Global warming

The folks that are die hard global warming fanatics love to cite the decline of the polar ice caps and how all the polar bears have nowhere to survive now.

Then explain why are there more polar bears now than there have been in the last sixty years?
Look it up.........
 
Since oil and gas often falls in the cross hairs of any climate change discussion I found and article in the Finance papers amusing today. Amlo, the president of Mexico, is upset at the U.S for cutting supplies of natural gas to border towns in Mexico creating blackouts during the deep freeze. Seems Texas et al need all they have during this frigid spell. I would point out that Amlo shut down all fracking and stalled oil and gas exploration completely in Mexico for 'environmental reasons' even though their economy is in shambles yet their reserves are strong. Part of his platform to get elected.

Just sayin
 
On the ice!
 
Interesting response. I see it just the opposite but I need to ask questions to better understand your point of view. If regenerative ag reduces inputs increasing profitability even on a smaller scale how does that effect the worlds poor and their ability to eat? More than enough food today is produced to feed the entire world. A significant problem IS the current distribution model. Regenerative ag would allow smaller scale farms utilizing direct to consumer models to flourish and in fact during the current pandemic that is exactly what is happening. So curious your thinking why reduced costs increase cost and logistics?

I struggle correlating the use of cover crops with communism??? No idea how to respond. But as an aside look at the current U.S. Farm Bill. Most farmers in the U.S today cannot survive without the taxpayer welfare subsidy provided by the Farm Bill. Extend that to the fact that the Farm Bill dictates not only what can be subsidized but even ag practices that do or do not qualify. Currently in the U.S. approximately 80% [ I might be off on this number a bit but close enough for argument ] of crops grown are used for animal consumption. Imagine if you will how shifts in that paradigm could effect the cost and availability of food worldwide. I'm not saying the Farm Bill is communism but it is a far cry from free market.

I have no concerns that markets can provide a wealth of diverse functional seed groups to meet all ag needs....and your steer will be able to graze them as part of the regenerative process. Good news on the Tier 4 engines
If your cover crops and carbon farming remain voluntary, then yes it isn't communism. But I agree with you, that's the way things are currently being driven. I can see a time in the future when the actual FSA is the leader in administering the carbon footprint models. Enforced through regulation? Drive non compliars out of biz thru financial incentive? All in the name of global warming?
 
I bet OSHA would do a great job with making up, uh, i mean enforcing rules and regs.
 
Without taking any position whatsoever on this topic, I will remark that it is astounding to me that there are many, many folks out there who dispute theories that are widely accepted among academics (though cause and consequence are of course hotly debated).

What would the average person consider to be credible evidence of global warming, if the current data set won't suffice? Feasible evidence, of course, because we can't go back millions of years to actually record temperatures.

This is a serious question. As a scientist, I'm truly interested in what constitutes proof in the average American's eyes - and why they won't accept the same standards as most academics. There is a huge disconnect, a fundamental difference that I'm trying to understand.
 
Speaking for myself only, i know global warming is a real thing(planet has been warming and cooling forever). I just don't buy into all the agenda driven excuses that they use to manipulate people into doing or not doing things because someone said so. Experts on both sides of this issue, both claiming to be right. Certainly don't think we have ten years and we're fried to a crisp!
 
At the rate we are going i think people can adapt to relatively easy---NOT LIFE THREATENING. But i'm just an idiot with an opinion, which i'm sure is better than an idiot with an agenda.jmho
 
As a scientist, I'm truly interested in what constitutes proof in the average American's eyes - and why they won't accept the same standards as most academics. There is a huge disconnect, a fundamental difference that I'm trying to understand.
I think many Americans are sick of agenda driven "proof"
 
Without taking any position whatsoever on this topic, I will remark that it is astounding to me that there are many, many folks out there who dispute theories that are widely accepted among academics (though cause and consequence are of course hotly debated).

What would the average person consider to be credible evidence of global warming, if the current data set won't suffice? Feasible evidence, of course, because we can't go back millions of years to actually record temperatures.

