[MEL]

 

[Fishndude]

Wow... this shows an amazing ignorance of positive feedback cycles, and the reasons why climate change is bad (hint - it isn't merely because warmer temperatures/higher CO2 concentrations are inherently bad).

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't teach them algebra.

 

[TriggerDiscipline]

Then again, if you read through the linked website, you might come up with a nugget or two that makes you shake your head and wonder WTF these people are trying to accomplish.

Case in point as you scroll down the home page under "We Embrace Imperfect Advocacy" is this dude: Graham Zimmerman - The worlds most accomplished alpinist who flies and drives to all corners of the globe, but finds time to support carbon taxes. Is it rude to ask why Mr. Zimmerman doesn't put aside just a small smidgen of his past-time, which would actually save a few pounds of carbon? Does he really have to fly all over the globe instead of maybe limiting himself to half of it?

That's the whole problem with this so-called movement. It isn't do as I do, but do as I say. They keep their lifestyle while expecting everyone else to cut and save if for no other reason than they wouldn't be able to pay the increased costs.

In a related story, I remember back when the market drive gas prices up to $4 per/gallon. I actually saw a clown on another forum suggest that the government should outlaw anyone from using their RV's or going on trips to reduce demand and then lowering the cost of gas. All this "pain" on others, so this person could continue to drive their 100+ mile commute each day.

I think this is a very valid critique. The neo-liberal approach seems to be mitigate the effects by taxing or sequestering carbon, while not actually changing consumption patterns or economic forces. The problem is some people can afford the taxes and extra marginal costs, while many others are already living on the razor's edge. Thus, the cost of climate change, and the cost of trying to mitigate it, is borne almost entirely by the working class and poor, who will lose their energy extraction jobs and be driven further into poverty by increased cost, and developing nations who can't afford clean energy.

The solutions need to be across the board for everyone.

 

[HTC]

The simplest fix for climate change is a limited nuclear exchange.. destroy the 500 largest cities and with the fallout eliminate the vast majority of the rest of humanity. Viola!!! Let nature heal her wounds mankind will be back to the stone age as well as the benefits of a nuclear winter

If this will get me 6" of clear ice to fish through I say send it.

 

[bellkey]

Neanderthals were also great apes that evolved from the same common ancestor as humans. Neanderthals weren't humans.

GREAT APES ????
Neanderthals were a distinct species called Homo Neanderthals . Darwins theory has been challenged . Are you saying an Ape and a Human could have offspring ?

 

[pescadero]

GREAT APES ????

Yes... the Great Apes- Family Hominidae... of which there are 4 subfamilies.

Hominidae Ponginae - Orangutans
Hominidae Gorillini - Gorillas
Hominidae Panina - Chimps and Bonobos
Hominidae Homo - Modern humans (homo sapiens) as well as extinct homo species (Homo neanderthalensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, etc.)

Are you saying an Ape and a Human could have offspring ?

Absolutely - a human (a type of ape) and a human can have offspring.

 

[bellkey]

Yes... the Great Apes- Family Hominidae... of which there are 4 subfamilies.

Hominidae Ponginae - Orangutans
Hominidae Gorillini - Gorillas
Hominidae Panina - Chimps and Bonobos
Hominidae Homo - Modern humans (homo sapiens) as well as extinct homo species (Homo neanderthalensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, etc.)






Absolutely - a human (a type of ape) and a human can have offspring.

LOL You are flat out wrong ! A human and an ape can not bear offspring !Chromosomes are NOT the same .

 

[pescadero]

LOL You are flat out wrong ! A human and an ape can not bear offspring

A human IS an ape.

So when a human bears an offspring from another human - that is an ape bearing offspring from another ape.

When a human bore offspring from a Neanderthal, or a Neanderthal bore offspring from a human - that is an ape bearing offspring from another ape.

 

[triplelunger]

Yes... the Great Apes- Family Hominidae... of which there are 4 subfamilies.

Hominidae Ponginae - Orangutans
Hominidae Gorillini - Gorillas
Hominidae Panina - Chimps and Bonobos
Hominidae Homo - Modern humans (homo sapiens) as well as extinct homo species (Homo neanderthalensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, etc.)






Absolutely - a human (a type of ape) and a human can have offspring.

Just don't call bigfoot a homo.
Trust me.
Sent from my Pixel 4 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app

 

[bellkey]

A human IS an ape.

So when a human bears an offspring from another human - that is an ape bearing offspring from another ape.

When a human bore offspring from a Neanderthal, or a Neanderthal bore offspring from a human - that is an ape bearing offspring from another ape.

A human IS an ape.

So when a human bears an offspring from another human - that is an ape bearing offspring from another ape.

When a human bore offspring from a Neanderthal, or a Neanderthal bore offspring from a human - that is an ape bearing offspring from another ape.

Absolutely NOT ! No matter how much Paleontologists and Evolutionary Biologist try to propagandize an ape connection to humans, there just is none. We have no mtDNA connection with them at all. That 98% DNA connection modern myth propagated by like-minded scientists and was debunked by the mainstream scientific academia. We are NOT related to them! Period! I will consider you as a fellow fisherman , not an APE .

