Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

New Study: Global Warming Threat to Colorado River Supply

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

FlyTalk
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

July 24, 2009

New Study: Global Warming Threat to Colorado River Supply

By Tim Romano

I plan on floating and fishing one of my favorite stretches water tomorrow, the upper Colorado River near Kremmling, Colorado. It's basically what I consider my home water in regards to a large river... So, naturally a new study on what the effects global warming might do to this river system and water supply for much of the west caught my eye. Thirty million people depend on this single river for all of their water needs, including drinking and of course recreation. The study, a joint effort between the Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA, and CU-Boulder water center concluded that under the most drastic outcome there was a 50% chance that the entire reservoir system would be...

depleted completely - yes, I said completely by 2057 if global warming contributed to just a 20% reduction of inflow to these storage facilities. That's Lake Powell, Mead, Havasu, etc... If warming contributed to a 10% reduction of inflow there was a greater than 25% chance that the reservoirs would be drained. 

The numbers indicate a pretty scary scenario. So, what's the solution? Rip up Las Vegas, ban blue grass west of the Mississippi, disallow any new golf courses to be built? Or is all of this just a bunch of hooey?

TR

Comments (67)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Koldkut wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Hooey! Fact is, in history, there is no straight line up or down between ice ages and hot periods, little valleys and hills form in the lines of global temperature, so who's to say we aren't on one of those small hills for a few years only to turn back around later.....I think the earth will take care of itself by way of volcanic eruptions that will spew enough ash in the atmosphere to provide some UV blocking to cool us back down to normal. Fish on!

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Check out the new article in Geophysical Reseach, July 23, 2009, which is written by two Australian, and one New Zealander, that maintains any global temp change has a natural cause. This is not settled science despite the fact that the US has spent $79 billion on the question.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

The one thing about global warming that I have never understood is it's effect on evaporation. The evaporation cycle over the oceans are simple. Water evaporates from the oceans, floats over land in the form of clouds and rains on the land. The rain then flows back to the ocean and starts the process starts all over again.

You'll never convince me that water will stop evaporating in the Pacific Ocean and stop being blown into the Sierras where it is pushed up by the mountains and condensed by the cold air and drop in the form of rain or snow.

If the ice caps are melting and the oceans are rising and getting bigger and the temperature is rising you would think this would increase evaporation and there would be more rain and water on the land?

My best guess is that someone somewhere fabricated or exaggerated the results to gain grants or money from the government to fix a problem that does not exist.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

The solution is for LA and San Diego to switch to nuclear power for electrical generation and to use some of that power to operate a seawater desalinization plant to provide for their needs.

Hooey? Not at all. It's not that evaporation will stop. My guess is that adding heat energy means evaporation will pick up. But we know from the past that altering the energy transfer rates can change ocean currents and alter the jet stream. So it may be that the water that currently (and inadequately, for the last 10 years) supplies the Colorado River Basin inclusive of all it's tributaries may instead fall in Mexico on the Sierra Madre Occidental or, alternatively, somwhere in Oregon or northern California where it's not necessarily wanted or needed.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from BigWoodsHunter57 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

koldkut i couldnt have said it better...there are just too many "ignorant" people that talk this subject up more then it has to be..remember its "climate change" now not "global warming"..that way the record low temperatures that are happening all over the globe can be added to this catagory too..

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from weve_25 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Koldkut:

I totally agree with you. The earth is a dynamic system with the only norm being change. The truth is we have no idea what “normal” is. Are we having an effect on the earth climate? Who knows…maybe, but one thing is for sure, we are one Krakatau away from another ice age.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mr. Creosote wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Oh, hell's bells, here we go again. Of course the Flytalk guys believe in 'Global Warming", they live in Boulder, Colorado fer cryin' out loud, home of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the NOAA, Primus and other weird, pointy-head liberal groupthinkers.

Who are you going to believe? All those "scientists" or truth-speakers like Rush, Sean Hannity and James Inhofe?

And even if it is true, which it 'aint, is it really so bad? Think of all the new fishing opportunities it opens up for everyone.

I for one want to be the first person in history to noodle a flathead out of one of those "trout streams".

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2Poppa wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Phooy!

Global warming is man-made,but not as we know it.

What is being described as global warming is being caused by HAARP, (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), and ELF (Extremely Low Frequency). I've been doing some studying and research of this phenomena,and it's amazing what effects and possible harm this "new weaponry" can do globally.

I have a friend that is a high ranking civilian scientist,doing contract work for The Air Force and The Navy. I can't give out to much information, as a lot of it is classified.

But years ago,during the Viet Nam war they tried out this system over the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The trail was not a single route,but a confusing network of intercommunicating paths, that aided the Viet Cong with supplies,ammunition,food and etc.

The United States Air Force utilized the HAARP system,reportedly to "change the weather" on the Ho Chi Minh Trail,to slow, thwart and frustrate the progress of the enemy.

I was in the military during the Viet Nam war,and come to think of it,every time I saw a picture of the enemy on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, it was always raining and very muddy.

Another incident, utilizing the ELF system,(Extremely Low Frequency)was in an area that was known for earth quakes. At the time, this system was incorporated to locate underground oil pockets,for a particular oil company.

After the oil company had the ELF system in place, they turned on the transducers to see if they could locate the oil pockets. The system wasn't near full capacity so the operator turned it up, resulting in a 4.2 magnitude earthquake on the richter scale.
Coincidence they said ...

There are many more applications to this system, that I won't go into here. There are approxmately 15 of these systems in operation as we blog world wide.

Man made? No!
Military/Government made? Yes!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mr. Creosote wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Ypu know, the mark of really great satire is that you're never sure whether it's satire or not...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from timromano wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Mr. Creosote,

Uh, I was just thinking that very thought... ;)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Think what you will of climate change, but do you really think it is/was a good idea to turn a giant freaking desert into a green golfy gambly resort? Hell no. That's a gluttonous waste/misuse/abuse of resources. Thinking we could get away with all of that was so stupid.

Leave Vegas, but quit adding to the problem. I'm with Romano and Diehl's suggestions.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rudyglove27 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Is Global Warming a Threat????????
In 1986, a panel of 150 scientists from eleven countries issued a report warning that human activities such as automobile use, the production of energy from burning fossil fuels, and deforestation could cause global temperatures to rise by intensifying the earth’s greenhouse effect.........
An essential component of the earth’s climate, the greenhouse effect is the warming process that results from the atmospheric presence of heat-trapping gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide........ Much of the solar energy that reaches the planet is absorbed by oceans and land masses, which in turn radiate the energy back into space....... However, small concentrations of water vapor and other “greenhouse gases” convert some of this energy to heat and either retain it or reflect it back to the earth’s surface...... This “trapped” energy creates a blanket of warm air around the earth that moderates global temperatures and climate patterns..... Without greenhouse gases, the earth would exist in a perpetual ice age.......
The scientists who maintained in the 1980s that human activities could amplify the greenhouse effect were elaborating on a nineteenthcentury theory proposed by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius..... In 1896, Arrhenius hypothesized that the carbon dioxide produced from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels would cause global temperatures to rise by trapping excess heat in the earth’s atmosphere........ But the global warming theory did not capture the world’s attention until 1988, when James Hansen, an atmospheric scientist and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, testified before a U.S. Senate committee that the “evidence is strong” that human-made pollutants were raising world temperatures...... If temperatures continued to rise, he warned, the earth would face catastrophic climate changes that would adversely affect the environment and human health.......
Initially, most climate researchers were skeptical about Hansen’s warning....... It was true that carbon dioxide levels had increased by about 30 percent since the mid-1700s, when the Industrial Revolution began; it was also true that the average world temperature had risen by one degree Fahrenheit (F) during the twentieth century—the largest increase of any century during the past millenium....... Yet the earth’s climate had been prone to fluctuations over the past several hundred years, many climatologists maintained......... The one degree temperature change could be attributed to the natural variability of the planet’s weather.........

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Tell you my other solution, Shane.

Move someplace where the impact of global warming won't be too adverse and slam the door shut behind me!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Can you two keep your “flatulence” down a bet, its causing global warming, All Goer Joke YUK! YUK!

Let’s see, Jupiter and Mars is also warming and millions of people flocking in from the southern to take advantage of the "CASH COW" called America drawing down our resources!

GO FIGURE!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from KingFisher907 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

wow if thats not an 'outcome based' study I dont know what is...

If the likes of CU-Boulder, the NOAA, Bradley Udall of CIRES, AMEC Earth & Environmental Inc. of Boulder, et al,
didnt have such an obvious political and agenda, it might be worth paying attention to...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from KingFisher907 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

correction: political and social agenda...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nic Meador wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

ya know, in central park in nyc had their 2nd coolest july on record this year.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Just think if everyone tied in with that water supply flushed there toilets all at once! Nobody talks about the increased population and in Atlanta Ga they now what the problem is, too many people! WOW!!

Reminds me one late night heading to pick up a load near Waterberry Connecticut. While traveling north on HWY 8 in serious blizzard conditions with a foot plus already on the ground, I had to stop every 15 minutes or less to knock the snow out of the grill to keep the 500 horse 6 cylinder Detroit from overheating . I was behind and slowly gaining on another 18 wheeler in front when all of a sudden a micro burst of blasting snow and wind slams the truck into the ditch overturning it. I witnessed the entire incidence and when the Cop “the Cowboy On Patrol” told me when he falsely issued the driver a ticket for failure to control, he had the audacity to tell me he had to blame somebody!

Ignorance is bliss for those who believe in “Global Warming!” Always got to blame something they can see and grasp it. It is those who can’t think for themselves and lack the ability to discover why the ground is wet without looking up to discover the clouds above to changing their oil and keeping track how much fuel they have and find themselves grinding down to car engulfed in searing radiator stem, oil and transmission fluid smoke to a halt!

It’s like Sir Isaac Newton, (1642-1727), mathematician and physicist, one of the foremost scientific intellects of all times discovering gravity. Tell me Isaac how did you discover gravity? Well ‘gee Mr. Wizard I got hit on the head with an apple and figured there must a be a force the human eye cannot see!

I wonder when all these nut jobs realize everything about Global Warming is politically motivated for taxation and the earth is actually cooling!

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
-H.L. Mencken

“Facts must be distorted, relevant circumstances concealed, and a picture presented which by its crude coloring will persuade the ignorant people that their Government is blameless, their cause is righteous, and that the indisputable wickedness of the enemy is beyond question.
A moment's reflection would tell any reasonable person that such obvious bias cannot possibly represent the truth. But the moment's reflection is not allowed; lies are circulated with great rapidity. The unthinking mass accept them and by their excitement sway the rest.
The amount of rubbish and humbug that pass under the name of patriotism in wartime in all countries is sufficient to make decent people blush when they are subsequently disillusioned.”
-Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in Wartime, 1928

“It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.”
-Ayn Rand

Will somebody explain to me why all of a sudden with the new Obama Czars appointed to make sure everyone including private citizens follow his instructed ways and views or get the ax!

