Saving Colorado (Denver: 2014, houses, transfer)

[Colorado Rambler]

People talk about “global” warming which sounds so vague. “Caught up in circles – confusion is nothing new.” I think we need to begin a dialogue NOW about HERE where we all live. People you need to understand that we have so very little time left – if any – to save what means more to every single person on this planet, every single species – everything – the columbines, the elk, you and me. So, this thread will be about how each single one of us can start here in Colorado and now to save not only Homo sapiens, but all the living beings on this planet. I’m going to try to ease ya’ll into this with a poem which is plagiarized from about 10 of my favorite writers plus a word or two of my own. Here ya go, Colorado. I take my chances...

Keep her steady, Cowgirl
Say goodbye to Denver –
Such a fine day for a ride.
My horse knows the trail here
On the right side of the Divide.
Risk it all, dreamt it all because
Colorado is my place.
Wrapped in hope and good intention,
Send my soul up to the sky.
Keep her steady cowgirl
No more poison in these skies.
The San Miguel’s are the range
Where the sunshine melts snow.
Everywhere I go, I hear you calling me.
Riding wide-eyed through this country
Is the only way I know.
Time will wash away our hoof prints
But my mare and I will ride on.
Colorado, I’d miss you
Like the deserts miss the rain.
I refuse to move on.
I got a space
And I’d be glad to share.
Like the rain
Like the rain I am falling for
These mountains
Come fall with me – like the rain.
Cry our beloved Colorado –
The San Juans, the Front Range, the Wet Mountains
The snow on Pikes Peak.
Come save this place with me
Just give it one more try.
You’re not alone.
Sing this Rocky Mountain lullaby.
“Should have been born a cowgirl”
But I learned those camp fire songs
Slept out all night beneath those mountain stars.
Come dream walk with me.
Before it’s too late...

[Colorado Rambler]

Now that we’ve got the poetry out of the way, let’s turn to the science. I started to write an explanation that I would have given 6th graders, but never did – alas I only taught college brats. Still, I figured there’s got to be someone who has already explained the global warning thing for the complete idiot. Sure enough there was. I give you the following from something from a site which calls itself “Gawker.”

Global warming (or "climate change"), the well-documented rise in our planet's temperatures due to the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide, is a completely accepted phenomenon among people who—due to their fundamental rationality and common sense—are not idiots. But among our nation's idiots, it has always been a controversial idea. No longer.

For many years, America's idiots have had doubts about global warming. Why is there still snow in the winter? What if temperatures are randomly controlled by god's wrath? And how about the fact that I like my SUV, *****? Many qualified scientists have struggled in vain to answer these questions to the satisfaction of America's idiots. But according to a new poll, good ol' Mother Nature, or Jesus, or whoever the **** may have done the job for them, what with all the storms and whatnot. Yes, almost 80% of Americans believe in global warming. The key finding, though, is that support for the clearly true idea is gaining strength among idiots:

The biggest change in the polling is among people who trust scientists only a little or not at all. About 1 in 3 of the people surveyed fell into that category.
Within that highly skeptical group, 61 percent now say temperatures have been rising over the past 100 years. That's a substantial increase from 2009, when the AP-GfK poll found that only 47 percent of those with little or no trust in scientists believed the world was getting warmer.
So yes, America still boasts a shockingly high proportion of idiots. But at least three out of every five of those idiots still possess the mental dexterity to change their mind about something when that thing is demonstrated in a way that involves flooding said idiots' houses. Floods were in the Bible. Do the math.
This global warming stuff could be a problem.

So if you are a member of the 47% of above, I double dog dare you to hit me with your best shot because you are going to be one very sorry poster – even mfbe or jazz or you, your very best self. How can we save our beloved state of Colorado? Let the rescue of the pika begin! Poll: Even Idiots Believe in Global Warming Now

[freewest]

So anyone who disagrees with you and Gawker is an idiot, anyone who agrees is a sophisticated intellectual. Now there's a conversation starter. The George Carlin school of debate. LOL.

As I have stated ad nauseam, the science around artificial global warming (AGW) is not settled (it never is). There is no "consensus". Consensus is a phantom. See Global Warming Petition Project.

