Climate Change

[Capt Phil]

My comment is directed to cdreid... as a former commercial fisherman from the PNW, the BC Fisheries decided that to preserve the fisheries back in the '50's, they would put boundary markers up across the inlets where spawning salmon would go up stream to spawn. So us white guys could not go beyond the boundaries to preserve the salmon runs. We had no problem with that because we were as anxious as the Government weanies to preserve the salmon runs for future commercial fishing. What I could never understand was that native fisherman with whom I spent many years fishing, if there wasn't a white man on board, the could fish right up to the river mouth and clear out the entire run of salmon for that year. That was great as far as the government was concerned. Hence the elimination of the entire wild sockeye species in the PNW.
When you allow government to screw with nature and the natural order, things go to **** in a hurry.
The government turkeys disallowed any brush clearing within 100 yards of a 'potential' stream bed where I now live. A forest fire came through and burned out over 280 homes as a result. The government a**holes left town, some without even picking up their final checks! We knew who they were and would have lynched them on the nearest tree! GO GREEN!!!
I don't begin to understand the science on either side of the global warming controversy but if the government is involved, we are in trouble! Sorry boatman61... I agree on almost every post you have make but this one, I take issue with... Phil

[Krogensailor]

I know I said I was finished with this thread, but I can't help but think that there may be some benefit to this bouncing back and forth. We are not a simple species that is doomed to always return to its basest default. We are for better or worse a species unto itself. We are unlike any other. Chimps will poke a stick in a hole to get ants stirred up, but that's about it. All of the history of humankind, from the Sphinx to the car we drove on the moon, shouts out that we are not just animals from the animal kingdom. We are far more. That's not to say that we are not animals, we are. Thinking were not, as in man has been given ‘DOMINION’ over the earth is a big piece of what is wrong with modern civilized man. We are most assuredly and fundamentally part of this organic world. But we are different in that we not only see, we go beyond seeing, we have vision! We can see forward. We have the thing that Einstein considered his most valued talent, imagination. We can sit spread out over this entire planet and tap away on our (already obsolete) machines communicating the potentially sublime experience of coming to know something we didn't know before. We stand in our place in a line of humanity, those with the most active imagination in the front of the line. Then those with a pure heart, looking to grow their knowledge, followed by the chattering classes wanting to be in the know and behind them the superstitious, frightened masses that have no idea why the fire comes from the Sky Gods to burn their forest down. They make up stories. The dilemma today is Einstein has to pause every nine seconds to explain every epiphany to every Neanderthal with a computer. Time was, the best and the brightest were sheltered, protected, cloistered, and kept in the ivory towers of academia. We mined their minds. In return we got maps. Directions, concepts, longitude, ideas. And all of that created this civilization. And civilizations before and most likely many after. We are not just animals, we are transcendental being's looking for the way. Every single one of us has had the experience of wonderment. Looking at the night sky, fireflies, the sea. And then, 99% of us stop looking up and thereafter become enmeshed in the stories. There’s a great book, came out in the seventies, written by Daniel Quinn. The book is called, Ishmael. In the pages of that book lay the best explanation of the core failure of humanity. How did we get it so f--ked up? Dan say's, prior to 10,000+ years ago, food grew. We took what we needed and left the rest. Post 10,000 we grew food. We cut it all down and left nothing. We ceased being leavers, and became takers. For a thousand millennium we were part of nature, then we became apart from nature. Fast forward 10,000 year's. Einstein, Bucky Fuller, R. Fienmen, Rumi, Christ, Gandhi, all say the same thing. There is but one lesson to be learned. And one path back to the garden. Become leavers again. What we are calling Climate change is but a single symptom of an entire system in collapse. We need not try to return to a paleolithic time, we couldn’t if we wanted to. But we can envision a future and will move forward into a techno/superefficient/conservation world. A world where we use efficiently what is required and leave the rest. Nothing gets wasted. We are so married to the mindset that demands that we must survive, that we haven't noticed that survival is no longer the question. The new question is, "what are we going to do now that we are going to survive?" What are we going to do? Conceptualize the future. Create a vision of a new world. An inclusive world. A world where we have no dominion over anything, least of all each other. Where we are but trusted servants. Shepard’s. Stewards. And you with pure heart's, take pity on the superstitious, the frightened dolt, practice kindness. Don't waste your juices arm wrestling with Neanderthals, you can't win. Use your energy to find truth and participate in the solution. Or, it's OK being part of the chattering class, cheer leaders are part of the deal. Be the Shepard or be the sheep. It's all good. And it really is your choice. Imagine!