He is already talking about who lives and dies in is warped socialist view of health care!

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

I forgot to mention,

If a weather service cannot predict weather accurately for example?

Why is it for every Global Warming conference, they cancel due to snow!

Don't you think God is trying to tell them something!

And what about these computer models?

They can write a program to favor there point of view, like I can slant the facts and by withholding trace evidence to overwhelmingly slant a verdict on court!

It’s a wonder this generation of people still have the ability still to tie there shoe laces without Government aid or do they? For those I reference are not handicapped at all, just convinced they are a bunch of born losers and Government is there Messiah!!!

YA”BUDDY!

Got to be smarter than a 5th grader!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from fflutterffly wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Water conservation should have been put into place long before critical problems evolves, so let us consider one solution to this problem. Since some people (read as families) seem to resist the need to curb over population, I would like to suggest one small option for cutting water use that would make a paramount dent. Pass into law (yes we would need a law since most people won't do this on a volunteer basis.) that no one may have lawns larger than 1/4 of usable property and that all other plans must be xeriscaped. (This is the planting of native and water conservation vegetation.) If It were up to me I'd ban lawns at all residential and commercial buildings, but your lucky I'm not in charge...yet! AND if one does decide they MUST have a lawn it should be watered with recycled waste waters, which means we'd have to have water reclamation units, not a bad idea.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

The Colorado hasn't hardly reached the ocean for years, largely because places like Las Vegas suck up so much water for fountains and swimming pools and sidewalk misters along with other wasteful stupoidities.
People have made the misteak of thinking they "own" the water. Fools, one cannot "own" water because we are water! Water is part of the atmosphere, we breath it in and sweat it out. The Colorado may indeed run dry, but if so it is due to poor human stewardship, greed and thoughtlessness (hey, just like global warming!)
I cannot understand how anybody could consider demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity "truth sayers". I can well understand that they are saying what a certain bunch of folks want to hear, but that has nothing to do with truth and a lot to do with political manipulation. Science is all about truth, and testing things to find out what is true then recording and sharing the findings. If a scientist has a notion that may or not be true, he tests it, makes a theory based on the findings of his research then publishes it where other folks can also test his results. It is like taking bearings with a compass, If you only take one bearing, you are still lost. Take three bearings and you can place your position on the map, triangulation. (not that anybody but an old biddy like me would bother with anything so unfashionable as a compass in these days of GPS units). People like Rush make points with the ignorant by telling em what he thinks they want to hear, giving "evidence" that wouldn't pass muster in any scientific forum. People like Hannity and Limbaugh tend to use the tactic that if you keep repeating the lies louder and louder someone will eventually believe you, but that doesn't make them "truthsayers" it merely makes them loud.
I am puzzled by those whose positions could not exist without science, who love the latest fashionable high tech but who don't believe in science! Go figure?
Science created both Rushes microphone and the oxycontin he likes so much!
The problem with Truth, like Science, is that often the facts when laid bare can be both unflattering and uncomfortable. I understand why various folks don't want to believe in global warming, I personally think "global climate change" is perhaps more precise a term, but whatever you call it, it's happening. Ignore it at your peril and thank the scientists for giving us a heads up. I personally think the argument as to whether men caused Global climate change or whether it is a natural cycle is irrelevant and facetious. When the Skipper of a schooner hears there's a DownEaster on the way, he runs for harbor and battens down the hatches. He doesn't call the weatherman a liar and stick to his heading (if he does he's an idiot and wouln't be skipper long!). So call it what you will, but it is already here, and already messing with our heads. The only way to slow it up or even to be certain of survival for ones kith and kin is to heed Science and be prepared to change your life because we cannot continue the way we were without inviting future disaster.Scare tactics or prudence? Ask the Skipper of the schooner, he'll suggest prudence.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitewatermel wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Did the data come from an author of the "Cap and Trade" bill?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

The science behind CO2 forcing is strong. I suppose there's no cure for blind faith in right wing ideology other than disaster. With China and India in "you're going to have to pay us 'poor' nations to do this" (despite the fact that both nations run huge current accounts surpluses) the prognosis for cooperative action is somewhere between zip and nada.

Which brings me back to "and slam the door shut behind me." Maybe the climate scientists are wrong (I wouldn't bet on it, they're smart folks and NOT, whatever some ideologue might say, getting rich doing atmospheric science). But either way I intend to be in a place where if they're wrong I'm OK and if they're right 'I'm OK as long as the locals stop in-migration from other parts of the country trying to flee climate change.' If the stuff comes down, I don't intend for my family to be dragged down in the 'tragedy of the commons' as all the GW denialists suddenly find themselves out of water, food and luck.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from David Leinweber wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

This is a crisis of epic proportions.
We all must act fast or everything is at risk.
People will DIE…

Please, please, I beg you to send all the money you can to Al Gore.
He will save us.
He is our only hope during this time catastrophic destruction.
Without your help NOW all will be lost…
People are dying.

I need to go fishing…

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

We can't help it that Al Gore nosed into this subject. Just because he made that stupid movie doesn't mean he has anything to do with this. The science was there before he was. Straw man, anyone?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from countitandone wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Well, nice going TR...you have managed to force the opinionated into giving away their political fence-post posture! Another inspiring, albeit gut-wrenching / brain teasing for some, forum on climate change and it's effect on mother earth and all those who inhabit her, land, sea and air.

Have you noticed, Mr. Creosote, that the "fair and balanced" agenda that "Rush, Sean Hannity" and your "truth-speakers" employ, only codemn what the "scientists" and "liberal groupthinkers" express, rather than have a plan of their own, based on fact?

To be in denial of what we have done to this planet as stewards is absurd. To generate discussion based on a premise that the government is behind this phenom, be it HAARP, ELF or data exagerrated results in a world-wide scam to solicit grant funding enterprises or even politically motivated paranoia aimed to tax the citizenry is ludicris.

Where were all you "right~of~center" protagenists back in November? You must not have voted...you were probably fishing.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

What about the global cooling that's taking effect? In the last year the earth has cooled .75 degrees... it is the single fastest temperature change ever recorded. Nobody seems to notice. I guess we should all read Newsweek from April 28, 1975 about global cooling where they were suggesting covering the arctic ice caps with soot to help melt them. More government intrusion we don't need. More stupid people who got their job through friends, influence, and kissing ass telling us the sky is falling.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Boulder, CO- Forty square miles, surrounded by reality.
Global warming-a bunch of hooey, perpetuated by people who cannot accurately forecast tomorrow's weather, much less up until 2057.
Algore-enough hot air to bring about a global warming effect for twenty square miles in his surrounding area.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Dr. Ralph stole my thunder. Bella, Are you spouting the liberal anti-Rush talking points or have you actually listened to Rush for a couple weeks to see for yourself what he is all about?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from aragonnapoles wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Poisonning water is worst,'cause some particles of that rare materials(some gasses changin de ph)alterate the natural water cicle.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Del in KS-
Bella could not possibly listen to Rush. An original thought and a cold drink of water at the same time would put her in a coma.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ranger2 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

There has to be some validity to the science of climatology. That said, I do think that the topic has gotten too far out of hand politically. Yes, we should be good stewards. Yes we should conserve our resources, but by damn, I am not interested in the next Cold War Scare~ via car farts and cow cud.

Re-Read the quotes Clay Cooper posted up above from -H.L. Mencken, Arthur Ponsonby, and Ayn Rand. I especially like the Mencken quote:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Contemporary politicians and One World Order folks want to controll the people through any effective means. Anyone who thinks that the politics that goes along with global warming is not a ploy for controll must have a patent on their own brand of STUPID!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from peter wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

GLOBAL WARMING DOESNT EXSIST EVEN IF IT DID IT WOULDNT BE MAN MADE IT WOULD BE A NATURAL OCCURANCE

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Sure it's the aim of politicians to centralize more control. That is true regardless of party. Ultimately the only way to sort much out is follow the money trail. Find out who benefits from a law or a policy and you'll discover the lobbyists and other prokaryotes who sling the money around.

Me, I take my cue on CO2 forcing from climate scientists that I know face to face. None of 'em are getting rich doing climate science. None of 'em are on the UN payroll or some other weird conspiracy theory stuff. None of 'em are members of the DNC or big campaign contributers. They're just climate guys who are raising their eyebrows at a current climate event that runs contrary to what would be expected if this were about "the sun" or orbital mechanics.

That's why I take 'em seriously when they say global warming is happening, at a pace generally unprecedented, and CO2 forcing caused by fossil fuel combustion is the best smoking gun cause for the effect. None of 'em claim to know exactly how hot it's going to get. What they have is like a bad hurricane forecaset -- you know those things where they show a hurricane on a map and it's current course with a dotted line and a range of deviation from the path that represents where the storm might wind up in a week.

The future predictions are hazy. It's a range of probabilities, but we're in such a new situation that they can't say whether or not their probabilities are reasonable.

So my pov is I'm hedging my future on the prediction that it *migh* get really bad and probably no one is really going to do anything to mitigate the problem of CO2 forcing.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Rudyglove27 and Mike Diehl have said it much more eloquently than I can. I think it might be useful for bloggers on this site not familiar with the scientific method and scientific publishing to understand that scientists aren't a homogenous group of people subscribing to a particular ideology.

Scientists study a subject, write up their findings, and then submit their findings in paper (article) form to a journal, who sends it to other scientists to review. These reviewers then critically (to put it mildly, I have been through this), examine the paper to see if it contains good science. Only when a group of your peers are satisfied that your paper and the research it contains is up to standard, does it get published.

It is not a perfect system, and there are good journals and bad journals. Suffice to say that serious scientists aim to have their papers published in good journals.

As outdoorsmen, we can't insist on science based decision making regarding deer, bears and wolves, and accuse the 'greenies' of letting feelings get in the way of sound management, and simultanously deride scientific findings when it makes us uncomfortable.

Nothing worthwhile is ever achieved without sacrifice, and now is the time to sacrifice a bit of our lazy thinking and wasteful habits for the good of our amazing planet.

As for the scientists getting rich out of their research, go and take a look at the cars in any university staff parking lot, especially at the natural science faculty.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Also, regarding human activity heating up the atmosphere, Rudyglove27 correctly credits Arrhenius with establishing a link between CO2 and heat retention. When we extract fossil fuels and burn them, we are freeing CO2 that was laid down over millions of years.

And it is worth remembering that Arrhenius wasn't a 'greenie' with an agenda, over a 100 years ago there was no such thing. He was just a good, solid scientist who also did pioneering work on acids and bases.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Wags wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Wow, nothing gets folks going like a good climate change posting. By all means, level Las Vegas. Why anyone ever thought that was a good idea is beyond me. I agree entirely with Mike Diehl; California, and in particular SD and LA need to get their water from the ocean and NOT from the Rockies. Membrane technology is making that a reality quickly. Water re-use has to become more integrated in industrial water applications. Again, the technology is developing.