The public polls do not reflect the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the American public. It reflects a successful propaganda machine with billions (and the U.N.) behind it. They pursue a philosophy of "say it enough times and it becomes the truth". Well, truth is not subject to the forces of democracy. If a million people say 2 + 2 = 6, and only 10 people say 2 + 2 = 4, so what? Those 10 people are correct, not the others.

Did you know that 97% of all atmospheric CO2 is naturally occurring? So mankind accounts for 3%. No one has ever demonstrated a measurable increase by direct measurements. All CO2 measurements have been indirect (tree rings, etc.). Why? Because CO2 is very quickly sequestered by plants. Hence the larger tree rings. Get it? Yes, the columbine will flourish and the elk will have more to eat. So the 3% that we emit is not around long enough to contribute much to the greenhouse effect.

I could post scientific articles until Y3k, and you true believers out there will remain unconvinced, so not going to waste time. Environmentalism has become nothing more than a religion, and a fanatical one at that. Which is funny since most true believers dismiss us non-believers as religious fanatics. Talk about psychological transference.

Some notable quotes:
"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models." - Freeman Dyson

"I'm a skeptic. ...Global Warming it's become a new religion. You're not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that's important is if the scientists are correct; that's the important part." - Ivar Giaever

"Society's emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming--the jury is still out." - Edward Teller (Nobel laureate)

"The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control." - Robert Laughlin (Nobel laureate)

[iknowftbll]

This should be required reading for all who believe in global warming. Not as an attempt to change their minds (I respect everyone's right to partake in the religion of their choosing), but an attempt to get them to consider the direction the global warming "debate" has gone. Rather than engage in intellectual debate with skeptics, believers in global warming excommunicate the heretics much the way the Catholic Church did for many years. Even the Gawker article cited dismisses the skeptics as "idiots." There's some real intellectual honesty for you. This very practice in and of itself renders global warming worthy of skepticism.

From bestselling author Michael Crichton:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...ichton2003.pdf

[Josseppie]

Global warming activists do not take into account the impact information technology advancing exponentially will have on it. Why I am not worried.

[sammy87]

I like how global warming theorists just completely ignore that the Earth was covered in ice for a long period of time and then it melted. Or that during the middle ages England could grow grapes and was a major wine producer due to its warmer climate than today. Or that northern Africa had a much different climate during the Egyptian time. But lets just ignore all that and only focus on a small sample of data that we collected over 100 yrs even though the Earth is a tad older than that. Lets also ignore that we know there were recent times of mini ice ages in the 1700s and the same scientists were screaming in the 70s we were heading back into another ice age. BTW we also had more monitoring stations in the arctic and Antarctic areas during the cold war as well. There are also 2x more polar bears today than 50 yrs ago but ignore that as well.

So ignore all that and I'll buy your theory and trade my suv for a Nissan leaf, only buy wind energy, if the entire US did that and got rid of coal, all it takes is 1 volcano in Iceland to offset any emission gains we just did. But I am sure China and India will do the same out of just being good hearted. Coal also produces 60% of US electricity, so we basically need to blanket the states of Kansa, WY, NB to produce that amount, assuming the its windy enough to produce max efficiency 24/7.

The Earth very well may be warming, it could be human fault, but as long as the population keeps exploding the way it is, I really don't think putting a band aid over a catastrophic wound if that's as bad as it really is, will really make a difference.

That being said, I still feel like this is a trend and the money is now available for scientists to take rally cool eco trips and do a study. As long as they find something bad, the money will keep flowing.

[jwiley]

You know it is funny to me usually the same people screaming about global warming are the ones screaming about GMOs and weather control.

I have yet to have one explain why they trust companies, governments, and scientists who are all gaining financially (it has made some people billions) with global warming, but do not trust the companies, governments, and scientists who all say GMOs and weather control is fine due to those people gaining financially.

So which is it, do you trust people lining their pockets with money to push something or do you not trust them?

[Idunn]

Quite an apt discussion. Thank you for raising it.


There are any number of ways our state of Colorado needs 'saving,' or rather directed in the best possible directions, towards a future that most of us would be happy to envision. That may be wistful in wishing for aspects of its past—and what really would be wrong with more open space and cleaner air, land and water? Or in new aspects, technologies such as solar which could help in improving our future. Then a question of where collectively we might like to be headed.

