Environmental Extremism in California

[Quintessence]

So, to you, NOT using the water flowing down from the mountains into the ocean is somehow "saving" it and using that water to provide clean energy and for washing and drinking, growing crops, well, that is actually wasting it.

Not what I said. You have a particular talent for putting words in people's mouths that weren't there. Just as you did, I suspect, with the Pacific Institute. I've found no evidence of your claims about them. Has anyone else? If it's there, I'd like to see it.

 

[Super Universe]

I'm NOT disagreeing!!

Just expect flood damage if you do build on the floodplain.

Not sure about building more dams. Much better letting vegetation do its thing and delay run-off

In California we need more dams. They don't have to be huge, a series of smaller dams built above our large dams to help with water storage and flooding.

Vegetation delay's run-off? It does. I have ten acres in the California mountains with five seasonal creeks and a seasonal pond. I see it every winter, the rains come in late September to early October, the grass comes back, and usually about December the water table is full and the creeks start flowing. So, from January-April all the rain we get is run off because the water table is completely full.

Some urban areas of California just flooded a few weeks ago from the last storm because the San Pedro Dam was full and they had to release water. If there was one or two smaller dams above the San Pedro Dam then the water could have been stored.

 

[Quintessence]

You're the one who doesn't understand. How is using water destroying it?

No matter how you use it, inside your house or outside your house, the water ends up back in the ocean. Therefore, you think we shouldn't use it.

From what I've been able to gather, this is a complete misrepresentation of the Pacific Institute's stance on things and nobody in this thread has been suggesting we shouldn't use water.

What many of us in this thread do understand is that it takes energy to move water around for use by humans. Some of us also understand that replenishing aquifers of fresh water takes time, and these aquifers can be drained by tapping them too rapidly thus compromising the available fresh water supply for humans and other animals. Therefore, it is common sense to use water efficiently as in not waste it. Which things like drip irrigation do, because it minimizes water losses through evapotranspiration compared to other irrigation systems. But I provided you with some references - do your homework.

I could also provide you a bunch of references about the impact of dams and other anthropogenic modifications of waterways on wildlife. But as I wager you didn't read any of the other references I provided to you about drip irrigation, it would probably be a complete waste of my time to provide references for you about this subject. If someone else asks, though, I can dig up some abstracts for your edification. It's an interesting subject.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, basically, you're just an extremist who doesn't know enough about the issue to debate it.

If that is an example of extremism to you, then what say you of groups such as the Earth Liberation Front or other groups that are known for blowing things up, issuing death threats, and are known for being a menace to big agriculture, factory farms and even the occasional university research lab?

 

[Super Universe]

From what I've been able to gather, this is a complete misrepresentation of the Pacific Institute's stance on things and nobody in this thread has been suggesting we shouldn't use water.

What many of us in this thread do understand is that it takes energy to move water around for use by humans. Some of us also understand that replenishing aquifers of fresh water takes time, and these aquifers can be drained by tapping them too rapidly thus compromising the available fresh water supply for humans and other animals. Therefore, it is common sense to use water efficiently as in not waste it. Which things like drip irrigation do, because it minimizes water losses through evapotranspiration compared to other irrigation systems. But I provided you with some references - do your homework.

I could also provide you a bunch of references about the impact of dams and other anthropogenic modifications of waterways on wildlife. But as I wager you didn't read any of the other references I provided to you about drip irrigation, it would probably be a complete waste of my time to provide references for you about this subject. If someone else asks, though, I can dig up some abstracts for your edification. It's an interesting subject.

I misrepresented the Pacific Institute's stance? Hardly. You either have not read their material OR you're another non-science educated environmentalist who doesn't care that dams provide clean energy, marine habitat, control flooding, and water storage because you're just absolutely convinced that any change humans make to the environment has to be bad.

Without human intervention, nature floods animals homes and the fish that overflow the river banks are left to die.

Please stop using electricity, stop driving vehicles, and stop living in homes made of wood.

Many of you understand that it takes energy to move water? Yeah, it does, that energy is called gravity, which causes water to move downward and drain into what we call rivers. Have you ever noticed that most of the worlds cities are built next to rivers? No, I don't suppose you have. Have you ever been outside of Iowa?

Replenishing ground aquifers takes time? It does, maybe the government should allow the farmers to use the river water to irrigate their farms so they don't have to pump it out of the ground then? When farmers use river water to irrigate their farms, the water just ends up back in the river.

It's common sense to use water efficiently and not waste it? Not when you have an endless source of it flowing right by your city. You think that using water destroys it.

Do you know what you have to do to destroy water? I bet you don't even know. There is a way but you're not science educated so you're going to have to look it up.

Drip irrigation efficiently uses water? It does, but, as I said, the only real good thing about it is that the farmer does not have to pump as much water, saving electricity. In some desert areas drip irrigation is probably absolutely necessary. In places where major rivers flow year round, it doesn't matter even a tiny bit because all the water the farmer uses ends up back in the river. Get an education, a real one.

