50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions



johnr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
19,994
Likes
3,587
Points
803
Location
Dickinson
Cow farts and clean coal need to go. We can go back to the little house on the prairie times and live gooder.
 

KDM

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
9,650
Likes
1,582
Points
563
Location
Valley City
Cow farts and clean coal need to go. We can go back to the little house on the prairie times and live gooder.

Are you high? My mom and sister made me watch little house every week and that family NEVER had a good week. Somebody was always sick or dying or going blind or the cows all died or they had a fire or they were broke and selling everything or some other calamity befell ole Charles and the Ingals clan. I'd rather life now....it's way more gooder than they had it.
 

wjschmaltz

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2018
Posts
989
Likes
376
Points
218
Location
Southcentral ND - Southcentral AK
I'm sure several will have a meltdown, but I tend to follow what's laid out by the IPCC. My views are actually pretty much in alignment with the majority of conservative law makers and commentators, they just mostly keep to themselves on the topic. By looking hard at the data including the known effects of greenhouse gasses and how much humans produce, it's hard to argue that humans aren't altering the climate or at least will not in the long term. It's important to remember we're talking about climate. We're not talking about a cold snap in March, a rain event in the southeast, or a drier/wetter than average summer. Climate. It's important to stay the course if we want to have meaningful conversation. The fact someone had the coldest winter in their 60 year life on their farm last winter is as irrelevant as AK having the warmest and driest summer ever on record this year.

Watching the glaciers retreating at the pace they are where I live is extremely eye opening. I'm not sure what the cause is, but it's very well documented annually over the last millennium with photos. I don't know if it's because there's that much less snow or if it's just warmer, but it's evident that the glaciers are melting and quick. That isn't an Alaska-specific event. Even if you don't believe in human-caused climate change, the ocean will be rising. Ocean rise is calculated from ice caps and glaciers, not existing sea ice. In relation to the glacier thought, treeline in the Chugach and Kenai Mtns is moving up at about 4-5 feet per year because of how the mountains are changing. That's insane.

I'm pro oil, pro coal, and pro green energy as long as it's sustainable and works. In the end, I'm pro libertarian and desire solutions driven by a free market. Eventually humans will need something that's renewable. As with everything, solutions lie in the middle. The loudest voices are the outliers and that's all we ever hear. One side thinks green energy is the only way (it's not, we'll obviously all die at this point in green energy's development if we relied on it even for 50% of our energy) and the other side has blinders up and refuses to even acknowledge that moving away from fossil fuels is necessary and is very likely to happen in the next couple of decades. If the second group refuses to address the narrative with any substantive conversations, fossil fuels will forcibly be replaced much sooner by politicians. Count on it.

I wanted to believe the volcano stat because it was convenient for my argument. So I looked it up a few years ago to use in my favor while debating with the green new deal crowd. From what I found, its not true by a long shot. Volcanic eruptions including ocean seeps are responsible for something like 0.26 billion metric tons of CO2 annually. Humans are responsible for 40 billion metric tons annually. So in the event of a major eruption, it can put off more CO2 than humans for that day, but diminishes quickly.

In our current times, we're faced with mitigation or prevention when facing climate change. Humans suck at prevention. We're really good at mitigation. I look at the IPCC numbers and believe we achieve the lower estimates of the climate change range. The lower estimates are considered high probability. Something like 1-1.5 degree C over a century. At that point we will likely be on fully renewable energy (unless a psychopathic politician blows up this rock before then). The green new deal folks look at the high range. The high range is classified as extremely low probability, something like 4.5 degrees C. It's apocalyptical and those numbers (and only those numbers) are the numbers the green new deal crowd and media focus in on. Based on the likely numbers hit by the lower range, we can achieve mitigation over time without much effort. Sea walls and moving inland are pretty feasible and much less cost prohibitive than what prevention looks like. Crop land moving north as well as population. Not to mention prevention likely gives us the same outcome of the lower range as we stay on almost the same trajectory for climate change over time assuming countries like China, India, and Russia refuse to get on board with the same extreme agenda the US and Europe would.

I work in Environmental Conservation. I'm a pretty rare conservative-leaning voice in a building full of very liberal folks. Most people just live in their news vacuums. That goes for both sides. They seek out that network or person that is saying what they want to hear and that's all the data that's ever consumed. Most of the green new deal folks have never even listened to someone with conflicting views. Neither have people on the far right. When you lay the talking points out the way I have above, and you can admit that human-caused climate change is happening and lay out the how and why of how mitigation is more feasible than prevention and how the US and Europe going 100% green doesn't even move the needle, you would be amazed how eye opening it is to those folks and how quickly they come around. I have those types of conversations weekly.