But as things stand we are quickly losing natural aspects of this state that most treasure, this having to do with climate change. While skeptics of the actual causes remain, they can only remain so by ignoring the preponderance of scientific evidence, and just that found if closely observing their own home.

Basic science indicates that for any input there must be a reaction, just as a stone cast into a still pond will cause ripples. With this as well suggesting that we may not always understand all the implications of but a single action. But consider that just the United States alone produces and sends into the atmosphere some 5.4m kt of CO2 annually (that being millions kilotons, metric tons).[1] Or a vast amount of carbon dioxide, being a potent greenhouse gas. Or a gas with known results in the atmosphere, with a given amount of it inevitably raising global temperatures by a given amount. One cannot put such a gas into the atmosphere without expecting commensurate results. With a host of consequences, many unimagined. One being the rapid melting of arctic tundra, with then release of large amounts of methane it had been storing, with methane a significantly more potent greenhouse gas.

Various arguments against man-made climate change environmental constants such as sun spots and the inevitable periodic shifts global climate goes through (witness the ice ages). If both these variables are at stages which would suggest this planet should be cooling, when in fact new heat records are being established with increasing frequency. Again, one cannot add vast quantities of greenhouse gases for centuries, which WILL affect the atmosphere, and not expect that commensurate change.

Here in Colorado one can go hiking in any number of places where many of the trees are dead, in some areas most of them. This due the mountain pine and other beetles which killed them. But these beetles natural to these forest ecosystems only at epidemic levels due the now unnaturally warm climate in Colorado that allows this. And that directly related to what we, mankind are doing to our atmosphere, in rapidly increasing amounts year on year.

Those many dead trees are a direct reflection of what we have done: we have killed them. Save for what we collectively have done to this planet's atmosphere, these trees still alive (save the few always dying from natural causes). One might reflect on that next time in the wild. They are but one significant sign of what is transpiring.

One can as well find a forest floor now more open and of sunlight young saplings, the progeny of many now dead in their first stages of youth. But as we are headed, they stand little chance. Conditions that prematurely killed their elders are only worsening. Plant life can adapt, but each species has its own limits, preferred and absolute. Conditions that allow Colorado to be as it has since the first humans inhabited this land are exponentially eclipsing many species, to the extent they cannot remain here. The trees are but one of the more obvious signs of this. That as many stand dead today is no accident.

1) 'CO2 emissions (kt),' The World Bank
CO2 emissions (kt) | Data | Table

[Josseppie]

^

The good news is solar is advancing at a rate that will will allow us to be off fossil fuels in about 20 years.

This is from Forbes:

My friend Ray Kurzweil projects the U.S. will meet 100 percent of its electrical energy needs from solar in 20 years. Elon Musk is a bit more conservative, pegging it at 50 percent in that timeframe. While the growth of solar may seem slow to some, it’s fair to say it’s in the midst of its “deceptive phase,” on the road to disruption. For example, a 30 percent increase in solar energy production per year, means 1 percent today grows to 1.3 percent in 3 years. It also means that in 20 years (7 doublings), we’ll see a 128-fold increase. Either way, if Ray and Elon are even close, there is a trillion dollars up for grabs (as well as the future of our planet), and the future is bright. Let’s take a closer look at the converging technologies driving this future… The cost of solar panels is dropping exponentially. The first and most important technological change is the falling cost per watt of silicon photovoltaic cells over the past few decades. Check out the plummeting cost from $76 in 1977, to less than $0.36 today.

The link: Solar Energy Revolution: A Massive Opportunity - Forbes

[xeric]

And where are all the solar power to generating facilities to be located? Rooftop solar makes sense but the big push seems to be towards large, centralized, solar farms in the deserts. Destroying one ecosystem to save another is a zero sum game. And wind farms are far less discriminatory. Any windy location is fair game.

Or we could try reducing our per-capita energy consumption from excessive to moderate. But given that so many people are reluctant to make even small lifestyle changes, I can only hope that the disaster scenarios are wrong. For example, my city has been offering subsidies for over a decade for electric power mowers. And yet, just about everybody in my part of town clings to their non-emission-controlled gas mowers. Given polling data and prevailing political attitudes here, I know for a fact that a large percentage of these people are on-board with the human-caused climate change theories. And yet ... Another example: the only reason rooftop solar units are allowed throughout the city is that there is a law prohibiting HOAs from banning them.