Stosh

You said you'd shoot the hawk , that's not my box. Sorry though, I gotta drop out of this conversation, this is pushing my buttons.

I don't. There's no excuse for shooting birds of prey to make some point about being superior fearless or that you're doing a good thing. You like bears wolves , coyote , squirrels , hawks eagles ,and sparrows, and lets say somebody takes out a gun and starts shooting things , setting snares and so forth...

Obviously , that she is afraid of the aggressiveness of others but excuses it in herself.

An enemy or competitor , preserves its counterpart, but it can be hard to see this. If you want the hawks to have to adapt to you personally rather than their prey , and weaken the doves...

A kill zone ! funny , but also the way of it. Hawks (and cats) do readily make use of those facilities. What I read into taoism, is that there is a natural way , and there is the way of humans. And when it comes down to nature acting like nature , apart from us, I think we are better off if we leave human morality out of the picture. You brought some nature to your own door , those dinky birds are getting a supplemental food supply at times when they would possibly be starving because there were too many eating the same food , or if they were travelling etc. And I think that we humans are responsible , and indebted , to make some efforts to promote these creatures, including the hawks. But ! none of them are humans , and the idea about letting nature take its course , re: humans preying on one another wouldn't be appropriate. It's a hard life for hawks too, probably harder than for the doves et al. it's a rare rare event to actually see one of those hits go down. Both birds have been honed for exactly that moment , to an incredible degree,... which makes them what they are. The dove kills the hawk by getting away, the hawk kills the dove by catching it. Or one can put it the other way around that they both preserve each other.

So is this thread so far off track it needs a reboot , or no? Looking at the OP, I am not sure where it's supposed to go.

Dunno , but I hope I got to live it up pretty well that go-round.

You made a good point there, we do see other peoples relationships, make guesses and so forth, and some of those suppositions may be on-the-money.

Dunno , I just get the idea that Luke has been 'playing for the other team' for a long time. He's happy with it , and that's great. nuff said.

Yeah, back in the good-ol' days.. "bye bye miss american pie... " It seems like there's no end to the pit now. I wonder if any other , or all generations, had this steady erosion.

Yep that's a good start , I found a lot interesting in there , but..

Ok , now ya'll gals have gotten me to break my plan ..., I have to start all over, I need a gimmick.

In light of turning over 'new' leaves , I don't think you're a weenie. However , you were still making a virtue call , that the hawk doesn't deserve an equal seat at the tree. You value more the the doves and squirrels , but I have personally seen a squirrel , one by one , take baby cardinals out of a nest, and eat them one by one, ass end first like burritos ,while the adults chirped their little beaks off in protest. The world strikes a kind of balance if it is allowed , and half of that is the hawks way.

well , sweetie pie , the fundamental problem with being true to your own nature is like this,either 1 ) we don't have one. or 2) we arent happy with the repercussions of being ourself.

Keep my mouth shut more, for one,( rather than post that I don't see why someone should mess with the hawk being able to eat, or take man-woman advice from a gay dude. ) oops. I did like the two wolves pendant , but that may not be the right gimmick.

I need a good gimmick that will keep me on the path of righteousness.

I hope your weekend went well. Yeah, an attitude shift is in order for me as well. Cannibalism has probably not been anyone's intent, not mine. I figure we each start out with fine intent but it goes awry. I find it pretty hard to remember though, moment to moment.

Then I don't want to live in that kind of ecologically manner. And I already saw all that stuff you flooded the thread with, in an attempt to force your opinion, so I didn't look at any of it.

If you have truly given up, there's no reason to continue to try to preserve things. That is the problem with thinking one can succeed ,and holding ones behavior as contingent to that belief.

I think I will still trust in my personal experience. Anyone should be able to see the cyclic trends and summaries of historic events which eclipse the minor conclusions.

When the text box no longer makes corrections , like fixing of text , correctly , does that mean a surreptitious effort is being made to store and freeze evidence of what someone typed because someone else made a complaint? even if the person does not actually post the entry?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-acidification-Global-warmings-evil-twin.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocehttps://iowaclimate.org/an-acidification-https://iowaclimate.org/ I think these were them, I grabbed the first graphs I saw that went back pre- 1930. heres another, temp vs co2. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjH4YTjnvPgAhWr1FkKHUEyBr4QMwhTKBMwEw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcornwallalliance.org%2F2017%2F06%2Fglobal-temperature-and-co2-which-drives-which%2F&psig=AOvVaw0mSqQowy_KDCzlCHGvMzxW&ust=1552158402980403&ictx=3&uact=3 Its pretty standard opposition views , but I f you have a specific thing you require I will look for it.

Heck , I will even tell you my counter arguments before hand. "In all three cases, the theory or model says that increasing atmospheric CO2 will make the oceans less basic by increasing the concentration of H+ ions and reducing calcium carbonate saturation. This is supposed to reduce the calcification rates of carbonate shell-building organisms. When, in fact, the opposite is occurring in nature with reefs and coccoliths – Calcification rates are generally increasing. And in empirical experiments under laboratory conditions, otoliths grew (rather than shrank) when subjected to high levels of simulated atmospheric CO2. In the cases of reefs and coccoliths, one answer is that the relatively minor increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last couple of hundred years has enhanced photosynthesis more than it has hampered marine carbonate geochemistry. However, the otoliths (fish ear bones) shouldn’t really benefit from enhanced photo-respiration. The fact that otoliths grew rather than shrank when subjected to high CO2 levels is a pretty good indication that the primary theory of ocean acidification has been tested and falsified" The changes are cyclic looked at long term, if you look short term you see temp rise , you look short term at ocean ph you see no significant trend. And as Co2 levels change in the ocean , calcifications shift between aragonite and calcite deposition of shells , and there is an increase in the rate of growth for corals esp. due to abundant food-plants supplemented by the CO2 .

Any human impact , needs to be considered in its entirety, and since there are many mitigating factors , which equally affect levels of CO2 and temperature, all need to be considered. In fact it may be simply outside our scope to weigh all these things , like changes in groundcover , albedo ,soil erosion and so forth. Which would leave us looking , as a species , as to whether climate change is a thing that is happening beyond our ability to control , in fact a natural cyclical event. One can never prove that it is human activity , or NOT human activity which is causal of this bout of climate change , unless it can be shown to have exceeded all previous natural events, but that is really ,'too little too late'. Even the simple greenhouse effect , reproducible in a laboratory , can not- be said to be indicative of real world effects ,because the mitigating factors from the field are not present. One thing that is clear , is that all the descriptions being generated about the horrible nasty effects of the changes all swing to the negative. 'Tis truly an evil wind which blows no good' Some body , some things, should benefit from a warmer earth , and if a scientist cannot parse out the benefits , then they do not have a proper list of the detriment either. They should be considered partial. Most everyone has reasons to make the doomsday predictions , or deny them. Its really very difficult to conclude ,who is in fact, is being truly impartial about the predictions. Fortunately there is a resolution and that is to have those who have no dog in the fight , who are not climatologists , evaluate the data, independently. This is as good an answer as humanity can get, and for right or wrong , that's what we should all go by, rather than be frozen by indecision and partisanship.

As far as I remember , from my aquarium days , its really pretty difficult to cause acidification of seawater. Its very high in its buffering capacity , the oceans are huge , and the percentage of CO2 released has only increased by maybe 0.02%. ( comparing weights of all hydrocarbons burnt to the weight of CO2 in the atmosphere , and that doesn't even discount CO2 uptake by plants. ) One should easily admit that- absolutely any output of CO2 is going to have some impact on the ph of the world , but that would include a babies breathing , and at the level at which error is unavoidable in any testing , one should consider if the data one is trying to explain is really just background noise. The earth has seen temps and CO2 levels higher than todays , and lower. If one looks only at the recent uptick without understanding that the changes are cyclic , they may start running around like the stone age cavepeople who thought an eclipse was a presage to the end of the world.