# Flying nun arrested



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Sally fields arrested protesting climate change. One of greta's girls. Still doing Gods work after all these years.
It's nice to see not everyone is in lockstep against climate change.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> It's nice to see not everyone is in lockstep *against climate change*.


No one is "against climate change".
That would be like being "against" the Sun rising and setting.
It's going to happen no matter what we do or think.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is "against climate change".
> That would be like being "against" the Sun rising and setting.
> It's going to happen no matter what we do or think.


That's what I thought you thought.
What should we do as a society to mitigate those changes?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Glad you put in the name Sally Fields, had no idea who the flying nun was.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

SRSLADE said:


> That's what I thought you thought.
> What should we do as a society to mitigate those changes?


I have heard that the banks no longer want to give farmers loans so that they can plant their fields. Because farmers are affected by weather, the banks have apparently decided that giving them loans is too risky. So instead the farmers are taking out loans at a much higher interest rate. THAT is the first thing that I would do to mitigate changes: allow the farmers lower interest loans so that they plant their fields because we all need to eat.

I do not believe in global warming, but, the climate in the Midwest is DEFINETLY changing


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Terri said:


> I have heard that the banks no longer want to give farmers loans so that they can plant their fields. Because farmers are affected by weather, the banks have apparently decided that giving them loans is too risky. So instead the farmers are taking out loans at a much higher interest rate. THAT is the first thing that I would do to mitigate changes: allow the farmers lower interest loans so that they plant their fields because we all need to eat.
> 
> I do not believe in global warming, but, the climate in the Midwest is DEFINETLY changing


Maybe the banks know something about climate change.
Like why invest in a farm that's going to fail because of that change.
Traditionally higher risk means higher interest.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

SRSLADE said:


> Maybe the banks know something about climate change.
> Like why invest in a farm that's going to fail because of that change.


We still need to eat

By the way, I am not talking about A farm, I am talking about ALL of the farmers having trouble getting a loan with reasonable interest rates so that they can plant their crops.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SRSLADE said:


> Maybe the banks know something about climate change.
> Like why invest in a farm that's going to fail because of that change.


If the banks do know about it then Sally Field should be protesting them. Without those crops eating all that carbon we will all die by next year. 

Donchathink???


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Terri said:


> We still need to eat


I agree but traditional crops may not grow when flooded, frozen, etc from that climate change.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> If the banks do know about it then Sally Field should be protesting them. Without those crops eating all that carbon we will all die by next year.
> 
> Donchathink???


Yes I do thank you for asking.
Carbon may be all we have to eat as we la la la our way down the path of doing nothing.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

SRSLADE said:


> I agree but traditional crops may not grow when flooded, frozen, etc from that climate change.


I guess if it's short term loans that would work, since it's all going to end in 12 years. LOL


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

Haven't seen Sister Bertrill in years.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

no really said:


> I guess if it's short term loans that would work, since it's all going to end in 12 years. LOL


I think your grand children might feel the effects longer than that.
If yours wont mine will.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

SRSLADE said:


> I agree but traditional crops may not grow when flooded, frozen, etc from that climate change.


I invite you to lead the way in not eating any food


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SRSLADE said:


> I agree but traditional crops may not grow when flooded, frozen, etc from that climate change.


Agriculture has come a very long way. We can grow tomatoes in the arctic I hear.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

SRSLADE said:


> I think your grand children might feel the effects longer than that.
> If yours wont mine will.


No grandkids or kids, but humans have managed to make it for quite sometime with climate change, since it has always been always will be. Adaptation.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

and still corn is grown in all 50 states. Remember that commercial with the lovely Native American girl saying something about Your people call it corn, my people call it maize. Maybe i got it backwards.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Terri said:


> I invite you to lead the way in not eating any food


I don't understand your comment.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Terri said:


> I have heard that the *banks no longer want to give farmers loans so that they can plant their fields*. Because farmers are affected by weather, the banks have apparently decided that giving them loans is too risky. So instead the farmers are taking out loans at a much higher interest rate. THAT is the first thing that I would do to mitigate changes: allow the farmers lower interest loans so that they plant their fields because we all need to eat.
> 
> I do not believe in global warming, but, the climate in the Midwest is DEFINETLY changing


I tried to find something on that.

Do you have a link on it?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

no really said:


> Glad you put in the name Sally Fields, had no idea who the flying nun was.


No. Really?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Agriculture has come a very long way. We can grow tomatoes in the arctic I hear.


At what cost? Not sustainable.With or without low interest loans.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

SRSLADE said:


> I don't understand your comment.


If all of the grain farms are shut down then there will be no grain to eat. But, you said that the farms would fail anyways

I have no link because a farmer said this on a live youtube chat


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

Maybe he should have said Gidget.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> That's what I thought you thought.
> What should we do *as a society* to mitigate those changes?


Everything else that can be done is already being done.

Stop pretending there is such a thing as a "society" that works together or thinks the same about everything. 

What *will* be "done by society"?

More will rant and rave on the internet, hoping someone *else *will actually do something that will make an actual difference.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> no really said: ↑
> Glad you put in the name Sally Fields, had no idea who the flying nun was.


That was back in prehistoric times.
You know.
Before the 70's even.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_Nun



> _*The Flying Nun*_ is an American sitcom produced by Screen Gems for ABC based on the 1965 book _The Fifteenth Pelican,_ written by Tere Rios. It starred Sally Field as Sister Bertrille. The series originally ran on ABC from September 7, 1967, to April 3, 1970, producing 82 episodes, including a one-hour pilot episode.
> 
> In 2002, _TV Guide_ ranked it number 42 on its TV Guide's 50 Worst TV Shows of All Time list.[1]


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SRSLADE said:


> At what cost? Not sustainable.With or without low interest loans.


What is it that you imagine happening and what timeline?

See, I am rational thought type of guy. First we have to outline the problems and then one by one come up with the solutions. They don't have to be consecutive solutions, they can be delegated out to the best one to fix the issue and done concurrently instead. 


