Jeeps sees a black bear...

Hiked Graveyard fields yesterday. Noticed quite a few yellow jackets near 3500 feet. Hiking looking glass rock tomorow. I should be able to push to near 4000 feet here. Will keep you updated on the progress of these nasty little bugs.

On a side note, reintroduction of the elk to the smokies is proceding well. Noticed four lurking about in the Cataloochie. Guess not all animals survive change.. anywho, its nice to see em back... here a some pics [not mine however]. Elk in The Catalooche Area NC
 
You are speaking in generalities. Who are these "same players"? I don't see anyone commenting here who said it positively was not so intially and not are saying man is not the cause.

I for one have never said it was not happening as an absolute statement as I reserved such judgement until further information was made available. My stance is pretty much the same now as it has been -- if man is the cause, show me some evidence. Not some scientist's theory. Not someone's idea of "common sense dictates ...." Some real, hard, factual evidence.

I'm not going to go with anyone who pushes a theory as fact they have been granted millions in reasearch dollars to prove. They have PROVEN nothing.

I have also been a steadfast advocate of minimizing our impact on our environment/nature as much as possible; however, I caveat that with I am not willing to live in a cave and hunt with club and light my cave with a wood fire. There's a happy medium.

So again, WHO are these "same people"?

Who?

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

We've been over this time and again.

Who thinks that manmade CO2 is effecting our climate. Thousands of scientist worldwide who are NOT on industiralists payrolls, that's who.

Who thinks that mankind has nothing to do with it?

EXACTLY the same groups of charlatans who DENIED IT WAS EVEN HAPPENING until recently.

So you just keep believing people who denied the obvious, if you want.

I'm going to count on the opinions of people who really ARE experts in this science, people who WARNED US before it was so obvious, that something untoward is happening.

If you want to believe people who were wrong for the last two decades, be my guest, gunny.

But don't be telling me your objections are based on anything like real science.

They are based on the fact that you apparently don't understand that the scientific conjecture here is very soundly based on the same real science which has been predicting the changes that are obvious now and cannot be denied.

As I have stated already, I think there is much to learn. I think that mankind might be only paritally responsible for the climate changes we're seeing, but to deny that we have had ANYTHING to do with it?

Well that's just completely absurd, given what the majority of world climatologists are telling us, and have warned us we could expect and we are now seeing happen, too.
 
Last edited:
I received an email from a niece (just now) that lives very close to downtown Carson City, NV. This BEAR went right through one of her neighbors backyard! :eek:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfDDot5OWv8]YouTube - Carson City bear[/ame]
 
I was leaving the Smokey Mountains National park just north of Ashville today and a came acrossed a black bear meandering down the road. As a lifelong hiker I was puzzled to see a bear out of his element. Usually these are reclusive cats that are rarely seen. On my hike earlier, I came acrossed an outback campsite that was closed. THe reason for this was abnormally agressive bears... Things didnt much add up and I really didnt connect the dots till I ran into an offduty park ranger in the city. I told him of my bear experience and he went off on the reason. He said that the bears have had a bad go of it since this drought set in acrossed the region. I told him that next week they should get some remnants of Fay thinking this would cheer him up. Little did I know that storms like bring too much rain too soon. Most of it just runs off and creates erosion damage witout replenishing the water table. He told me that snow is whats needed. He said over the last decade that snow has been slow in coming and sparse in general. He said there are odd happenings in the natural world on the mountains. He said that salamanders have nearly vanished in the park and yellow jackets are now living at 4800 feet. For about an hour, (much to my wifes dismay) we spoke about the signifcance of the climate changes that he is witness to. It was an amazing conversation that I had with this guy that tied everything together. The agressive bears, the bears in the open out of their natural habitat, the salamanders and the yellow jackets..
the bears are starving because there has not been enough snow to water the blueberries during the dry season. The bears are on the move. The salamanders live in both water and land. They are most succeptible to any change in climate having to rely on both environments and the wasps have since moved to 4800 feet since the winters no longer are cool enough to kill em off...
Long story short, If anyone doubts global warming just go to the smokey mountains national park and talk to any of the rangers.
Oh.. if anyone needs a prosthetic ankle talk to James DeOrio at Duke hospital in Durham NC, since mine performed beyond belief on a three mile hike.