We absolutely MUST be better stewards; however, we should do it because we can do things better, NOT because of a highly politicized scientific debate. I think there has been some climate change. The folks that vow that it is man-made usually have something to be gained from that belief, be it financial or political. I guess I've become a cynic. Now, that being said, the nature of most humans is not to do what is better unless there is a) finacial gain to doing it, or b) there is financial pain in not doing it. And that is where regulation comes in. The problem with that then becomes a lack of any knowledge on the part of politicians and short sighted legislation that addresses problem x today without any foresight on what that does to problem y down the road.

So, what is my point. I guess it is that some legislation needs to be implemented on water use. NOT because of climate change, but because we are WAY overdue and technology has changed possibilities. It needs to be well thought out, not knee-jerk. And it needs to include some carrots as well as sticks.

TIM ROMANO: Can you please address your desire to ban Kentucky Blue Grass. You've mentioned it several times, but I've never heard why it is evil. I have some guesses, but I would like to hear your rational.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

crm3006 I didn't insult you, sir, I insulted Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who are both individuals with loud mouths who Do Not Walk their Talk. You can claim that somehow "an original thought and a cold drink of water would put me into a coma" but I know who is really full of it. You don't know me, and I ain't interested in knowing you, if you'd say such a thing that is so baseless. I am a veteran, is Rush a veteran, or just an obese turd who was too cowardly to serve himself but too eager to send real soldier off to die (just like Cheney, another fat coward, "too busy" to serve his country in uniform)? I have tried to listen to Hannity and Limbaugh, but they don't know how to have a f-ing discussion. They shout their guests down, their arguments aren't logical and they don't document anything. Both are bullies and act like bullies. If someone admires them I must assume they are also bullies and crm3006, you condemn yourself with your own words. I don't like bullies, or other manipulative bozos who are so full of arrogance and conceit that they have no room within themselves for compassion or any sense of the greater community around them. How could such folks, whose whole world view is based on their own selfishness and convenience, their need to feed their own egotism.
Well the world IS changing, whether anybody likes it or not. As I wrote earlier, it don't matter worth a hill o beans who dunnit, its doing. You can follow the fat slob on tv while he feeds his ego or you can look at the world around you and decide for yourself what you need to do about climate change for your family and your potential descendants. You DO intend to have decendants, one would assume...Or you can join the ranks of the doomed and concern yourself with the demagogic rantings of the hypocrites as to who is to blame for whatever.
Alister Crowley wrote "Blame be Damned for a dog" in the Book of the Law. It doesn't matter who did whatever, what matters is what individual humans do about it. Screaming about whose fault it is only wastes valuable time. Rush and Hannity have no plan but their paychecks, I suspect their personal disaster plans involves living off their blubber. Fine, emulate them and go eat as much geneticly manipulated corn based convenience foods as you possibly can and put on the pounds dudes, you can be just like Rush!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from timromano wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

wags,

Kentucky Bluegrass is not a native grass to Colorado. Yes, it's very nice to look at, feels great on the feet, but it's a bad choice long term.

It takes copious amounts of water to keep it healthy. Far more than a native grass... You have to fertilize the crap out of it, which in turn leads to storm water runoff full of nitrogen - which goes straight into the watershed. This is bad for a plethora of reasons.

Also, most people bag their grass when the cut it, making tons of waste that unnecessarily ends up in landfills.

Need more?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Koldkut wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Tim, the argument over bluegrass sounds familiar. Much like non-native species of fish.....

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Well, I'll tell you pilgrims something....

There is a finite amount of water on the planet and it evaporates every day and is swept off the ocean and onto the land masses by weather patterns, which control it's distribution. Look at the Sahara Desert. It was expanding long before the man-made global warming (?) cmae into being. The Earth's climate has constantly changed and distribution of water is part of it. There is hardly a teacup less water now than 10,000 years ago (except that waste the astronauts have ejected into space).

If Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Phoenix would quit sucking it dry, the Colorado would again flow into the ocean.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Wags wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Tim,

That was my suspicion, but I didn't know the extent as I am in Cincinnati, Ohio and not Denver. My guess was that in the explosion of homes and business in Colorado people planted tons of it. It's not nearly the issue hear in the midwest. Out here we fight fescue, particularly Kentucky 31. It is only good for holding banks. It has nearly no nutritional value as a forage for livestock, and can even have a fungus that can be detrimental. It is ABSOLUTELY useless as a grass for wildlife and succeeds only in crowding out native warm season grasses. As a quail hunter, it is nothing more than a noxious weed to me. But, it is what every contractor plants when they clear something, not to mention every road median is full of it. It goes to seed, birds eat it, and suddenly it is everywhere.

Thanks for the info and so you know, I wasn't challenging. I just never heard the explaination.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from timromano wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

wags,

no worries...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from BigWoodsHunter57 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Bella-
I'm enormously glad that you are not interested in knowing me, in my later years, I find myself less and less tolerant of fools
and those with no tolerance of the ideas of others.
Stay away from well water,dear,and maybe iced tea, also. Have a nice day!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

crm3006, I am tolerant of others ideas, it is Rush and Hannity who preach intolerance of others ideas. If you listen to such blowhards and believe them, you likely are the intolerant one. Typical demagogue trick that, insisting black is white and white is black. Just like when Rush and Hannity started accusing Soto- Mayor of "being a racist" because she suggested that a "wise Latina" might have more understanding of issues related to hispanics than old white guys. Typical of hyppocrites as well.
I like cold well water, and if you get your "original ideas" from Rush, well they aren't original are they, they are Rushes or whoever he stole them from.
Believe what you like, but believing doesn't make anything so. Wait and see what happens, but if you sit on your rump and do nothing, you can't complain when the well runs dry.
I do think hate mongers like Rush should go the way of the dinosaur and the trilobite, because they seem to have no personal morality. Rushes drug problems and how he treated his dying wife are a case in point. Anyone addicted to drugs has no business demanding harsh penalties for others if he expects leniency himself. No one who dumps his cancer ridden wife (and replaces her with a pretty new trophy wife) has any business making pronouncements about the "sanctity of marriage" either. I could go on but there is little point except to say that some people are trying to keep the world a livable place for everyone and some are screaming while dragging on others coattails. The folks who walk their talk, those are the voices I listen to, not blowhards like Rush and Hannity. crm3006 if you like em so much why don't you go give em both big wet kisses slightly below their navels, they will both thank you for it.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Why are Rush and Sean even in this discussion? Neither is an authority on the subject, but both enjoy the right of free speech. Their right is amplified because they have advertisers. If you don't like what they say, don't listen!

Conserve energy because, if you are a Christian, wasting is sinful.

Conserve energy because, if you save energy, you will also save money.

Conserve energy because, while the supply of fossil fuel is immense, it is also finite.

Conserve energy because, using fossil fuels creates smog, which is harmful to human health.

Conserve energy because, using less means that the next coal mine or oil well development will be delayed. Each year we delay, the technology is enhanced so that these resource developments are safer for the environment.

If you conserve energy because President Obama and Al Gore both said you should because of global warming, you're played for a sap. Neither of those believe in it. Neither of those have ever done anything personally to alleviate the situation. In fact, they have both acted to exacerbate the perceived problem. To Obama, it's a tool to attract a certain bloc of voters. To Al Gore, it's the goose that lays golden eggs.
YooperJack

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Very good comment, Yoop! However, i fear that some have been drinking the kool-aid so
long that even the evidence of this year's coolest temperatures on record, and the revelation of all the fraud and misdirection going on in the global warming, climate change, whatever it is tomorrow movement, will never change their minds.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Good points and better instructions, Yooper. If only people would just forget the politics and listen to you. What you say is just common sense and good stewardship but, to some, it makes you a liberal yahoo.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FloridaHunter1226 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Global warming is present and very much real... as much as we want to ignore it and not believe it, it's still there. If we do not change our ways, mother nature will and it will be for the worse.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Why are the motives of the 'believers' in climate change the only motives that are questioned? What about the motives of industry who make their money out of polluting industries? When you look at the money involved on both sides of this debate I think it is pretty clear where the big bucks lie.

I think Yoop has hit the nail on the head with his waste is sinful statement. People (myself included) get very affronted when something wrong is pointed out in their lives.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Common sense is lacking if you think that a drought is a direct effect on global warming. The earth has always warmed and cooled, and had wet periods and droughts. The fact is we are not going to change this.
Pactola reservoir here in the black hills was going down for Ten years during a period which we had less than average rainfall. Scientists claimed it would never be full again because of too much demand from irrigation and cities using it for water. Well they were proven a fool when it filled in less than a year. COMMON SENSE is to realize that climates have always changed, and this is the way it is. Now you have a fear factor going on and it is rediculous. F&S needs to get over this.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Common sense: CO2 traps heat. Proven over a hundred years ago. Common sense: burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Common sense: humans have been extracting fossil fuels for a hundred years.

We are contributing!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Attaboy Yooper, Here at our farm we had sustainability as our goal long before Obama came on board, because it makes sense to try to be self sufficient.
As to the comment about moving somewhere that climate change is not going to unleash it's full horrors upon, New England seems to fill the bill, as long as you don't choose to live on the coast. The disruption of the Halide circuit by cold freshwater from melting Greenland will interrupt or redirect the Gulf Stream, causing New England to be cooler and wetter rather than hotter and dryer. Too bad for you conservatives out there, us liberal types already are a sizable majority here in New England so if you move here you have to put up with us, we were here ahead of you and already picked out all the good spots.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