I deal with head on fire people in my daily job. Always talking about this impossible deadline or that thingy over there that just has to be impossible also. First thing I do is to get rid of these people if I can. They are *ALL* counterproductive. Then I isolate the problems and find the person best able to fix it. The rest I just play from the hip and it usually works out. Been doing it this way for decades. 

Now, as much as I like Sally, what she is doing is hurting and not helping. People that do that are only causing more people to panic. (ie, *you*) When more people panic it (the task at hand) doesn't get done. 

When not one person has really brought forth any solutions to the problems that we know exist. Why do you think that is? This would be my first question I would ask if I was in that position.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> What is it that you imagine happening and what timeline?
> 
> See, I am rational thought type of guy. First we have to outline the problems and then one by one come up with the solutions. They don't have to be consecutive solutions, they can be delegated out to the best one to fix the issue and done concurrently instead.
> 
> ...


Why don't you start with some solutions.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Everything else that can be done is already being done.
> 
> Stop pretending there is such a thing as a "society" that works together or thinks the same about everything.
> 
> ...


It's obvious your'e not a part of that society.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Terri said:


> If all of the grain farms are shut down then there will be no grain to eat. But, you said that the farms would fail anyways
> 
> I have no link because a farmer said this on a live youtube chat


I never said all farms would fail. only the ones that can't get a loan because of climate change.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> *Why don't you* start with some solutions.


You just proved what I said earlier.



SRSLADE said:


> It's obvious your'e not a of society.


Can you translate?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

SRSLADE said:


> That's what I thought you thought.
> What should we do as a society to mitigate those changes?


Roll with the punches??? Do you think that you of a group of you's can hold back the coming ice age?


----------



## newfieannie (Dec 24, 2006)

I knew who the flying nun was alright but I thought she was dead long ago. guess not. ~Georgia


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> At what cost? Not *sustainable*.With or without low interest loans.


That's a popular buzzword.
It lacks substance though.

You're talking about it while using a medium that consists of rare earth metals, common minerals, petroleum products and takes terrawatts of power to produce and maintain. 

How much habitat was destroyed so you could sit in a warm, well lit home and fuss at the rest of the world for using too much stuff?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Shine said:


> Roll with the punches??? Do you think that you of a group of you's can hold back the coming ice age?


I don't know. Why not try something rather then lemming our way off a cliff.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's a popular buzzword.
> It lacks substance though.
> 
> You're talking about it while using a medium that consists of rare earth metals, common minerals, petroleum products and takes terrawatts of power to produce and maintain.
> ...


We agree we're all using way too much stuff.
What's your solution for reducing our consumption.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

SRSLADE said:


> I din't know. Why not try something rather then lemming our way off a cliff.


...been trapping lemmings a'fore they take the plunge, they thaw out quick and fry up quite nice...

::humorous reply algorithm > off::


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SRSLADE said:


> Why don't you start with some solutions.


I already have. Implemented them over a 20 year span and it worked. Now many people are doing the same thing. They weren't my solutions. I was just one of the ones that implemented them. Because of these efforts of many, Texas is further ahead than most other states in green energy. 

Now how about answering my question. 

*What is it that you imagine happening and what timeline?*

I would love to help you with your problems too. I bet if I cant I can find someone who can. Without all the heads on fire rhetoric. Or would you rather be proud of Sally Feld getting arrested for doing nothing?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Climate change example from Wikipedia...


The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer (also the Poverty Year and Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death)[1] because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.72–1.26 °F).[2] This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.[3]


Evidence suggests that the anomaly was predominantly a volcanic winter event caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in April in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). This eruption was the largest eruption in at least 1,300 years (after the extreme weather events of 535–536), and perhaps exacerbated by the 1814 eruption of Mayon in the Philippines.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I had to research the previous claim that bankers weren’t making loans because of climate change. I was NOT able to find that. 

I was, however, able to locate an article saying that recent bumper crops have pushed prices down, and the profit margin is too slim. 


https://www.wsj.com/articles/farmer...interest-loans-as-banks-pull-back-11573381801


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SRSLADE said:


> I don't know. Why not try something rather then *lemming* our way off a cliff.


How appropriate for YOU to use that word.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I had to research the previous claim that bankers weren’t making loans because of climate change. I was NOT able to find that.
> 
> I was, however, able to locate an article saying that recent bumper crops have pushed prices down, and the profit margin is too slim.
> 
> ...


I could not find anything either


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I could not find anything either


Couldn't find anything either.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

no really said:


> Couldn't find anything either.


This is farm country. Farms live and die by loans. No one is dying at the hands of banks.

That said, low commodity prices, and sky high input costs are killing them. One cotton picker cost one million dollars. A big farmer might have 2 to 5 of them. The big continue to get bigger.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> Why not try something rather then lemming our way off a cliff.


You keep insinuating nothing is being done.

Do some research on pollution problems 50 years ago, and keep in mind there are about 3 times more people now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> What's your solution for reducing our consumption.


Those complaining the most should stop using anything that's not 100% natural.
If things improve greatly in the first following decade, the rest of us will cut back more than we already have.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Still that unhealthy facination with a young teens girl... ?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

and yet here you are.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep insinuating nothing is being done.
> 
> Do some research on pollution problems 50 years ago, and keep in mind there are about 3 times more people now.


I agree more was done 50 years ago.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SRSLADE said:


> I agree more was done 50 years ago.


And that is false. Do you have a link?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Is it just me or are the "deniers" the ones that offer solutions and the "alarmist" just offer accusations and rhetoric?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> And that is false. Do you have a link?


Yes I do. I was alive


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

OK, I'll offer a solution. Here's a great book I came across a few years ago on my search for better gardening. It's fascinating and very useful if you too love to garden. Makes lots of sense to me. 


*The Soil Will Save Us: How Scientists, Farmers, and Foodies Are Healing the Soil to Save the Planet*


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Is it just me or are the "deniers" the ones that offer solutions and the "alarmist" just offer accusations and rhetoric?