Some of the biggest investments Exxon, BP, and GM are making are into the renewable sector. Some think they're doing it because they believe that's what politics will push everything towards so they're getting in early so they don't end up link Blockbuster or Radio Shack. I think it's because they know something we don't and we're going to have some mind blowing tech dropped on us over the next 3-5 years that's already been developed and is currently having kinks worked out. Something along the lines of high efficiency solar, high efficiency alternators in EVs, and a much more efficient storage of power.

My grandpa started farming by planting with a horse. By the time he died, he was riding in an air conditioned tractor with his grandkids pulling a 36 row planter that was essentially driven by a computer. Twenty years ago I didn't even have a family computer and could hardly type. Now I do 98% of my work from a computer remotely. Who knows what kind of technology we will have in the next 20 years, but I'd say it's probable that energy will be mostly renewable and very efficient by then. Its hard to bet against with the brilliant minds present on this world.

The county I grew up in is currently having public meetings on if landowners will be allowed to have solar farms on their land. It's being spearheaded by a county commissioner that basically has "Trump" tattooed on his forehead. Telling someone what they can and can't do with their land because it doesn't meet your political agenda is peak communism as far as I'm concerned. Let the free market solve it. In a decade when all the farm land is chalk, those guys will need something for income. May as well have solar farms! Civilization exists because of 6 inches of top soil and the fact that it rains. Our soil will be destroyed long before climate change takes us out - there's the real inconvenient truth that no one wants to talk about! Cheers to it being August and hunting season starting back up!
 
Last edited:


svnmag

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
16,880
Likes
2,394
Points
773
Location
Here
What gas do trees inhale for life? What do they exhale as waste? Did the dinosaurs have an Industrial Revolution which ultimately resulted in the Ice Age? No damn it. The Earth has a freakn' wobble incorporated in it's rotation. Sometimes the poles even shift at no fault of the Tri-power 427.
 
Last edited:

svnmag

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
16,880
Likes
2,394
Points
773
Location
Here
cache.php


- - - Updated - - -

cache.php


- - - Updated - - -



https://youtu.be/Xl1tmfloXug
 

NDSportsman

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Posts
3,244
Likes
378
Points
313
Location
East Central ND
I'm sure several will have a meltdown, but I tend to follow what's laid out by the IPCC. My views are actually pretty much in alignment with the majority of conservative law makers and commentators, they just mostly keep to themselves on the topic. By looking hard at the data including the known effects of greenhouse gasses and how much humans produce, it's hard to argue that humans aren't altering the climate or at least will not in the long term. It's important to remember we're talking about climate. We're not talking about a cold snap in March, a rain event in the southeast, or a drier/wetter than average summer. Climate. It's important to stay the course if we want to have meaningful conversation. The fact someone had the coldest winter in their 60 year life on their farm last winter is as irrelevant as AK having the warmest and driest summer ever on record this year.

Watching the glaciers retreating at the pace they are where I live is extremely eye opening. I'm not sure what the cause is, but it's very well documented annually over the last millennium with photos. I don't know if it's because there's that much less snow or if it's just warmer, but it's evident that the glaciers are melting and quick. That isn't an Alaska-specific event. Even if you don't believe in human-caused climate change, the ocean will be rising. Ocean rise is calculated from ice caps and glaciers, not existing sea ice. In relation to the glacier thought, treeline in the Chugach and Kenai Mtns is moving up at about 4-5 feet per year because of how the mountains are changing. That's insane.
While I agree with much of your post here's where my common sense doesn't coincide with the idea that man has this huge impact that every environmentalist seems to want to claim. Something set this current warming trend into motion since the last ice age correct? Clearly that was not human caused. Now once you start melting snow and ice from something what happens? It heats up more and melting speeds up as well. That's just common sense to me. Unless you can figure out how to add ice to the polar caps again you will not stop this trend. Glaciers have been receding since the last ice age, tree lines have been climbing since then as well this is not a new phenomenon that's only started the last 1000 years! Is it increasing faster every 100 years? Again common sense would tell me yes even if every human on earth disappeared today.

Again I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything to change our lifestyles or not try to come up with more energy efficient ways to do things. Like you said I'm all for using every resource and means we have available and even future technological break thrus as they happen. I'm saying anyone who wants to dictate those changes to me has an ulterior motive and it's not about saving the environment either. Allow those changes to happen organically without political interference and we'll be much better off in the long run.
 