The black bear must have been quite a sight.

I am so relieved that the environment has become a priority to both parties.
 
Do you consider that we might be able to make it less of a problem, even if it isn't our fault?
Like what, tell the sun not to have spots?

Look, my standard argument with these environmental Marxists whenever they bring up global warming is two words: "nuclear power". The fact that none of these whackos support nukes proves that their agenda is not CO2 reduction. :eusa_whistle:
 
Like what, tell the sun not to have spots?

Look, my standard argument with these environmental Marxists whenever they bring up global warming is two words: "nuclear power". The fact that none of these whackos support nukes proves that their agenda is not CO2 reduction. :eusa_whistle:

Great, so we reduce CO2, but create nuclear waste.

Nuclear power is not necessary. The Danes already get 20% of their power from the wind. The Israelis are building one solar power plant that will supply 5% of their energy needs. Algae based ethanol farms can produce 10,000 gallons per acre. The technology is there for clean energy. We just need to use it.
 
Great, so we reduce CO2, but create nuclear waste.

Nuclear power is not necessary. The Danes already get 20% of their power from the wind. The Israelis are building one solar power plant that will supply 5% of their energy needs. Algae based ethanol farms can produce 10,000 gallons per acre. The technology is there for clean energy. We just need to use it.

Rescind Jimmy Carters moratorium that prevents reprocessing of nuclear waste and reduce it by 90%. The rest gets stored at Yucca Mountain until we figure out how to get the energy of it, too.
 
Like what, tell the sun not to have spots?

Look, my standard argument with these environmental Marxists whenever they bring up global warming is two words: "nuclear power". The fact that none of these whackos support nukes proves that their agenda is not CO2 reduction. :eusa_whistle:


No, not sunspot reduction, :) , but there are various suggestions out there - like CO2 sequestration and there are even some reflective technology suggestions (wow!). Most of those are "out there," but the sequestration is potentially viable.

Let's say we could pull the CO2 levels down to oh I don't know 50 ppm, and have some effect on cooling the planet. Save the summer ice caps, restore proper snowpack in the winter in the sierras, etc etc. It seems like a responsible thing to do from an ecological stance. And from a selfish stance too since the droughts and whatnot in our farmland might be less severe. I dunno, it seems like a good idea whether we caused the problem or not.

FTR, I am not opposed to nuclear power at all. But I'm not a whacko either. :)

I asked because whenever I talk to these denialist whackos addressing the problem even if it isn't our fault, they dodge the question. But you answered it which is nice. And hopefully you're not a whacko either. :tongue:
 
Last edited:
Rescind Jimmy Carters moratorium that prevents reprocessing of nuclear waste and reduce it by 90%. The rest gets stored at Yucca Mountain until we figure out how to get the energy of it, too.

Nice substantive post. I commend you.

The problem is the part about storing it at Yucca Mountain "until we figure out how to get energy out of it."

We don't need nuclear energy. We can do the same thing with clean energy. Energy is all around us. We just need to harness it.
 
I was leaving the Smokey Mountains National park just north of Ashville today and a came acrossed a black bear meandering down the road. As a lifelong hiker I was puzzled to see a bear out of his element. Usually these are reclusive cats that are rarely seen. On my hike earlier, I came acrossed an outback campsite that was closed. THe reason for this was abnormally agressive bears... Things didnt much add up and I really didnt connect the dots till I ran into an offduty park ranger in the city. I told him of my bear experience and he went off on the reason. He said that the bears have had a bad go of it since this drought set in acrossed the region. I told him that next week they should get some remnants of Fay thinking this would cheer him up. Little did I know that storms like bring too much rain too soon. Most of it just runs off and creates erosion damage witout replenishing the water table. He told me that snow is whats needed. He said over the last decade that snow has been slow in coming and sparse in general. He said there are odd happenings in the natural world on the mountains. He said that salamanders have nearly vanished in the park and yellow jackets are now living at 4800 feet. For about an hour, (much to my wifes dismay) we spoke about the signifcance of the climate changes that he is witness to. It was an amazing conversation that I had with this guy that tied everything together. The agressive bears, the bears in the open out of their natural habitat, the salamanders and the yellow jackets..
the bears are starving because there has not been enough snow to water the blueberries during the dry season. The bears are on the move. The salamanders live in both water and land. They are most succeptible to any change in climate having to rely on both environments and the wasps have since moved to 4800 feet since the winters no longer are cool enough to kill em off...
Long story short, If anyone doubts global warming just go to the smokey mountains national park and talk to any of the rangers.
Oh.. if anyone needs a prosthetic ankle talk to James DeOrio at Duke hospital in Durham NC, since mine performed beyond belief on a three mile hike.