It takes both sides to have a balanced solution to any problem.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SRSLADE said:


> It takes both sides to have a balanced solution to any problem.


Wrong again. It takes answers and action. Talk does nothing. All you have done here is talk about your opinion and you haven't even said what you think the real problem is.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Wrong again. It takes answers and action. Talk does nothing. All you have done here is talk about your opinion and you haven't even said what you think the real problem is.


A job well planned is half done.
I see it as the 2 sides are still in the planning stage.
Balance in all things.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mreynolds said:


> Wrong again. It takes answers and action. Talk does nothing. All you have done here is talk about your opinion and you haven't even said what you think the real problem is.


It is a common tactic. Take something that is/was a problem, blow it up WAY out of proportion, then try to monetize it. There is little to no interest to actually solve the problem, just make as much money and gain as much power from it as possible. We have seen the same sort of thing from the likes of Sharpton and his ilk.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SRSLADE said:


> A job well planned is half done.
> I see it as the 2 sides are still in the planning stage.
> Balance in all things.


There are thousands of things in the works and happening right now. Things you can't see because of all the noise. Try getting away from the noise and look up stuff that is happening.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> It is a common tactic. Take something that is/was a problem, blow it up WAY out of proportion, then try to monetize it. There is little to no interest to actually solve the problem, just make as much money and gain as much power from it as possible. We have seen the same sort of thing from the likes of Sharpton and his ilk.


Yes they can't even cite a problem when pinned down for fear it's being worked on already and they missed it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Is it just me or are the "deniers" the ones that offer solutions and the "alarmist" just offer accusations and rhetoric?


That is how it is


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> It is a common tactic. Take something that is/was a problem, blow it up WAY out of proportion, then try to monetize it. There is little to no interest to actually solve the problem, just make as much money and gain as much power from it as possible. We have seen the same sort of thing from the likes of Sharpton and his ilk.


That too, is how it is


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Good grief. Here we are with people so egotistical that they think that the rest of the world will stop eating, stop driving and flying and heating their homes because humans somehow can control the earth, the sun and history.

Climate has been changing since the beginning of time, and man cannot alter that. The land where I live was covered with ice a mere 200,000 years ago and will be again someday. Further, is is now close to 700 miles from the sea, where once it was under water, according to the rocks I see.

You worry-warts should stop belly-aching and start planning to meet the changes that you think are coming. Man adapts to his climate; it is sheer egotism to thing that he can change his climate.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

what this thread, and many others, amounts to is just that people like to argue..

the changes that are coming,,most of the people living today will not live to see them..

climate change doesn't happen over night..


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> what this thread, and many others, amounts to is just that people like to argue..
> 
> the changes that are coming,,most of the people living today will not live to see them..
> 
> climate change doesn't happen over night..


Some might see it debate for the sake of debate.

I do not see it that way.

Climate change is a money grab. The UN is driving developed nations to fund enormous ambiguity. I am for a clean environment, and am willing to do MY part, but MY part does not include funding the UN. The UN wants to take from me, and give to someone else, while taking their cut.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

“Signals of the 'behavior of the planet'
Praetorius is more concerned with transitions and tipping points in Earth's history. They occurred as the planet cycled through cold and warm periods linked to changes in its orbit around the sun. Sometimes, the orbit shifted slightly and triggered a recession of the world's glaciers. Thousands of years later, the orbital would shift again and trigger global cooling.”


https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-shifts-in-the-past-offer-warning-for-future/

Quote from Summer Praetorius, a graduate student at Oregon State University and lead author of the study.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> “Signals of the 'behavior of the planet'
> Praetorius is more concerned with transitions and tipping points in Earth's history. They occurred as the planet cycled through cold and warm periods linked to changes in its orbit around the sun. Sometimes, the orbit shifted slightly and triggered a recession of the world's glaciers. Thousands of years later, the orbital would shift again and trigger global cooling.”
> 
> 
> ...


A very good article, from an unimpeachable source. I read it twice trying to find where the UN will reverse the tipping point. Maybe I missed it.

And to compound my confusion, I did not see CO2 mentioned even once in the quoted study

Some proposed mechanisms for transmission of major climate change events between the North Pacific and North Atlantic predict opposing patterns of variations; others suggest synchronization. Resolving this conflict has implications for regulation of poleward heat transport and global climate change. New multidecadal-resolution foraminiferal oxygen isotope records from the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) reveal sudden shifts between intervals of synchroneity and asynchroneity with the North Greenland Ice Core Project (NGRIP) δ18O record over the past 18,000 years. Synchronization of these regions occurred 15,500 to 11,000 years ago, just prior to and throughout the most abrupt climate transitions of the last 20,000 years, suggesting that dynamic coupling of North Pacific and North Atlantic climates may lead to critical transitions in Earth’s climate system. 
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/444​


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

We need to limit population growth, and then have as many people as possible grow a lot of their own food, or buying locally produced food (for those in the cities) using less inputs like fertilizers and pesticides including transporting foods half way around the planet.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

anniew said:


> We need to limit population growth, (especially in poverty stricken countries) and then have as many people as possible grow a lot of their own food, (provide aid where local governments demonstrate effectiveness) or buying locally produced food (for those in the cities) (eliminate government regulations that lead to mega meat processors like JBS) using less inputs like fertilizers and pesticides including transporting foods half way around the planet.


All good ideas


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

anniew said:


> We need to limit population growth, and then have as many people as possible grow a lot of their own food, or buying locally produced food (for those in the cities) using less inputs like fertilizers and pesticides including transporting foods half way around the planet.


All good ideas that as far as I know are not being done on a mass scale. Nor are they talked about on a large scale and get drowned out by the noise. 

The building industry has been working on energy conservation to minimize the need for fossil fuels with excellent results. Not only will it cause less pollution it is also cheaper on the homeowner.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> I agree more was done 50 years ago.


All those things *started* then are still being done.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All those things *started* then are still being done.


Yes they are.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeepHammer said:


> Still that unhealthy facination with a young teens girl... ?


Other than slinging insults, I'd be interested in hearing your suggestions on cleaning things up.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> Other than slinging insults, I'd be interested in hearing your suggestions on cleaning things up.


I couldn't figure that one out either. I searched again and did not find one mention of her name in here when he posted that. 

Is she a nun? If so she would be the sailing nun, not the flying nun.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I couldn't figure that one out either. I searched again and did not find one mention of her name in here when he posted that.
> 
> Is she a nun? If so she would be the sailing nun, not the flying nun.


I think he was not meaning GT, but rather FN (SF). Freaky either way.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> I think he was not meaning GT, but rather FN (SF). Freaky either way.


Lol, ok then. Sally Field is no longer a teen but ok. 

I guess I need the new updated code book of language.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Lol, ok then. Sally Field is no longer a teen but ok.
> 
> I guess I need the new updated code book of language.


Just guessing. I could be wrong. Who knows???


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> I guess I need the new updated code book of language.


Be sure to ask for "Webster's WOKE Dictionary"


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

wr said:


> Other than slinging insults, I'd be interested in hearing your suggestions on cleaning things up.


That would start with accepting science...
After that it's pretty clear.

And it wasn't an insult, pointing out the unhealthy fixation on a young teenage girl.
Sally Fields has zero to do with Greta, but several here can't let it go, everything is about Greta...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JeepHammer said:


> That would start with accepting science...
> After that it's pretty clear.
> 
> And it wasn't an insult, pointing out the unhealthy fixation on a young teenage girl.
> Sally Fields has zero to do with Greta, but several here can't let it go, everything is about Greta...


so who mentioned Greta here?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> And it wasn't an insult, pointing out the unhealthy fixation on a young teenage girl.
> Sally Fields has zero to do with *Greta*, but several here can't let it go, everything is about *Greta*.


Aren't you the only one who brought her up in this thread?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> That would start with accepting science...
> After that it's pretty clear.


Science shows the climate will change with or without humans.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeepHammer said:


> That would start with accepting science...
> After that it's pretty clear.
> 
> And it wasn't an insult, pointing out the unhealthy fixation on a young teenage girl.
> Sally Fields has zero to do with Greta, but several here can't let it go, everything is about Greta...


Other than the OP, who is pretty serious about climate change, I saw nobody, but you mention Greta. If I'm not mistaken, Greta does speak on behalf of climate change so by your own comment, you also seem to feel those in support of her message have an unhealthy fixation on a teenage girl and I would strongly agree with that. 

I actually didn't ask you to explain the science to me, I actually asked you several times to offer some feasable suggestions for solutions. To date, you have offered nothing. 

I ask again, what feasable solutions could you suggest that each individual member could do to affect change and what effective solutions would you suggest that our governments can do that will have a signficant impact and how would you enforce those same rules in other countries.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Here's the science:
Run time 6:35


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

wr said:


> Other than the OP, who is pretty serious about climate change, I saw nobody, but you mention Greta. If I'm not mistaken, Greta does speak on behalf of climate change so by your own comment, you also seem to feel those in support of her message have an unhealthy fixation on a teenage girl and I would strongly agree with that.


And post #1 was what I was referring to.
I do believe Sally is old enough to make up her own mind without influence from a barely teen girl.



> I actually didn't ask you to explain the science to me, I actually asked you several times to offer some feasable suggestions for solutions. To date, you have offered nothing.


Actually there have been several threads on conservation, reducing fossil fuels use, particularly the most polluting, sustainability, and they ALWAYS get shouted down...
And it's been approached from every angle, from direct pollution, indirect pollution, monopolies, subsidies, etc.



> I ask again, what feasable solutions could you suggest that each individual member could do to affect change and what effective solutions would you suggest that our governments can do that will have a signficant impact and how would you enforce those same rules in other countries.


Individual:
Reduce waste. This makes economic sense because the individual pays for the waste right along with the product.
Conserve, again, you pay for waste.
Buy local, no sense in getting a counterfeit from the other side of the planet.
This also creates jobs.
On a 'Homesteader' forum, I *Thought* these ideas would be a given.

Government:
Our government can't 'Enforce' anything on other governments, that's a fantasy.
Reducing the imports from those countries takes money out of their economy and automatically reduces their consumption.

Lead by example, 
Armchair quarterbacks & cowards give orders from the rear, 'Leaders' by definition are in the front.
Even China & Russia pays attention to what the US does.
Our government just took a giant step backwards pulling out of 3 major agreements in the past 3 years.
Our government is subsiding coal, oil & natural gas at a rate higher than China which everyone complains about.

There is nothing you can do for people that pay extra so they don't have to do anything...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> Actually there have been several threads on conservation, reducing fossil fuels use, particularly the most polluting, sustainability, and they ALWAYS *get shouted down*...


More often it's merely pointed out that much of what is posted is hype and sales rhetoric as opposed to reality.

Some simply can't stick to reality.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More often it's merely pointed out that much of what is posted is hype and sale rhetoric as opposed to reality.
> 
> Some simply can't stick to reality.


Reality bites. Bite back!


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Ted Danson, Susan Sarandon, even Paul Simon, along with Sally Fields and one of the random members of Congress, along with hundreds of non-celebrities have been arrested for exactly the same thing,
Trying to lobby members of Congress, that are *Supposed* to be Representatives of 'We The People', against their Constitutional Rights to free speech...

These people actually showed up to speak directly to members of Congress,
They didn't stay at home and snipe on random internet forums,
Getting off their butts, showing up and doing something...

Arrested for 'Loitering' when they actually had a purpose, and a Right to directly contact members of Congress, even if at random, is every American's Right under the Constitution.
None were charged with threatening, putting hands on, or anything that might be an actual criminal offense, just 'Loitering' and 'Obstruction Of Traffic' (foot traffic),
And adding insult to injury, not being charged so they have a day in court.
Removed in custody, released for exercising Constitutional Rights.

And for some reason, (I suspect aligning with the alt.right which connects everything climate related with Greta) members of this forum connect anyone that is pro-climate/anti-pollution with being brainwashed by a teenage girl named Greta...

I'm 60 years old,
I was anti-pollution, pro climate long before I ever heard of Greta (on this forum and alt.right forums),
I became anti-pollution when I was single digits in age and the river I lived next to CAUGHT FIRE, not once, but several times.
When that river I lived next to that I liked to swim & fish in, play around was declared a toxic waste Superfund clean up site.

The EPA was created BECAUSE rivers all over the rust belt caught fire, entire towns had to be evacuated, 
And the most ridiculous government suggestion, stay inside and don't breathe the air!

I know that doesn't fit the agenda of pollution/climate deniers, and the tactic will be to deny, divert, make counter accusations trying to turn the argument around on the pro-climate/anti-pollution folks, that's what all anti-social types do when the facts don't support the agenda, and someone dares to point that out, have autonomy from 'The Club'...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> These people actually showed up to speak directly to members of Congress,
> They didn't stay at home and *snipe on random internet forums*,


Like you're doing now?



JeepHammer said:


> And for some reason, (I suspect *aligning with the alt.right* which connects everything climate related with *Greta*) members of this forum connect anyone that is pro-climate/anti-pollution with being brainwashed by a teenage girl named *Greta*...





JeepHammer said:


> I'm 60 years old,
> I was anti-pollution, pro climate long before I ever heard of *Greta*


You're still the only one talking about her.



JeepHammer said:


> I know that doesn't fit the agenda of pollution/climate deniers, and the tactic will be to *deny, divert, make counter accusations *trying to turn the argument around on the pro-climate/anti-pollution folks, that's what all *anti-social types* do when the facts don't support the agenda, and someone dares to point that out, have autonomy from 'The Club'...


Once again you try to make it about you, and hurl insults at anyone who doesn't nod in agreement with everything you say instead of simply sticking to the actual facts.

But then, why would today be any different?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Anyone wonder what an odd duck sounds like?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> Ted Danson, Susan Sarandon, even Paul Simon, along with Sally Fields and one of the random members of Congress, along with hundreds of non-celebrities have been arrested for exactly the same thing,
> Trying to lobby members of Congress, that are *Supposed* to be Representatives of 'We The People', against their Constitutional Rights to free speech...
> 
> These people actually showed up to speak directly to members of Congress,
> ...


No one has ever been pro pollution. This is the problem. You and others can't even understand what others are saying. You immediately deflect and blame.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Anyone wonder what an odd duck sounds like?


Why would that be the 'Odd Duck' in the population?
Most people think that clean air, clean water, clean food, less pollution is a good idea.
That would make the climate deniers & pro-pollution types the 'Odd Ducks', but the correct term is Anti-Social.

Since by definition the psychiatric association (actual, educated professionals... Science) defines Anti-Social personality disorders as entirely focused on self rather than the outside world as it actually exists...
And classified as Narcissistic and Sociopathic.

These people crave validation.
You MUST agree with them or you are less than dirt.
They CRAVE validation (because of insecurities) and it's perfectly fine to insult, degrade, demean, and attack someone personally over any viewpoint they are trying to promote to be the center of attention.

The wants/needs of others are irrelevant. There is no empathy, no attempts at seeing things from anyone else's viewpoint simply because a differing viewpoint isn't about them,
The same is true with facts, if the facts don't support the narcissist's position, they are simply dismissed.

They reduce everything to most simple terms, either it gratifies them, or it doesn't, complexity escapes them since it cuts into the narrative/agenda built by them, for them.

They HATE anyone having autonomy, thinking for yourself simply isn't allowed because it differs with the narrative/agenda they have.

The narcissist will not tolerate someone having autonomy, one example is unrealistic time tables,
They want everything done for them immediately, they have no issues reminding you of their importance, your obligations, and insisting you drop everything for them.

Narcissists refuse inclusion.
They 'Hate', for example, people of another race, religion, ethnic background, sex, social or economic class, etc.

Being insecure, scared, they tend to group with others to share self validation.
This is why you see the pro-pollution/race-religion-etc 'Haters' attack en-masse rather than have a rational discussion one on one, the insecurities come to the surface in a one on one, rational debate, and the biggest fear is they will be shown for what they are... Wrong by any standard of ethics or morality, and by any standard of social norms.

WHAT you are isn't determined by what you post on a random internet forum, while hiding in the dark behind autonomous user name...
It's how you treat other people what determine who you actually are.

Having been proven over and over, it's NOT how you treat the top, privileged 1%,
It's how you treat the bottom, vulnerable, defenseless.
Children, minorities, prisoners, the infirmed, disabled, etc.
And noting that fact, think about WHO posted Pro-fondling of any random woman on the street,
Who wrote it was up to THEM to decide what was acceptable fondling, not the person they simply wanted to mash on,
Who defended a white police officer gunning down an unarmed, immigrant black, breaking no laws, while in his own home, simply because the officer was white, and the man was a black immigrant.
Think about the people that supported children being separated from parents, kept in conditions that were called 'Enhanced Interrogation' conditions,
Constant bright lights, no showers, loud music & noise blasting, crammed in cages, no beds, often not enough room to lie down, overheated/underheated rooms,
Crammed together, improper hygiene, and allowed to die for lack of medical care and $5 worth of anti-biotics...
And under US Law, these infants, toddlers and children had committed no crime, they were too young to charge with anything at all, but we're simply the most vulnerable and could be treated this way...
By the "Just Following Orders" sociopaths in charge of those infants & children.

------

As for "Nobody Being Pro-Pollution",
Exactly WRONG.
Anyone that dumps toxic waste is Pro-Pollution by definition.
From the none too bright guy that dumps his waste oil instead of taking it to the parts store for recycling (federal law),
To the big business owners that know full well large quantities of anything dumped are toxic, but doing it to increase profits anyway.