 

[garyb]

Absolutely NOT ! No matter how much Paleontologists and Evolutionary Biologist try to propagandize an ape connection to humans, there just is none. We have no mtDNA connection with them at all. That 98% DNA connection modern myth propagated by like-minded scientists and was debunked by the mainstream scientific academia. We are NOT related to them! Period! I will consider you as a fellow fisherman , not an APE .

wow you are being nice to pescy.

 

[pescadero]

Absolutely NOT ! No matter how much Paleontologists and Evolutionary Biologist try to propagandize an ape connection to humans, there just is none. We have no mtDNA connection with them at all. That 98% DNA connection modern myth propagated by like-minded scientists and was debunked by the mainstream scientific academia. We are NOT related to them! Period! I will consider you as a fellow fisherman , not an APE .

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[Lund Explorer]

For a historical perspective...

 

[Gillgitter]

Just don't call bigfoot a homo.
Trust me.
Sent from my Pixel 4 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app

Yeah, I've seen those beef jerkey commercials. I wouldn't want to piss him off either.

 

[pescadero]

For a historical perspective...

View attachment 631985

For everyone who thinks humans, a mere animal, couldn't be affecting earth's climate in a massive way...

What do you say about Methanosarcina and the Permian–Triassic extinction event it caused?

 

[Waif]

I can recall the acrid smell of coal burning.
Heated the house though...
The right/wrong weather conditions and it hung near ground.
Even where industries built tall stacks. Which in the right/wrong conditions sent it far...

Scrubbers and how flues are heated affect burns. I didn't keep up with coal efficiency but there were increases.
Perhaps costs of cleaner exhausts made natural gas more appealing.
Now adding sulfur is a consideration to certain soils depending on test results.
Till a volcano blows and soils are downwind maybe.


Sulfur levels are in decline -- ScienceDaily

 

[baycountyhunter]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitter-cold-brings-chaos-global-072341642.html
Green energy will not be able to handle these issues during times of extreme weather it usually doesn't work. They even mention windmills aren't working now. The fossil fuels are having trouble but it's a case of a lot of these countries have already gone to green energy especially Europe.

 

[garyb]

I can recall the acrid smell of coal burning.
Heated the house though...
The right/wrong weather conditions and it hung near ground.
Even where industries built tall stacks. Which in the right/wrong conditions sent it far...

Scrubbers and how flues are heated affect burns. I didn't keep up with coal efficiency but there were increases.
Perhaps costs of cleaner exhausts made natural gas more appealing.
Now adding sulfur is a consideration to certain soils depending on test results.
Till a volcano blows and soils are downwind maybe.


Sulfur levels are in decline -- ScienceDaily

we can make catalytic converters to clean up a dirty gasoline engine that burns fossil fuels and we can't develop a filter to put on a smoke stack that burns coal . i believe they could do it with all the technolgy that is available to them , for some reason they[government] doesn't want too''just my opinion

 

[Waif]

we can make catalytic converters to clean up a dirty gasoline engine that burns fossil fuels and we can't develop a filter to put on a smoke stack that burns coal . i believe they could do it with all the technolgy that is available to them , for some reason they[government] doesn't want too''just my opinion

Reburning exhaust can reduce emissions.
We take it for granted (?) some of our fuels. But worldwide there are plenty of inefficient burns.
Even among better designs (woodstoves for example) they still have to be run right.
my opinion too , but tossing a fuel aside due to varied efficiency due to how it is used might not always be the best answer.
What does it take to build a battery to power a vehicle? Noe we're facing resources, industry, waste stream, energy consumption , concrete footprint ,and certainly discharge of something.
A windmill?
Distribution of a windmills power when it is producing? Same thing. Solar , yep. Cost to resources.
We can build with heat retaining masonry in cold climes and allow absorption during the day. To be released at night. As well as align roofs to consider thermal heating or cooling by nature.
Shade to avoid heat. Expose to absorb.
Whatever happened to earth bearmed house concepts? One I toured was scary efficient.

I'm not a fan of dams , but smaller independent turbo's using diverted and returned percentages of a rivers run (without overheating or adding pollutants to the water) make some sense to me for power desired near a moving waterway.

I'm near a landfill. The corrosive methane gets burned off as the cells are designed to do. Though I smell it even at this distance when it is not.
A scrubber would make the methane usable. Right across the road (minimal distribution/piping needed) at the township hall. Where , a wind study would confirm my long going suspicion (or disprove it) that the hall could run a small mill too.

With energy , conservation in use and efficiency is a leading way to reduce greater demand.
Energy co-ops where citizens personal productions are combined is a consideration.
We know that though.
Cattle feedlots have seen generators installed by a utility company.
Why not our city sewers?
What gains are being made recycling and burning our trash?
Because it all adds up. Or subtracts.

 

[Waif]

Oh , and I'm still anticipating our ability to harness and store lightning.
:hide: