Thread for discussing climate change

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

He literally hasn’t watched the cartoon.

-_-
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Atlanticmike
God
Posts: 2721
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:16 pm

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Atlanticmike »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:18 am
He literally hasn’t watched the cartoon.

-_-
Dude, I watched the cartoon when you posted it 3 or 4 weeks ago.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by canpakes »

Atlanticmike wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:08 am
Holy fxxxin sxxt!! Here we go again!! You say, it's all addressed in the paper it's all addressed in the paper!! Fxxx the paper. I understand you're a lawyer and you find it hard to use common sense, but good god man, this is just pure common sense. My backyard chickens never see a mile of roadway during their short life while commercial chickens can see 100s of miles which means it takes tons of fuel to transport them when they're alive and even after they're dead. The raising of commercial chickens or any livestock isn't the main problem, it's the transportation. I find it funny you're telling me none of this matters because it's all "small potatoes" and we need to address the bigger more global issues when it comes to climate change. Almost as if we have to choose to do one and we can't do both at the same time. Is that what you're saying ? That an individuals carbon footprint doesn't matter because the problem is way bigger than we can even handle? That our only hope is government mandates and laws,?

Hey, Mike. Calm down, and grab a calculator.

A good sized haul of live chickens might be 3000 birds per trailer. The average TT gets 6.5 miles per gallon. Assume you’re driving the birds 1000 miles to the processor. That means that you’ll use less than 154 gallons to make that trip … which equates to about 6.5 ounces of fuel per bird. This is generous as most chicken growers aren’t shipping their birds 1000 miles.

If your big, badass personal truck that you drive around every day gets 20 mpg, then that 6.5 ounces of fuel will take you about a mile.

If you’ve ever driven more than one mile in the service of any one of your chickens over the entire course of their life (buy feed, buy coop, buy supplies and parts, whatever) then you’re already exceeding the amount of fuel per chicken used to move poultry on a larger scale.

If those chickens were frozen, then you can pack a whole bunch more on a TT.

Seriously, this isn’t the big savings that you think that it is.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Res Ipsa »

Atlanticmike wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:08 am
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:45 pm


It's all addressed in the paper. Learn to read. You're just talking out of your ass, which doesn't cut it.

Self reliance doesn't necessarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Like the analysis shows, if you stop buying eggs at the store and raise chickens for eggs in your backyard, you're increasing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per oz of protein from the eggs. You're taking into account only the cost of doing things at scale, not the efficiencies of doing things at scale.

As for your rant, why not make the investment necessary to avoid passing on a greatly impoverished world to our children and grandchildren? Your way is to run up the balance on the CO2 credit card as fast as possible and then leave the bill to your daughters and their children. Why not show them how to be environmentally responsible as well as financially responsible?

Unless you've taken your family off grid (which you haven't, as you are able to post through the internet), you're not teaching your kids to be "self-reliant." You and your kids are reliant on literally millions of other people in living your lives. Growing some birds and veggies is self-reliance cosplay. In today's world, it's just a denial of your dependence on the efforts of others. You want to teach your kids skills that have value in today's world? Teach them the skills they need to work with others to get things done and solve problems that cannot be solved by individuals. Otherwise, congratulations! You've taught your kids the skills they needed to survive in the 1800s. Well done!

Once again, you have no idea what steps I have taken to reduce my own energy consumption.
Holy fxxxin sxxt!! Here we go again!! You say, it's all addressed in the paper it's all addressed in the paper!! Fxxx the paper. I understand you're a lawyer and you find it hard to use common sense, but good god man, this is just pure common sense. My backyard chickens never see a mile of roadway during their short life while commercial chickens can see 100s of miles which means it takes tons of fuel to transport them when they're alive and even after they're dead. The raising of commercial chickens or any livestock isn't the main problem, it's the transportation. I find it funny you're telling me none of this matters because it's all "small potatoes" and we need to address the bigger more global issues when it comes to climate change. Almost as if we have to choose to do one and we can't do both at the same time. Is that what you're saying ? That an individuals carbon footprint doesn't matter because the problem is way bigger than we can even handle? That our only hope is government mandates and laws,?
Your “common sense” is not sense at all. Common sense works only if you have the knowledge and experience to intuitively understand what you are talking about. Neither of us has that. The only difference is that I know enough to know that I don’t know, while your arrogance blinds you to your own ignorance.

Yes, it’s in the paper. The people who have knowledge and experience at determining life cycle carbon emissions are far more likely to get the right answer than a random roofer or lawyer. But this is great example of where your anti-intellectual, anti-science cult has brought us. You reject evidence and make crap up motivated solely by your political prejudices. Your political prejudices won’t let you admit that there are some problems that require governmental action to fix, so you simply reject the facts.

Grow up, man. Admit that you have no idea how to analyze backyard v. Commercial chickens from the stand point of greenhouse gases per gram of protein and consult someone who does. You have access to incredible amounts of specialized knowledge through your phone, for God’s sake. Use it!

And we don’t have to choose between individual and collective action. We can do both. But if we want to fix the problem, collective action is required. Greenhouse gas emissions are a spectacular example of market failure. And relying on individual action presents a massive free rider problem.

I’m a pragmatist. When there’s a significant problem, I’m in favor of finding and implementing effective solutions. I care more about finding solutions that work as opposed to the tenets of political dogma.

