Must be why our farm stays warmer than surround places, all the methane my cattle produce.
CRAZY TRAIN has gone OFF THE RAILS
- Thread starter motionclone
- Start date
- Status
North Idaho Wolfman
Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3450DT-GST, Woods FEL, B7100 HSD, FEL, 60" SB, 743 Bobcat with V2203, and more
motionclone
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L345DT with Lp mower, forks and grapple thumb, Bobcat 337 Midi Ex
OK got it. Ill pretend I agree with some people and be super careful at how I respond as to not have the remote chance of offending.Replied via PM.
Lil Foot
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
1979 B7100DT Gear, Nissan Hanix N150-2 Excavator
North Idaho Wolfman
Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3450DT-GST, Woods FEL, B7100 HSD, FEL, 60" SB, 743 Bobcat with V2203, and more
And Thank You for being so Super on this PRIVATE MESSAGE response.
A reasonable and polite response would have been fine... But you didn't do that!
You were being rude and insulting... and yes that breaks forum rules... go read them!
I think TBN loves that over there... be my guest and go over there and be rude and insulting on their forum!
Why do I even bother trying to deal nicely with people some ...
motionclone
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L345DT with Lp mower, forks and grapple thumb, Bobcat 337 Midi Ex
Wow this sounds really reasonable.And Thank You for being so Super on this PRIVATE MESSAGE response.
A reasonable and polite response would have been fine... But you didn't do that!
You were being rude and insulting... and yes that breaks forum rules... go read them!
I think TBN loves that over there... be my guest and go over there and be rude and insulting on their forum!
Why do I even bother trying to deal nicely with people some ...
Last edited:
North Idaho Wolfman
Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3450DT-GST, Woods FEL, B7100 HSD, FEL, 60" SB, 743 Bobcat with V2203, and more
Your right it wasn't reasonable at all, hence the reason I PMed you and expected a PM response...
but no you wanted to just bring more stupid attention to yourself and air your dirty laundry for everyone to have to read!
I was very polite to you in the PM, here not so much!
I've left this up just so others could see how childish, immature, rude and insulting you have gotten, but enough is enough.
You are done... call it done or I will for you, and yes you ticked me off!!!!
North Idaho Wolfman, I think these reactions are being generated because the serious proposals that are being parlayed around would change our way of life in the form of removing freedoms. Americans are not used to having their freedoms removed. Being told you can no longer purchase a vehicle with an internal combustion engine, for example...is not inline with American values. Discussion of limits on beef production (which ultimately is a limit on consumption) is un-American. Things like these naturally generate a reaction of anger and disgust.
On another topic, our town had a gay pride parade. There was a lot of anger about that too, because the newspaper printed many favorable editorials regarding the event, but wouldn't print editorials written by those opposed to the event. They stated the negative editorials constituted "hate speech." I realize motionclone might have gotten excitable in a few posts, but his perspective should not be suppressed (which you haven't done yet). I also realize decorum needs to be maintained on this forum.
I'll openly admit I'm a conservative and a Trump supporter. However, I'm also an educated and degree holding Millenial. I've done research on the subject of climate change and global warming.
In 2018, 17% of our electrical energy was renewable. Of that, 7% was hydro, 6% was wind, and solar was a piddling 1.5%. Biomass was also 1.5%. Geothermal was less than 1%.
The remainder of the energy came from nuclear (20%), coal (27%), and gas (35%).
The most expensive energy is renewable energy. Solar power is a pipe dream. It is very costly, occupies vast tracts of real estate, and at best generates electricity only 50% of the time. At worst, none of the time. I live in northern New England. It is actually sad to see formerly beautiful farm fields now covered with ugly solar panels.
Wind and water sources cannot be expanded very much further, because there are only so many areas with reliable wind and water.
So my conclusion is that if we switch the internal combustion engine (ICE) fleet to electric power, we will need a lot more electricity generation, and practically speaking, most of that power will come from coal and natural gas.
Further math: In 2017, the US consumed 3.82 trillion kWh of electricity. In the same year, we consumed 7.82 billion barrels of oil. Each barrel contains about 1700kWh of energy. That's 12.37 trillion kWh we would need to convert the ICE fleet. I realize its not a 1:1 conversion, but it illustrates the point.
Finally, there are numerous peer-reviewed studies of the dangers of high voltage (high tension) electrical transmission cables related to cancer cases of those living near them. In order to satisfy the practical needs of quick charging, we'd need more transmission lines in more areas, let alone the 440v we'd need in-homes. Something to consider.
Lastly, we still have no "proof" that climate change is man-made. Only hypothesis's which may be well supported by facts and have the best intentions...or perhaps not. The last thing I have discovered is that there are vast sums of money to be made in the so-called "green" industry. No different than the oil oligarchs of the industrial revolution right on up through current. However, the one difference is that EV's really provide no advantage over ICE vehicles, and that's why the current "climate scare" is being employed to justify legislation which mandates what we buy. This, I don't like. It's a very different situation back in the 1980's with the ozone "hole." We switched from R12 to R134 and cut back on styrofoam. No big deal. Now they want to take a lot more. I for one have no interest in an EV. And further, I like to have a cookout and eat a burger. My climate seems to be about the same...hot summers, short springs and falls, and cold, snowy winters. Glaciers melting? Yeah, if you have hotter than average summers they will ablate. 50 years of colder than average will cause them to accumulate again. It is very premature to jump to a conclusion just because a glacier melted.
