't so many people on the earth and natural global warming was causing an inconvenience for people they could just migrate to another habitable territory the way people did in the distant past. Now in most places around the globe there are not as many habitable territories for people to migrate to where there are not already a lot of people. That's okay though. Nature will balance everything out in the long run, the massive populations will die out due to lack of usable resources and then nature will start all over again. The loss of massive populations will be no great loss to the planet.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> Yes, I realize--but your last statement in which you emphasized "apartment" made me feel like I needed to explain that although I cannot convert my apartment to cleaner energy, I am doing all I can to reduce my impact. I do live in a liberal community, but have traveled throughout the U.S. and used to live in a very conservative city, and I see the same waste everywhere.


You keep brining this up... where in Southern Indiana is there such a bastion of liberal thought?

Usually Indianans are fairly level-headed... I've traveled Indiana pretty extensively and have never ran across the part of it where "Everyone believes in Global Warming and are liberals"...


----------



## Daddyof4 (Jan 5, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> My issue with your reasoning is this:
> 
> I have heard Christians claim their foreknowledge of these events due to it being "in the Bible" but do you know how many different time periods and situations people have claimed this using the same "evidence"? If you truly believed that this is the end of times as predicted in the bible, are you suggesting that we should just sit by and allow the destruction to continue since it is ordained by God?
> 
> The other issue is that many of these people have claimed that we should use up everything simply because it IS the end of times so might as well use it--ie use it or lose it.


Tell you what. Crack open a Bible sometime and make some attempt to actually study it. After a few years of that come back and then we'll attempt a discussion on the predictions and claims therein.


----------



## Daddyof4 (Jan 5, 2004)

Paumon said:


> I don't think it's fake. I think the huge global population is THE number one environmental disaster and that the population is _contributing_ to global warming, but I don't think man is the direct cause of global warming. If there wasn't so many people on the earth and natural global warming was causing an inconvenience for people they could just migrate to another habitable territory the way people did in the distant past. Now in most places around the globe there are not as many habitable territories for people to migrate to where there are not already a lot of people. That's okay though. Nature will balance everything out in the long run, the massive populations will die out due to lack of usable resources and then nature will start all over again. The loss of massive populations will be no great loss to the planet.


Absolute drivel. The world is NOT overcrowded. If you took every man, woman, and child and stood them shoulder to shoulder with two square feet, they would fit into the city of Jacksonville, Florida.

The density of the earth is actually 17.5 people per square mile. And that IS just land surface. That gives each person over 1.5 million square feet to live on. That comes out to roughly a parcel of land 1,250 feet by 1,250 feet. That comes out to over 24 acres per person. But what happens is people crowd into cities and then when you see some idiotic documentary or news report trying to hype the overcrowding myth, you'll see scenes of downtown Tokyo or New York or Hong Kong where people are elbow to elbow walking down the streets. They'll usually combine that with scenes of smoke stacks, garbage, and famine to get their dramatic effect across.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> the *population* is contributing to global warming,


Mars is warming at a rate 4 times that of Earth.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Daddyof4 said:


> Absolute drivel. The world is NOT overcrowded. If you took every man, woman, and child and stood them shoulder to shoulder with two square feet, they would fit into the city of Jacksonville, Florida.
> 
> The density of the earth is actually 17.5 people per square mile. And that IS just land surface. That gives each person over 1.5 million square feet to live on. That comes out to roughly a parcel of land 1,250 feet by 1,250 feet. That comes out to over 24 acres per person. But what happens is people crowd into cities and then when you see some idiotic documentary or news report trying to hype the overcrowding myth, you'll see scenes of downtown Tokyo or New York or Hong Kong where people are elbow to elbow walking down the streets. They'll usually combine that with scenes of smoke stacks, garbage, and famine to get their dramatic effect across.


Absolutely wrong.


It's almost 36 acres, not 24.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

If everything that has happened and will happen is in the bible how can man make any difference no matter what we decide to do?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Daddyof4 said:


> That comes out to over 24 acres per person.


That's what I call an environmental disaster. 

Oh, and while I think of it - how much of that 24 acres per person is arable, habitable land with fresh water? And where are other things supposed to live?


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> *So just go give your famous POTDA to someone*.


OUCH... that's SO vicious! :rotfl:


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Mars is warming at a rate 4 times that of Earth.