[conachair]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Yes but , in general, we do not proceed to self destruction , Easter island not withstanding , one can look at , for example , in Europe , to reforestation, improved water quality in lakes and rivers , smog free cities because of coal bans or smokeless coals, less vehicle pollution , improved drinking water quality etc etc. yes we're not solving every thing at once , but little by little improvements are being made.. Small , un coordinated yes, but its not hopeless like some predict

All very laudable and nice for the few westerners to go for a walk in, but lets face it, globally it's p!ssing in the wind. No one knows how this particular evolutionary path will lead as it's never been tried before. It doesn't look terribly hopeful for a few centuries let alone a few hundred thousand years. Maybe human numbers will bounce from boom to bust until the brain evolves to have self awareness without the instinct to squander every resource available. Who knows.
Two things seem likely though, nothing we do or think will have much effect in the long run and we'll all be dead and gone before it really kicks in.

OK, the second one remains to be seen but it's still OK to be happy

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by cdreid

foggy you need to quit reading rw websites.

the .gov has always subsidised and interfered in industry. let me point out the #1 culprit that directly undermines your hypothesis. Big energy. they are subsidised 1000 ways from roads to having the reserves We own handed to them for free to the military. We are and have been fighting energy wars for 40+ years. All of our current defense problems come from that or from fighting wars or clandestine actions for the energy companies or other industries who gave money to the right pol. And it's not one party either. We could cut our mil budget 75% easily if we didnt have to fight for energy resources.. that alone would end our budget problems, allow us to pay down the debt AND send the economy in overdrive. it's not even a secret. But we dont because the parties have to keep us fighting over bs to keep getting elected and keep getting payoffs.

The real cost of fossil fuels (gas/diesel) is well over $10 a gallon. The real cost of coal (where most of our energy originates) is astronomical

+1

Hidden subsidies are still subsidies (aka "Handouts" in tea party speak).

Whilst on the Humanist end of life (it's down to us to fix problems) and I think it is quite feasible to create a more sustainable world I do have my doubts that we will manage it.........we already have the technology to do so (which differentiates us from other species, not making us "better" (that only a value judgement) but it makes us more capable of finding solutions), just we do not have the will (and a lot of the that problem comes from ideology - mostly from the dog eat dog end of capitalism), but even that is sortable.........However my main concern is that our societies are now just too complicated to manage let alone to change direction.

The scary thing is not that there are hidden forces and agendas controlling everything (the folks who bought and paid for both Obama and Mr Magic Underpants) but that no one is - as it is just not possible, even without a political system that is clearly broken.......instead you get vested interests looting what they can (legally) for short term gain because to do otherwise would be mad!

One useful thing to do in life, is to consider whether everything you have ever been told that is normal / right is in fact..........wrong! And then work backwards to puzzle out why someone would have an interest in lying to you.....that works no matter which end of the political spectrum you are on!, because they all lie to you - if you can't spot the lies your own side tells then need to think a bit more........the main lies (from both sides) are a) that it is normal to work 40/50 hours a week (and fit own & family life around that) and b) that is a good thing (it is if others do that - but not you!)........and most of the other lies are to support that.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

That was the reason for the quotes.

Free at the point of delivery vs free at the point of payment ........it's just a group healthcare plan, and instead of writing a personal check it gets paid for at the gas station .....with the bonus that other folks get to suck up my risks and I theirs . Not going broke (or getting dead) through lack of healthcare is a nice thing to have - also nice that my neighbours don't suffer that fate either .

At the risk of course of everybody ging broke simultaneously in the end...

(BTW, I don't know of any country where healthcare is financed via the gas pump...

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Yes but , in general, we do not proceed to self destruction , Easter island not withstanding ,

Actually the story of the story of the Easter islanders doing themselves in by destroying their environment is considered a myth by some:

http://www.marklynas.org/2011/09/the...lands-ecocide/

It is nevertheless striking that there are so few historical examples of " ecocide". There are thousands of islands in the Pacific. Lots were settled. Only in a few cases did the settlement fail...

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by foggysail

My point, cost impacts families whether environmentalists like it or not. Obama is trying his hardest to emulate Europe.

I don't think the US is lagging Europe where it comes to the environment. Europe for example introduced unleaded gasoline much later then the US.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

At the risk of course of everybody ging broke simultaneously in the end...

Life is full of risk ..........Just a matter of a society making choices on what they spend their money on.

(BTW, I don't know of any country where healthcare is financed via the gas pump...

Whilst not hypothecated, the UK collects around 40% of the cost of the NHS from fuel duties and annual car tax (over here we merged the 2, so could dispose of a Govt dept - even here that don't happen often!).

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

I don't think the US is lagging Europe where it comes to the environment. Europe for example introduced unleaded gasoline much later then the US.

Yes indeed , but the perception is the US is dragging its feet.

If it isn't in reality , that's great isnt it, the two biggest economic areas in the world with a mission. !

In reality Europe and the US are very similar in tax spend ( about 2-4% in difference) have quite similar policies and similar trajectories.

Which makes it all the more amusing the way its presented in the media as the US " moving " towards the Europe model, well what's happened is both systems have converged , even of individual takes on specific policies are different.


Here a bit of reading http://www.economics21.org/commentar...nts-equal-size

Dave

[jeanathon]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Speaking of bridges, why would anyone be so stupid as to trust a trained Civil Engineer? If you really want a reliable bridge, build it yourself.

Actually my brother died as a result of mistakes made by two civil engineers who happened to work for NASA. Modern marvels did an episode about it which I have not seen.
Lake, I know what "science " is. Problem is the lack of peer review, or the peers themselves.
Again. Watch all the fox/CNN you want then regurgitate it all over the people around you, or conquer your fears and think for yourself.

[noelex 77]

If you want to go green, go cruising.

My wife and I use about 400L diesel and perhaps 30L of petrol a year and a bit of Butane.
Solar generates nearly all our electricity. We make our own water.
We cannot buy many of the latest disposable consumer goods because there is no room, or use for them.

There are hidden energy costs in food we buy, rubbish that is disposed of etc, but even these are less than most in the developed world.

As a positive contribution to society we do far worse. Contributing less to general revenue and not utilising our education.

However, if look purely environmental point of view, the answer is easy, more of the western world should pack up and go cruising.

Perhaps we can apply for a government subsidy

[RaymondR]

My understanding of the land title system in the US is that the title holder owns the minerals. This being the case when the oil company wants to drill on your land you negotiate a damages compensation and royalty deal.

The oil that is owned by the US government is that in the Strategic Reserve which was purchased by them in order to keep a reserve of oil for mainly military purposes.

My understanding of the system in regard to offshore areas is that the oil companies bid to be allowed to drill then pay royalties on any hydrocarbons produced.

My understanding of public roads, aka highway systems, is that governments build them for public or military or defense use. I seem to recall that the Romans built them all over the place in Europe. What I can't recall is whether Henry Ford and the motor car went back quiet that far.

Resource extraction companies including oil companies are generally required to pay royalties on the minerals they extract and then taxes on any profits they make. Consequently they tend to pay more in taxes than say motor car manufacturers. In the recent GFC who were the biggest handout receivers in the US, auto manufacturers and banks or resource extraction enterprises?

If you are looking for the greatest environmental vandals of the lot look no further than our farmers. Depleted aquifers in California have caused far more problems than fracking but I have yet to see the polemicists do their expose documentary on the destruction of the Ogalla aquifer.

Yes, we are burning far to much fossil fuel and the sooner this stops the better. Yes we need to recycle as much as possible and close all our systems as much as swe can but this will not happen, or will be seriously delayed without low cost energy. There are all sorts of unintended consequences related to zealot driven alternative energy schemes and the wealthy are always the last to go without the poor are always the first to suffer shortages and the ones who most benefit from cheap goods and services.

Since when did a failure to tax an enterprise out of existence constitute a "subsidy" (typical left wing political correctness, but factually untrue) Markets and their aberrations do not work perfectly but they do work better than any alternative.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Do you actually read what you post?

CO2 is a trigger for warming. Water vapour is an amplifier. We can actually control the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere through our burning of fossil fuels. We have no control over the amplification by water vapour. Warm air holds more water vapour than cool air. Water vapour produces a very nasty positive feedback loop.

Exactly!

“... Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ...”
“... "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone ..."

Courtesy of foggysail
➥ NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh man. To think that we completely fished out the Grand Banks of cod...I don't think I'll live long enough to see that fishery return...

Cod biomass has made a slight comeback, now down around 93% as opposed to 97%. BUT.....the new generation of fisherman in Newfoundlad decry the resurgence. They have made the switch to crab and shrimp and fear that a resurgent cod would wipe out those species.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Yes but , in general, we do not proceed to self destruction , Easter island not withstanding , one can look at , for example , in Europe , to reforestation, improved water quality in lakes and rivers , smog free cities because of coal bans or smokeless coals, less vehicle pollution , improved drinking water quality etc etc. yes we're not solving every thing at once , but little by little improvements are being made.

It doesn't help that the looney right try's and portrays such efforts as " commie', " liberal" or anti -business. Increasingly however , certainly in Europe , for example , conservation, green politics , etc , have actually become mainstream, and generally accepted, ironically sometimes leading to the demise of the " Greens " as a political force.

Every where you look there are attempts at conservation, reintroduction of threatened species , improvements in pollution reduction , I can see it in my lifetime. Small , un coordinated yes, but its not hopeless like some predict

Furthermore , even if you believe its ultimately hopeless , thats not a polluters charter. That fact that your teenage son or daughter can't keep their room tidy , doesn't make you let every room turn into a junk heap , does it ?

Dave

Unfortunately I disagree with some of whar you say. Yes, in some areas the immediate environment is better, here too in thr NE USA. Somewhat because of increased regulation, but more because we are exporting our manufacturing and pollution to poorer countries.

More importantly I see our efforts as far too little far too late. The hope I have is more bound up in finding a way for my kin through the bottleneck. I know that is an extreme and unpopullar position, but not one that I have come too lightly. But it is also a big part of our boating plan.

I strongly agree with your final paragraph, it is no excuse to pollute.