Tossing trash out the window to dumping BILLIONS of gallons of Benzene in the ocean is Pro-Pollution, and done for completely narcissistic reasons, it simply suits them to do it at the time, they (mistakenly) *Believe* they are some how 'Special' and are exempt from the common rules & laws of society.
By definition anti-social behavior.

One is done simply because the narcissist can't be bothered to dump his fast food wrappers, cigarette butts & baby diapers in a proper trash can,
The other is done for greed, increased profits by reducing the cost of properly disposing of hazardous/toxic chemicals,
But there is exactly zero difference in the mindset, both are self absorbed narcissists that *believe* social norms, laws, rules don't apply to them.

The topic of 'Rolling Coal' came up, and was supported by some members of this forum.
'Rolling Coal' isn't a hard working truck making extra smoke getting work done,
It's an ego driven narcissist entertaining himself by crapping on someone he *Thinks* is beneath him, someone doing something different than him driving a modified vehicle that's breaking emissions laws because he *Thinks* it makes him more of a 'Man' somehow (basic Fear, Insecurity about 'Manhood')...
AND,
They always pick someone much more vulnerable to harass...
Smaller cars/EVs, motorcycles, bicyclists/pedestrians, showing just how insecure they are,
A bully never picks someone that will beat them back into reality...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Odd is posting an epistle


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

SRSLADE said:


> I agree but traditional crops may not grow when flooded, frozen, etc from that climate change.


Why do climate changers believe that the change will effect every place negatively? I'm of a mind that just as many places will benefit as hurt by climate change. Who knows we may be growing beans and corn in what is now the arctic. Or, what is now desert may flourish with forests and jungle.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Odd is posting an epistle


Complexity not fit your narrative?
Personal insults are included in your responses?
Upset because someone has a different opinion than you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> Since by definition the psychiatric association (actual, educated professionals... Science) defines Anti-Social personality disorders as entirely *focused on self* rather than the outside world as it actually exists...
> And classified as *Narcissistic* and Sociopathic.





JeepHammer said:


> *They CRAVE validation* (because of insecurities) and it's perfectly *fine to insult, degrade, demean, and attack* someone personally over any viewpoint they are trying to promote to be the center of attention.





JeepHammer said:


> The *narcissist will not tolerate* someone having autonomy





JeepHammer said:


> Narcissists refuse inclusion.





JeepHammer said:


> It's an ego driven narcissist entertaining himself by crapping on someone he *Thinks* is beneath him, someone doing something different than him *driving a modified vehicle *that's breaking emissions laws* because he *Thinks* it makes him more of a 'Man'* somehow (basic Fear, Insecurity about 'Manhood')...


How many Jeeps did you say you owned?
I think I recall you saying you had 6 at one time.
I don't know if they were "breaking emissions laws", but I know you spent many hours on modifications.



JeepHammer said:


> *These people* crave validation.
> *You MUST agree with them or you are less than dirt*.


Who on here has a long history of calling those who don't agree with him "idiots" and "morons" and "pro-pollution"?

Who on here writes *long* "educational" diatribes while telling us endless tales about their vast experience?



JeepHammer said:


> WHAT you are *isn't determined by what you post* on a random internet forum, while hiding in the dark behind autonomous user name...
> *It's how you treat other* people what determine who you actually are.





JeepHammer said:


> A bully never picks *someone that will beat them back into reality*...


You quite often allude to using violence against those who don't agree with you.

What you "are" isn't always what one *says* they are either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Anyone wonder what an odd duck sounds like?


I think you got your answer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> Personal insults are included in your responses?
> Upset because someone has a different opinion than you?


You're kidding, right?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Cabin Fever said:


> Why do climate changers believe that the change will effect every place negatively? I'm of a mind that just as many places will benefit as hurt by climate change. Who knows we may be growing beans and corn in what is now the arctic. Or, what is now desert may flourish with forests and jungle.


Sure, and rises in CO2 will be good for plants...

That missed the point entirely since humans aren't plants,
Increasing the trapped thermal (sun) energy increases storm/drought cycle.
It really doesn't matter if you dump a crap load of water on a desert, there isn't top soil there to farm, and having droughts where top soil is reduces the productivity,
OR,
Requires massive irrigation construction to maintain water supply to areas currently producing most of the food.

One of those pesky facts,
Topsoil is finite, there is only so much that's not contaminated with salt, to alkyne, hard enough to be considered rock,
AND, it takes nature 500 years to make 1 inch of topsoil.

Then there is the exponentially increasing PERSISTENT POLLUTION ISSUES...
PERSISTENT, by definition, means it's here to stay...
Consider the TRILLIONS of tons of persistent toxic waste already in the oceans, landfills, etc.
Increased storm/flooding cycles will make the oceans puke that stuff right back up,
Excessive rain from storms will wash out the nasties from every landfill that floods.
Who is going to pick up the tab for that cleanup, or pay people what their land USED to eat worth when they have to pick up and move?

Even if you attempt to move topsoil to those areas that get consistent water, the water will leach salts/alkyne into that topsoil,
And the cost of redistribution would be massive.
And let's not forget, the people that DO have the topsoil will fight redistribution tooth and nail,
It would be money in the bank...

Closer to home, I would point out the US desserts are former shallow seas,
They contain WAY too much salt & alkyne to be productive even if they had more water.
They are mostly scrub brush and grasses that have adapted to the salt & alkyne.
The productive parts of deserts in the US are along rivers that have brought in topsoil,
We call the 'Bad Lands' bad lands for a reason...

*IF* the soil would support staple food crops, don't you think someone would have irrigated them by now, considering all the terra-forming that's already gone on?
We removed 90% of old growth forests because top soil was there and water could be piped in.
We plowed under hundreds of millions of square miles of native prairie grasses because there was top soil under them, and we irrigated for staple food crops.

What's left doesn't have top soil that will support staple food crops, or someone would have already irrigated it.

