The Old Folks Home

[perchie.girl]

Quote:
Not arguing here.... but consumption creates pollution not going to get on my personal soap box here... But there are alot of things that have to change in order to make a difference....

there are many different types of solar collectors. There is only one that I can think of that may cause damage to birds flying overhead.

I like to think of myself as a futurist.... and take proactive steps in my on area of influence.

FWIW.... I live in a VEry dry climate year round and this summer it was 104 for a couple of weeks. yep I ran the air conditioner.... though I prefer swamp coolers Not my choice.... but here at Grandmas house.

Like I said with the "Alternative Energy" available out there we are just starting out.

deb

 

[The Yakima Kid]

Are you talking about China a population? EU already has negative population growth and we are nearly there too.

Hence the SSI problems. This shows that we are losing people in a lot of the world:



Can we control population in China?

Oddly, as opposed to the oil industry, Green energy will be a big economic factor. We will be moving from oil to it.

No, I am talking about very strict population growth restrictions in the US. In other words, the wide scale adoption of anti-natalist policies and drastic restrictions on immigration. Immigrants have historically, and continue today, to have a significantly higher birth rate than native born in the US.

We are not responsible for the rest of the world; one of our big national problems is the widespread delusion that the US is the moral arbiter of the world, which is pretty funny considering how many of our policies are specifically designed to increase profits for corporations which receive heavy government subsidies. Anyone else remember Solyndra?

 

[Bunnylady]

I know people who make homemade septic tanks and field lines...a shovel, 55 gallon drums, a cutting torch, pvc pipes, rocks, and sand.

We had one of those over at the barn where I kept my horses. The soil at the barn is very sandy; it's sited on what I think is an old dune field from when the sea level was a bit higher. The septic tank worked ok as long as the bathroom was only used every once in a while, but when the flapper valve on the toilet hung up, or we had a rainy spell, or any time the toilet got flushed more than about 6 times within the same hour, the contents would bubble up through the sand and run across the paddock beside the barn.

 

[Alaskan]

Quote:
ooh yeah! nice green paddock!!

 

[The Yakima Kid]

Chicken Canoe responded to:

"That means no free school, or any other benefits including cheap medical care or welfare, after the first two children. No tax reductions or subsidies for more than two children."

Sounds like a combination of China and Afghanistan. In other words, a recipe for societal disaster. Or consider other countries with no free school, like Jamaica, #98 on the list of nations index. Or another neighboring country without free education, Haiti #152 and a 50% literacy rate.
Free for the first 2, none for the rest perpetuates poverty.

Finland is #2 by the way while the US is 21 and slipping.

Well, it worked quite well in Singapore and in China. There were no skeletons of starving children found in trees, and illiteracy did not increase. What changed was that in the absence of subsidies for children after the second one, people stopped having children.

I wouldn't go as far as the forced sterilizations in China - but if global warming *is* a result of human actions, then the only long term solution is to reverse population growth. In 1950, the US had about 150,000,000 people; But according to Pew Research Center projections, if current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and 82% of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants, according to new projections developed by the Pew Research Center. Of the 117 million people added to the population during this period due to the effect of new immigration, 67 million will be the immigrants themselves and 50 million will be their U.S.-born children or grandchildren.

Interestingly enough, if people are given the choice between having to pay for that third child and not having that third child, they tend to choose not having that third child. In case of an error, there is always adoption.

The adoption suggestion is no harsher than the insistence of some "environmentalists" that the poor in Mexico should not have propane tanks because of the contribution to "global warming - climate change - next variable name." It is particularly odd to see those who are most vocal - young Mr. Kennedy, and a number of Hollywood types - flying to global warming conferences on jet airplanes. I am particularly amused when they declare, while drinking bottled water at said conferences, that they bought "carbon credits" to offset their flight. Note to the unobservant - carbon credits are an artificial market based on the idea that a company could theoretically pollute more than they do, so they sell their unused "share" of pollution to someone else. In other words, it is a way to continue to pollute while feeling warm and fuzzy - if you don't understand mathematics.

Obviously the "conservation" solution is going to have some serious problems in the face of continued population growth.



Quote:
Originally Posted by vehve

Yakima, climate change might be a probem we don't fully grasp, but surely you can't claim that the largest consumer of oil products cutting down on it's use would hurt? If I remember correctly, the US accounts for about 20% of oil cosumption, with a significantly smaller share of the global population.
I love the detractors that think because it's cool where they live or that part of one polar ice cap grew in the last year, climate change isn't happening.
NASA just reported that last month was the warmest month in 130 years of record keeping. The eastern US was about average, northern Australia, some of China and the eastern hemisphere arctic were cooler than average but most of the rest of the planet were warmer. The Antarctic was much higher than average.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...t-years-climate-change-began-say-experts.html


The most impressive discussions on climate change I have heard have been lectures by retired academics who point out that there are factors at work here that are completely unrelated to human activity. It seems that academics retire, and then immediately reduce course. The explanation for this is that there is an orthodoxy enforced on those who wish to receive research grants; after retirement research grants are not an issue. One lecturer compare the "man made global warming" hypothesis influence on academia with the impact of eugenics on academia in the first half of the 20th Century.

There is very strong evidence that other causes are far more important in the climate change we are seeing - and the single minded focus on reducing CO2 means that we are not researching those factors, and that we are simply delaying the inevitable - in any event, there can be no permanent and effective reduction in CO2 emissions WITHOUT STRONG POLICIES TO DISCOURAGE POPULATION INCREASE.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

Chicken Canoe wrote:

Yes, rather than dispute everything, it should be a "nothing ventured, nothing gained" philosophy.
What if we said the interstate highway system was too ambitious? All the while other parts of the world are building efficient high speed rail networks. That couldn't happen here today. We keep losing ground to the rest of the world in many respects.

You've just put in a nutshell the argument made to me by the retired scientist about why he, and many others who have retired in atmospheric science, liken "climate change" to eugenics. The arguments that the rest of the world were improving their populations and the US was not, that eugenics were resolving social problems all over the world, and we needed to implement eugenics because "nothing ventured, nothing gained."

And then the house of fallacies came crashing down due to mass genocides in Europe.

 

[Sylviaanne]

Quote: Back in 2006 when we were looking for a bigger house, we were shown a house on some nice property but it had a lagoon. ChickenCanoe, you know what that is right?

I was born and raised in Tucson AZ. Always had city water and sewer. The first house we bought out here had city water and sewer. This house has it's own well and a septic tank. Neither one of those are a problem but that house above, I would have loved to had it. My husband put the nix on it when we realized the kids just might go down to the lagoon to play. They were old enough to know better but you know kids.

I had never heard of a lagoon in this sense before. We even though about putting in a septic tank but decided it was just too risky.

 

[ronott1]

Back in 2006 when we were looking for a bigger house, we were shown a house on some nice property but it had a lagoon. ChickenCanoe, you know what that is right?

I was born and raised in Tucson AZ. Always had city water and sewer. The first house we bought out here had city water and sewer. This house has it's own well and a septic tank. Neither one of those are a problem but that house above, I would have loved to had it. My husband put the nix on it when we realized the kids just might go down to the lagoon to play. They were old enough to know better but you know kids.

I had never heard of a lagoon in this sense before. We even though about putting in a septic tank but decided it was just too risky.

Are you talking about a settling pond for waste from sewage?

They do that here on a large scale to treat city sewage. Woodland has one that sends the purified water into the river.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [16]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[17][18][19]

• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[20]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[21]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[22]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[23]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [24]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[25]

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[27]
• Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[28][29]
• Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[30]
• Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[31]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[32]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[33]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[34]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[35]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[36]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[37]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[38]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[39]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[40]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[41]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[42]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[43]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[44][45]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[46]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[47]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University[48]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[49][50]
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[51]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[52][53][54]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[55]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[56]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[57]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[58]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[59]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[60]
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[61]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[62]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[63][64]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[65]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[66]
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[67]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[68]
• Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[69]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[70]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [71]
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[72]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[73]

 

[The Yakima Kid]

That sort of stuff makes me want to

If people want to kill themselves by drinking poop water, you should let them drink poop water. The government should NOT be our parents! We should be treated as rational intelligent ADULTS capable of making whatever stupid and insane choices we want, with the only limit being that we don't get to mess up anyone except ourselves.

I don't understand why the windmill was taken away? What did I miss?

And what are these "basic safety laws"??? As long as my neighbors poop isn't ending up in my yard, I don't care if they are sleeping in a tent, or an un-inspected and unsafe house, and using an outhouse and drinking well water, rainwater, or even their own pee.

The entire "can't live in the house unless it has been certified habitable" I think is stupid too.

I am so happy that none of that craziness has made it up here. Here you get to live in a pile of tires, a bus, a car, a tent, or whatever mountain of junk you want to toss together.

We even have people living in the middle of town with no running water. RAH! I love the craziness of people getting to do their own thing. Like planting whatever kind and size of tree they want to plant in their very own front yard.

Our county in Nevada does not allow a windmill over 30 feet on a parcel less than seventy some odd acres. There aren't that many parcels that size out there - even the ranches are on the plat maps as dozens of smaller parcels, not one big parcel.