Last edited:

PrairieGhost

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
10,326
Likes
680
Points
443
Location
Drifting the high plains
documented annually over the last millennium with photos.
:) What kind of cameras were they using 1000 years ago?

I get your points, but glaciers over thousands of years grow and receed. Absolutely man has contributed, but I doubt they have good reliable data on the amount of affect. I know they old Earth's Resources Technology satalite, and more recently the German satalite monitoring atmospheric co2 watch it disappear as it passes North Dakota. We have looked at every habitat and found that it's our Prairie wetlands that are sucking up co2. They can store as high as 32 tons per acre. As a conservationist (not a preservationist) I believe a federal program for restoring wetlands is a win win if you believe climate change or not. The benefits are an income for farmers on marginal or problem lands, habitat for wildlife ( not only Ducks but for example thermal cover for deer and pheasants)Pheasants, restoration of the aquifer (which is documented), reduction in flooding downstream, and if you believe climate change then sequestration of co2. We through the idea out yeasrs ago of a carbon market where farmers would get paid for carbon storage, and if someone needed to drain a wetland he could purchase carbon credits from the market who would in turn use that money to pay farmers who were storing carbon.

A program such as I outlined has many benefits so it would not be looked at as a waste by those who don't believe in climate change. I am sure man contributes, but our asestors heated with wood, and I think a few million campfires gave off some carbon. I also think nature is going to cyclical warm and cool even if man is extinct. I'm all for wetland preservation because if global climate change is caused by man then we have mitigated for it, and if man has little effect then we still receive benefits and bang for our buck.
 
Last edited:


JMF

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 19, 2015
Posts
1,700
Likes
69
Points
248
Location
Mandan
Kurtr, wind was the only type of power that was running during Texas freeze up a few years back.

This is a long video, but Mike does a good job of explaining exactly what happened in Texas. If you believe that wind was the only thing running, then you need to watch and educate yourself.

 

lunkerslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,955
Likes
2,959
Points
748
Location
Cavalier, ND
YTOIKO5hUGh0.jpeg
Will the green new deal be THE biggest redistribution of wealth in United States history bigger then any pandemic, bigger then any war/conflict, or arms raise of the cold war?
 

snow2

★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2022
Posts
430
Likes
136
Points
130
Cow farts and clean coal need to go. We can go back to the little house on the prairie times and live gooder.

Yeah but my dog has bad gas,so bad that my "fart sniffer" gizmo plugged in to the wall in my living room kicks on on a regular basis,poor pupper get's blamed everytime the sniffer fires-up,that's what I tell my gal pal....:cool:

- - - Updated - - -

So all this climate change talk....daily weather and local temps always show local high temps from years ago since temp data were recorded,seems over 90% of over all triple digit national temps came from the mid 1930's,all the residential and city commercial water wells I drilled back in the 70's here in minnsewta all started setting up.drilling thru several feet of glacial drift,1000's of years of receding glaciers,now it's a problem,forget about our world over populating,it's all on cow farts and coal.
 

NDSportsman

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Posts
3,244
Likes
378
Points
313
Location
East Central ND
[FONT=&quot]The present Ice Age, known as the Wisconsonian, began about 2.7 million years ago. Since then, Earth has undergone a sequence of glacial advances and interglacial warm periods. Approximately 1 million years ago, the frequency switched from about every 40,000 years to about every 100,000 years, during which time the cold periods became colder.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The present interglacial began about 12,000 years ago and is known as the Holocene Epoch. The previous glacial period had lasted about 112,000 years. The coldest point is thought to have been about 20,000 years ago when the global average temperature was about 8-10 degrees colder than today. The level of the sea was about 400 feet lower than today due to there being so much water locked in ice. The previous interglacial is known as the Eemian and featured peak temperatures several degrees warmer and sea levels 20-30 feet higher than today. There are at least four other known glacial periods in Earth’s past.[/FONT]
How do the environmental wackos explain this?
 


Browneye

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2015
Posts
518
Likes
295
Points
210
Location
Flasher
I have used this argument against "man made" climate change for years and have never heard anyone from the party of science explain it. There is only one reason for the climate change hysteria right now. Control peoples use of carbon and you control the people.
 

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 159
  • This month: 133
  • This month: 114
  • This month: 108
  • This month: 102
  • This month: 86
  • This month: 82
  • This month: 75
  • This month: 74
  • This month: 74
Top Bottom