More c02 comes from oceans, volcanoes, and other sources than from humans.
Bella every farmer and rancher is self sufficient. Farmers and ranchers are the biggest conservationists there are. In fact if it were not for taxes I could live without ever having to use any source of transportation. But that would reduce in the food production and I would only be able to take care of my own family. If people like to eat they better realize that they can't cripple the ag industry trying to save the world that is in perfect condition. There is no better way to bring you food than how we do it right now.
At one time greenland was inhabitated by people and the world was just fine. Since the last iceage we have been warming up and glaciers have been melting. It is a cycle. Glaciers melting and climate becoming warmer may indeed make some areas not as good for farming, but it will also open up new land for this and it will be more fertile than anything is now because it has never been used. And you can keep your New England because I would live there for all the money in the world.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Logan V. I farm a little myself, got some sheep and goats, rabbits and such, Like I say I respect those who have the integrity to walk their talk and get their hands dirty.
However agribusiness is not sustainable farming. Industrial farming sows petroleum to grow monocrops that are vulnerable to disease and pests so they use genetic engineering to create plant lines that can withstand hideous levels of pesticides and herbicides (thats what "Roundup Ready" means) the excess of which runs into the rivers and then to the ocean whereit encourages the bacteria that have created a dead zone of pollution bigger than several states. Monsanto has a lot to answer for, when one considers the destruction that has been wrought so they could make a profit.
Industrial farming needs monocropping for the sake of mechanical harvesting at the expense of the environment and the tilth of the land. There is few treasures more valuable than good topsoil, but due to industrial farming practices the heartland is loosing topsoil at an alarming rate. When it is gone not even chemicals will grow crops on wasted barren soil.
Organic and hydroponic farming are smaller scale than agribusiness and lend themselves to family sized operations. Organic farming actually builds the fertility of the soil, while producing vegitables and fruits that sell for higher premiums because of superior flavor and quality. Hydroponic gardening doesn't even require soil, and can therefore be accomplished in places other than traditional farmland, such as cities or orbiting space colonies. Water in hydroponic gardens is recycled continually conserving it. Agribusiness is by comparison sucking the Ogalala Aquifer dry while polluting the Missouri and the Missisippi. Water will likely be the next resource men fight wars over, for instance a big issue in the Arab Israeli conflict is water rights on the West Bank. Which brings us back to the Colorado. And water rights, a very big thing in our West.
Agribusiness needs to be curbed, I have been offended for years by the antics of politicians who make noise about saving family farms while steering agricultural subsidies to Big Ag. Agribusiness kills family farms by buying up the land. Big Ag can afford to go deep into hock for the most modern mechanized farm equipment, though when small family farmers try to keep up with the Joneses one or two bad years and the family farm is foreclosed and on the auction block, with the Big Ag corporate goons ready to buy up the land and kick families off. Big Ag is entirely mechanized, families are a liability to agribusiness as kids and dogs and such run up insurance liability. And Quo Bono? Who benefits? Corporate dudes in suits hundreds of miles away in offices where they never need see the wind blowing the topsoil away behind the automated tractor.
We can do better, and we must. I am glad you are a farmer, farmers should be considered priests of the land. But Big Ag is part of the problem not part of the solution.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Bella-
Do you even know what you are writing about?
Take another drink of Kool-Aid and please go back to sleep!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Bella
If you are ignorant enough to think a rancher doesn't know what round up ready means you are obviously the most confused, media taught person I have ever heard.
Genetic engineering has also made it possible for farmers to produce twice the amount of food with 30% less land than 100 years ago. It is a scare tactic that liberals use to make people who don't know better to think we are poisoning their food. I am not a hobby farmer, but I respect the fact that you are, I make my living with beef cattle and wheat. Todays practices of farming has changed. I live in the heartland and no till farming has drastically reduced the amount of erosion that happens to almost none. Our native grass pastures erode about as much as our cropland does.
Also big ag is a bad thing I agree. But I don't understand why you say this but you preach for liberalism. Liberals are for cap and trade, and this will make little farmers go out of business. Liberals are for the fart tax on cattle and this will make little farmers and ranchers go out of business. Liberals are for more government control and this is not a good thing for farmers. The government has taken over bank, car companies, and they will take over ag if they can.
Do you ever come to the Missouri river? I have access to it and swim and fish in it ever summer. It has not hurt me any yet and I don't know anyone who is dying from glyphosate in the river.
Hydroponics is a long way from feeding the world. It will take electricity the whole time the crop is growing thus in the end it is using energy all the time. Face it, it takes a lot of energy to create food for everyone, no matter how you do it. Ranchers and farmers should not be punished because we have to use more petroleum than a city dweller. This will all change eventually when people are run by big ag and you will see how the food prices skyrocket.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I managed a farm before my current job as an agricultural advisor and my experience is that farmers are mostly hard-core businessmen who look at the bank balance first. Aldo Leopold noted that even in the 1940's farmers practiced conservation measures as long as they were either convenient or profitable.

So, famers are just human beings, which in my opinion means that they are usually selfish like the rest of us.

It is interesting that society seems to set higher standards for farmers than for other industries.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

sjsmarias do you hunt and fish on farmers and ranchers land? If you do it would not be smart to start calling them things other than what they are. Farming has changed drastically since the 40s and people have become more informed about practices. Yes you have to worry about your checkbook, but you do that nomatter what occupation you have.
I fence off areas of my land for wildlife and don't use them for anything other than this. I have never turned anyone down for hunting that has asked me, but if someone was to state a comment like that to me I would tell them where to go. You see one or two farmers that are bad conservationists so you put us all in the same category.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I do know what I'm talking about, I'm not for "cap & trade" as it turns pollution into a commodity. I am all for ranching and I like beef, but I recognize that steers turn something I cannot eat (grass) into something I enjoy eating (meat). I object to feedlots where animals are fed geneticly modified grain to bring them up to market weight. I know the difference between grass fed beef and feedlot beef and I know which I prefer for flavor and provenance. Don't assume I am some kind of PETA troll just because I think large corporations are wrecking the planet for short term gains. I raise critters for food and do my own slaughtering to boot. We just don't have sufficient acreage for cattle or we'd have some. I object to being referred to as a "hobby farmer", call me a sustainable farmer or even a subsistance farmer but our farm is not a hobby no more than your spread is. We do more different things in a smaller space and we aren't commercial but that doesn't make us "hobbyists". It means we walk our talk.
If you don't believe in the dead zone, just look for it on Google Maps. It can be seen from space, unless you think that is some kind of liberal conspiracy as well. The dead zone was created by agricultural runoff contaminated by roundup and other chemicals known to harm most lifeforms. Monsanto may have allowed farmers to grow more but at what cost? Does a corporation have a right to kill the Gulf of Mexico just to make a profit?
As far as fart bags on cows, that sounds foolish even to me, but have you considered the energy potential in extracting biogas from cow manure? Your cattle could provide enough methane fuel to run your entire operation with a couple or three simple digesters. Biogas plants are ridiculously simple to build, some are as simple as fuel bladders on the ground and the gas can run water heaters or even fuel diesel engines for tractors or generators. Imagine what you could save in fuel costs! I am building one for my own operation and you can find everything you need to know right on the web.
As I said before I think farmers should be honored as stewards of the land, provided they are Good stewards of the land they get to occupy for a few milliseconds of geologic time. I think society does set higher standards for farmers because farmers have such awesome responsibilities. I think we need family farms owned by families and run by families, because when one considers the land one must always take the long view for the long haul into the future and multigenerational extended families are the only stable human societal structures that can exist long enough to really exert stewardship for the long term in a scale small enough to pay attention to the little details that can mean so much in an ecosystem. Once we were mostly all farmers-85% back in 1920, now very few farm and agribusiness and mechanization require far fewer people to grow crops than in previous years. But we have to ask ourselves, is it good that so many people are dependant on so few? What happens in some hypothetical future when diesel is $10 bucks a gallon and the trucks aren't pulling into the supermarkets quite so often? Most Americans get every piece of food, they eat wrapped in plastic from a shelf in a store. Many have no idea where food even comes from. With the problems we face, how can this stand? Will you be able to ranch successfully back on horseback? Can you grow a crop of wheat without gasoline and diesel? Can you get steers or grain to market without fossil fuels? Are you Really self sufficient or are you even dependent on big Ag even for the seed you sow as well as the chemical soup neccessary to make it grow? Good luck to you this year, I hope you stay in the black and I thank you for your service (just don't mistake me for one of them "hobby farmers", around here such folks raise tiny horses you can't ride and other such useless critters, we eat what we grow. You can't raise Falabella horses for horsemeat, it is just stupid.)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Bella
Please explain how to gather cowpies up on 5000acres? If you want to follow my cows around and scoop it into a bag then go ahead, but I don't have the time. The only reason I even have time to debate on this computer is because of the 8.5 inches of rain we have had this month.
Every vegetable that you eat has been genetically engineered.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I bumped the mouse so I didn't get to finish.
Yes I do consider myself self efficient. I raise wheat and keep back my own seed. I raise alfalfa and keep my own seed, and everyother crop that I raise I keep my own seeds. If I ran out of fossil fuels right now I would be fine, I could raise just beef and butcher my own meat. I know how to plant gardens and cultivate them without use of tractors, I never said that I could feed the world without fossil fuels, I just said I am self sufficient. And I am sorry to call you a hobby farmer, my mistake.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Bela, Logan:
I find it ironic that large feedlots are dissed, yet they would be the logical source for potential methane gas production. Farmers are really behind the eight ball. If you're small, its not cost effective. If you're large, you're part of greedy agribusiness. Also, there is no economical way to recycle the cattle waste for energy production. If you run a feedlot, you produce "bad meat". How the heck is it, that Americans and Canadians eat so well so cheap?
YooperJack

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

well said yooperjack

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Balance is everything, I do think small is cost effective, especially when families and children are considered. I do understand about economies of scale, that is why I want single payer health care, I understand the neccessity of some mechanization, my tractor is electric and the plan is to get some PV panels this year so as to charge my batteries from the sun.
I will freely admit some of my opinions are considered Left Wing here, but Single Payer is considered centrist in Europe, but of course we can't be like THEM, even though most of us are descended from Europeans in the first place. I have been to the other side of the world and come back, so I can't make the mistake of not thinking Globally. We are one species, on one planet, and if we don't figure out how to get along and conserve what we got we will go extinct just like the Columbian Mammoth. Either way, we as a species will continue to evolve till we expire or become unrecognizable as Men and Women. Sometimes a body can just see the tipping point ahead, but will we go over the waterfall or portage? the choice is ours.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Oh every vegitable I eat is not geneticly engineered because we always grow heirloom varieties and not hybrids.
As far as picking up cowflops on 500 acres I'm certain technology can come up with something. How about an autonomous poopbot that senses the cowflop piles by infrared signature and field contrast and collects the dung with rotary rakes in some kind of hopper that can be drained into digester vessels. It could even be solar powered and electric! One would likely need a GPS interface so it could find its way back to the digester vat or report it's own malfunction and locality as well as preventing poopbot rustling. Hey, Science and invention work together when a need is identified and remedied in some new way. Makes me wonder, should it have tracks or axels?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

bella
I said 5000 acres, not 500. I wouldn't pick up the pies even if I could, because it is natural fertilizer for our native grass pastures. Your electric tractor is probable 5 horsepower and would not be able to farm the amount of ground we have, nor is it economical. As far as you think your food not being genetically engineered, you are wrong. Crossing of two species to become a hybrid like Mendel did with peas is genetically altering of a plant species. That is genetically engineering. You think you know so much about ag and it is just a joke. I have lived my life with this lifestyle, and my father, and his father, and I know more about food production than you will ever learn googleing on the internet. I also have an ag degree from college. If you knew anything you would know that organic doesn't grow better food, or everyone would do it. I also know because all of the organic farmers around here have half the crop in their feilds that I do. Also you can't no till, so you loose more soil due to erosion with conventional tillage trying to keep the weeds from chokeing out your stand. I am not talking small scale here with a garden, but like a section of ground. Maybe someday people will once again feed themselves but until this happens, there is no better way to raise crops than the way the modern US farmer does it already. My point is proven that yeilds continue to increase on almost a yearly basis. I highly doubt that a robot is going to be able to transport itself through the terain that our pastures have, it is not flat land. It is badlands and cedar draws.

yooperjack,
I need to clarify my claim on big ag. I am not talking about feedlots run by big family farms, I just simply meant the way the government is going to weasil its way into the ag business the same way they did with other industries. I think you and I probably think quite a lot alike.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

logan.vandermay-
Hear you talking and get your point, but if you think you can convince a 342 year old troll of anything, you are wasting words.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

crm3006
good point

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from chadian wrote 4 years 36 weeks ago

capture your moment in history with the enduring leagacy of art. chad lavin studio. www.lavinstudio.com

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Just think if everyone tied in with that water supply flushed there toilets all at once! Nobody talks about the increased population and in Atlanta Ga they now what the problem is, too many people! WOW!!

Reminds me one late night heading to pick up a load near Waterberry Connecticut. While traveling north on HWY 8 in serious blizzard conditions with a foot plus already on the ground, I had to stop every 15 minutes or less to knock the snow out of the grill to keep the 500 horse 6 cylinder Detroit from overheating . I was behind and slowly gaining on another 18 wheeler in front when all of a sudden a micro burst of blasting snow and wind slams the truck into the ditch overturning it. I witnessed the entire incidence and when the Cop “the Cowboy On Patrol” told me when he falsely issued the driver a ticket for failure to control, he had the audacity to tell me he had to blame somebody!

Ignorance is bliss for those who believe in “Global Warming!” Always got to blame something they can see and grasp it. It is those who can’t think for themselves and lack the ability to discover why the ground is wet without looking up to discover the clouds above to changing their oil and keeping track how much fuel they have and find themselves grinding down to car engulfed in searing radiator stem, oil and transmission fluid smoke to a halt!

It’s like Sir Isaac Newton, (1642-1727), mathematician and physicist, one of the foremost scientific intellects of all times discovering gravity. Tell me Isaac how did you discover gravity? Well ‘gee Mr. Wizard I got hit on the head with an apple and figured there must a be a force the human eye cannot see!

I wonder when all these nut jobs realize everything about Global Warming is politically motivated for taxation and the earth is actually cooling!

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
-H.L. Mencken

“Facts must be distorted, relevant circumstances concealed, and a picture presented which by its crude coloring will persuade the ignorant people that their Government is blameless, their cause is righteous, and that the indisputable wickedness of the enemy is beyond question.
A moment's reflection would tell any reasonable person that such obvious bias cannot possibly represent the truth. But the moment's reflection is not allowed; lies are circulated with great rapidity. The unthinking mass accept them and by their excitement sway the rest.
The amount of rubbish and humbug that pass under the name of patriotism in wartime in all countries is sufficient to make decent people blush when they are subsequently disillusioned.”
-Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in Wartime, 1928

“It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.”
-Ayn Rand

Will somebody explain to me why all of a sudden with the new Obama Czars appointed to make sure everyone including private citizens follow his instructed ways and views or get the ax!

He is already talking about who lives and dies in is warped socialist view of health care!

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Koldkut wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Hooey! Fact is, in history, there is no straight line up or down between ice ages and hot periods, little valleys and hills form in the lines of global temperature, so who's to say we aren't on one of those small hills for a few years only to turn back around later.....I think the earth will take care of itself by way of volcanic eruptions that will spew enough ash in the atmosphere to provide some UV blocking to cool us back down to normal. Fish on!

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

The one thing about global warming that I have never understood is it's effect on evaporation. The evaporation cycle over the oceans are simple. Water evaporates from the oceans, floats over land in the form of clouds and rains on the land. The rain then flows back to the ocean and starts the process starts all over again.

You'll never convince me that water will stop evaporating in the Pacific Ocean and stop being blown into the Sierras where it is pushed up by the mountains and condensed by the cold air and drop in the form of rain or snow.

If the ice caps are melting and the oceans are rising and getting bigger and the temperature is rising you would think this would increase evaporation and there would be more rain and water on the land?

My best guess is that someone somewhere fabricated or exaggerated the results to gain grants or money from the government to fix a problem that does not exist.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

The solution is for LA and San Diego to switch to nuclear power for electrical generation and to use some of that power to operate a seawater desalinization plant to provide for their needs.

Hooey? Not at all. It's not that evaporation will stop. My guess is that adding heat energy means evaporation will pick up. But we know from the past that altering the energy transfer rates can change ocean currents and alter the jet stream. So it may be that the water that currently (and inadequately, for the last 10 years) supplies the Colorado River Basin inclusive of all it's tributaries may instead fall in Mexico on the Sierra Madre Occidental or, alternatively, somwhere in Oregon or northern California where it's not necessarily wanted or needed.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mr. Creosote wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Oh, hell's bells, here we go again. Of course the Flytalk guys believe in 'Global Warming", they live in Boulder, Colorado fer cryin' out loud, home of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the NOAA, Primus and other weird, pointy-head liberal groupthinkers.

Who are you going to believe? All those "scientists" or truth-speakers like Rush, Sean Hannity and James Inhofe?

And even if it is true, which it 'aint, is it really so bad? Think of all the new fishing opportunities it opens up for everyone.

I for one want to be the first person in history to noodle a flathead out of one of those "trout streams".

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from fflutterffly wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Water conservation should have been put into place long before critical problems evolves, so let us consider one solution to this problem. Since some people (read as families) seem to resist the need to curb over population, I would like to suggest one small option for cutting water use that would make a paramount dent. Pass into law (yes we would need a law since most people won't do this on a volunteer basis.) that no one may have lawns larger than 1/4 of usable property and that all other plans must be xeriscaped. (This is the planting of native and water conservation vegetation.) If It were up to me I'd ban lawns at all residential and commercial buildings, but your lucky I'm not in charge...yet! AND if one does decide they MUST have a lawn it should be watered with recycled waste waters, which means we'd have to have water reclamation units, not a bad idea.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from KingFisher907 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

wow if thats not an 'outcome based' study I dont know what is...

If the likes of CU-Boulder, the NOAA, Bradley Udall of CIRES, AMEC Earth & Environmental Inc. of Boulder, et al,
didnt have such an obvious political and agenda, it might be worth paying attention to...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from KingFisher907 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

correction: political and social agenda...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

I forgot to mention,

If a weather service cannot predict weather accurately for example?

Why is it for every Global Warming conference, they cancel due to snow!

Don't you think God is trying to tell them something!

And what about these computer models?

They can write a program to favor there point of view, like I can slant the facts and by withholding trace evidence to overwhelmingly slant a verdict on court!

It’s a wonder this generation of people still have the ability still to tie there shoe laces without Government aid or do they? For those I reference are not handicapped at all, just convinced they are a bunch of born losers and Government is there Messiah!!!

YA”BUDDY!

Got to be smarter than a 5th grader!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

What about the global cooling that's taking effect? In the last year the earth has cooled .75 degrees... it is the single fastest temperature change ever recorded. Nobody seems to notice. I guess we should all read Newsweek from April 28, 1975 about global cooling where they were suggesting covering the arctic ice caps with soot to help melt them. More government intrusion we don't need. More stupid people who got their job through friends, influence, and kissing ass telling us the sky is falling.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Also, regarding human activity heating up the atmosphere, Rudyglove27 correctly credits Arrhenius with establishing a link between CO2 and heat retention. When we extract fossil fuels and burn them, we are freeing CO2 that was laid down over millions of years.

And it is worth remembering that Arrhenius wasn't a 'greenie' with an agenda, over a 100 years ago there was no such thing. He was just a good, solid scientist who also did pioneering work on acids and bases.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from timromano wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

wags,

Kentucky Bluegrass is not a native grass to Colorado. Yes, it's very nice to look at, feels great on the feet, but it's a bad choice long term.

It takes copious amounts of water to keep it healthy. Far more than a native grass... You have to fertilize the crap out of it, which in turn leads to storm water runoff full of nitrogen - which goes straight into the watershed. This is bad for a plethora of reasons.

Also, most people bag their grass when the cut it, making tons of waste that unnecessarily ends up in landfills.

Need more?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Well, I'll tell you pilgrims something....

There is a finite amount of water on the planet and it evaporates every day and is swept off the ocean and onto the land masses by weather patterns, which control it's distribution. Look at the Sahara Desert. It was expanding long before the man-made global warming (?) cmae into being. The Earth's climate has constantly changed and distribution of water is part of it. There is hardly a teacup less water now than 10,000 years ago (except that waste the astronauts have ejected into space).

If Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Phoenix would quit sucking it dry, the Colorado would again flow into the ocean.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Why are Rush and Sean even in this discussion? Neither is an authority on the subject, but both enjoy the right of free speech. Their right is amplified because they have advertisers. If you don't like what they say, don't listen!

Conserve energy because, if you are a Christian, wasting is sinful.

Conserve energy because, if you save energy, you will also save money.

Conserve energy because, while the supply of fossil fuel is immense, it is also finite.

Conserve energy because, using fossil fuels creates smog, which is harmful to human health.

Conserve energy because, using less means that the next coal mine or oil well development will be delayed. Each year we delay, the technology is enhanced so that these resource developments are safer for the environment.

If you conserve energy because President Obama and Al Gore both said you should because of global warming, you're played for a sap. Neither of those believe in it. Neither of those have ever done anything personally to alleviate the situation. In fact, they have both acted to exacerbate the perceived problem. To Obama, it's a tool to attract a certain bloc of voters. To Al Gore, it's the goose that lays golden eggs.
YooperJack

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Check out the new article in Geophysical Reseach, July 23, 2009, which is written by two Australian, and one New Zealander, that maintains any global temp change has a natural cause. This is not settled science despite the fact that the US has spent $79 billion on the question.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from BigWoodsHunter57 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

koldkut i couldnt have said it better...there are just too many "ignorant" people that talk this subject up more then it has to be..remember its "climate change" now not "global warming"..that way the record low temperatures that are happening all over the globe can be added to this catagory too..

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mr. Creosote wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Ypu know, the mark of really great satire is that you're never sure whether it's satire or not...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from timromano wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Mr. Creosote,

Uh, I was just thinking that very thought... ;)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nic Meador wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

ya know, in central park in nyc had their 2nd coolest july on record this year.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Dr. Ralph stole my thunder. Bella, Are you spouting the liberal anti-Rush talking points or have you actually listened to Rush for a couple weeks to see for yourself what he is all about?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ranger2 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

There has to be some validity to the science of climatology. That said, I do think that the topic has gotten too far out of hand politically. Yes, we should be good stewards. Yes we should conserve our resources, but by damn, I am not interested in the next Cold War Scare~ via car farts and cow cud.

