--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Dear Buck, > > Please note that the grass is NOT greener on the other side of the fence. It > just appears that way. > > Sincerely, > The grass on the other side of the fence >
We done this to ourselves burning fossil fuels. Look at the 70 unit coal trains per day roaring through Fairfield to points east and coming back again empty every day. That black coal is carbon, beautiful nearly pure carbon. Where do you think it goes at that rate of 70 trains full a day? It is kind of elementary science. There should not even be a debate. The question now is what are we going to do about it? Plant wheat or soybeans? Which one is more drought resistant and provides more food? I got 50 acres I need to plant. It is a real question. Would seeding hay pasture and alfalfa even take in a dry hot year like last year again? The ground subsoil water is not re-charging. The People who have driven big cars and lived in mac-mansions and just go off and vacation in London and exotic places have done this to us. -Buck, out standing in his fields. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Wow Susan, let us not change the topic.  Curiously, do you think that we > > > are just contributors to a planetary cycle already in process or do you > > > think we, as humans, are the reason this process is happening?  I am > > > posing the simplistic main question I hear when out and about. > > > > > > > Great Question. Shows the utter failure of our public schools to teach > > elementary earth sciences that we should doubt what is going on. The trace > > of less than 'One third of one percent' of the air we breath is most all > > that protects and regulates our atmosphere and allows us to even live on > > this planet. That we increase that trace now by 50 percent and there would > > not be a change in climate? That is shear ignorance showing. It is idiocy > > to contend that it is not anthropocentric. You can't take the trace of > > less than 'one third of one percent' and double it and not expect that > > there will be climate change along the way. > > That is the simple answer. > > -Buck > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Susan <wayback71@> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 6:29 PM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The End of the World as we Know It > > > > > > > > >  > > > There has been lots of regularly reported info out for at least 8 years > > > now. No one reads it, or has taken it seriously, even though there is > > > plenty of scientific data behind it and has been. This is the most > > > significant problem of all for humanity and for this planet, but people > > > have focused on other s..t all these years. > > > > > > The only real change in the last decade is that the whole process of > > > global warming is happening EVEN FASTER than the direst predictions of a > > > decade ago. The only reason people are now paying attention is that is > > > is costing them money or might do so. And by the time that happens, it is > > > too late. Actually, unless science comes up with a way to undo or > > > mitigate drastically what has ALREADY happened, it is too late. Some > > > people will probably survive in the end. But it will get mighty ugly > > > along the way. If they can find a way to change this scenario, that > > > would be the age of enlightenment, really and truly a miracle. The bulk > > > of our resources should go to that - a planetary race, a competition, to > > > figure this out. That is where we are at, whether the public gets this > > > or not. Living off the grid, buying a Prius, recycling, driving less - > > > all are nice and helpful but don't make a dent in the catastrophe that is > > > going on right now. > > > > > > Let's change the topic - I spent nearly half a year in a real funk about > > > this in 2006. I had to make a decision to not read more about it or > > > think too much on it. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "..it's as if no-one is listening to the scientific community," said > > > > Corinne Le Quere, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change > > > > Research at the University of East Anglia. > > > > > > > > "I am worried that the risks of dangerous climate change are too high > > > > on our current emissions trajectory," Prof Le Quere said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recently, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) > > > > > > > > > reported that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere hit a new > > > > > > > > > record high in 2011. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data show that global CO2 emissions in 2012 hit 35.6bn > > > > > > > > > > tonnes, a 2.6% increase from 2011 and 58% above 1990 levels. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the organisation said that > > > > > > > carbon dioxide levels reached 391 parts per million in 2011. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The report estimated that carbon dioxide (CO2) accounted for 85% of > > > > > the "radiative forcing" that led to global temperature rises. > > > > > > > > > > Other potent greenhouse gases such as methane also recorded new > > > > > highs, according to the WMO report. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Non-meditators are the real carbon polluters behind the > > > > > > > > destruction of the global climate. Well you know a positive > > > > > > > > scientific case could be made that spiritual people who are > > > > > > > > regular meditators and especially meditating on the Invincible > > > > > > > > American course are much less responsible for global climate > > > > > > > > change than the average non-meditating American or any other > > > > > > > > first world or developing nation peoples. Simply on a > > > > > > > > materialistic level of gross consumption, that anyone who is on > > > > > > > > the full schedule of meditation in the Domes contributing to > > > > > > > > world peace otherwise in fact creates much less carbon damage > > > > > > > > to the atmosphere and global climate than the average CO2 > > > > > > > > emitting consuming American. At a minimum, people on the > > > > > > > > Invincible America course simply do not have the time to > > > > > > > > consume materially like non-meditaters do. > > > > > > > > -Buck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again it is evident that the problem with society is, > > > > > > 'non-meditation'. Even just stopping and taking a quiet time > > > > > > meditation twice a day would be good for the global climate. In > > > > > > prudent public policy taking quiet time meditation breaks at least > > > > > > twice a day should probably be required for everyone's well-being > > > > > > and safety. > > > > > > -Buck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