Again, complexity.
Either it's a discussion & education,
OR,
It just irritates people because it doesn't fit in with a pre-conceived narrative/agenda because the facts don't fit that agenda...
It's 'Easier' to blame 'Greta', Sally Fields, ect than to get off their butts, out of the shadows and actually do something constructive.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cabin Fever said:


> Why do climate changers believe that the change will effect every place negatively?


It's because they can't justify the demands for more spending to "solve the problem" unless they push the doom and gloom scenarios.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

JeepHammer said:


> These people crave validation.
> You MUST agree with them or you are less than dirt.
> They CRAVE validation (because of insecurities) and it's perfectly fine to insult, degrade, demean, and attack someone personally over any viewpoint they are trying to promote to be the center of attention.
> 
> ...


Am I the only one that is astounded at the irony of this? Physician heal thyself?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Hiro said:


> Am I the only one that is astounded at the irony of this? Physician heal thyself?


I feel certain there are many more who see it.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Hiro said:


> Am I the only one that is astounded at the irony of this? Physician heal thyself?


More personal insults?
Attempt to turn an argument/idea supported by facts around, making an accusation out of it?

My self worth, moral & ethical compass isn't determined by validation from random internet, or even local flesh & blood people.

I considered the facts I could collect, weighed the options, considered my abilities & limitations in an objective manner,
And decided to go off grid, as sustainable as possible,
Even though it was most certainly NOT the 'Popular' or 'Easy' way to do things.

I'll never be 'Rich' because it's unethical to break laws or take advantage of anyone to get there.

My self worth is what I've accomplished, from my military service to helping the folks I don't agree with out when they need some help, to getting off my butt and doing what needed to be done to accomplish my convictions.

My 'Rights' doesn't mean I have to demean others, we are all equal.
My friends/neighbors are allowed their opinions, everyone is allowed their flaws,
You might have noticed that in the homes for vets thread, or a hundred just like it...

I don't need your approval, or your insults, etc.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

JeepHammer said:


> More personal insults?
> Attempt to turn an argument/idea supported by facts around, making an accusation out of it?
> 
> My self worth, moral & ethical compass isn't determined by validation from random internet, or even local flesh & blood people.
> ...


The circular logic continues. 

The personal insult by quoting your own words?

"I'll never be rich because it's unethical to break laws or take advantage?" Explain that logical fallacy, please. I am waiting to be enlightened with such wisdom, as are many others. I find much of the reasoning and alleged facts asserted riveting.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Hiro said:


> The circular logic continues.
> 
> The personal insult by quoting your own words?
> 
> "I'll never be rich because it's unethical to break laws or take advantage?" Explain that logical fallacy, please. I am waiting to be enlightened with such wisdom, as are many others. I find much of the reasoning and alleged facts asserted riveting.


I had things to do...
I don't function on your time table, or cater to your demands.

I don't owe you an explanation, or a morals/ethics lesson.
Since you have made it clear you don't subscribe to anything other than greed/capitalism,
Trying to explain that credit & rewards to the people doing the actual work, fair compensation, would be a foreign concept and wouldn't make sense.

Wouldn't matter anyway, you have already hardened your position that anything I said would be "Illogical fallacy",
So why waste my time and annoy you even further?
No sense in engaging in a pointless argument where you are going to make blanket assumptions, avoid/dismiss any point you can't attack on, and insult me even further...

There is NOTHING productive going to happen, so it's a complete and utter waste of time for me to validate you by engaging...

----------

As for your insult about "Physician Heal Thyself",
Knowing full well I'm not a Physician of any kind...

I took up psychology to see if *I* was wrong to stand on *MY* morals & ethics codes when so many don't...
To see if I was somehow not connecting the dots.

When I hit Abnormal Psychology I found the answer,
And in fact it wasn't me, I simply wasn't accepting what's called a 'Declining Base Line',
Since I've seen the slide in morality, and declining ethics over many years I understood the concept of declining base line.

Turns out there is nothing wrong with me fundamentally, I have flaws that are 'Normal'.
It's the people that *Believe* it's acceptable, even preferable to cheat, steal, lie, road rage, scream & cuss, etc that are declining.

The more you get away with, the more you slide into narcissistic end of things on your way to being a full blown sociopath, it's a learned behavior.

The text specifically covered and referenced several studies on the internet being a nearly perfect training tool for narcissism,
No retribution, anonymous excersize practicing on hapless victims, easy to find groups that will support bad behavior, etc.

Now I understand it was FRUSTRATION/confusion making me lash out, 
And knowing WHY people do the anti-social things they do, the confusion is gone,
No lashing out...

Since I'm not an extremist, it's not my job to try and punish the people that cut lines, do stupid things in traffic, cheat-steal-lie...
That doesn't mean it's not acceptable to point those things out,
It just means it's not up to me to lay down punishment, smack someone, call them names, etc.

Since I'm NOT a mental health professional, I don't make diagnosis.
I simply stated facts about narcissistic/sociopathic types and nothing more.
It's up to anyone/everyone to see if they have, or know someone that has the symptoms.

I don't have a say in who the shoe fits, I simply laid out the shoes...
And being attacked for attempting to educate myself, maybe better myself, is something I chalk up to the personality types covered in the text books now, no since in getting bent out of shape from someone else's opinions I have no control over...

Since that education has helped me, I passed it along.
It's not what someone says, but the action of insulting, degrading, demanding I explain myself so I can be further insulted/degraded without reason or cause is counter productive,
So you have a wonderful evening...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> There is NOTHING productive going to happen, so it's a complete and utter waste of time for me to validate you by engaging..


And yet here you are, still engaging.........


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And yet here you are, still engaging.........


He lost me at "pro-polluters". I don't have time for that nonsense. He thinks everyone not like him is one.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I feel certain there are many more who see it.


All but one I'd say


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> He lost me at "pro-polluters". I don't have time for that nonsense. He thinks everyone not like him is one.


I stop as soon as I see that towering wall of text. Brevity is not his strong suit.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

JeepHammer said:


> As for your insult about "Physician Heal Thyself",
> Knowing full well I'm not a Physician of any kind...