Re-Read the quotes Clay Cooper posted up above from -H.L. Mencken, Arthur Ponsonby, and Ayn Rand. I especially like the Mencken quote:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Contemporary politicians and One World Order folks want to controll the people through any effective means. Anyone who thinks that the politics that goes along with global warming is not a ploy for controll must have a patent on their own brand of STUPID!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from peter wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

GLOBAL WARMING DOESNT EXSIST EVEN IF IT DID IT WOULDNT BE MAN MADE IT WOULD BE A NATURAL OCCURANCE

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Sure it's the aim of politicians to centralize more control. That is true regardless of party. Ultimately the only way to sort much out is follow the money trail. Find out who benefits from a law or a policy and you'll discover the lobbyists and other prokaryotes who sling the money around.

Me, I take my cue on CO2 forcing from climate scientists that I know face to face. None of 'em are getting rich doing climate science. None of 'em are on the UN payroll or some other weird conspiracy theory stuff. None of 'em are members of the DNC or big campaign contributers. They're just climate guys who are raising their eyebrows at a current climate event that runs contrary to what would be expected if this were about "the sun" or orbital mechanics.

That's why I take 'em seriously when they say global warming is happening, at a pace generally unprecedented, and CO2 forcing caused by fossil fuel combustion is the best smoking gun cause for the effect. None of 'em claim to know exactly how hot it's going to get. What they have is like a bad hurricane forecaset -- you know those things where they show a hurricane on a map and it's current course with a dotted line and a range of deviation from the path that represents where the storm might wind up in a week.

The future predictions are hazy. It's a range of probabilities, but we're in such a new situation that they can't say whether or not their probabilities are reasonable.

So my pov is I'm hedging my future on the prediction that it *migh* get really bad and probably no one is really going to do anything to mitigate the problem of CO2 forcing.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Rudyglove27 and Mike Diehl have said it much more eloquently than I can. I think it might be useful for bloggers on this site not familiar with the scientific method and scientific publishing to understand that scientists aren't a homogenous group of people subscribing to a particular ideology.

Scientists study a subject, write up their findings, and then submit their findings in paper (article) form to a journal, who sends it to other scientists to review. These reviewers then critically (to put it mildly, I have been through this), examine the paper to see if it contains good science. Only when a group of your peers are satisfied that your paper and the research it contains is up to standard, does it get published.

It is not a perfect system, and there are good journals and bad journals. Suffice to say that serious scientists aim to have their papers published in good journals.

As outdoorsmen, we can't insist on science based decision making regarding deer, bears and wolves, and accuse the 'greenies' of letting feelings get in the way of sound management, and simultanously deride scientific findings when it makes us uncomfortable.

Nothing worthwhile is ever achieved without sacrifice, and now is the time to sacrifice a bit of our lazy thinking and wasteful habits for the good of our amazing planet.

As for the scientists getting rich out of their research, go and take a look at the cars in any university staff parking lot, especially at the natural science faculty.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Wags wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Wow, nothing gets folks going like a good climate change posting. By all means, level Las Vegas. Why anyone ever thought that was a good idea is beyond me. I agree entirely with Mike Diehl; California, and in particular SD and LA need to get their water from the ocean and NOT from the Rockies. Membrane technology is making that a reality quickly. Water re-use has to become more integrated in industrial water applications. Again, the technology is developing.

We absolutely MUST be better stewards; however, we should do it because we can do things better, NOT because of a highly politicized scientific debate. I think there has been some climate change. The folks that vow that it is man-made usually have something to be gained from that belief, be it financial or political. I guess I've become a cynic. Now, that being said, the nature of most humans is not to do what is better unless there is a) finacial gain to doing it, or b) there is financial pain in not doing it. And that is where regulation comes in. The problem with that then becomes a lack of any knowledge on the part of politicians and short sighted legislation that addresses problem x today without any foresight on what that does to problem y down the road.

So, what is my point. I guess it is that some legislation needs to be implemented on water use. NOT because of climate change, but because we are WAY overdue and technology has changed possibilities. It needs to be well thought out, not knee-jerk. And it needs to include some carrots as well as sticks.

TIM ROMANO: Can you please address your desire to ban Kentucky Blue Grass. You've mentioned it several times, but I've never heard why it is evil. I have some guesses, but I would like to hear your rational.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

crm3006 I didn't insult you, sir, I insulted Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who are both individuals with loud mouths who Do Not Walk their Talk. You can claim that somehow "an original thought and a cold drink of water would put me into a coma" but I know who is really full of it. You don't know me, and I ain't interested in knowing you, if you'd say such a thing that is so baseless. I am a veteran, is Rush a veteran, or just an obese turd who was too cowardly to serve himself but too eager to send real soldier off to die (just like Cheney, another fat coward, "too busy" to serve his country in uniform)? I have tried to listen to Hannity and Limbaugh, but they don't know how to have a f-ing discussion. They shout their guests down, their arguments aren't logical and they don't document anything. Both are bullies and act like bullies. If someone admires them I must assume they are also bullies and crm3006, you condemn yourself with your own words. I don't like bullies, or other manipulative bozos who are so full of arrogance and conceit that they have no room within themselves for compassion or any sense of the greater community around them. How could such folks, whose whole world view is based on their own selfishness and convenience, their need to feed their own egotism.
Well the world IS changing, whether anybody likes it or not. As I wrote earlier, it don't matter worth a hill o beans who dunnit, its doing. You can follow the fat slob on tv while he feeds his ego or you can look at the world around you and decide for yourself what you need to do about climate change for your family and your potential descendants. You DO intend to have decendants, one would assume...Or you can join the ranks of the doomed and concern yourself with the demagogic rantings of the hypocrites as to who is to blame for whatever.
Alister Crowley wrote "Blame be Damned for a dog" in the Book of the Law. It doesn't matter who did whatever, what matters is what individual humans do about it. Screaming about whose fault it is only wastes valuable time. Rush and Hannity have no plan but their paychecks, I suspect their personal disaster plans involves living off their blubber. Fine, emulate them and go eat as much geneticly manipulated corn based convenience foods as you possibly can and put on the pounds dudes, you can be just like Rush!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Koldkut wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Tim, the argument over bluegrass sounds familiar. Much like non-native species of fish.....

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Wags wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Tim,

That was my suspicion, but I didn't know the extent as I am in Cincinnati, Ohio and not Denver. My guess was that in the explosion of homes and business in Colorado people planted tons of it. It's not nearly the issue hear in the midwest. Out here we fight fescue, particularly Kentucky 31. It is only good for holding banks. It has nearly no nutritional value as a forage for livestock, and can even have a fungus that can be detrimental. It is ABSOLUTELY useless as a grass for wildlife and succeeds only in crowding out native warm season grasses. As a quail hunter, it is nothing more than a noxious weed to me. But, it is what every contractor plants when they clear something, not to mention every road median is full of it. It goes to seed, birds eat it, and suddenly it is everywhere.

Thanks for the info and so you know, I wasn't challenging. I just never heard the explaination.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

crm3006, I am tolerant of others ideas, it is Rush and Hannity who preach intolerance of others ideas. If you listen to such blowhards and believe them, you likely are the intolerant one. Typical demagogue trick that, insisting black is white and white is black. Just like when Rush and Hannity started accusing Soto- Mayor of "being a racist" because she suggested that a "wise Latina" might have more understanding of issues related to hispanics than old white guys. Typical of hyppocrites as well.
I like cold well water, and if you get your "original ideas" from Rush, well they aren't original are they, they are Rushes or whoever he stole them from.
Believe what you like, but believing doesn't make anything so. Wait and see what happens, but if you sit on your rump and do nothing, you can't complain when the well runs dry.
I do think hate mongers like Rush should go the way of the dinosaur and the trilobite, because they seem to have no personal morality. Rushes drug problems and how he treated his dying wife are a case in point. Anyone addicted to drugs has no business demanding harsh penalties for others if he expects leniency himself. No one who dumps his cancer ridden wife (and replaces her with a pretty new trophy wife) has any business making pronouncements about the "sanctity of marriage" either. I could go on but there is little point except to say that some people are trying to keep the world a livable place for everyone and some are screaming while dragging on others coattails. The folks who walk their talk, those are the voices I listen to, not blowhards like Rush and Hannity. crm3006 if you like em so much why don't you go give em both big wet kisses slightly below their navels, they will both thank you for it.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Common sense: CO2 traps heat. Proven over a hundred years ago. Common sense: burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Common sense: humans have been extracting fossil fuels for a hundred years.

We are contributing!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

More c02 comes from oceans, volcanoes, and other sources than from humans.
Bella every farmer and rancher is self sufficient. Farmers and ranchers are the biggest conservationists there are. In fact if it were not for taxes I could live without ever having to use any source of transportation. But that would reduce in the food production and I would only be able to take care of my own family. If people like to eat they better realize that they can't cripple the ag industry trying to save the world that is in perfect condition. There is no better way to bring you food than how we do it right now.
At one time greenland was inhabitated by people and the world was just fine. Since the last iceage we have been warming up and glaciers have been melting. It is a cycle. Glaciers melting and climate becoming warmer may indeed make some areas not as good for farming, but it will also open up new land for this and it will be more fertile than anything is now because it has never been used. And you can keep your New England because I would live there for all the money in the world.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Bella-
Do you even know what you are writing about?
Take another drink of Kool-Aid and please go back to sleep!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Bella
If you are ignorant enough to think a rancher doesn't know what round up ready means you are obviously the most confused, media taught person I have ever heard.
Genetic engineering has also made it possible for farmers to produce twice the amount of food with 30% less land than 100 years ago. It is a scare tactic that liberals use to make people who don't know better to think we are poisoning their food. I am not a hobby farmer, but I respect the fact that you are, I make my living with beef cattle and wheat. Todays practices of farming has changed. I live in the heartland and no till farming has drastically reduced the amount of erosion that happens to almost none. Our native grass pastures erode about as much as our cropland does.
Also big ag is a bad thing I agree. But I don't understand why you say this but you preach for liberalism. Liberals are for cap and trade, and this will make little farmers go out of business. Liberals are for the fart tax on cattle and this will make little farmers and ranchers go out of business. Liberals are for more government control and this is not a good thing for farmers. The government has taken over bank, car companies, and they will take over ag if they can.
Do you ever come to the Missouri river? I have access to it and swim and fish in it ever summer. It has not hurt me any yet and I don't know anyone who is dying from glyphosate in the river.
Hydroponics is a long way from feeding the world. It will take electricity the whole time the crop is growing thus in the end it is using energy all the time. Face it, it takes a lot of energy to create food for everyone, no matter how you do it. Ranchers and farmers should not be punished because we have to use more petroleum than a city dweller. This will all change eventually when people are run by big ag and you will see how the food prices skyrocket.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I managed a farm before my current job as an agricultural advisor and my experience is that farmers are mostly hard-core businessmen who look at the bank balance first. Aldo Leopold noted that even in the 1940's farmers practiced conservation measures as long as they were either convenient or profitable.

So, famers are just human beings, which in my opinion means that they are usually selfish like the rest of us.

