three5x5s
WKR
If the wolves eat all the elk, cougars eat all the deer, you have no big game to hunt, and there for have no need for big game guns.
But that was never the plan, or was it??
But that was never the plan, or was it??
Buckle Up! You are in a for a bumpy reality trip.
Volcanic eruptions undo all climate change measures
The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just four days, negated every single effort we humans have made in the past five years to control carbon dioxide emissions on our planet.
The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just four days, negated every single effort we humans have made in the past five years to control carbon dioxide emissions on our planet.
Of course you know about this gas we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for all animal life.
The volcanic ash has erased every effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon.
And there are about 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this gas every day.
I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire time on earth.
Should I mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change?
I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bushfire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years.
Do your homework and stop believing anything anyone tells you cuz many people on the left are full of chit and have a financial interest and/or gun control agenda so they are only interested in fooling you.
If you believe in climate change or not doesn't matter. If man made climate change is real then by believers own numbers we are already doomed and nothing we can do now will stop the earth from warming so all the anti CO2 laws and schemes are about a social agenda and if yo don't believe then all the laws and schemes are a social agenda. Wolves and CO2 laws are both about ending our way of life by "no trace " assholes. Bottom line is that greenies are consumed by self loathing and can't deal with their world dominating top predator nature.
There are scientists who's heads are not firmly planted up their asses and they are working on real solutions to enable us to control the content of the atmosphere. Lucky for us we already know how to kill all the wolves and just need to find the political solution to put it in motion.
I read em but I just don't think we can blame bears and global warming for the decline.
I didn't post the wolf links; was referring to the climate change links.
I trust common sense science like polar ice and geological core analysis. Global warming is psuedo science nonsense. Anyone that buys into it is gullible. If you believe we can adjust the planet's weather in any measurable manner than you are dumb enough to accept responsibility for the change. The truth is simple...the Earth is always warming or cooling and cycles like everything else in nature. The planet was a lot warming when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and a lot cooler after their demise. Perhaps global cooling was the dinosaur's fault and not the meteors' fault. Buy 5 vowels-get a clue.
I trust common sense science like polar ice and geological core analysis.
If you believe we can adjust the planet's weather in any measurable manner than you are dumb enough to accept responsibility for the change.
org/content/110/49/19737.short[/URL]
" Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents."
I'm a very skeptical person and trust data, multiple sources of it, long before I'd trust the word of any political hack from either side of the aisle
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html
http://www.trcp.org/issues/climate-change#.U0dmD3Wx06U
http://conservationhawks.org/
Steven Rinella
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not have "political "hackfrom either side of the aisle." The fact that you think it does (I assume because the root word "government" is part of intergovernmental) means that you don't know what the IPCC is, what it does, or what the word "intergovernmental" means.
I'm not trying to be belligerent here, but multiple participants in this discussion have suggested that if you recognize the overwhelming scientific consensus then you are either easily deceived, downright stupid, or part of some worldwide conspiracy against freedom. So don't read the above paragraph as the first ad-hominem on this thread.
What I like most about Rokslide is that it's an online community full of people who are knowledgeable about a shared interest and eager to share good information with others. This thread over the past few days has devolved into something far different than that--it looks more like the comments you'd find beneath a Yahoo news story.
It's a little late, but at least it's getting done.
Alright, we'll run with your words then Bruce. Also, I'm making a point to keep this civil, maybe you'll do the same? There are smart people who don't believe in global warming, but the vast majority of the world's smartest and most critical thinkers do believe in it:
Sorry for resurrecting this thread months later, but this really stuck in my craw and I wanted to respond to it.
Science is not based on consensus. Science is based on verifiable facts. It is falsifiable.
Any good scientist will be the first to tell you that science is not based on a majority vote, or consensus. While good science tends to draw majorities and consensus, neither is in any way, shape, or form causative to good science. The scientific elite has been wrong time after time throughout history.
There's a term for the argument being used here: Argument from authority. It's one of the classic logical fallacies: "Oprah says our product is the best, so it must be good!" "9 out of 10 bought-off Dentists approve!" Etc.
The vast majority of the world's smartest critical thinkers know better than to fall for this bunk.
It's also silly to argue that the only alternative to the global warming alarmists' claims is that there must be some vast conspiracy on the part of scientists. A consensus is built in the scientific community in much the same way it is built in any community that relies on research: a small number of people do the research and publish their findings. A larger, but still small, number of people actually read the published data. The rest of the community (the vast majority) get the short version via word of mouth, the press, etc. So a very small number of those scientists who actually do the research, or read it carefully, know what they're talking about. The rest don't. They accept on faith.
Further, a whole lot of those scientists are relying on the same data set. A whole army of these global warming alarmists get their data from the NOAA, for example, which was recently exposed for cooking their books (fudging temperature data to make global warming more plausible). Now, I honestly have no idea how many data sets the scientific community is ultimately relying on to support the global warming alarmist position. But I can easily imagine that the whole house of cards just tumbled with the revelations about the NOAA. Food for thought, at least.
Finally, I have done a lot of (layman level) reading about certain scientific areas over the years. I know for a fact that a great many scientists are all too willing to use deceptive language that contradicts the facts in service of a "greater good." Basically, they lie by using language that will be interpreted by the public in a certain way, while parsing their diction carefully enough that it's actually true, if you have the proper background and know what to look for. Again, I know this for a fact; it's actually standard procedure in certain hot-button areas. These scientists figure their research is important enough that they'd rather tell a few white lies to the rubes than risk their jobs, funding, or reputations.
If you give people an incentive to lie, ignore the truth, fudge the truth, or otherwise be less than fully honest, they often will. Scientists are just as human as the rest of us. The influence they could gain through global warming alarmism is enough to explain a lot.
Understanding that consensus and authority prove nothing is the first step toward being a critical thinker.