Bless your heart.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> He lost me at "pro-polluters". I don't have time for that nonsense. He thinks everyone not like him is one.


Talking about someone in third person while they are present is insulting/degrading...
Since you replied immediately you KNOW I'm present in the conversation.

Now, think this through,
You KNOW that there is waste from fossil fuel production,
No matter what type of carbon based fuel it is, between 60% and 80% thermal losses at the point of combustion.
If you don't know that, some education in the laws of thermodynamics is in order.

So, 60% to 80% goes out as atmospheric pollution or waste heat, and that's unchanging since thermodynamics laws are strictly enforced, like the laws of gravity.

So out of that 20% to 40% that doesn't become waste, you loose up to another 80% in conduction/transmission to your home/job.
Again, laws of electromagnetic induction/transmission.

*YOU* pay for 100% of the fuel, the generation (conversion), 100% of the losses to waste.
*YOU* pay for 100% of the line losses before it gets to your appliances.
*YOU* pay for 100% of the wages to workers, and bonuses for the bosses/owners.

*YOU* know a 17 Watt CF bulb puts out exactly the same amount of light as a 60 Watt incandescent bulbs, the CF lasts 100+ times longer, and the cost difference is more than made up by longevity and consumption over the lifetime of the bulb...

But you *Choose* to use incandescent over CF,
Not only are you screwing yourself out of more money,
But you are WILLFULLY creating a situation that causes more pollution in waste energy...

That's a pro-pollution stance, no matter what you want to call it.

------------

The guy that illegally dumps waste oil, when large retailers and wholesale places are federally mandated to take that used oil FOR FREE, is a willfull polluter.
Not only is that guy breaking federal laws, but one quart of engine oil contaminates 1 million gallons of ground water beyond safe human consumption levels.

*YOU* pick up the bill for removing that oil from the drinking water supply because that guy was too lazy to drop the waste oil off at a retailer for recycling or proper disposal.
That guy is pro-pollution by his actions, it doesn't matter what he thinks of himself or his 'Opinion'.

------------


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

SRSLADE said:


> That's what I thought you thought.
> What should we do as a society to mitigate those changes?


Stop having babies. Anything less is kidding yourself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> Talking about someone in third person while they are present is insulting/degrading...


No more so than constant condescension and name calling.



JeepHammer said:


> No sense in engaging in a pointless argument


You say that a lot and yet...............


----------



## macmad (Dec 22, 2012)

Troll


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Stop having babies. Anything less is kidding yourself.


Now, see, you run into complexity again...
What do you do with the anti-abortion/anti-birth control bunches?
How do you fit a no-child or one child doctrine into the Constitution limitations?
How do you sell that to the rest of the world, even if you do mandate it in your own country?
You can't mandate what other countries do, so how do you sell it to them?

Then there is a question about current population and the amount of energy they consume...
You can't get half the people in this country to go renewable energy when it breaks even with fossil fuels,
And it's the current population, by sheer number, that's accelerating the pollution issues at an exponential rate...

No one wants to give up anything they have traditionally enjoyed (read rampent consumer economy, doing whatever they want, whenever they want) economy or environment be damned...

It's this complexities that the one line/meme generation can't seem to educate themselves on, and refuse to accept those complexities when presented to them...
The society be damned, it's all about what *I* want.
That's anti-social behavior...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

But that is the only real solution, I'll let the ones worried about it figure out how, my job was to figure out what.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But that is the only real solution, I'll let the ones worried about it figure out how, my job was to figure out what.


It's most certainly not going to go over with the religious bunch,
They are still trying to out breed every other religion,
And also force everyone else to give up family planning, totalitarianism wrapped up in the false flag of religion...
You have the Right to practice religion, not force it, or the dogma on others and infringe on their rights.

I see the biggest hurdle being the Constitution,
Totalitarian mandates don't go well with a democracy based on freedoms, even if it's ultimately for the good of the entire social body/population.

I also don't want to be the guy that tells a woman what she can, and can't do with her own body.
There is a big issue with biological imparative,
The base biological urge to reproduce drives sex, and we all know you can't stop people from having sex, even under threat of death, which some religions still enforce...
Biology DRIVES women to reproduce (and men to help out WITH ZEAL!  ),
I wonder what effect that would have mental status if they KNEW they were never going to reproduce...
(Would they snap, grab an AK-47 and hunt men in the streets?  )

You can explain calmly & rationally WHY it's being done, but when the hormones/biological urges are doing the listening (men or women) the message doesn't get through...

I'm not a sociopath or psychopath, so it's most certainly NOT going to be me 'Punishing' people that refuse,
And I couldn't stand by and see someone punished for biological imparative, that's like punishing a dog for being born male instead of female, or a child for having green eyes instead of blue eyes,
It's simply biology and it's a fact, not controllable...

While controlled breeding does have advantages, it has just as many drawbacks.
Everything that breeds in nature has to stand on it's merits, the superior combo of genes wins, the better genes proceed...
If the combo isn't superior, the species dies out.
Not exactly an option humans want to accept.

Selective breeding produces certain desirable traits, but produces stains/breeds to dumb to get out of a blizzard, or too dumb not to look up at rain until they drown.
Let's not forget the breed specific issues, like being sterile, prone to cancer, muscle & joint problems, etc.

And with the long maturity cycles of humans, it would take 1,000 years to see any significant results without the deficits included in the package.
How do you increase intelligence without creating a breed of psychopaths for instance?

This subject makes my brain hurt everytime it comes up...
Just not my specific field of study, so I know just enough to confuse myself into a headache!


----------



## dr doright (Sep 15, 2011)

SRSLADE said:


> That's what I thought you thought.
> What should we do as a society to mitigate those changes?


There is little to nothing we can do. The global temperature is controlled by the Sun and its varying activity. Sunspot activity has been studied and been shown to have a direct effect on long-range temperature changes. Additionally, studies have demonstrated Co2 rises AFTER a rise in temperature.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> This subject makes my brain hurt everytime it comes up...


All your injuries seem to be self inflicted.


----------