It is interesting that society seems to set higher standards for farmers than for other industries.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Bella
Please explain how to gather cowpies up on 5000acres? If you want to follow my cows around and scoop it into a bag then go ahead, but I don't have the time. The only reason I even have time to debate on this computer is because of the 8.5 inches of rain we have had this month.
Every vegetable that you eat has been genetically engineered.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I bumped the mouse so I didn't get to finish.
Yes I do consider myself self efficient. I raise wheat and keep back my own seed. I raise alfalfa and keep my own seed, and everyother crop that I raise I keep my own seeds. If I ran out of fossil fuels right now I would be fine, I could raise just beef and butcher my own meat. I know how to plant gardens and cultivate them without use of tractors, I never said that I could feed the world without fossil fuels, I just said I am self sufficient. And I am sorry to call you a hobby farmer, my mistake.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

well said yooperjack

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

bella
I said 5000 acres, not 500. I wouldn't pick up the pies even if I could, because it is natural fertilizer for our native grass pastures. Your electric tractor is probable 5 horsepower and would not be able to farm the amount of ground we have, nor is it economical. As far as you think your food not being genetically engineered, you are wrong. Crossing of two species to become a hybrid like Mendel did with peas is genetically altering of a plant species. That is genetically engineering. You think you know so much about ag and it is just a joke. I have lived my life with this lifestyle, and my father, and his father, and I know more about food production than you will ever learn googleing on the internet. I also have an ag degree from college. If you knew anything you would know that organic doesn't grow better food, or everyone would do it. I also know because all of the organic farmers around here have half the crop in their feilds that I do. Also you can't no till, so you loose more soil due to erosion with conventional tillage trying to keep the weeds from chokeing out your stand. I am not talking small scale here with a garden, but like a section of ground. Maybe someday people will once again feed themselves but until this happens, there is no better way to raise crops than the way the modern US farmer does it already. My point is proven that yeilds continue to increase on almost a yearly basis. I highly doubt that a robot is going to be able to transport itself through the terain that our pastures have, it is not flat land. It is badlands and cedar draws.

yooperjack,
I need to clarify my claim on big ag. I am not talking about feedlots run by big family farms, I just simply meant the way the government is going to weasil its way into the ag business the same way they did with other industries. I think you and I probably think quite a lot alike.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from weve_25 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Koldkut:

I totally agree with you. The earth is a dynamic system with the only norm being change. The truth is we have no idea what “normal” is. Are we having an effect on the earth climate? Who knows…maybe, but one thing is for sure, we are one Krakatau away from another ice age.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2Poppa wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Phooy!

Global warming is man-made,but not as we know it.

What is being described as global warming is being caused by HAARP, (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), and ELF (Extremely Low Frequency). I've been doing some studying and research of this phenomena,and it's amazing what effects and possible harm this "new weaponry" can do globally.

I have a friend that is a high ranking civilian scientist,doing contract work for The Air Force and The Navy. I can't give out to much information, as a lot of it is classified.

But years ago,during the Viet Nam war they tried out this system over the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The trail was not a single route,but a confusing network of intercommunicating paths, that aided the Viet Cong with supplies,ammunition,food and etc.

The United States Air Force utilized the HAARP system,reportedly to "change the weather" on the Ho Chi Minh Trail,to slow, thwart and frustrate the progress of the enemy.

I was in the military during the Viet Nam war,and come to think of it,every time I saw a picture of the enemy on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, it was always raining and very muddy.

Another incident, utilizing the ELF system,(Extremely Low Frequency)was in an area that was known for earth quakes. At the time, this system was incorporated to locate underground oil pockets,for a particular oil company.

After the oil company had the ELF system in place, they turned on the transducers to see if they could locate the oil pockets. The system wasn't near full capacity so the operator turned it up, resulting in a 4.2 magnitude earthquake on the richter scale.
Coincidence they said ...

There are many more applications to this system, that I won't go into here. There are approxmately 15 of these systems in operation as we blog world wide.

Man made? No!
Military/Government made? Yes!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Think what you will of climate change, but do you really think it is/was a good idea to turn a giant freaking desert into a green golfy gambly resort? Hell no. That's a gluttonous waste/misuse/abuse of resources. Thinking we could get away with all of that was so stupid.

Leave Vegas, but quit adding to the problem. I'm with Romano and Diehl's suggestions.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rudyglove27 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Is Global Warming a Threat????????
In 1986, a panel of 150 scientists from eleven countries issued a report warning that human activities such as automobile use, the production of energy from burning fossil fuels, and deforestation could cause global temperatures to rise by intensifying the earth’s greenhouse effect.........
An essential component of the earth’s climate, the greenhouse effect is the warming process that results from the atmospheric presence of heat-trapping gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide........ Much of the solar energy that reaches the planet is absorbed by oceans and land masses, which in turn radiate the energy back into space....... However, small concentrations of water vapor and other “greenhouse gases” convert some of this energy to heat and either retain it or reflect it back to the earth’s surface...... This “trapped” energy creates a blanket of warm air around the earth that moderates global temperatures and climate patterns..... Without greenhouse gases, the earth would exist in a perpetual ice age.......
The scientists who maintained in the 1980s that human activities could amplify the greenhouse effect were elaborating on a nineteenthcentury theory proposed by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius..... In 1896, Arrhenius hypothesized that the carbon dioxide produced from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels would cause global temperatures to rise by trapping excess heat in the earth’s atmosphere........ But the global warming theory did not capture the world’s attention until 1988, when James Hansen, an atmospheric scientist and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, testified before a U.S. Senate committee that the “evidence is strong” that human-made pollutants were raising world temperatures...... If temperatures continued to rise, he warned, the earth would face catastrophic climate changes that would adversely affect the environment and human health.......
Initially, most climate researchers were skeptical about Hansen’s warning....... It was true that carbon dioxide levels had increased by about 30 percent since the mid-1700s, when the Industrial Revolution began; it was also true that the average world temperature had risen by one degree Fahrenheit (F) during the twentieth century—the largest increase of any century during the past millenium....... Yet the earth’s climate had been prone to fluctuations over the past several hundred years, many climatologists maintained......... The one degree temperature change could be attributed to the natural variability of the planet’s weather.........

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Tell you my other solution, Shane.

Move someplace where the impact of global warming won't be too adverse and slam the door shut behind me!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Can you two keep your “flatulence” down a bet, its causing global warming, All Goer Joke YUK! YUK!

Let’s see, Jupiter and Mars is also warming and millions of people flocking in from the southern to take advantage of the "CASH COW" called America drawing down our resources!

GO FIGURE!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

The Colorado hasn't hardly reached the ocean for years, largely because places like Las Vegas suck up so much water for fountains and swimming pools and sidewalk misters along with other wasteful stupoidities.
People have made the misteak of thinking they "own" the water. Fools, one cannot "own" water because we are water! Water is part of the atmosphere, we breath it in and sweat it out. The Colorado may indeed run dry, but if so it is due to poor human stewardship, greed and thoughtlessness (hey, just like global warming!)
I cannot understand how anybody could consider demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity "truth sayers". I can well understand that they are saying what a certain bunch of folks want to hear, but that has nothing to do with truth and a lot to do with political manipulation. Science is all about truth, and testing things to find out what is true then recording and sharing the findings. If a scientist has a notion that may or not be true, he tests it, makes a theory based on the findings of his research then publishes it where other folks can also test his results. It is like taking bearings with a compass, If you only take one bearing, you are still lost. Take three bearings and you can place your position on the map, triangulation. (not that anybody but an old biddy like me would bother with anything so unfashionable as a compass in these days of GPS units). People like Rush make points with the ignorant by telling em what he thinks they want to hear, giving "evidence" that wouldn't pass muster in any scientific forum. People like Hannity and Limbaugh tend to use the tactic that if you keep repeating the lies louder and louder someone will eventually believe you, but that doesn't make them "truthsayers" it merely makes them loud.
I am puzzled by those whose positions could not exist without science, who love the latest fashionable high tech but who don't believe in science! Go figure?
Science created both Rushes microphone and the oxycontin he likes so much!
The problem with Truth, like Science, is that often the facts when laid bare can be both unflattering and uncomfortable. I understand why various folks don't want to believe in global warming, I personally think "global climate change" is perhaps more precise a term, but whatever you call it, it's happening. Ignore it at your peril and thank the scientists for giving us a heads up. I personally think the argument as to whether men caused Global climate change or whether it is a natural cycle is irrelevant and facetious. When the Skipper of a schooner hears there's a DownEaster on the way, he runs for harbor and battens down the hatches. He doesn't call the weatherman a liar and stick to his heading (if he does he's an idiot and wouln't be skipper long!). So call it what you will, but it is already here, and already messing with our heads. The only way to slow it up or even to be certain of survival for ones kith and kin is to heed Science and be prepared to change your life because we cannot continue the way we were without inviting future disaster.Scare tactics or prudence? Ask the Skipper of the schooner, he'll suggest prudence.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitewatermel wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Did the data come from an author of the "Cap and Trade" bill?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

The science behind CO2 forcing is strong. I suppose there's no cure for blind faith in right wing ideology other than disaster. With China and India in "you're going to have to pay us 'poor' nations to do this" (despite the fact that both nations run huge current accounts surpluses) the prognosis for cooperative action is somewhere between zip and nada.

Which brings me back to "and slam the door shut behind me." Maybe the climate scientists are wrong (I wouldn't bet on it, they're smart folks and NOT, whatever some ideologue might say, getting rich doing atmospheric science). But either way I intend to be in a place where if they're wrong I'm OK and if they're right 'I'm OK as long as the locals stop in-migration from other parts of the country trying to flee climate change.' If the stuff comes down, I don't intend for my family to be dragged down in the 'tragedy of the commons' as all the GW denialists suddenly find themselves out of water, food and luck.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from David Leinweber wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

This is a crisis of epic proportions.
We all must act fast or everything is at risk.
People will DIE…

Please, please, I beg you to send all the money you can to Al Gore.
He will save us.
He is our only hope during this time catastrophic destruction.
Without your help NOW all will be lost…
People are dying.

I need to go fishing…

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from countitandone wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Well, nice going TR...you have managed to force the opinionated into giving away their political fence-post posture! Another inspiring, albeit gut-wrenching / brain teasing for some, forum on climate change and it's effect on mother earth and all those who inhabit her, land, sea and air.

Have you noticed, Mr. Creosote, that the "fair and balanced" agenda that "Rush, Sean Hannity" and your "truth-speakers" employ, only codemn what the "scientists" and "liberal groupthinkers" express, rather than have a plan of their own, based on fact?

To be in denial of what we have done to this planet as stewards is absurd. To generate discussion based on a premise that the government is behind this phenom, be it HAARP, ELF or data exagerrated results in a world-wide scam to solicit grant funding enterprises or even politically motivated paranoia aimed to tax the citizenry is ludicris.

