Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
- Thread starter Cdn Blackshirt
- Start date
- Status
ArmyRick
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,108
- Points
- 1,160
OK, lets get real.
The major problems in the world (I have said it previously I believe in this thread) THERE are major issues in this world. Atmospheric Carbon is a part of the problem. Thats the key, a part of the problem.
I am a huge fan of Allan Savory and I have modelled my environmentally regenerating beef farm is modelled after his concepts. I am also a big fan of Greg Judy and Joel Salatin.
These are some of the major issues in the world (One has to look at the environment as a whole)
1. desertification (A major contributor to global carbon levels)
2. Over dependence on fossil fuels (lets face it, this stuff is not clean and we have the technology NOW to decrease dependency on it)
3. Large and major crop fields (This is just bad bad news and really sad when most of that corn-soy-grain goes to feed ruminant animals that do not need it in the first place and trying to use crops as fuel alternatives). Conventional Crop fields typically leave too much exposed soil and uses too much in the way of chemicals. There are better alternatives.
4. Mismanagement of livestock (livestock can heal and repair grasslands, wooded areas, riparian areas, etc if managed by people)
5. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO foods) just plain old bad news with poor, poor results and damage to the environment, humans and animals.
6. Wind turbines. These look like a green good idea but they are in fact REALLY bad. There are many reasons why and I will not get into it here.
What are some good starting points to transforming our world to something we can give our children and grandchildren?
My points
1. Holistic Management of Livestock (heals the land and major sequestering of carbon). I am heavily involved in this now.
2. Solar, solar, solar. Sun's passive energy should be harnessed much more often. I have spoken to people who have put up solar panels and it is worth it. The power companies may not like it, but screw 'em.
3. Mini-wind mills. Rural or even urban homes with much smaller and less invasive wind mills.
4. Pressure government to give subsidy to fossil fuel and crop fuel alternatives.
5. Better crop practices. We can ease up on chemicals and machinery (which is really expensive) and put people back on land working (more people need work). We can reduce corn growing by 99% if if we stop using corn for everything under the skies (livestock feed, vitamins, sugars, fuels, etc, etc). Crops that are needed are vegetables, orchards, fruits, etc, etc.
This may sound unrealistic but I belong to organizations where we are making these changes and having great success. Its up to us when we purchase or buy food, product, etc to think about WHAT we are supporting with our dollars.
Or we can all be sheeple, and let things go on as they are.
The major problems in the world (I have said it previously I believe in this thread) THERE are major issues in this world. Atmospheric Carbon is a part of the problem. Thats the key, a part of the problem.
I am a huge fan of Allan Savory and I have modelled my environmentally regenerating beef farm is modelled after his concepts. I am also a big fan of Greg Judy and Joel Salatin.
These are some of the major issues in the world (One has to look at the environment as a whole)
1. desertification (A major contributor to global carbon levels)
2. Over dependence on fossil fuels (lets face it, this stuff is not clean and we have the technology NOW to decrease dependency on it)
3. Large and major crop fields (This is just bad bad news and really sad when most of that corn-soy-grain goes to feed ruminant animals that do not need it in the first place and trying to use crops as fuel alternatives). Conventional Crop fields typically leave too much exposed soil and uses too much in the way of chemicals. There are better alternatives.
4. Mismanagement of livestock (livestock can heal and repair grasslands, wooded areas, riparian areas, etc if managed by people)
5. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO foods) just plain old bad news with poor, poor results and damage to the environment, humans and animals.
6. Wind turbines. These look like a green good idea but they are in fact REALLY bad. There are many reasons why and I will not get into it here.
What are some good starting points to transforming our world to something we can give our children and grandchildren?
My points
1. Holistic Management of Livestock (heals the land and major sequestering of carbon). I am heavily involved in this now.
2. Solar, solar, solar. Sun's passive energy should be harnessed much more often. I have spoken to people who have put up solar panels and it is worth it. The power companies may not like it, but screw 'em.
3. Mini-wind mills. Rural or even urban homes with much smaller and less invasive wind mills.
4. Pressure government to give subsidy to fossil fuel and crop fuel alternatives.
5. Better crop practices. We can ease up on chemicals and machinery (which is really expensive) and put people back on land working (more people need work). We can reduce corn growing by 99% if if we stop using corn for everything under the skies (livestock feed, vitamins, sugars, fuels, etc, etc). Crops that are needed are vegetables, orchards, fruits, etc, etc.
This may sound unrealistic but I belong to organizations where we are making these changes and having great success. Its up to us when we purchase or buy food, product, etc to think about WHAT we are supporting with our dollars.
Or we can all be sheeple, and let things go on as they are.
