Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 73 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

With proper forestry management, there would not be any of these massive wildfires. Decades of ignorance, neglect, and willful mismanagement causes these wildfires pure and simple.

 

 

Here's a rake.

1713124.jpg

 

Start raking the floors.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

75 plus years of fire suppression has led to this. Instead of small fires clearing out the underbrush every few years we let the accumulated forest detritus build and build and build. And when there i

Posted Images

34 minutes ago, Talligurl said:
3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

No scientist says ALL change is caused by man, but our contribution is massive now, and what we are contributing is altering the earths climate and wreaking havoc everywhere.

The number one thing we are doing to destroy the planet is Industrial agriculture, yet all we hear about is to stop driving SUVs. 

Can't say I like industrial agriculture, but we gotta eat!  However we don't need enormous 'small wee-wee substitutes' to drive around in do we?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Can't say I like industrial agriculture, but we gotta eat!  However we don't need enormous 'small wee-wee substitutes' to drive around in do we?

We need to eat, but to do so we do not need genetically modified Roundup ready corn that is crop dusted with Roundup and then turned in corn syrup, ethanol, and a whole host of unhealthy food. Do your homework if you really care about the environment.

Edited by Talligurl
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

We need to eat, but to do so we do not need genetically modified Roundup ready corn that is crop dusted with Roundup and then turned in corn syrup, ethanol, and a whole host of unhealthy food. Do your homework if you really care about the environment.

5D0CAF0F-3EE2-406E-91B3-FEDEFC8D860E.png.0a4e3fa33131c522109fb1bde1290981.png

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Talligurl said:
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Can't say I like industrial agriculture, but we gotta eat!  However we don't need enormous 'small wee-wee substitutes' to drive around in do we?

We need to eat, but to do so we do not need genetically modified Roundup ready corn that is crop dusted with Roundup and then turned in corn syrup, ethanol, and a whole host of unhealthy food. Do your homework if you really care about the environment.

Oh my sweet summer child....I am the most anti-GMO, anti-Roundup, anti-gluten, organic eatin', kombucha drinkin' girl you'll ever find!
But do you have any idea how many people would flat out DIE if we stopped industrial agriculture?  The only reason the population bloomed like a swarm of over-fed mosquitoes in a flood is because we developed this atrocious, soil-killing, artificially-enhanced method of farming.  After the big die-off though, when wheat can't be grown due to high temps and lack of moisture, the few humans left can start again, and it won't be with industrial farming.
Until then just keep driving that oversized SUV, pumping excess CO2 in the air, hastening the high temps and drying out the planet.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Solutions to the fires......

"In case you missed it, Sens. Daines and Feinstein have introduced the “Emergency Wildfire and Public Safety Act” aimed at facilitating active forest management to reduce the risks of wildfire and help create jobs in the West."

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/letters_to_editor/bipartisan-bill-will-mean-jobs-healthier-forests/article_fd919eb5-a528-56be-8f29-525b4eb2494c.html

And those who are in opposition to the above:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/14/zombie-legislation-the-latest-misguided-wildfire-bill/

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is way off the topic of the fires. GMO means many things. It is an extremely privileged option to consider going back to non-GMO food sources overall -- to say nothing of "industrial agriculture" that is very substantially less polluting now than twenty years ago. That doesn't begin to imply that all modern agricultural practices are good: ethanol production is perhaps the most egregious example of wasted food production capacity, but I assure you it would exist with or without Roundup. It's a pure function of the Electoral College and the Iowa presidential caucuses. (That said, the "science" behind any adverse animal impact from glyphosate is even shoddier than that justifying the hydroxychloroquine hoax. Still, Bayer's Roundup-Ready genetic IP enforcement is abhorrent.)

Non-GMO "industrial agriculture" is responsible for a manifold decrease in the cost of proteins. Dairy, chicken, pork... generations of population growth now depends on affordable protein sources that simply could not exist with other practices. We could buy a generation or two by universally adopting a vegetarian diet. After that, even with fully plant-sourced proteins, population would be controlled by mass starvation of those with the least means.