So, there IS life on Mars!:goodjob:
(I wonder how they're dealing with their alien-made global warming?):nanner:


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

EasyDay said:


> So, there IS life on Mars!:goodjob:
> (I wonder how they're dealing with their alien-made global warming?):nanner:


I think they sent them to earth haven't you wondered where some of these posts come from :shrug::bow: :icecream:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> I think they sent them to earth haven't you wondered where some of these posts come from :shrug::bow: :icecream:


Post of the day award!
Like it was suggested I go do.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Thanks :angel: And may the Republic of Texas rise again :hobbyhors:hobbyhors


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Sawmill Jim said:


> I think they sent them to earth haven't you wondered where some of these posts come from :shrug::bow: :icecream:





Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the day award!
> Like it was suggested I go do.


Oh, y'all crack me up! ound:


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2010)

It's just another way to get your attention so you won't notice that the government has its hand in your back pocket again.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Mars is warming at a rate 4 times that of Earth.


Could you please explain where you got that information from? 

What about the other planets in the solar system, are they heating up too? It's been discovered that there is water on Mars, so if Mars is heating up 4 times faster than Earth does that mean that Mars might break up because of the water heating up too? 

How might the heating of Mars negate that the population on earth is contributing to global warming on Earth?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Daddyof4 said:


> Absolute drivel. The world is NOT overcrowded. If you took every man, woman, and child and stood them shoulder to shoulder with two square feet, they would fit into the city of Jacksonville, Florida.
> 
> The density of the earth is actually 17.5 people per square mile. And that IS just land surface. That gives each person over 1.5 million square feet to live on. That comes out to roughly a parcel of land 1,250 feet by 1,250 feet. That comes out to over 24 acres per person. But what happens is people crowd into cities and then when you see some idiotic documentary or news report trying to hype the overcrowding myth, you'll see scenes of downtown Tokyo or New York or Hong Kong where people are elbow to elbow walking down the streets. They'll usually combine that with scenes of smoke stacks, garbage, and famine to get their dramatic effect across.





Ed Norman said:


> It's almost 36 acres, not 24.


24 acres or 36 acres per person - that's still an environmental disaster. Nice little cemetary plot, eh? 

And I'm still wanting to know how much of that postage stamp 24 (or 36) acres per person is arable, habitable land with fresh water? 

Where are other land dwelling creatures supposed to live? 

In another 50 years from now how many acres per person will it be?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> My issue with your reasoning is this:
> 
> I have heard Christians claim their foreknowledge of these events due to it being "in the Bible" but do you know how many different time periods and situations people have claimed this using the same "evidence"? If you truly believed that this is the end of times as predicted in the bible, are you suggesting that we should just sit by and allow the destruction to continue since it is ordained by God?
> 
> The other issue is that many of these people have claimed that we should use up everything simply because it IS the end of times so might as well use it--ie use it or lose it.


the multiple end times happening thing...yes that has been declared many times through history, usually to manipulate. thats why God laid out a bunch of prophecies, one of which is there is there is a great falling away of folks from the church, partly because of secularization, but more so because the church becomes a bloated gluttonous drama queen bent on being "relevant"--or something. we can see that today with all the name it and claim it junk, hip sexy garage tat church trying to be cool, psychobabble feel good sermons that hand out bubble gum. young folks(and others) see though that garbage and toss it. as in the GARBAGE, not the recycling bin.

but after the garbage is finally taken out, whats real will rise up and be real again. just sayin, maranatha.

the trash the planet attitude is the few of a minority of crackpot christians, the general "consensus" is towards conservation and good stewardship...though on the same pop culture standing as the rest of the us. frankly i see ideas of being green being learned from culture, rather than from a deep understanding of one's place and brotherhood in/with a creation made by God(a supreme being). ie, the average person does not go deep in knowing or having wonder in the world, it's "pretty", yay. lets hop in the car and go home where we still consume the same, though now we've thrown out the old non-green stuff and went out and BOUGHT new green stuff so we're absolved. ie the average person is very separated from the natural world and has a Bambi understanding of it. people go green out of guilt, rather than love. love brings real lasting practical change, with selflessness that considers the good of the other and seeks to know the other ever better--as the other IS. 

like i said before other environmental stuff will tank us long before global warming. ie we're pooping in our well, and it's just too much critical mass to stop in time. 

though that said there is a lot of cool knowledge coming around in permaculture, but even then, applying it to bajillion people is a horrifying problem.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Could you please explain where you got that information from?


I'm pretty sure I posted a link on another thread.
Another thing you can often do with my statements is GOOGLE them, since they are FACTS, it's really not hard to confirm

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070404203258.5klhwqs4&show_article=



> so if Mars is heating up 4 times faster than Earth does that mean that Mars might break up because of the water heating up too?


What makes you think a *few degrees *increase will make a whole planet "break up"


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm pretty sure I posted a link on another thread.
> Another thing you can often do with my statements is GOOGLE them, since they are FACTS, it's really not hard to confirm
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070404203258.5klhwqs4&show_article=
> ...


Okay I read that article. There is no correlation between the type of global warming happening on Earth and the fluctuating warming and cooling on Mars. The warming trends there are happening for very different reasons and are not consistent so it has no bearing on what's happening on Earth.

Regarding Mars breaking up - who knows? I know nothing about other planets. Mars atmosphere is thin and composed of 95% carbon dioxide and the temperature of the planet has always been recorded being below freezing, the highest temperature recorded getting to 23F. If it's warming up 4 times faster than earth then it only has 10 degrees to increase to take it above freezing. That will change the atmosphere and the planetary crust when it's polar ice cap and other surface ice completely melts. Who knows what will happen to the planet when it is no longer frozen solid and has such a thin atmosphere of mostly CO2? Maybe it will become a ball of soft warm mud and fall apart - or maybe it will evolve into another earth type planet in a few million or billion years? Maybe it already was an earth-type planet a long time ago and is now devolving.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There is no correlation between the type of global warming happening on Earth and the fluctuating warming and cooling on Mars. The warming trends there are happening for very different reasons and are not consistent so it has no bearing on what's happening on Earth.


LOL It's not "for different reasons". There are multiple reasons that apply to both planets



> Who knows what will happen to the planet when it is no longer *frozen solid *and has such a thin atmosphere of mostly CO2?


It certainly won't "break up", and it's never been "frozen solid".
You have a very simplistic view of complicated things sometimes



> On Mars, there have been an unusual number of massive, planet-darkening storms over the last 30 years, and computer models indicate that surface air *temperatures* on the Red Planet *increased* by 0.65 C (*1.17 *F) during *from the 1970s to the 1990s*.


Slightly over ONE DEGREE in TWENTY YEARS, and it's warming* FASTER than Earth*

t


> he highest temperature recorded getting to 23F


Are you sure you read that correctly?



> Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K *(&#8722;63 Â°C; &#8722;82 Â°F*), significantly less than what is needed to sustain liquid water. However, early in its history Mars may have had conditions more conducive to retaining liquid water at the surface.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Umm hmm, I read it right. 2nd paragraph in the breitbart article you linked to.



> _which range from *-87 C to - 5 C *__*(-125 F to 23 F) depending on the season and the location* -- and the darkening or lightening of swathes of the planet's surface." _


But apparently even that breitbart article was very wrong and so was I. 

The temperatures there fluctuate even more than what's stated in the breitbart article.

http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/resources/mars_data-information/temperature_overview.html



> " ..... measured at 1.5 meters above the surface, range from + 1Â° F, ( -17.2Â° C) to -178Â° F (-107Â° C). However, the temperature of the surface at the winter polar caps drop to -225Â° F, (-143Â° C)* while the warmest soil occasionally reaches +81Â° F (27Â° C)* as estimated from Viking Orbiter Infrared Thermal Mapper ..... "


Not that any of that really matters pertaining to this thread, but it does resolve one thing for me that I didn't know about. 

I guess Mars won't fall apart because of changing temperatures. :bouncy:


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Paumon said:


> 24 acres or 36 acres per person - that's still an environmental disaster. Nice little cemetary plot, eh?
> 
> And I'm still wanting to know how much of that postage stamp 24 (or 36) acres per person is arable, habitable land with fresh water?
> 
> ...


Thank GOD someone else had the common sense to point out that it is not ONLY humans living on this plant!!! Yea there might be 24 or 36 acres per PERSON, but what about the animals, plants, insects???? They have every bit of as much right to live as we do...


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> Thank GOD someone else had the common sense to point out that it is not ONLY humans living on this plant!!! Yea there might be 24 or 36 acres per PERSON, but what about the animals, plants, insects???? They have every bit of as much right to live as we do...


kinda odd how you guys assumed that figure of acreage per person included scraping all life away before plopping the person down on their 30 acre plot.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

wyld thang said:


> kinda odd how you guys assumed that figure of acreage per person included scraping all life away before plopping the person down on their 30 acre plot.


Well, I don't know too many people who would share "their" plot with a bear, wolf, coyote, tiger, lion, rhino, komodo dragon, or any other of myriad of the more aggressive creatures in the wild. The earth is not ours...it is for all living beings.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2010)

Plenty of wild animals here, raccoons, possums, deer, squirrels, groundhogs, rabbits, foxes, coyotes, hawks and some wild hogs. I fence in the garden and orchard to keep them out. Anybody living in the country knows you're going to share your "space" with lots and lots of wild animals.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> Well, I don't know too many people who would share "their" plot with a bear, wolf, coyote, tiger, lion, rhino, komodo dragon, or any other of myriad of the more aggressive creatures in the wild. The earth is not ours...it is for all living beings.


I share my 10 acre plot with bear, cougar, bobcat, weasel, coyote, so thats "one".


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

city people scare me though


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> Well, I don't know too many people who would share "their" plot with a bear, wolf, coyote, tiger, lion, rhino, komodo dragon, or any other of myriad of the more aggressive creatures in the wild. The earth is not ours...it is for all living beings.


This is a homesteading forum.
Many of us on HT ARE the ones that willingly share our space with the local wildlife, regardless of their aggressive reputations.
We, as opposed to many city-folk, more clearly understand how important the natural balance is because, for many of us, our livelihoods depends on that balance.

Your post would be more appropriate in a city-folk-type forum.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

EasyDay said:


> This is a homesteading forum.
> Many of us on HT ARE the ones that willingly share our space with the local wildlife, regardless of their aggressive reputations.
> We, as opposed to many city-folk, more clearly understand how important the natural balance is because, for many of us, our livelihoods depends on that balance.
> 
> Your post would be more appropriate in a city-folk-type forum.


And considering this IS a homesteading forum, I would think you would realize that the majority of people are not like us and would NOT willingly share their space with wild critters. Not everything centers on this forum and it is possible to talk about things that include EVERYONE and it still be "apropriate" for this forum.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> And considering this IS a homesteading forum, I would think you would realize that the *majority* of people are not like us and would NOT willingly share their space with wild critters. .


so that makes it *right*? or the proper way to think? or...shudder...normal?


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

wyld thang said:


> so that makes it *right*? or the proper way to think? or...shudder...normal?


Did I say that? No.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> And considering this IS a homesteading forum, *I would think you would realize that the majority of people are not like us *and would NOT willingly share their space with wild critters. Not everything centers on this forum and it is possible to talk about things that include EVERYONE and it still be "apropriate" for this forum.


OK, then let's back up some...



Phoebesmum said:


> Well, I don't know too many people who would share "their" plot with a bear...


I'm sorry to hear that. I don't know too many people who DON'T (or wouldn't) share "their" plot with the wildlife. Maybe you should rethink your circle of "who you know"?
_I would think you would realize that _about 1/2 of our population live in cities and towns. That leaves the other half.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I think some of you overlooked the most important point. 

Paumon's important question was how much of that little plot of land is arable land with fresh water? That 36 acres per person was based strictly on available land space, it was not factoring in how much of it is uninhabitable rock and ice covered mountains or deserts. 

When you factor uninhabitable land space in, the question remains how much habitable, arable land remains available for each person plus all the other animals sharing that same space? 

It will NOT be 36 acres or even 24 acres, it will be much smaller and will be continually shrinking on a daily basis with population growth. Where do all the domestic animals fit into that along with the wild herd animals, large predators, etc. ??? Hmmm?

It's not a practical solution to over-population.

.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

naturelover said:


> I think some of you overlooked the most important point.
> 
> Paumon's important question was how much of that little plot of land is arable land with fresh water? That 36 acres per person was based strictly on available land space, it was not factoring in how much of it is uninhabitable rock and ice covered mountains or deserts.
> 
> ...


Well, why should they consider something so LOGICAL??


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Phoebesmum said:


> Well, why should they consider something so LOGICAL??


The same illogical solution and the same question about land space has come up before in other threads about over-population. Nobody yet has been able to come up with a logical solution .... except of course to quit breeding like bunnies and consuming everything in sight. When the animals are all gone and the land space has shrunk even more, the people will resort to eating other people.

Nature still wins after the people are all gone too.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Nobody yet has been able to come up with a logical solution


The logical "solution" is to *stop worrying *over it, since there is still plenty of land to go around, and plenty of food to feed the people.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

and again, i dont understand why you insist on people being on that plot of land to the exclusion of all else?(besides making a silly point just to be contrary?) it could be figured to the nth degree, how many acres are desert, ice, forest, divide up all the animals, bugs, plants etc and ration them out--see what you have to get along with, which, btw, will be a fraction of a wolf, because there arent 6 billion wolves, or polar bears, or cougars, or komodo dragons, so see Phoebesmum you wont have to worry about predators at all because you'll just have a twitching paw as your portion....


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> and again, i dont understand why you insist on people being on that plot of land to the exclusion of all else?(besides making a silly point just to be contrary?) it could be figured to the nth degree, how many acres are desert, ice, forest, divide up all the animals, bugs, plants etc and ration them out--see what you have to get along with, ....


Although it was neither BFF or Phoebesmom that brought it up (about how much land per person) I still wish somebody *would* do the mathematical equation and figure it all out to the nth degree, just to satisfy some curiosity. Lord knows I'd do it myself if I knew how to but I kind of have a mental block when it comes to figuring math like that. :grin:

.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> Did I say that? No.


you're giving it validity by bringing it up to knock Easy Day's rebuttal down as being insensitive to the *majority* of people who apparently feel that way. if that isnt what you meant to say, or if it is irrelevant, why say it? if we shouldnt be insensitive(be nice:nono, then we should allow the majority aversion to predators be the way we practice living on earth? :lookout::lookout::lookout:


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Although it was neither BFF or Phoebesmom that brought it up (about how much land per person) I still wish somebody *would* do the mathematical equation and figure it all out to the nth degree, just to satisfy some curiosity. Lord knows I'd do it myself if I knew how to but I kind of have a mental block when it comes to figuring math like that. :grin:
> 
> .


i agree it would be interesting!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I still wish somebody would do the mathematical equation and figure it all out


It would be pointless.

There is a LOT of land that isn't being used for anything now, that COULD be used if needed.
We already produce far more food than people can eat.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> and again, i dont understand why you insist on people being on that plot of land to the exclusion of all else?(besides making a silly point just to be contrary?) it could be figured to the nth degree, how many acres are desert, ice, forest, divide up all the animals, bugs, plants etc and ration them out--see what you have to get along with, which, btw, will be a fraction of a wolf, because there arent 6 billion wolves, or polar bears, or cougars, or komodo dragons, so see Phoebesmum you wont have to worry about predators at all because you'll just have a twitching paw as your portion....


I don't mind sharing some things. But there is one thing that won't happen on my 24 or 36 acres. I don't want no fraction of any animal. It is either all or nothing. I am not sharing my bear with anyone.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Come on BFF, both you and Ed Norman are really good at doing math. :bow: 

Couldn't we prevail upon one of you to be a good sport and do the math and figure it out for this mathematically challenged air-head?

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Couldn't we prevail upon one of you to be a good sport and do the math and figure it out for this mathematically challenged air-head?


It would be a waste of time

Pull up Google Earth, and LOOK at how much* open land *there is , even in "densely " populated areas.

There are enough acres of land being used as LAWNS to feed millions of people.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

naturelover, just for you  i took some time to google around because i was interested too. boy the figures sure vary widely! so some figures, just throwing them out there from the first few sites i came across

http://pages.prodigy.net/jhonig/bignum/qland2.html
The surface area of the seven continents and all the islands of the world is about 57 million miles, while the total area of the six habitable continents (Antarctica excluded) is around 52 million square miles. 

Including Antarctica , over one fifth of the globe's land mass is under water (oceans, lakes, rivers, etc.) or ice. This leaves about 45 million square miles of exposed land. 

The human population on earth has crossed six billion. If we distribute all the exposed land evenly among all mankind, 133 people would have to share one square mile. What that means is that every single person on Earth, man woman and child would have close to five acres of land for his or her use. More precisely, each person would get 209,000 square feet of land, or a square plot of land 457 feet on each side. 

Not all this land can be used beneficially however. A significant portion of the Earth's exposed land is unhabitable or cannot be used for any agricultural purpose. Large portions lie in the far north. Large portions are extremely arid. Large portions are very mountainous. In sum, only about one fourth of all the land on earth, or somewhat more than 12 million square miles, is arable. 

Today, over half of the arable land in the world is in fact not under cultivation. Bringing the unused land into service in many cases would require huge investments of money and effort, and would do considerable damage to the environment. For example, only about 28% of the arable land on the African continent is used for growing crops. Immense tracts of forests or jungles would have to be cleared to bring the rest of the arable land on that continent to productive use. 

Thus, only about one eighth of each imaginary plot of land distributed to each person is land which is under cultivation. In effect, each person has a piece of land about 26,000 square feet (a square 161 feet on each side or just a bit more than Â½ an acre) at his or her disposal on which to grow all that he or she needs.

(i would like to add that the writer fails to bring up the fact that lots of arable African land is not cultivated because of civil unrest, genocide, and other nasty behavior)

http://sonic.net/~evolve/wp/human_ecology/simons_land_fantasy.htm
OF THE TOTAL AREA OF LAND SURF ACE OF EARTH: 
57 million square milcs x 640acrcs/square mile = 36,480,000,000 acres! THAT is a lot of acreage. However:

from the January 1992 FAO Report (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 

11 % of land surface suitable for agriculture (22%) with appropriate irrigation and drainage
6% permafrost
10% too wet
22% too shallow
23% with chemical problem
28% too dry.

*************
I'd just like to add that a lot of the pages i found ASSUME additional land brought under cultivation would be done so with modern factory/petrochemical based farming--a la expensive and environmentally unsound, in order to support the point that more people is badbadbad. Which im not refuting, just saying that is the agenda. 

What i would say is to put the positive focus on sustainable farming(how to wean ourselves off oil and mined amendments...because that will run out), human rights, improving the condition/value of women, seeking to learn to live alongside and in right relation with nature, not be ignorant nor adversive nor control freaks.

This morning i had a lovely time picking blackberries as Bambi and his momma froliced by...


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

*In sum, only about one fourth of all the land on earth, or somewhat more than 12 million square miles, is arable.* 


Wyld Thang, thanks soooo much for going to the trouble of researching that, I really appreciate it!! I'm going to copy all of that for future reference for next time the subject comes up, with all due credit to you for your effort. :goodjob:

.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

thanks naturelover  youre welcome I thought i should add stuff above the ***** is copy n paste/quoted from the website. like i said, that was the first few sites. to get a better idea, one needs to visit more sites--cuz like i said everyone has different numbers.

i just figured out what "too shallow" means, it must be places like New Orleans, at sea level and sujbect to rising sea level. BUT at this point, a lot of that land would certainly be arable, no?

and then of course a LOT of food is gotten from the ocean--so any real relevant discussion on "how much" needs to include acres of fisheries, dont you think?

(ps, thank you for being nice and pursuing the actual topic, ba-ha-ha-ha!!!! )


----------



## Quiet Guy (Oct 29, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> city people scare me though


How come this didn't get a "quote of the day award"


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Quiet Guy said:


> How come this didn't get a "quote of the day award"


I agree!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> i just figured out what "too shallow" means, it must be places like New Orleans, at sea level and sujbect to rising sea level. BUT at this point, a lot of that land would certainly be arable, no?
> 
> and then of course a LOT of food is gotten from the ocean--so any real relevant discussion on "how much" needs to include acres of fisheries, dont you think?


I think too shallow could mean a lot of things, including places at sea level - for example land that has only a small depth of top soil covering hard pan or solid rock - the higher up you go in elevations the less top soil there is, etc.

re: fisheries - well that's a whole different kettle of fish as the oceans are rapidly getting depleted from over-fishing and destruction of the sea floors. This summer here we're having a 100 year record run of millions of salmon the likes of which we've never seen and people are going nuts down at the marinas buying salmon direct off the fish boats at only $15 a fish. There are so many salmon being caught that the manufactories can't keep up with the processing and they're literally begging the public to come buy direct from the fishermen and process the fish themselves. I cooked one up last night, delicious primo stuff, and regretting for the first time in my life that I don't have a pressure cooker for canning up the salmon. 

But the question remains in my mind - *why* such an overwhelming bumper crop of salmon this one year out of the past 100 years? Is it only because we had such a powerful el nino year and this run now is an indication of hard times ahead during non-el nino years? - or is it because the larger fish that normally feed on the smaller salmon at sea are disappearing from over-fishing? What is causing the un-balance?

Ya know what I mean?

.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

naturelover said:


> *In sum, only about one fourth of all the land on earth, or somewhat more than 12 million square miles, is arable.*
> 
> 
> Wyld Thang, thanks soooo much for going to the trouble of researching that, I really appreciate it!! I'm going to copy all of that for future reference for next time the subject comes up, with all due credit to you for your effort. :goodjob:
> ...


Likewise here too, Wyld Thang, you're a peach! Thanks for looking for the answer to my question. :thumb:


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I think too shallow could mean a lot of things, including places at sea level - for example land that has only a small depth of top soil covering hard pan or solid rock - the higher up you go in elevations the less top soil there is, etc.
> 
> re: fisheries - well that's a whole different kettle of fish as the oceans are rapidly getting depleted from over-fishing and destruction of the sea floors. This summer here we're having a 100 year record run of millions of salmon the likes of which we've never seen and people are going nuts down at the marinas buying salmon direct off the fish boats at only $15 a fish. There are so many salmon being caught that the manufactories can't keep up with the processing and they're literally begging the public to come buy direct from the fishermen and process the fish themselves. I cooked one up last night, delicious primo stuff, and regretting for the first time in my life that I don't have a pressure cooker for canning up the salmon.
> 
> ...


hey, wow, what a blessing!!! i wouldn't neccessarily look for a negative reason first in why so many salmon--like maybe somethings paying off somewhere...i mean, i know in oregon things have come a long way in understanding salmon, and a lot of work has been done to rebuild/protect natal streams and reopen waterways for the fry, and they are more successful getting more fish into the streams alive(i remember lots of cooked fry in the transfer trucks). Anyways, from what i remember is that the vulnerable part of the salmon's life is the fry/baby stage, and making it to the open ocean. once they get there, there arent that many predators to actually make such a big dent in retruning numbers--ie they are very successful in the ocean. Remember historically/naturally, salmon would come back in ridiculously extravagant numbers(fertilizer for the forest), i remember wall to wall sockeye in the cedar river when i was a kid. So i would see big numbers as a positive thing. :rock something is going right somewhere? guess im just saying that sounds more like normal, not an unbalance. take good news for good news when it comes i guess.

dunno what "you people" are doing in your country for salmon 

cooler temps benefit salmon as well, keeps the natal streams cooler. it would help here on the columbia if they could shoot the seals that come up and park below the dam and chow down--but thats a great example of sentimental bambi types who cant think of the big entire picture and moan over a seal because they feel sorry for it. 

you're welcome paumon!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Told you so. Told you so. Told you so.



> A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was âlittle evidenceâ for its claims about global warming. It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made âsubstantive findingsâ based on little proof.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

naturelover said:


> *why* such an overwhelming bumper crop of salmon this one year out of the past 100 years? Is it only because we had such a powerful el nino year and this run now is an indication of hard times ahead during non-el nino years? - or is it because the larger fish that normally feed on the smaller salmon at sea are disappearing from over-fishing? What is causing the un-balance?
> 
> Ya know what I mean?
> 
> .


Maybe because the conservation measures that have been put in place are working?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> the oceans are rapidly getting depleted from over-fishing and destruction of the sea floors


They are?



> This summer here we're having a 100 year record run of millions of salmon






> why such an overwhelming bumper crop of salmon this one year out of the past 100 years?


Because your first statement is obviously incorrect




> In sum, only about one fourth of all the land on earth, or somewhat more than 12 million square miles, is arable.


Now somebody calculate how much is *actually being FARMED *out of that 1/4th


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> Well, technically, yes it is a theory (just like evolution is a theory but also considered true) however it is the most widely accepted reason for the mass extinction of dinosaurs AND correlates precisely to the age of the crater in south/central america. I should mention that it is thought that there were actually TWO large impacts with the first being the one in south/central america. I can't remember the location of the second crater.


It's a theory, but not really widely accepted, just the current new one.

There are mass extinction events about every 25 million years or so. Some are worse than others. There is some evidence that suggests impacts for some, but not all of these events. I think they are due to similar causes since they are so cyclical.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Ross said:


> I'm convinced a minority of the scientific community has convinced the majority of the scientific community to stop looking critcally at anything except global warming. So whenever anything contrary comes out it is simply dismissed instead of tested. That's not right.