You can provide me with references about the impact of dams on wild life? I live in the mountains so I have limited bandwidth so I'm not going to look at any links but when you want to point out the negatives of dams I will be here.

 

[Super Universe]

If that is an example of extremism to you, then what say you of groups such as the Earth Liberation Front or other groups that are known for blowing things up, issuing death threats, and are known for being a menace to big agriculture, factory farms and even the occasional university research lab?

We all let our emotions get the best of us.

I'm just the only one who admits it.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You agree with some of my statements? That's the worst thing anyone's ever said to me.

Still reading into what I actually said. I said, if you took the time, you MIGHT find out what my opinions are, as opposed to just projecting. LOL.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I'm the troll? But you're in my thread.

Ah, i see. If you start a thread, then anyone that points out your fallacies is a troll. Got it!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Killer sheep are the danger up there.

Not so much as Moors murderers. But they are locked up.

 

[Super Universe]

Still reading into what I actually said. I said, if you took the time, you MIGHT find out what my opinions are, as opposed to just projecting. LOL.

If I took the time I might actually find out what your opinions are? I started a thread to discuss things with people who want to discuss things. This forum is for people to discuss things.

Why are you here?

 

[Super Universe]

Ah, i see. If you start a thread, then anyone that points out your fallacies is a troll. Got it!

Yeah, that and people who only post insults without ever addressing the topic.

You want me to beg you to participate because you think your opinion is soooo important.

It's really not.

 

[Quintessence]

I misrepresented the Pacific Institute's stance? Hardly. You either have not read their material OR you're another non-science educated environmentalist who doesn't care that dams provide clean energy, marine habitat, control flooding, and water storage because you're just absolutely convinced that any change humans make to the environment has to be bad.

This really would be a lot simper if you would cite your sources. I have been reading their material. I haven't found the claims you talk about in the OP. Where are they? Where should I be looking? Exactly which of their reports make those statements? Where is it? Until you show us, what are we supposed to conclude other than "Super Universe is misrepresenting the position of the Pacific Institute and attacking a strawperson." Which, given your record for actually asking people what their positions are on various issues, seems a logical conclusion at this time.

Without human intervention, nature floods animals homes and the fish that overflow the river banks are left to die.

Are you saying that humans are supposed to save all animal homes and fish? If so, we are surely doing a rubbish job of it. It also seems other species are quite capable of surviving without humans. On the contrary, human ecosystem engineering has launched the planet into a sixth mass extinction. Anthropogenic modifications to riparian systems is one of many facets of that. Channelization of riparian systems, flood control systems, and dams have positive impacts on some species, negative impacts on others.

Many of you understand that it takes energy to move water? Yeah, it does, that energy is called gravity, which causes water to move downward and drain into what we call rivers.

You know - I don't actually know that much about water distribution networks, but even I am aware that it is not this simple.

Water supply network - Wikipedia

Replenishing ground aquifers takes time? It does, maybe the government should allow the farmers to use the river water to irrigate their farms so they don't have to pump it out of the ground then?

You'd still have to build infrastructure and use energy to move water from rivers, too. Additionally, river water tends to be more polluted than groundwater, which is an issue that would need to be dealt with too. This would probably mean building water treatment plants for the river water before it is used in irrigation. But a civil engineer could tell you far more about that than I could.

You think that using water destroys it.

Care to quote a post where I actually said that I think that? I recall saying no such thing.

Do you know what you have to do to destroy water? I bet you don't even know. There is a way but you're not science educated so you're going to have to look it up.

Care to quote a post where I've talked about my educational background?

Drip irrigation efficiently uses water? It does, but, as I said, the only real good thing about it is that the farmer does not have to pump as much water, saving electricity.

And water. If you're not pumping as much water, you're using less water... which means saving water from that source.

Get an education, a real one.

I see. I suggest you review Rule 3 of our forums.

 

[Super Universe]

This really would be a lot simper if you would cite your sources. I have been reading their material. I haven't found the claims you talk about in the OP. Where are they? Where should I be looking? Exactly which of their reports make those statements? Where is it? Until you show us, what are we supposed to conclude other than "Super Universe is misrepresenting the position of the Pacific Institute and attacking a strawperson." Which, given your record for actually asking people what their positions are on various issues, seems a logical conclusion at this time.



Are you saying that humans are supposed to save all animal homes and fish? If so, we are surely doing a rubbish job of it. It also seems other species are quite capable of surviving without humans. On the contrary, human ecosystem engineering has launched the planet into a sixth mass extinction. Anthropogenic modifications to riparian systems is one of many facets of that. Channelization of riparian systems, flood control systems, and dams have positive impacts on some species, negative impacts on others.



You know - I don't actually know that much about water distribution networks, but even I am aware that it is not this simple.

Water supply network - Wikipedia



You'd still have to build infrastructure and use energy to move water from rivers, too. Additionally, river water tends to be more polluted than groundwater, which is an issue that would need to be dealt with too. This would probably mean building water treatment plants for the river water before it is used in irrigation. But a civil engineer could tell you far more about that than I could.



Care to quote a post where I actually said that I think that? I recall saying no such thing.



Care to quote a post where I've talked about my educational background?



And water. If you're not pumping as much water, you're using less water... which means saving water from that source.



I see. I suggest you review Rule 3 of our forums.

Please provide your proof of a science education and then, maybe, I will refer to you articles on the Pacific Institute website that you have probably already read but you did not understand because you don't have an education in science.

Am I saying that humans are supposed to save all animals homes? No.

Other species are quite capable of surviving without humans? Tell that to the ones who went extinct millions of years ago, oh, somehow that was our fault, right?

Dams are responsible for mass extinctions? Evidence please? Do you have some? I'll wait...

Dams have positive and negative impacts on species? Yeah, they do. In California the migratory fish can't get by the dam to reach their mountain stream spawning grounds so we built fisheries in front of every major dam. It's not a perfect solution but it works.

Water distribution is not as simple as just using rivers? Nothing ever is that simple. California forces farmers to pump groundwater to their farms instead of allowing them to pump river water even though the water just goes back to the river anyway.

You still have to build infrastructure and use energy to move water from rivers too? It's already there. In some years the California farmers are allowed to use river water on their farms so the pumps and irrigation network is already in place. But, in drought years, which is about half the time, the state doesn't allow them to do that so they have to use their wells.

River water tends to be more polluted than groundwater? Yeah, but it's not polluted enough to cause any damage or we wouldn't use it. The nitrogen in rivers from human urine is actually a good fertilizer. The farmers don't need to build water treatment plants for their crops.

You didn't say that using water is destroying it? You didn't have to.

You didn't mention your educational background? You didn't have to.

Drip irrigation saves water? How so? Where does this "saved" water go? Doesn't it just go into the ocean? So, to you, not using fresh river water and letting it go to waste in the ocean is somehow "saving" it?

I should see Rule 3 in the forums because I suggested you get an education? You advised me to get an education first. I just responded with the same thing. Ever hear the one about people who live in glass houses?

 

[Altfish]

Not so much as Moors murderers. But they are locked up.

One of them's dead, Myra Hindley s dust now

 

[Quintessence]

Please provide your proof of a science education and then, maybe, I will refer to you articles on the Pacific Institute website

No. Link to them now - something that should have been done the first time it was asked. Providing citations when you make claims about someone other than yourself is important regardless of the educational background of the audience. It's standard practice for presenting arguments across disciplines. If you claim "such and such said this" you cite. Alternatively, you can continue to deflect this responsibility, which means neither I nor anyone else here has any reason to take your words seriously. The OP would be a decent post if it had citations, but as it stands, it has about the same level of credibility as a fake news article from a grocery store tabloid. Which is really sad because there is definitely merit in what you are getting at, but your refusal to provide references is getting in the way of what might otherwise be an interesting discussion.

Well, that and the misrepresentation of other people's words and the failure to practice active listening. Aw, damn (mehahaha... pun intended) let's get real here - even if you provided sources, I'm doubting this would go anywhere with your attitude.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We all let our emotions get the best of us.

I'm just the only one who admits it.

That doesn't even address my question.

 

[Super Universe]

That doesn't even address my question.

They're extremists.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They're extremists.

But they are absolutely not comparable to an environmental research organization. One is considered to be one of our bigger domestic threats, the other researches the environment, sustainability, and our impact on it.

 

[Super Universe]

But they are absolutely not comparable to an environmental research organization. One is considered to be one of our bigger domestic threats, the other researches the environment, sustainability, and our impact on it.

The aggressive and violent environmental groups are definately more extreme than the Pacific Institute.

The Pacific Institute is manipulating the information intentionally to mislead the public on environmental issues because they don't like dams. The public does not have a complete understanding of how things work. People are too busy with their own jobs, kids, and home life to study the issues more in depth.

If you have a PHD and you tell the public and government that "Dams are bad for the environment", they will listen. If you oppose their views then you are supposedly "against the environment".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The aggressive and violent environmental groups are definately more extreme than the Pacific Institute.

The Pacific Institute is manipulating the information intentionally to mislead the public on environmental issues because they don't like dams. The public does not have a complete understanding of how things work. People are too busy with their own jobs, kids, and home life to study the issues more in depth.

If you have a PHD and you tell the public and government that "Dams are bad for the environment", they will listen. If you oppose their views then you are supposedly "against the environment".

You still have not demonstrated they are extremists. They are researchers, those with a PhD who have studied the issues more in depth because they rest of us are doing other things. If the Pacific Institute are extremists, then so is NASA, NOAA, APA, and pretty much every other research-based organization.