Maybe that would be an acceptable way to start shutting down the planet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

5% of CO2 is from man made sources, the rest (95%) is from natural sources.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

6 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Furthermore, 95% of greenhouse gas is in fact water vapor, which is ALL from natural sources.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

6 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

1) What is the proper temperature for the earths climate?

2) What is the proper rate of change for the earths climate

3) If man disappeared tomorrow would the climate stop changing?

As the late George Carlin loved to point out, these are nonsense questions. Earth doesn't care about climate. Humans do. The proper question, which you didn't ask, is "What's the best climate for continued human prosperity?" (George didn't ask that question either, which limits my admiration for him.) That's a terribly complex question, particularly since national politics puts large blocks of people at odds over the answers and human psychology puts the present at odds with the future.

6 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

4) Why is it that ALL changes in climate prior to the last hundred years all been natural in origin but now its all driven by man?

I got my first inklings of answers to this questions well before my teens, when I learned about the multiplicative effect of the industrial revolution and population growth on our ability to foul our own environment. I've been following the topic with great interest for nearly four decades since.

Also, creatures fouling their own environments is completely natural. What's different this time around is that the creatures who are doing it have the capacity to understand it and consciously and intentionally do something about it.

6 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

5) Why were previous interglacial temperatures higher, with higher CO2 levels, all with no help from man?

During the Eemian period, there were probably only tens of thousands of human ancestors roaming the planet. Sea level was approximately 20-30 feet higher than current levels. The world's population now approaches eight billion, with a substantial portion of that population living near ocean coastlines. A return to Eemian sea levels now would displace hundreds of millions of people, causing massive civil and political unrest. Peak sea level rise during the Eemian was about one inch per year. That would strain even the richest society's ability to adapt. Current climate models predict we'll exceed the Eemian's peak temperature this century, without the help of the Milankovitch cycle.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=424

6 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Many scientists have a vested interest in maintaining this farce, they chase the money, and the money is on research that "proves" man made global warming is real.

It's difficult to measure, but only a small fraction of worldwide government funded research is related to global warming. At my own engineering school, almost all of the research grant money was directed towards projects to directly aid industry. In the study I cited, from 1990 to 2018, $40B in grants were identified (worldwide, I believe) as being related to climate change research. The US Federal R&D budget for 2020 alone is $134B.  From 2000 through 2019, Exxon alone spent $17.3B on R&D. Chase the money indeed.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

As the late George Carlin loved to point out, these are nonsense questions. Earth doesn't care about climate. Humans do. The proper question, which you didn't ask, is "What's the best climate for continued human prosperity?" (George didn't ask that question either, which limits my admiration for him.) That's a terribly complex question, particularly since national politics puts large blocks of people at odds over the answers and human psychology puts the present at odds with the future.

I got my first inklings of answers to this questions well before my teens, when I learned about the multiplicative effect of the industrial revolution and population growth on our ability to foul our own environment. I've been following the topic with great interest for nearly four decades since.

Also, creatures fouling their own environments is completely natural. What's different this time around is that the creatures who are doing it have the capacity to understand it and do something unnatural about it.

During the Eemian period, there were probably only tens of thousands of human ancestors roaming the planet. Sea level was approximately 20-30 feet higher than current levels. The world's population now approaches eight billion, with a substantial portion of that population living near ocean coastlines. A return to Eemian sea levels now would displace hundreds of millions of people, causing massive civil and political unrest. Peak sea level rise during the Eemian was about one inch per year. That would strain even the richest society's ability to adapt. Current climate models predict we'll exceed the Eemian's peak temperature this century, without the help of the Milankovitch cycle.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=424

It's difficult to measure, but only a small fraction of worldwide government funded research is related to global warming. At my own engineering school, almost all of the research grant money was directed towards projects to directly aid industry. In the study I cited, from 1990 to 2018, $40B in grants were identified (worldwide, I believe) as being related to climate change research. The US Federal R&D budget for 2020 alone is $134B.  From 2000 through 2019, Exxon alone spent $17.3B on R&D. Chase the money indeed.

Michael Moore, who I really can't stand, did a fantastic documentary recently that exposed the truth about the green energy industry. 

Making the movie, he came to the realization that green energy sources (wind turbines and solar panels) and electric cars, are NOT green at all, and that the push for green energy is just the same old same old pandering between industry and politicians.

Planet of the Humans

And who ultimately pays the price for "saving the planet? Not the business owners, not the politicians, just you and me in the form of higher costs for everything and a greatly diminished standard of living.

As a politician might say, "not for me, but for thee"

Oh, my fave green energy source? Bio fuel power stations. They cut down whole forests to burn to make electricity. Talk about a step backwards in time.. burning wood for our source of energy

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Michael Moore, who I really can't stand, did a fantastic documentary recently that exposed the truth about the green energy industry. 

Michael Moore didn't make a documentary that debunks climate change and the role of human activity driving it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Oh, my fave green energy source? Bio fuel power stations. They cut down whole forests to burn to make electricity. Talk about a step backwards in time.. burning wood for our source of energy

Um... not quite. Cellulose is indeed a prime candidate source for biofuel, but not from cutting down forests.  Much more profitable sources are corn stalks and other vegetative waste left after crops are harvested.  In fact, though, cellulosw is not anywhere near the most common biofuel today.  Corn, soybeans, sugar cane, and other products are much more commonly used. You could argue that these are unwise diversions of food crops, and many people would probably agree.  Still, that's where most of the commercial biofuel industry is today, not forests.  (See, for example, https://www.seeker.com/top-10-sources-for-biofuel-1769457447.html )

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Michael Moore didn't make a documentary that debunks climate change and the role of human activity driving it.

I don't believe I said he did. 

He made a documentay that showed that "green energy" is a giant scam and anything but green.

Except of course for all the money to be made, that's the real green in promoting man made global warming as real.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

The wild fires are caused by A. Fix A and problem solved. Etc. = Wrong.

Also, as the fire map posted earlier in the thread shows: It ain't just a West Coast USA problem. Therefore, pointing to things that are just USA issues, probably don't fit as being "the" cause. Let's not forget that Australia recently burned to the ground.

In the weirdness that is the world, somehow things like COVID, a frikkin virus, became a political issue. Who knew there are so many science deniers? All those kids in the back of science class, who just barely passed, are getting their revenge. The same with global warming. 

Then there are lies, damned lies and statistics as the three kinds of lies.  With anything and everything on the Internet, you can always find at least one nut job, outlier, PhD "expert" to prove whatever point you want, even if 99% of the current wisdom says otherwise.

Fires. Wasn't the OP about the horror of living in a red-sky mass of unbreathable air while the surrounding area burned?  This is the reality. The rest of the nattering back and forth in this thread is not.

image.png.c7632fd0df4b28e41f12ecf716990d4f.png

image.png.5ed3994517f92b7dccae2a260da4f7b2.png

image.png.6f33583a8e250658edc7e47a1ff4d140.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I don't believe I said he did. 

He made a documentay that showed that "green energy" is a giant scam and anything but green.

Except of course for all the money to be made, that's the real green in promoting man made global warming as real.

Michael Moore produces a documentary that is a warning that we get one shot at dealing with climate change because there won’t be any do overs so we’d better not screw it up. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

you have any idea how many people would flat out DIE if we stopped industrial agriculture

Industrial agriculture is terribly inefficient at actually producing healthy food that people need to live. The fact is people are going to die if we do not stop. Actually people are dying already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

You could argue that these are unwise diversions of food crops,

You could also argue that the methods used to grow these crops are more damaging than the fossil fuels they are meant to replace, but no one wants to hear it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Talligurl said:

You could also argue that the methods used to grow these crops are more damaging than the fossil fuels they are meant to replace,

Well, not without good data to back up the claim.  Arguing whether diverting food crops to use them for fuel is wise is largely a political argument.  Debating whether growing them in the first place is more dangerous than using fossil fuels requires some scientific study.  Without data, the answer is not clear.  In fact, debating an important question like that without data prejudices the outcome and makes it harder to resolve.

517252245_Satatisticallyincorrect.png.0f3995708fbed31d1a5885a5998d34c5.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Red skies, red Sun, hard to breath outside. I'm outside of Jacumba. Valley fire has the area choked in.

Building a place in the desert. The date should be 9/1 but I have dyslexia so tough =).

About 30 seconds in you can see the sky.

 

Edited by Artorius Constantine
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 73 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...