- Reaction score
- 9,104
- Points
- 1,160
Unfortunately, I am not prepared to spend $15\lb for ground beef or $7\loaf for bread to see your dream come true.
recceguy said:
"Unfortunately" . . . I would say it is rather smart of you to decide how to spend your money. Much better than a government flunkie or a greenie zealot being allowed to decide for you.
It begs the question, why should we give taxpayer dollars to Tesla buyers? Where should we get the public funds to pay a $7500.00 sales subsidy to each purchaser of a Tesla Roadster?
Should the money come out of the Health Care bucket or the Public Education bucket? Should we cut back on food inspectors, highway maintenance or military readiness?
There is always an opportunity cost, regardless of how virtuous the cause.
With interest, the government made money on their investment and American jobs were created. In this case, it seems a wise decision. The argument now seems to be that paying the loan back early will deprive the government of a further $270 million in dividends that they could have gotten if the loan was paid off at the proper time.Haletown said:
First it was accused of being a failure, now they are being accused of using their success to somehow "cheat" the government out of dividends from warrants that were issued as insurance on the taxpayers investement. :facepalm:
Putting Tesla into perspective, the company has had some "success" but is also a risky business and stock play . . . I know one day trader buddy who got caught is the short squeeze. Good news that they paid back the funds to the Treasury, but the money was not generated by sales success (Q1 total auto sales in the US came in at 3.6m units and Tesla sold 4,750 , a miniscule market penetration)
The money to repay the loan came out of the stock play and the stock play has resulted in a very large price run up, pushing the price up to just south of the $100 level.
The Bank of America, looking at the companies actual data, says the stock is worth $39. They warn of a Great Green Bubble that will trap Tesla . . .
http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/05/tesla-motors-inc-tsla-pt-raised-on-higher-net-cash-baml/
Let the Shorters play on.
Now I would love to own a Tesla, especially one of the high end jobs . . it would be a real blast. Not that practical, but lots of fun.
But I can't see buying into a company that has a business model that has a significant dependency on government support. Especially governments that are running, stunningly huge deficits.
As of now, the company is neither a success or failure. My money won't get invested there, despite the thrill of a short play.
The money to repay the loan came out of the stock play and the stock play has resulted in a very large price run up, pushing the price up to just south of the $100 level.
The Bank of America, looking at the companies actual data, says the stock is worth $39. They warn of a Great Green Bubble that will trap Tesla . . .
http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/05/tesla-motors-inc-tsla-pt-raised-on-higher-net-cash-baml/
Let the Shorters play on.
Now I would love to own a Tesla, especially one of the high end jobs . . it would be a real blast. Not that practical, but lots of fun.
But I can't see buying into a company that has a business model that has a significant dependency on government support. Especially governments that are running, stunningly huge deficits.
As of now, the company is neither a success or failure. My money won't get invested there, despite the thrill of a short play.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,108
- Points
- 1,160
Recce guy,
Let me fill you in on a few facts
1. Your commercial grocery store beef is extremely low quality and is SUBSIDIZED by government (In 2011, Ontario paid 165 million subsidy for beef), so your paying more than $3-4 a pound for ground beef at the store, BTW, there are loads of subsidy for large industrial (and usually destructive) agriculture. Remove all subsidies and I will laugh because then I will be the guy selling high quality and cheaper beef. Do you think corn fields and grain fields, fuel, large tractors, chemical fertilizers, seeds (GMO or regular) and maintenance is cheap? Far from it. My operation (and there are many more popping up in Ontario) is much lower input cost, environmentally regenerative and does not require subsidy.
2. Slaughter fees for a cattle (cow/steer/bull/heifer) is around $500-$600 a head and most of this goes to an inspection fee. This is ridiculous and in large plant cases where they hire they're own inspectors, it has not guaranteed food safety, far from it, look at the excel plant in Alberta last year.
3. The more people that decide to go and buy generic food products of low quality, the more those very destructive ag industries will continue to thrive. This is the sum of our decisions.
Lets get one thing clear people ,vast plowed and tilled fields of crops is VERY harmful to the environment. There are other countries that have figured out way better and more efficient ways to farm. By concentrating farms into super huge industrial operations, the environmental damage is EXTREMELY high. Smaller farms (100-1000 acres) is much more man manageable. But that would cut out many of the middle businesses who make far too many decisions based on a financial bottom line.
We in Canada, are almost locked in a paradigm. We think we can not change things for the better through responsible agriculture but we can, EVERY one of us has to make a better decision at the grocery store or farmers market, full stop.
Also, feel free to complain about to your food companies, MP and MPPs about industrial agriculture.