Exactly.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Jena said:


> Maybe because the conservation measures that have been put in place are working?


Which conservation measures might that be? The fisheries management people up here have absolutely no explanation for this run on the Fraser - it's a mystery to them and they're calling it a _miracle_. Really. They were expecting maybe 4 or 5 million if we were lucky, now they're saying it looks like it's a return of 35 million. Nobody's complaining but nobody was prepared for this.

.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

naturelover said:


> Which conservation measures might that be? The fisheries management people up here have absolutely no explanation for this run on the Fraser - it's a mystery to them and they're calling it a _miracle_. Really. They were expecting maybe 4 or 5 million if we were lucky, now they're saying it looks like it's a return of 35 million. Nobody's complaining but nobody was prepared for this.
> 
> .


Well, I could start with the fact that you HAVE fishery management people.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

naturelover, you might be interested in these links

http://www.oregonlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/08/sockeye_salmon_run_sets_record.html

http://www.katu.com/outdoors/featured/93724794.html

http://www.wildriversfishing.com/chetcobay.html
A strong fall Chinook run is expected back to the Chetco River in 2010, according to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists. A return of 180 percent of average is expected. This year's crop of salmon entered the ocean during a period of good offshore feeding conditions, which has led to the predicted higher-than-average survival rate. The healthy ocean conditions also are expected to result in an improved steelhead run. This year's ocean trophy season runs Oct. 1-12


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Jena said:


> Well, I could start with the fact that you HAVE fishery management people.


Our fisheries management department is an absolute joke and has been for years - it should have been set up decades ago like Alaska's successful fisheries and escapement management model. The only thing I disagree with in this article comparing BC with Alaska is that I personally think it's a _good_ thing that so many fish took them by surprise and millions got up the river before our department opened the river to commercial fishing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...for-tips-on-salmon-management/article1690865/



wyld thang said:


> naturelover, you might be interested in these links
> 
> http://www.oregonlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/08/sockeye_salmon_run_sets_record.html
> 
> ...


Thanks, yes that's interesting. Here's what's happening here by comparison, only now it's upped from 30 to 35 million since this article was published 4 days ago.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-estimate-upped-to-30-million/article1688547/

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> > the oceans are rapidly getting depleted from over-fishing and destruction of the sea floors
> 
> 
> They are?
> ...


No, it's not an incorrect statement. The Arctic, the Greenland Sea and the East Pacific (on the 3 Americas west coasts) are the healthiest because of lesser populations around them, by comparison with the west Pacific and all other oceans, seas and gulfs which are being depleted and damaged because of greater human populations around them.

.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

When I ran my fishing boat in SE Alaska I always tried to catch the Canadian fish; maybe the unexpected Fraser river run is because I moved earlier this year!!! :hysterical:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Heh! Oh, mighty fisherman. So that's what happened to our fish. Do you suppose maybe now they're all looking for you, trying to find a way to Missouri through the Fraser.











Well if that's the case then maybe it's a good thing for us now that you moved back to Missouri, eh? 

.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> Well if that's the case then maybe it's a good thing for us now that you moved back to Missouri, eh?


 I was coming up the inside passage when some Canadian fishing boats blockaded an Alaskan ferry in Prince Rupert do you remember that (mid 90s)? We actually were a little leary at the time getting fuel but as always the Canadians were very polite. 

Interestingly many of the salmon runs on some of the major Alaskan watersheds are not as robust which is really impacting the First Nations people.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Hey, I remember that, that was funny. That's actually happened a couple of times that flotillas of 130 or more boats of Canadian fishermen have blockaded American ferries and held them hostage, preventing them from leaving port - once up in Rupert (1995) because of Alaskan commercial fishermen catching BC salmon headed for the Skeena and another time it was because of Washington commercial fishers in Canadian waters catching salmon headed for the Fraser.

Those Canadian fishermen are truely "crazy canucks" when they get a bee in their bonnet about territory, I tell ya, they're something forceful to behold when they get up in arms over their fish. Very polite about it but they ain't going to budge an inch for those ferries til everything's legally resolved to their satisfaction. 

Funny guys! You should see what they're like when they've gone after the Japanese and Russians. 

.


----------