I’ve done quite a bit to reduce my own carbon footprint because I think it’s the ethical thing to do. But I also don’t Kid myself into believing that my actions will fix the problem.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by canpakes »

Mike, let’s bias that situation further.

Process your chickens, freeze and pack them lightly at twice the density of live chickens, and drive them 2000 miles to the Wal-Mart distribution center … which will then ship the chickens an additional 2000 miles each to Supercenters.

Now, you’re up to three times the initial fuel use, which means that you can drive up to 3 miles per chicken, in the service of your birds.

Or, a 1.5 mile trip to the store, and back. Once.

Still not much to brag about in savings, is it?
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Res Ipsa »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:18 am
He literally hasn’t watched the cartoon.

-_-
He literally hasn’t done anything other than run his mouth.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Cultellus

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Cultellus »

My chickens produce eggs that taste better than store chickens that require diesel trucks for transportation. I have only had 2 die in the last year. The dog pulled one their heads off through the chicken wire. One died of Covid. We composted that one.

Home grown chickens have better names too.

I would get rid of all chickens if we could also get rid of meth in the whole world.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by canpakes »

Cultellus wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:25 am
I would get rid of all chickens if we could also get rid of meth in the whole world.

There you go. Meth is yet another thing that’s more energy efficient to manufacture at scale.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Gadianton »

I think he meant "math".
User avatar
Atlanticmike
God
Posts: 2721
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:16 pm

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Atlanticmike »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:17 am
Atlanticmike wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:08 am


Holy fxxxin sxxt!! Here we go again!! You say, it's all addressed in the paper it's all addressed in the paper!! Fxxx the paper. I understand you're a lawyer and you find it hard to use common sense, but good god man, this is just pure common sense. My backyard chickens never see a mile of roadway during their short life while commercial chickens can see 100s of miles which means it takes tons of fuel to transport them when they're alive and even after they're dead. The raising of commercial chickens or any livestock isn't the main problem, it's the transportation. I find it funny you're telling me none of this matters because it's all "small potatoes" and we need to address the bigger more global issues when it comes to climate change. Almost as if we have to choose to do one and we can't do both at the same time. Is that what you're saying ? That an individuals carbon footprint doesn't matter because the problem is way bigger than we can even handle? That our only hope is government mandates and laws,?
Your “common sense” is not sense at all. Common sense works only if you have the knowledge and experience to intuitively understand what you are talking about. Neither of us has that. The only difference is that I know enough to know that I don’t know, while your arrogance blinds you to your own ignorance.

Yes, it’s in the paper. The people who have knowledge and experience at determining life cycle carbon emissions are far more likely to get the right answer than a random roofer or lawyer. But this is great example of where your anti-intellectual, anti-science cult has brought us. You reject evidence and make crap up motivated solely by your political prejudices. Your political prejudices won’t let you admit that there are some problems that require governmental action to fix, so you simply reject the facts.

Grow up, man. Admit that you have no idea how to analyze backyard v. Commercial chickens from the stand point of greenhouse gases per gram of protein and consult someone who does. You have access to incredible amounts of specialized knowledge through your phone, for God’s sake. Use it!

And we don’t have to choose between individual and collective action. We can do both. But if we want to fix the problem, collective action is required. Greenhouse gas emissions are a spectacular example of market failure. And relying on individual action presents a massive free rider problem.

I’m a pragmatist. When there’s a significant problem, I’m in favor of finding and implementing effective solutions. I care more about finding solutions that work as opposed to the tenets of political dogma.

I’ve done quite a bit to reduce my own carbon footprint because I think it’s the ethical thing to do. But I also don’t Kid myself into believing that my actions will fix the problem.
I'm sorry, but listening to you try to justify the practices of the global chicken industry is one of the reasons we need to get rid of all the lawyers in Congress. You guys have no common sense but yet we let you make laws that affect our daily lives.

People have been raising domesticated chickens for around 10,000 years and there's evidence that chickens started being eaten in significant numbers 2000 years ago. So here's a couple questions for you and canpakes, the math wizard. 200 years ago, did people go to Tractor Supply to buy chicken feed? Did they go to Tractor Supply to buy electric incubators? How about food bowls or water dishes? Did they have Amazon deliver their chicken feed? No??? Of course not!!!! Humans have been raising chickens for 1000s of years without the need of electric incubators, commercial feed, electric fans, electric or propane heaters, f****** light bulbs, tractors and other equipment to get rid of the manure, thousands of tractor trailers that drive 24/7 to transport the live or dead chicken meat, refrigeration in grocery stores to keep it fresh and the 350,000 people in the United States who drive to work and back from work everyday in the chicken industry. For fxxx sake! This is so basic and simple to understand it's going completely over your big brained head! Let me say it one more time. Chickens have been raised for thousands of years without the need of electricity, propane, tractor trailers, commercial chicken feed, heaters and so on.

So are you and Canpakes telling me that sense our ancestors have been raising chickens for thousands of years without the use of any fossil fuels, somehow we can't do the same? Really? Please explain that to me!

Oh, by the way, since I ragged on you about being a lawyer, I'd like you to know I would rather work for a dozen lawyers than one doctor. Doctors are the fxxxing worse people in the world to work for. 99% of them have a God complex. Lawyers really aren't that bad.
Post Reply