The argument that small sustainable farming will not feed the world is complete bunk. The opposite is more true (larger companies are FAILING to meet food demands) but that would mean bigger corporations not making their $$$.
I can start another thread explaining in great detail about sustainable agriculture if interested.
Let me fill you in on a few facts
1. Your commercial grocery store beef is extremely low quality and is SUBSIDIZED by government (In 2011, Ontario paid 165 million subsidy for beef), so your paying more than $3-4 a pound for ground beef at the store, BTW, there are loads of subsidy for large industrial (and usually destructive) agriculture. Remove all subsidies and I will laugh because then I will be the guy selling high quality and cheaper beef. Do you think corn fields and grain fields, fuel, large tractors, chemical fertilizers, seeds (GMO or regular) and maintenance is cheap? Far from it. My operation (and there are many more popping up in Ontario) is much lower input cost, environmentally regenerative and does not require subsidy.
2. Slaughter fees for a cattle (cow/steer/bull/heifer) is around $500-$600 a head and most of this goes to an inspection fee. This is ridiculous and in large plant cases where they hire they're own inspectors, it has not guaranteed food safety, far from it, look at the excel plant in Alberta last year.
3. The more people that decide to go and buy generic food products of low quality, the more those very destructive ag industries will continue to thrive. This is the sum of our decisions.
Lets get one thing clear people ,vast plowed and tilled fields of crops is VERY harmful to the environment. There are other countries that have figured out way better and more efficient ways to farm. By concentrating farms into super huge industrial operations, the environmental damage is EXTREMELY high. Smaller farms (100-1000 acres) is much more man manageable. But that would cut out many of the middle businesses who make far too many decisions based on a financial bottom line.
We in Canada, are almost locked in a paradigm. We think we can not change things for the better through responsible agriculture but we can, EVERY one of us has to make a better decision at the grocery store or farmers market, full stop.
Also, feel free to complain about to your food companies, MP and MPPs about industrial agriculture.
The argument that small sustainable farming will not feed the world is complete bunk. The opposite is more true (larger companies are FAILING to meet food demands) but that would mean bigger corporations not making their $$$.
I can start another thread explaining in great detail about sustainable agriculture if interested.
- Reaction score
- 9,216
- Points
- 1,360
ArmyRick said:
I am.
I am of the mind that with advances in medicine there are going to be waaaaaaaay too many of us soon and the "mega-farm" is the only way we'll be able to feed ourselves. I'd love to be shown that I am wrong.
Journeyman
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,915
- Points
- 940
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Solyent
Green
:nod:
- Reaction score
- 6,967
- Points
- 1,160
The problem in general isn't with our use of resources, it is with our inefficient use of and incorrect costing of those resources. Get rid of subsidies that distort the cost and value of goods and services. Also force producers/consumers to pay the REAL cost of the things they use. If use of a particular resource forces us as a society to spend money countering the effects of that use then factor in that cost off the top (i.e. if it costs us $100 to dispose of a television set in the landfill then the cost of a TV should be $100 more than it is now).
This will allow us to much more efficiently make our decisions as a society. If the dropping of subsidies, marketing boards, farm tax credits, discounted "coloured" diesel fuel, tariffs on imports, proper pricing of water used, etc. causes the price of beef to go up by $10 per pound then we can decide if we really want beef that much. It will also allow those innovative people who find better (cheaper/less impactful) ways of producing beef to reap the benefit of their innovations by making their products more competitive. More "accurate" pricing of commodities (like energy) might force us to simply be more efficient in our use of that resource. Saving a Kw Hour of electricity might be more cost effective than producing an additional Kw Hour through some damaging form of production (be that "dirty" carbon producing methods or "wasteful" and heavily subsidised "green" methods). It will certainly be better for the environment as well if we use less/keep things longer/re-use and repurpose items in order to make them more cost effective. I bet it would also be a great economic boost for a country with a well educated workforce and modern infrastructure going for it.
This will allow us to much more efficiently make our decisions as a society. If the dropping of subsidies, marketing boards, farm tax credits, discounted "coloured" diesel fuel, tariffs on imports, proper pricing of water used, etc. causes the price of beef to go up by $10 per pound then we can decide if we really want beef that much. It will also allow those innovative people who find better (cheaper/less impactful) ways of producing beef to reap the benefit of their innovations by making their products more competitive. More "accurate" pricing of commodities (like energy) might force us to simply be more efficient in our use of that resource. Saving a Kw Hour of electricity might be more cost effective than producing an additional Kw Hour through some damaging form of production (be that "dirty" carbon producing methods or "wasteful" and heavily subsidised "green" methods). It will certainly be better for the environment as well if we use less/keep things longer/re-use and repurpose items in order to make them more cost effective. I bet it would also be a great economic boost for a country with a well educated workforce and modern infrastructure going for it.