Where were all you "right~of~center" protagenists back in November? You must not have voted...you were probably fishing.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Boulder, CO- Forty square miles, surrounded by reality.
Global warming-a bunch of hooey, perpetuated by people who cannot accurately forecast tomorrow's weather, much less up until 2057.
Algore-enough hot air to bring about a global warming effect for twenty square miles in his surrounding area.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from aragonnapoles wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Poisonning water is worst,'cause some particles of that rare materials(some gasses changin de ph)alterate the natural water cicle.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Del in KS-
Bella could not possibly listen to Rush. An original thought and a cold drink of water at the same time would put her in a coma.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from timromano wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

wags,

no worries...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from BigWoodsHunter57 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Bella-
I'm enormously glad that you are not interested in knowing me, in my later years, I find myself less and less tolerant of fools
and those with no tolerance of the ideas of others.
Stay away from well water,dear,and maybe iced tea, also. Have a nice day!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Very good comment, Yoop! However, i fear that some have been drinking the kool-aid so
long that even the evidence of this year's coolest temperatures on record, and the revelation of all the fraud and misdirection going on in the global warming, climate change, whatever it is tomorrow movement, will never change their minds.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Good points and better instructions, Yooper. If only people would just forget the politics and listen to you. What you say is just common sense and good stewardship but, to some, it makes you a liberal yahoo.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FloridaHunter1226 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Global warming is present and very much real... as much as we want to ignore it and not believe it, it's still there. If we do not change our ways, mother nature will and it will be for the worse.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Why are the motives of the 'believers' in climate change the only motives that are questioned? What about the motives of industry who make their money out of polluting industries? When you look at the money involved on both sides of this debate I think it is pretty clear where the big bucks lie.

I think Yoop has hit the nail on the head with his waste is sinful statement. People (myself included) get very affronted when something wrong is pointed out in their lives.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Common sense is lacking if you think that a drought is a direct effect on global warming. The earth has always warmed and cooled, and had wet periods and droughts. The fact is we are not going to change this.
Pactola reservoir here in the black hills was going down for Ten years during a period which we had less than average rainfall. Scientists claimed it would never be full again because of too much demand from irrigation and cities using it for water. Well they were proven a fool when it filled in less than a year. COMMON SENSE is to realize that climates have always changed, and this is the way it is. Now you have a fear factor going on and it is rediculous. F&S needs to get over this.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Logan V. I farm a little myself, got some sheep and goats, rabbits and such, Like I say I respect those who have the integrity to walk their talk and get their hands dirty.
However agribusiness is not sustainable farming. Industrial farming sows petroleum to grow monocrops that are vulnerable to disease and pests so they use genetic engineering to create plant lines that can withstand hideous levels of pesticides and herbicides (thats what "Roundup Ready" means) the excess of which runs into the rivers and then to the ocean whereit encourages the bacteria that have created a dead zone of pollution bigger than several states. Monsanto has a lot to answer for, when one considers the destruction that has been wrought so they could make a profit.
Industrial farming needs monocropping for the sake of mechanical harvesting at the expense of the environment and the tilth of the land. There is few treasures more valuable than good topsoil, but due to industrial farming practices the heartland is loosing topsoil at an alarming rate. When it is gone not even chemicals will grow crops on wasted barren soil.
Organic and hydroponic farming are smaller scale than agribusiness and lend themselves to family sized operations. Organic farming actually builds the fertility of the soil, while producing vegitables and fruits that sell for higher premiums because of superior flavor and quality. Hydroponic gardening doesn't even require soil, and can therefore be accomplished in places other than traditional farmland, such as cities or orbiting space colonies. Water in hydroponic gardens is recycled continually conserving it. Agribusiness is by comparison sucking the Ogalala Aquifer dry while polluting the Missouri and the Missisippi. Water will likely be the next resource men fight wars over, for instance a big issue in the Arab Israeli conflict is water rights on the West Bank. Which brings us back to the Colorado. And water rights, a very big thing in our West.
Agribusiness needs to be curbed, I have been offended for years by the antics of politicians who make noise about saving family farms while steering agricultural subsidies to Big Ag. Agribusiness kills family farms by buying up the land. Big Ag can afford to go deep into hock for the most modern mechanized farm equipment, though when small family farmers try to keep up with the Joneses one or two bad years and the family farm is foreclosed and on the auction block, with the Big Ag corporate goons ready to buy up the land and kick families off. Big Ag is entirely mechanized, families are a liability to agribusiness as kids and dogs and such run up insurance liability. And Quo Bono? Who benefits? Corporate dudes in suits hundreds of miles away in offices where they never need see the wind blowing the topsoil away behind the automated tractor.
We can do better, and we must. I am glad you are a farmer, farmers should be considered priests of the land. But Big Ag is part of the problem not part of the solution.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

sjsmarias do you hunt and fish on farmers and ranchers land? If you do it would not be smart to start calling them things other than what they are. Farming has changed drastically since the 40s and people have become more informed about practices. Yes you have to worry about your checkbook, but you do that nomatter what occupation you have.
I fence off areas of my land for wildlife and don't use them for anything other than this. I have never turned anyone down for hunting that has asked me, but if someone was to state a comment like that to me I would tell them where to go. You see one or two farmers that are bad conservationists so you put us all in the same category.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I do know what I'm talking about, I'm not for "cap & trade" as it turns pollution into a commodity. I am all for ranching and I like beef, but I recognize that steers turn something I cannot eat (grass) into something I enjoy eating (meat). I object to feedlots where animals are fed geneticly modified grain to bring them up to market weight. I know the difference between grass fed beef and feedlot beef and I know which I prefer for flavor and provenance. Don't assume I am some kind of PETA troll just because I think large corporations are wrecking the planet for short term gains. I raise critters for food and do my own slaughtering to boot. We just don't have sufficient acreage for cattle or we'd have some. I object to being referred to as a "hobby farmer", call me a sustainable farmer or even a subsistance farmer but our farm is not a hobby no more than your spread is. We do more different things in a smaller space and we aren't commercial but that doesn't make us "hobbyists". It means we walk our talk.
If you don't believe in the dead zone, just look for it on Google Maps. It can be seen from space, unless you think that is some kind of liberal conspiracy as well. The dead zone was created by agricultural runoff contaminated by roundup and other chemicals known to harm most lifeforms. Monsanto may have allowed farmers to grow more but at what cost? Does a corporation have a right to kill the Gulf of Mexico just to make a profit?
As far as fart bags on cows, that sounds foolish even to me, but have you considered the energy potential in extracting biogas from cow manure? Your cattle could provide enough methane fuel to run your entire operation with a couple or three simple digesters. Biogas plants are ridiculously simple to build, some are as simple as fuel bladders on the ground and the gas can run water heaters or even fuel diesel engines for tractors or generators. Imagine what you could save in fuel costs! I am building one for my own operation and you can find everything you need to know right on the web.
As I said before I think farmers should be honored as stewards of the land, provided they are Good stewards of the land they get to occupy for a few milliseconds of geologic time. I think society does set higher standards for farmers because farmers have such awesome responsibilities. I think we need family farms owned by families and run by families, because when one considers the land one must always take the long view for the long haul into the future and multigenerational extended families are the only stable human societal structures that can exist long enough to really exert stewardship for the long term in a scale small enough to pay attention to the little details that can mean so much in an ecosystem. Once we were mostly all farmers-85% back in 1920, now very few farm and agribusiness and mechanization require far fewer people to grow crops than in previous years. But we have to ask ourselves, is it good that so many people are dependant on so few? What happens in some hypothetical future when diesel is $10 bucks a gallon and the trucks aren't pulling into the supermarkets quite so often? Most Americans get every piece of food, they eat wrapped in plastic from a shelf in a store. Many have no idea where food even comes from. With the problems we face, how can this stand? Will you be able to ranch successfully back on horseback? Can you grow a crop of wheat without gasoline and diesel? Can you get steers or grain to market without fossil fuels? Are you Really self sufficient or are you even dependent on big Ag even for the seed you sow as well as the chemical soup neccessary to make it grow? Good luck to you this year, I hope you stay in the black and I thank you for your service (just don't mistake me for one of them "hobby farmers", around here such folks raise tiny horses you can't ride and other such useless critters, we eat what we grow. You can't raise Falabella horses for horsemeat, it is just stupid.)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Bela, Logan:
I find it ironic that large feedlots are dissed, yet they would be the logical source for potential methane gas production. Farmers are really behind the eight ball. If you're small, its not cost effective. If you're large, you're part of greedy agribusiness. Also, there is no economical way to recycle the cattle waste for energy production. If you run a feedlot, you produce "bad meat". How the heck is it, that Americans and Canadians eat so well so cheap?
YooperJack

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Balance is everything, I do think small is cost effective, especially when families and children are considered. I do understand about economies of scale, that is why I want single payer health care, I understand the neccessity of some mechanization, my tractor is electric and the plan is to get some PV panels this year so as to charge my batteries from the sun.
I will freely admit some of my opinions are considered Left Wing here, but Single Payer is considered centrist in Europe, but of course we can't be like THEM, even though most of us are descended from Europeans in the first place. I have been to the other side of the world and come back, so I can't make the mistake of not thinking Globally. We are one species, on one planet, and if we don't figure out how to get along and conserve what we got we will go extinct just like the Columbian Mammoth. Either way, we as a species will continue to evolve till we expire or become unrecognizable as Men and Women. Sometimes a body can just see the tipping point ahead, but will we go over the waterfall or portage? the choice is ours.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

logan.vandermay-
Hear you talking and get your point, but if you think you can convince a 342 year old troll of anything, you are wasting words.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

crm3006
good point

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

We can't help it that Al Gore nosed into this subject. Just because he made that stupid movie doesn't mean he has anything to do with this. The science was there before he was. Straw man, anyone?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Attaboy Yooper, Here at our farm we had sustainability as our goal long before Obama came on board, because it makes sense to try to be self sufficient.
As to the comment about moving somewhere that climate change is not going to unleash it's full horrors upon, New England seems to fill the bill, as long as you don't choose to live on the coast. The disruption of the Halide circuit by cold freshwater from melting Greenland will interrupt or redirect the Gulf Stream, causing New England to be cooler and wetter rather than hotter and dryer. Too bad for you conservatives out there, us liberal types already are a sizable majority here in New England so if you move here you have to put up with us, we were here ahead of you and already picked out all the good spots.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from chadian wrote 4 years 36 weeks ago

capture your moment in history with the enduring leagacy of art. chad lavin studio. www.lavinstudio.com

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Oh every vegitable I eat is not geneticly engineered because we always grow heirloom varieties and not hybrids.
As far as picking up cowflops on 500 acres I'm certain technology can come up with something. How about an autonomous poopbot that senses the cowflop piles by infrared signature and field contrast and collects the dung with rotary rakes in some kind of hopper that can be drained into digester vessels. It could even be solar powered and electric! One would likely need a GPS interface so it could find its way back to the digester vat or report it's own malfunction and locality as well as preventing poopbot rustling. Hey, Science and invention work together when a need is identified and remedied in some new way. Makes me wonder, should it have tracks or axels?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs