fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Yes, that is right.
Yes, that is right.
Fish knows nothing. A good bro, nice to folks, cool, sure. Knows nothing.
Hey, Fish, if you're home alone for Christmas, read some of that LaRouche stuff. VI Vernadsky was a Russian scientist with the savvy to survive Stalin, and while finding links in science to support evolution and dialectic progress models generally, he was quite an unusual fellow. He saw light generated by little living cells, and he found reasons to figure there must be some higher order of nature overseeing life processes, something inherent in nature itself, a Life Force. Something with intelligence to recognize need and devise means for the essential materials of life.
A bit of "religion" maybe, without saying the word "God", right under Stalin's nose.
Hey, Fish, if you're home alone for Christmas, read some of that LaRouche stuff. VI Vernadsky was a Russian scientist with the savvy to survive Stalin, and while finding links in science to support evolution and dialectic progress models generally, he was quite an unusual fellow. He saw light generated by little living cells, and he found reasons to figure there must be some higher order of nature overseeing life processes, something inherent in nature itself, a Life Force. Something with intelligence to recognize need and devise means for the essential materials of life.
A bit of "religion" maybe, without saying the word "God", right under Stalin's nose.
DutchJazzer
Banned
this climate change hoax is humanities EPIC obsession with self absorption.
ignoring all other facts that we cannot control in climate models. and only focus on the one thing we can control co2.
for example vulcanic activity, ignore that because humans aint a factor in it.
a classic symptom of virtue signaling.
my 23 year old ford bronco is more environmental friendly then any liberal douche who buys or leases a new electracal vehicle every 3 years.
ignoring all other facts that we cannot control in climate models. and only focus on the one thing we can control co2.
for example vulcanic activity, ignore that because humans aint a factor in it.
a classic symptom of virtue signaling.
my 23 year old ford bronco is more environmental friendly then any liberal douche who buys or leases a new electracal vehicle every 3 years.
DutchJazzer
Banned
yeah i like fish to.
hope to meat him among other from this board someday. which is now more likely now that America is not under tyrannical rule of Islamic caliphate barrack HUSSEIN!
seems unlikely some of you would come visit me in netherlands or south america!
hope to meat him among other from this board someday. which is now more likely now that America is not under tyrannical rule of Islamic caliphate barrack HUSSEIN!
seems unlikely some of you would come visit me in netherlands or south america!
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Air pollution is not a hoax so it doesn't matter. We should be moving to clean energy no matter your beliefs on climate change.
Why do you assume that nobody would still be driving a 3 year old electric car?
DutchJazzer
Banned
because we live in a disposable society. appliances and technology has a limited life.
ussually desktop computers had a limited live but now with intel, cpu's are longer current. you could for example still use a sandybridge wich isabout 5 generations old, and it is still current. so thats a good thing
but other appliances shorted their life span. and these climate change liberals get a new phone every year or 2.
that's just wrong.
air pollution is not a hoax, for sure not. but co2 is not a pollutant. there are other things polluting air like Carbon monoxide.
but people confuse these two.
maybe its because government classifies co2 as an airvpollutant. co2 has nothing to do with quality of AIR. IT IS NOT A POLLUTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back of the line, pal.
Last edited:
These alarmists do not tell you anything true. I know you are a cow farmer so take new government proposals for example. They want make farmers control cow farting cause they claim methane is greenhouse gas an like 50 times more radiant then CO2.
What they do not tell you is that methane is highly reactive an quickly oxidizes in to water an CO2.
The NWO government wants to put in costly regulations that will double or triple the price of are steaks, roasts an hamburger all to control .0005 % of all CO2 creating emissions.
I hope you like eating tripe an boiled cowhide cause that is where the alarmist liberals are taking us. You will not be able to afford anything when they turn us in to Mexico an then Guatemala.
Holy crap California liberals are dense. Apparently they are gonna waste $50 million taxpayer dollars to harvest cow farts an make electricity. Electricity creates all CO2 an POLLUTANTS like nitrogen dioxide.
The atmosphere created some CO2 an some water so California is choosing CO2 over water an wasting $50 million cause they want to feel good policy.
The atmosphere created some CO2 an some water so California is choosing CO2 over water an wasting $50 million cause they want to feel good policy.
DutchJazzer
Banned
pun intended
On the surface I do not love the policy of limiting methane gas cow farmers can produce. If the other part (helping farmers get machines that convert cow turds into electricity) ends up working and is improved over time, eventually it might be a cheap source of energy (or already is?). Developing renewable and cheap sources of energy seems like a good long term plan not just for the environment but financially.
I have not looked into the actual costs of these machines (since I do not farm and do not live in California) and how much electricity they produce but I imagine that they could pay for themselves eventually or at least if the machines are improved and mass produced they will be able to when the costs of the machines are lowered.
Environmental impact aside using your own resources to generate more money seems smart for farmers. I wonder how [MENTION=3073]JustTheTip[/MENTION] feels about these digesters and if they have any long term ability to generate more money or at least be more efficient for dairy farmers. It sounds like plenty of farms have these already. A quick google search said that these machines can pay for themselves in an average of 7 years. That seems well worth it to me and if the government can help make farms more self sustaining and profitable that is good for the economy.
https://www.farmpower.com/Digester operation.html
https://www.electrigaz.com/faq_en.htm
So you are saying you are cool with increasing atmospheric CO2 if it helps farmers? Cool.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
I'm not a rancher, don't deal with cattle. Sorry.
Initial thoughts are pretty skeptical. Most places require a lot of land to feed a fairly small amount of cattle. Dairies are different than beef cattle though, have to keep them all pretty contained to harvest milk appropriately. As a farmer, I just see it as one more way for a bunch of people who don't understand agriculture telling us how to run agriculture, bc farmers have a reputation as not caring about the environment. I would be surprised if this ever worked on a large scale,seems like a waste of time and money to me.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Fwiw, on that farm power digester, those guys haven't been in the news for several years. Pretty strong indication their product didn't work.
There is one immediate revolution happening, the technological and economical breakthrough going on with solar. Nobody will not want solar on their roof inside five years. Electric cars plugged in at home will become a thing.
We should be doing nuclear power, really, already.
But LENR.... cold fusion.... is alive and attracting serious investment. Bill Gates is looking at putting millions into it, and some others, already. Inside two years there will be results coming from commercial pilot plants.
Well, there are quite a few power plants running on trash heaps built to enable gas recovery.. Why not? I am a rancher, but not the feedlot sort. Those feedlots are huge piles of dung. They should do something with it.
Overall, cows eat grass and produce food and gas, and some fertilizer. They are beneficial grazers on most types of forage, even forests. In forests they eat the accumulating undergrowth that sustains huge wildfires, and it could be argued they could reduce actual greenhouse gas emissions by temporarily confining some of the fuel in body mass, food, or fertizer. In grassland areas of California, Nevada and Utah, they are effective at reducing wildfire potential.
Feedlot production operations use a lot of grain produced with lots of machine work, lots of artificial, chemical-origin fertilizer, and the cows have to be heavily dosed with antibiotics. I think there is a good argument for turning back to range grazing, grass-fed beef production.
DutchJazzer
Banned
Red
Well-Known Member
I believe some of the anti climate science movement is part of a generalized attack on authority in all its forms. I'm most familiar with this trend in the subject area of American history. The History Network, principally through its offering "America Unearthed", and through the theories of that program's principle protagonist, a geologist whose specialty is the forensics of concrete, not History, has promoted the notion, which first appeared in sensationalized and fictionalized stories of 19th century newspapers trying to outsell one another, that the Smithsonian Institution has engaged in a systematic repression of the truths of American prehistory. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that does not stop those who would attack authority in all areas of knowledge from supporting this fiction. So, this attack on authority in the subject of history is in a similar vein to attacks on science as a source of authority pertaining to our knowledge of the natural world. Whether one is dealing with politics, the social sciences, or the hard sciences, attack on authority as elites trying to pull the wool over the eyes of non specialists has been on the rise for awhile now.
Seen as an upwelling of irrational thought, not the first time in Western cultural history, it becomes very difficult to accept at face value, since the entire aim seems to be the simple undermining of authority, and not the creation of viable theories or interpretations that deal with actual facts. If it simply pushes the narrative "the experts are wrong, and they may even be trying to deceive the public", the public feels empowered. And, right now, that narrative really sells, as the public, significant numbers of the public, have arrived at a position of fundamental distrust of authority in all its forms.
Rejection of authority for its own sake is irrational, and is a nihilistic mindset that replaces knowledge with ignorance. Pretty hard to put any faith or trust into such a movement. There's a reason both hard scientists and social scientists undergo training in their respective disciplines. The reaction against these authorities in the modern era is an effort to claim untrained and uneducated members of the public are qualified to overturn the received wisdom of the day and replace it with poorly reasoned, and often conspiracy-tinged, alternatives. It's BS, but it's very potent BS, because it is doing a very good job undermining confidence in science among the public. It's pop science, pop history, pop archaeology. It does not adhere to tough standards where evidence and logical argument is concerned. The uneducated would bring the educated down to their level. Next, we will see a movement to allow anybody off the street to perform brain surgery. Surgeons are simply another elite. If America is a late stage democracy where an unqualified reality TV star can get elected President, the same attitude that even rank amateurs can overturn historical narratives with no formal training, and poor use of facts, is also very much holding sway where our bodies of learning are concerned.
The barbarians are at the gates. And they battered their way through the gates some time ago. They would elevate the ignorance of the uneducated and promote ignorance at every turn. Now they have an anti-science President, a devotee of conspiracy theory, to lead the way.
Seen as an upwelling of irrational thought, not the first time in Western cultural history, it becomes very difficult to accept at face value, since the entire aim seems to be the simple undermining of authority, and not the creation of viable theories or interpretations that deal with actual facts. If it simply pushes the narrative "the experts are wrong, and they may even be trying to deceive the public", the public feels empowered. And, right now, that narrative really sells, as the public, significant numbers of the public, have arrived at a position of fundamental distrust of authority in all its forms.
Rejection of authority for its own sake is irrational, and is a nihilistic mindset that replaces knowledge with ignorance. Pretty hard to put any faith or trust into such a movement. There's a reason both hard scientists and social scientists undergo training in their respective disciplines. The reaction against these authorities in the modern era is an effort to claim untrained and uneducated members of the public are qualified to overturn the received wisdom of the day and replace it with poorly reasoned, and often conspiracy-tinged, alternatives. It's BS, but it's very potent BS, because it is doing a very good job undermining confidence in science among the public. It's pop science, pop history, pop archaeology. It does not adhere to tough standards where evidence and logical argument is concerned. The uneducated would bring the educated down to their level. Next, we will see a movement to allow anybody off the street to perform brain surgery. Surgeons are simply another elite. If America is a late stage democracy where an unqualified reality TV star can get elected President, the same attitude that even rank amateurs can overturn historical narratives with no formal training, and poor use of facts, is also very much holding sway where our bodies of learning are concerned.
The barbarians are at the gates. And they battered their way through the gates some time ago. They would elevate the ignorance of the uneducated and promote ignorance at every turn. Now they have an anti-science President, a devotee of conspiracy theory, to lead the way.
DutchJazzer
Banned
No, it's not rejection of "Authority" or "Truth" at all. The Smithsonian deliberately projects a view of reality that is coherent with the Oxford/British intellectual tradition and Anglophile views of everything. Of course the "natives" everywhere are barbarians, and the druids of England are, well, mystics with ancient wisdom we have yet to unravel.
Trump is not intellectual at all, and has literally no anti-science prejudices. He relies on engineers to design his buildings, on scientists to make steel and cement really strong, and chemists to make pretty colors, and mathematicians to make profitable casino games, and advertising professionals to wow the crowds. If he has to please a crowd a bit by questioning unpopular "science" it means only he's playing the crowd. He will sit and listen to Al Gore for pete's sake, and Obama too, because he is a reasonable fellow, cheerful and interested in what others think. He knows he doesn't know it all, he pays others to answer stuff for him who do know it.
You've turned into quite the conspiracist theorist, Red. You see stuff that isn't there at all. You believe ideological tracts devoted to one world view, owned by folks interested in one path forward for humanity that benefits themselves. stuff put out by demonstrated repeat-offender bald faced liars, like the NY Times. You know, folks who through the twenties and thirties of the last century held Stalin up as "progress" for this world.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/pulitzer-winning-lies/article/4040