On another topic, our town had a gay pride parade. There was a lot of anger about that too, because the newspaper printed many favorable editorials regarding the event, but wouldn't print editorials written by those opposed to the event. They stated the negative editorials constituted "hate speech." I realize motionclone might have gotten excitable in a few posts, but his perspective should not be suppressed (which you haven't done yet). I also realize decorum needs to be maintained on this forum.
I'll openly admit I'm a conservative and a Trump supporter. However, I'm also an educated and degree holding Millenial. I've done research on the subject of climate change and global warming.
In 2018, 17% of our electrical energy was renewable. Of that, 7% was hydro, 6% was wind, and solar was a piddling 1.5%. Biomass was also 1.5%. Geothermal was less than 1%.
The remainder of the energy came from nuclear (20%), coal (27%), and gas (35%).
The most expensive energy is renewable energy. Solar power is a pipe dream. It is very costly, occupies vast tracts of real estate, and at best generates electricity only 50% of the time. At worst, none of the time. I live in northern New England. It is actually sad to see formerly beautiful farm fields now covered with ugly solar panels.
Wind and water sources cannot be expanded very much further, because there are only so many areas with reliable wind and water.
So my conclusion is that if we switch the internal combustion engine (ICE) fleet to electric power, we will need a lot more electricity generation, and practically speaking, most of that power will come from coal and natural gas.
Further math: In 2017, the US consumed 3.82 trillion kWh of electricity. In the same year, we consumed 7.82 billion barrels of oil. Each barrel contains about 1700kWh of energy. That's 12.37 trillion kWh we would need to convert the ICE fleet. I realize its not a 1:1 conversion, but it illustrates the point.
Finally, there are numerous peer-reviewed studies of the dangers of high voltage (high tension) electrical transmission cables related to cancer cases of those living near them. In order to satisfy the practical needs of quick charging, we'd need more transmission lines in more areas, let alone the 440v we'd need in-homes. Something to consider.
Lastly, we still have no "proof" that climate change is man-made. Only hypothesis's which may be well supported by facts and have the best intentions...or perhaps not. The last thing I have discovered is that there are vast sums of money to be made in the so-called "green" industry. No different than the oil oligarchs of the industrial revolution right on up through current. However, the one difference is that EV's really provide no advantage over ICE vehicles, and that's why the current "climate scare" is being employed to justify legislation which mandates what we buy. This, I don't like. It's a very different situation back in the 1980's with the ozone "hole." We switched from R12 to R134 and cut back on styrofoam. No big deal. Now they want to take a lot more. I for one have no interest in an EV. And further, I like to have a cookout and eat a burger. My climate seems to be about the same...hot summers, short springs and falls, and cold, snowy winters. Glaciers melting? Yeah, if you have hotter than average summers they will ablate. 50 years of colder than average will cause them to accumulate again. It is very premature to jump to a conclusion just because a glacier melted.
It is useful to all of us, troverman, to hear a well thought out opinion, whether or not everyone agrees or disagrees. There is a big difference between reading that and being told that "if you don't agree with me you are subscribing to a hoax." This goes for folks on both sides of the fence.
CaveCreekRay
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3800 HST, KingKutter box scraper, KingKutter 66" rake, County Pride Subsoiler
Problem is...
-If the data is consistently manipulated to support one side of the argument but NEVER the other. Like the NOA data was caught doing or the historical data only starts at the beginning of a natural trend or the folks in England get caught fudging the data... I could go on but you get the idea...
If repeated projections come and go... The Seventies where America will be a glacier by the 90's or Algores forecast that Manhattan will be under water by 2000 (-again, I could go on) It really demeans those making the case for or against when governmental organizations want to commit trillions of dollars to fight something they clearly don't understand...
When people who have worked in the science community admit freely that any studies that run counter to the anthropomorphic warming theory immediately risk losing funding by NGO's or government grant, that affects validation of those studies.
And when the governmental agencies publicly admit that the environmental movement regarding climate change has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with social and political change, that kind of tells many people their suspicions were correct.
Notice there have been no discoveries of this kind on the other side of the argument?
One more time for those who may have missed it... From the Investor Business Daily
Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
Don't believe her? Try the another U.N. Environmental head...Dr. Ottmar Edenhoffer...
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. "The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated." ; Ottmar Edenhofer
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11...e-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth/
Sorry for not being able to pull these directly from U.N. links as they appear to have been scrubbed. This is another huge problem with censorship online or by governments or NGOs. I remember reading these directly linked to the U.N. news reports. Do you see any of these quotes on the MSM? On "The View?" Nope. Wonder why? When one side shuts down public discussion or censors that discussion and then demands to impose their viewpoint on the rest of humanity, everyone should be alarmed. Very alarmed. (Not talking about you Sean...) The world is very close to losing any semblance of free speech. Everyone must look at "who" and "why" this effort is underway. Question your sources. Question everything. Don't question opposing sources without being willing to question your own source material. One day, the ability like we enjoy here on a mutual interest board like the Orange Forum, may cease to be. The "official facts" will be the only facts allowed. We are very close to that reality.
To most people, if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck...
-If the data is consistently manipulated to support one side of the argument but NEVER the other. Like the NOA data was caught doing or the historical data only starts at the beginning of a natural trend or the folks in England get caught fudging the data... I could go on but you get the idea...
If repeated projections come and go... The Seventies where America will be a glacier by the 90's or Algores forecast that Manhattan will be under water by 2000 (-again, I could go on) It really demeans those making the case for or against when governmental organizations want to commit trillions of dollars to fight something they clearly don't understand...
When people who have worked in the science community admit freely that any studies that run counter to the anthropomorphic warming theory immediately risk losing funding by NGO's or government grant, that affects validation of those studies.
And when the governmental agencies publicly admit that the environmental movement regarding climate change has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with social and political change, that kind of tells many people their suspicions were correct.
Notice there have been no discoveries of this kind on the other side of the argument?
One more time for those who may have missed it... From the Investor Business Daily
Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
Don't believe her? Try the another U.N. Environmental head...Dr. Ottmar Edenhoffer...
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. "The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated." ; Ottmar Edenhofer
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11...e-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth/
Sorry for not being able to pull these directly from U.N. links as they appear to have been scrubbed. This is another huge problem with censorship online or by governments or NGOs. I remember reading these directly linked to the U.N. news reports. Do you see any of these quotes on the MSM? On "The View?" Nope. Wonder why? When one side shuts down public discussion or censors that discussion and then demands to impose their viewpoint on the rest of humanity, everyone should be alarmed. Very alarmed. (Not talking about you Sean...) The world is very close to losing any semblance of free speech. Everyone must look at "who" and "why" this effort is underway. Question your sources. Question everything. Don't question opposing sources without being willing to question your own source material. One day, the ability like we enjoy here on a mutual interest board like the Orange Forum, may cease to be. The "official facts" will be the only facts allowed. We are very close to that reality.
To most people, if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck...
Last edited:
It appears from this study cattle are not a gaseous as some report! Also, nearly 90% of the feed used in a grain-finished system is inedible to humans, meaning these plants can only provide value to humans when they’re upcycled by cattle into high-quality protein.
https://www.bovinevetonline.com/article/put-sustainability-perspective
https://www.bovinevetonline.com/article/put-sustainability-perspective
Interesting! I am guessing silage, and smiled at the thought of us humans trying to survive eating cornstalks
. Seemed like a good journal. Funded in part by Beef Checkoff and USDA. I am grateful for folks providing funding for more research, and money can be hard to come by.
Last edited:
I have to say that my cattle fart quite a bit but as of late, not feeding DDG as a supplement, the farts have subsided a bit.
My wife's horses fart all the time... Real gas bags.
My wife's horses fart all the time... Real gas bags.
CaveCreekRay
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3800 HST, KingKutter box scraper, KingKutter 66" rake, County Pride Subsoiler
CaveCreekRay
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3800 HST, KingKutter box scraper, KingKutter 66" rake, County Pride Subsoiler
"Oh my..."
Greta Thunberg threatens to put leaders "against the wall" if they do not stop climate change...
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...inst-wall-if-they-refuse-fight-climate-change
Update: Greta apologizes...
Greta Thunberg threatens to put leaders "against the wall" if they do not stop climate change...
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...inst-wall-if-they-refuse-fight-climate-change
Update: Greta apologizes...
Last edited:
Be sure to read the whole quote and context before concluding anything. Zerohedge as a source is suspect due to the founder of the blog. Not that he may never have something worthwhile to say, but his crooked past, insider trading, means verify.
CaveCreekRay
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3800 HST, KingKutter box scraper, KingKutter 66" rake, County Pride Subsoiler
Pretty damning claim. Any evidence to support it? Zero Hedge is a widely quoted business and news site.
I did some searches and one source points at three people behind Zero Hedge. Zero Hedge denies one of the individuals is even associated with them. The Hungarian trader you cited is not mentioned in another article at all. Perhaps he was at one time, but no longer. Each article seems to be unsupported by more than "reporting" but not by any alternative sources.
I'd love to see whatever you have uncovered but again, much of their content comes from other sources. Their own content comes under the non de plume, Tyler Durden.
Here is an AOL link with the same Greta story... https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ogizes-for-against-the-wall-comment/23881242/
Here is an MSN.com article... https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...ans-should-be-put-against-the-wall/ar-AAK8AUM
Here is a Newsweek article... https://www.newsweek.com/greta-thunberg-against-wall-speeches-second-language-1477329
Here is a BBC source... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50799233
How do these materially differ from the Zero Hedge article?
Last edited:
The sad part are the people so willing to manipulate a child in the hope of achieving their aim. Nothing is out of bounds.
- Status