Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire This fellow has.....

Well the last time I filled up there...

If they do, that could easily explain some of the irrational, violent behaviors there. Airborne lead and associated lead poisoning dropped precipitously after it was removed from gasoline in the US, and not coincidentally the rates of violence and of several different psychological disorders that lead to irrational, violent behavior also dropped.

Yes, that's part of the science. And your asking me why we're not doing anything about it...again, because I believe the science doesn't mean I sign on to what the left has to say about it.

As for the 1970's...sure, perhaps they're all wrong again. But the prudent thing is to err on the side of caution. The solid science is pointing to one thing right now. It's not real smart to just ignore it on the off chance it might be wrong.

Again the cardiologist analogy. You have a heart condition. The doc told you to lay off of the cholesterol in 1970. But then someone did a study and said that cholesterol doesn't cause heart attacks. Finally, 20 years later we find out there's good and bad cholesterol. Meanwhile you still have this underlying heart condition. Which would be the prudent course of action? Follow what the best science has to say right now, or just ignore it all on the off chance they may be wrong?

Look, I'm all for energy independence and getting off oil about 30-f'kin'-years ago just so we don't have to dick around with the ME. For me, the biggest missed opportunity of the last 1/2 century was Reagan NOT launch a new "space program" on energy right after the Oil Embargo and pouring everything we and the Europeans had into getting off oil so we could tell the Saudis and the Arabs to pound sand (literally).

What you're saying is act cautiously and prudently. Of course. The problem is that the hardliners on both sides want none of that. The left wants to castigate everything as if the science is indisputable (which it isn't) and that oil and the West are to blame totally for everything (which they aren't). Never is a word said about China, for example, who added the equivalent of the entire US coal fleet to their inventory LAST YEAR ALONE and with zero emissions or environmental controls. The right wants to drill everything, right here and right now, and put nothing into new fuel sources or efficiency or new options for electricity, vehicles, etc. Both are stupid to a catastrophic, suicidal degree.

That said, the science isn't settled, isn't proven, and the biggest factors aren't being focused on. Until those things change, no difference can be made.

The right wants to provide the greatest amount of energy at the least cost to the consumer and industry, so it's not drill everything right here right now, it's drill until the alternatives are viable...which they are not at this time...or they wouldn't be the alternatives.

There is no "man made CO2"
All the CO2 on the planet was here before we arrived

It just gets moved around

Maybe Al Gore and all the other idiots that believe man is the cause of climate change, should mount up and tackle countries like Mexico, Iran, India, and China.




Dave

I thought one of the scientists might have put it in a report that you had read.

You seem to know a lot about this stuff.



Travis

AGREED!!!

I don't think the science is ever settled. But we have enough to go on, and neither side is making what I consider rational decisions. The left wants us in the stone ages, and the righ want to act like nothing's about; neither are rational.

I don't think the science is ever settled. But we have enough to go on, and neither side is making what I consider rational decisions. The left wants us in the stone ages, and the righ want to act like nothing's about; neither are rational. [/quote]

If we have enough to go on, then we need to go on it - and that does not mean concentrating on US emissions. It means taking a look at and doing something about Mbobo's cook fire in Congo and 1B Indians burning cowschit and riding motorscooters and Wu Li's newest coal plant outside of Beijing and the utter lack of effort put to any of those issues.

Address the real issues, and then you'll have something to go on. Keep concentrating on the margins and nothing gets done.

The left does not want "us" in the stone age. They want people that aren't them in the stone age.




Travis

Like I said, I don't agree with how the left addresses the issues.

But we can only change the US in relation to carbon emissions so that's why they're not addressing things in the Congo.

And I honestly think the US is doing a pretty good job of reducing our carbon footprint. FWIW, I don't think it's legal to fire up your charcoal grill in California anymore.

Meanwhile, I BBQ with nothing but charcoal (evil little me).

Group-think

It's all crap.

The OPs article is spot phuggin on.

Do we make a wee bit of difference? Who cares when a volcano erupts?

It's commie bs and yes I do realize how 'rudimentary' that sounds. Phugg it.

The falsehoods will continue as long as the liberals are on board, and one wonders how their children become liberals.......

So you believe there is a problem but you don't want to help fix it, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

You're by no means a stupid person Kevin but you sure do say some of the stupidest schit I've ever heard. Quit drinking the koolaid and I bet you'd come out of the fog.

It's getting pretty obvious isn't it? I don't think he's even trying to hide it anymore. IMO he's about one click away from being in the same camp as nwa, losthiway, and sacharlie. Democrat trolls just here to spread socialist propaganda, and stir [bleep].

I don't buy into man-made climate change or global warming, but both sides of the issue need to let go of the ruminant methane argument. There is no net gain of greenhouse gas - the digestion of the plant will release the same amount of carbon as the decomposition of the plant. Just the time frame changes. Ultimately the ruminant and the plant are part of the same carbon cycle.

Fossil fuels are a different deal. As the argument goes, fossil fuels are sequestered and out of the carbon cycle. It's only when man brings the sequestered carbon back into the cycle do they contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

Cooking fires can also fall under the no-net-gain scenario if the fuel used is wood, cow chips, or other carbon source currently in the carbon cycle. If coal or other sequestered fuel is used then the opposite applies.

What a fugging idiot---even for a Democrat. Scientitic truth isn't determined by majority vote. As Einstein famously remarked when the Nazi's trotted out 30 of their best scientists to claim relativity was false (I am paraphrasing) "It only takes one to prove me wrong". Is that all you've got Geek---the claim that the majority says so? for about the past 30 years they've (the scientific community) been telling us that eggs, butter and bacon (high cholesterol) cause heart disease. We now know that is false (supposedly) because the very same scientific community that has been telling us for years that it was gospel, is now tellins us they were wrong!

Stick that one in your "majority vote determins scientific truth" pipe and smoke it.


Jordan

Here's another article kicking the schit out of the global warming thesis....


http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/