- Reaction score
- 6,967
- Points
- 1,160
Hey, nobody said achieving perfection was easy! LOL
Seriously though, I know we can't snap our fingers and solve this. However if we identify the problem we can make a conscious decision to NOT continue creating more policies that take us down this path...and then we can slowly plug away at dismantling the system. At least then we'd be moving in the right direction
Seriously though, I know we can't snap our fingers and solve this. However if we identify the problem we can make a conscious decision to NOT continue creating more policies that take us down this path...and then we can slowly plug away at dismantling the system. At least then we'd be moving in the right direction
This pretty well sums it up . . .
"People, though, are simply not that stupid. They can readily see how the dire predictions that were appearing almost daily in the media – in the days when all the media was on-side – simply have not materialised. Progressively, we have seen colder and colder winters, right up to present where we are seeing snow in May, and unusual cold throughout the northern hemisphere."
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83986
"People, though, are simply not that stupid. They can readily see how the dire predictions that were appearing almost daily in the media – in the days when all the media was on-side – simply have not materialised. Progressively, we have seen colder and colder winters, right up to present where we are seeing snow in May, and unusual cold throughout the northern hemisphere."
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83986
- Reaction score
- 13,695
- Points
- 1,160
From the same article:
My sense of the key elements
Fill in the cause -
1st society must be transformed
2nd action is needed
3rd mass mobilization must occur
4th public support must be obtained
5th tough choices
Create a crisis - generate fear - offer hope - don't let the crisis go to waste.
My sense of the key elements
Fill in the cause -
1st society must be transformed
2nd action is needed
3rd mass mobilization must occur
4th public support must be obtained
5th tough choices
Create a crisis - generate fear - offer hope - don't let the crisis go to waste.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
People can be programmed, and the best way too program someone is to generate fear. And tell them that you have a solution and "will solve the problem, if you do what I tell you to do"
Global warming has had a lot of opposition from the get go as the science was shoddy at best. I went from gr.1 - gr.12 getting it shoved down my throat. Never fully bought into it, never really denied it. Until one day I picked up a National Geographic magazine bashing global warming. The earths cycles matched up perfectly with previous cycles. We were not on a collision course with armageddon. It also talked about how c02 emissions were not what was causing the heating of the earth it was radiation from the sun.
Fun Facts about global warming.
The earth stopped heating up in 97/98
30000 scientists recently signed a petition stating there is no scientific evidence of global warming, as opposed to the 2500 believe there is
We are currently in solar cycle 24, nasa predicts the next one will be cooler
Taxpayers have spent 106 billion dollars to solve global warming
But things won't change becuase some people have made this their religion and have become very loud.
Global warming has had a lot of opposition from the get go as the science was shoddy at best. I went from gr.1 - gr.12 getting it shoved down my throat. Never fully bought into it, never really denied it. Until one day I picked up a National Geographic magazine bashing global warming. The earths cycles matched up perfectly with previous cycles. We were not on a collision course with armageddon. It also talked about how c02 emissions were not what was causing the heating of the earth it was radiation from the sun.
Fun Facts about global warming.
The earth stopped heating up in 97/98
30000 scientists recently signed a petition stating there is no scientific evidence of global warming, as opposed to the 2500 believe there is
We are currently in solar cycle 24, nasa predicts the next one will be cooler
Taxpayers have spent 106 billion dollars to solve global warming
But things won't change becuase some people have made this their religion and have become very loud.
I'd like to see your sources backing up this claim. There is a global scientific consensus in regards to global warming. Those 30,000 scientists are they in the field that relates to climate? Also where do you get your 2500 figure from? It's almost like you made that figure up since the 30,000 are the ones who supposedly signed a petition.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
*Edited because I fail at hyperlinks.
consensus is not part of science, it is part of politics.
The only thing that matters in science is data, real data, real numbers.
And the real numbers tell us the planet's atmosphere is not behaving as the scientific consensus says it would behave.
I'd guess that 97% of scientists who support AGW also depend on AGW for their pay check, career and fame.
Everyone has a choice, believe the data or believe the consensus and the computer models. In the end it makes no difference what anyone wants to believe. Data will always prevail.
The only thing that matters in science is data, real data, real numbers.
And the real numbers tell us the planet's atmosphere is not behaving as the scientific consensus says it would behave.
I'd guess that 97% of scientists who support AGW also depend on AGW for their pay check, career and fame.
Everyone has a choice, believe the data or believe the consensus and the computer models. In the end it makes no difference what anyone wants to believe. Data will always prevail.
- Status
Similar threads