This is a serious question. As a scientist, I'm truly interested in what constitutes proof in the average American's eyes - and why they won't accept the same standards as most academics. There is a huge disconnect, a fundamental difference that I'm trying to understand.

I have no doubt global warming is a legit thing.
That many are totally blaming the cause on humans...that I will disagree with. Also with the speed some say it is happing.
Many that promote their global warming theories also derive income and funding from it which brings biases into question. And of course politics are a factor for many... studying cow farts is just dumb.

I think I remember reading somewhere that one volcano eruption creates more greenhouse gasses or emissions than humans have in the last couple hundred years.

I believe pollution is a real thing and a danger to the environment and nature. I don’t think that the USA is near the contributor to the global pollution problem that other countries are. I think it is pretty far down the list of offending countries. I think the USA has some good checks and balances in place to keep our country clean and make it cleaner.

I like that pretty much everyone on this site is trying in some form to make their properties better for nature and the environment so their families will have somewhere they can enjoy the outdoors. And that is way more than the average person that hypes up global warming is doing or will ever do.

To me the biggest cause of global warming just may be a natural cycle however fast or slow it’s happening.
 
I'll simplify my thesis along with the belief free enterprise will prevail.

Conventional farming with its reliance on tillage, extensive use of petroleum based fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, not only destroys the soil microbiology and fertility but is a major contributor to atmospheric carbon, polluted water supply, erosion, desertification ... and the list goes on. Profit margins are low primarily supported by subsidization. As such it is a dysfunctional system that cannot stand the test of time.

Regenerative agriculture works symbiotically with nature minimizing or eliminating artificial inputs, and sequesters carbon into the soil, thus materially reducing atmospheric carbon. Many practitioners are very profitable frequently with higher yields than conventional farming and are not a part of federal subsidization [ farm bill ] Thus it is functional and self sustaining. Because of this there is an undercurrent shift beginning throughout the world with profitability and an ecologically aligned lifestyle driving the change.

An outcome is a reversal of a major contributor to atmospheric carbon and in fact a reversal.
An outcome is a reversal in the loss of soil fertility and in fact continuing increase in soil OM with its countless benefits.
An outcome is an increase in the nutrient density of foods which has declined dramatically since the 1950's.
An outcome is the impact that will have on a healthcare system overburdened by heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autism, all of which have exploded since the 1950's.

Throughout history dysfunctional systems have failed to be replaced by sustainable functional systems. I believe we are seeing such shifts across a waterfront of our society right now. Exciting times.
 
Without taking any position whatsoever on this topic, I will remark that it is astounding to me that there are many, many folks out there who dispute theories that are widely accepted among academics (though cause and consequence are of course hotly debated).

What would the average person consider to be credible evidence of global warming, if the current data set won't suffice? Feasible evidence, of course, because we can't go back millions of years to actually record temperatures.

This is a serious question. As a scientist, I'm truly interested in what constitutes proof in the average American's eyes - and why they won't accept the same standards as most academics. There is a huge disconnect, a fundamental difference that I'm trying to understand.
I do not need to see any proof. Until we talk about getting rid of 4 billion people none of it matters. There are far to many of us here. We can get rid of all the cow farts we want but it isn't going to change a thing.
 
Without taking any position whatsoever on this topic, I will remark that it is astounding to me that there are many, many folks out there who dispute theories that are widely accepted among academics (though cause and consequence are of course hotly debated).

What would the average person consider to be credible evidence of global warming, if the current data set won't suffice? Feasible evidence, of course, because we can't go back millions of years to actually record temperatures.

