What's new
Forums
Members
Resources
Whopper Club
Politics
Pics
Videos
Fishing Reports
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Members
Resources
Whopper Club
Politics
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General
General Discussion
50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wjschmaltz" data-source="post: 346212" data-attributes="member: 6150"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wjschmaltz, post: 346212, member: 6150"] 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! [/QUOTE]
Verification
What is the most common fish caught on this site?
Post reply
Recent Posts
NFL News (Vikings)
Latest: Obi-Wan
7 minutes ago
Riddle Me This.....
Latest: wslayer
14 minutes ago
Drotto adjustment?
Latest: shorthairsrus
53 minutes ago
Bismarck roads and driving
Latest: Davey Crockett
Today at 6:28 AM
Israel
Latest: svnmag
Yesterday at 9:57 PM
I Love This Bar (NDA)
Latest: svnmag
Yesterday at 8:58 PM
Answer me this
Latest: svnmag
Yesterday at 8:49 PM
Quiet Pellet Gun
Latest: 3Roosters
Yesterday at 5:26 PM
More CWD NE ND
Latest: Fritz the Cat
Yesterday at 12:57 PM
Coffee and sweet beaver
Latest: Maddog
Yesterday at 10:59 AM
Presidents who added the most
Latest: grumster
Yesterday at 12:01 AM
Check your bags boys
Latest: svnmag
Friday at 8:27 PM
Tractors
Latest: Davey Crockett
Friday at 11:15 AM
8
Spring snows 24
Latest: 870XPRS
Thursday at 10:14 PM
R
Tract Optics
Latest: rodcontrol
Thursday at 2:22 PM
Any Birders here?
Latest: svnmag
Wednesday at 8:59 PM
Prairie ghost
Latest: johnr
Wednesday at 4:20 PM
S
Mega Live
Latest: SLE
Wednesday at 2:12 PM
G
A good movie
Latest: gillraker
Wednesday at 9:53 AM
Skinwalker Ranch
Latest: svnmag
Tuesday at 10:16 PM
Friends of NDA
Forums
General
General Discussion
50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
Top
Bottom