This is a serious question. As a scientist, I'm truly interested in what constitutes proof in the average American's eyes - and why they won't accept the same standards as most academics. There is a huge disconnect, a fundamental difference that I'm trying to understand.
It's not that most don't accept a change in the climate norm as we perceive it. But the hypothesis that it is due to global warming attributed mostly to the actions of humans has simply not been proven and there are indeed groups of scientists who dispute the common so called Gore dilemma . How many scientific hypothesis that were accepted as proven, have been disproven over the last say, 500 years? Granted, I don't mind the scientific investigation method, but I do disapprove of acceptance of a theoretical hypothesis as already proven. And I'll admit Its hypothesis is certainly a difficult measure to assert yea or nea.
The main difficulty of this particular study is the assumptions made while recording seconds , perhaps minutes of time, when in reality the day, month, year, lifespan, a dozen lifespans are but a blink of the eye of the earths span. I accept climate is warming or else we would still have ice caps near my back porch. Its immediate cause is still in doubt.
And no offense, because I seriously do respect your diplomatic efforts to plead your case on certain subjects, but you are not the only scientist in the room.
 
I guess in the end it is my lack of trust in big government that leads me to doubt or at least be skeptical of anything that they claim is the next “sky is falling” topic.
Be it global warming, a pandemic, a war, a national crisis or whatever topic is being used to push a political agenda of one form or another that wastes tax dollars or is used to try and gain more control over the population.
Multiply that when other countries or so called world organizations are involved.
 
I do not need to see any proof. Until we talk about getting rid of 4 billion people none of it matters. There are far to many of us here. We can get rid of all the cow farts we want but it isn't going to change a thing.
Totally agree with this statement.
 
I guess in the end it is my lack of trust in big government that leads me to doubt or at least be skeptical of anything that they claim is the next “sky is falling” topic.
Be it global warming, a pandemic, a war, a national crisis or whatever topic is being used to push a political agenda of one form or another that wastes tax dollars or is used to try and gain more control over the population.
Multiply that when other countries or so called world organizations are involved.
Without taking any position whatsoever on this topic, I will remark that it is astounding to me that there are many, many folks out there who dispute theories that are widely accepted among academics (though cause and consequence are of course hotly debated).

What would the average person consider to be credible evidence of global warming, if the current data set won't suffice? Feasible evidence, of course, because we can't go back millions of years to actually record temperatures.

This is a serious question. As a scientist, I'm truly interested in what constitutes proof in the average American's eyes - and why they won't accept the same standards as most academics. There is a huge disconnect, a fundamental difference that I'm trying to understand.

And,,,,,,, maybe ..... just maybe..... those same people you don't trust, that "big government" might just be KEPT there just to keep you frustrated and distracted, fighting over the scraps on the floor when the prime rib, lobster and good booze is in and on the fridge just out of reach. Your fed what you need to know.

Its a profound moment when you get to be on the other side of that smoke show and are shown what you believed all your life, what you have been told, even by your parents, teachers, and politicians - is nothing but a lie. There is a running joke in politics and the petroleum industry - just keep telling them something - something far from the truth, tell it to them long enough and they will believe it. Too many of our leaders are just greedy little pawns in a big game of chess played by a small army of people with more power and money than most people can imagine.

Its truly become smoke and mirrors.

Academics are taught to question everything ....
Average people are taught not to question anything...
The remaining balance is trained to question the later two...
A few get to pull the strings......

.....the disconnect is the alienation between the sub groups and likely is part of the plan from the beginning knowing human nature - its just herding sheep, good shepherds know the tricks to keep'em grouped up. I really do not think you can bridge that gap. Its tough to change the true essence of a human being most people are preprogramed to be who they are, believe what they believe... to break away from that is a hard choice usually takes profound life events. Its kind of a generalization but it kind of works out that way in the end I think.
 
Proven science....now thats funny. More like bought and paid for science.
Of course the climate is changing, it has been changing since the dawn of time. Man can neither speed it up nor slow it down. To think otherwise is profoundly presumptuous imho.

But then,,,,,, im no scientist. LOL!
 
There is only one truth that is self evident......cages definitely trump tubes.
Only if you go big with your window screen! I have a bad feeling I'm going to find out 30" isn't enough nor is possibly 36". Find myself rooting for coyotes vs rabbits now all a sudden. Don't skimp on window screen guys.
 
Top