OK, great, fine, there is a global warming problem. So how do we fix it? Let me take a guess: No cars, no planes, no trucks, no heating for the house, no AC, no smoking, no factories, and most of all no farting! So after man kills himself can we finally say we did everything we could to stop global warming if the temp keeps going up?
 
OK, great, fine, there is a global warming problem. So how do we fix it? Let me take a guess: No cars, no planes, no trucks, no heating for the house, no AC, no smoking, no factories, and most of all no farting! So after man kills himself can we finally say we did everything we could to stop global warming if the temp keeps going up?

Huh?

Clean energy is all around us. The Danes already get 20% of their energy from wind power. The Israelis are building ONE solar energy plant that will supply 5% of their power. Algae based ethanol farms can produce 10,000 gallons per acre. The solutions are there. All it takes is the political will to implement them.
 
Ok great show me the evidence that when we institute those idea that the temp will come down. I agree we need alternate energy mainly because oil costs are to much and it lessens our needs with other countries but I still dont think any of that is going to help from a environmental view. We have been creating cleaner air for decades now but that temp keeps going up. I still think this is a cycle earth goes through but of course i am no expert or anything.
 
Ok great show me the evidence that when we institute those idea that the temp will come down. I agree we need alternate energy mainly because oil costs are to much and it lessens our needs with other countries but I still dont think any of that is going to help from a environmental view. We have been creating cleaner air for decades now but that temp keeps going up. I still think this is a cycle earth goes through but of course i am no expert or anything.

We have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by 39% in 200 years. CO2 levels are now at the highest level ever recorded and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years. We have just about melted the north polar ice cap. Here is some of the latest data from NASA....

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation
 
If we don't need to capture solar and tidal and geotheraml energy because there is no global warming, or because our actions have nothing to do with it, we STILL need to capture that enegy to save our economy.

Any way you look at it, refusing to invest in developing the technology for a renewable clean energy is stupid policy that only those who profit off the misery that the carbon based energy system we have now could love.
 
:tongue:


No, not sunspot reduction, :) , but there are various suggestions out there - like CO2 sequestration and there are even some reflective technology suggestions (wow!). Most of those are "out there," but the sequestration is potentially viable.

Let's say we could pull the CO2 levels down to oh I don't know 50 ppm, and have some effect on cooling the planet. Save the summer ice caps, restore proper snowpack in the winter in the sierras, etc etc. It seems like a responsible thing to do from an ecological stance. And from a selfish stance too since the droughts and whatnot in our farmland might be less severe. I dunno, it seems like a good idea whether we caused the problem or not.

FTR, I am not opposed to nuclear power at all. But I'm not a whacko either. :)

I asked because whenever I talk to these denialist whackos addressing the problem even if it isn't our fault, they dodge the question. But you answered it which is nice. And hopefully you're not a whacko either. :tongue:
CO2 sequestration is literally money down the hole. Money is spent and nothing of value is made. When CO2 levels rise then plants grow bigger, and tend to balance the levels out. If you want to reduce emissions, then build nukes.

Environmentalists are against exploitation of natural gas as well. If it's not taken out of the ground, much of it leaks into the atmosphere anyway. In fact sea-floor methane bubbles are a likely cause of "Bermuda Triangle" type accidents with ships and low flying planes. And when methane escapes to the atmosphere unburned, it is something like 50 to 100 times worse a "greenhouse gas" then the CO2 produced if burned.

So I could use the emotional tactic used by the libs and claim that environmentalists want to kill tourists, sink ships, down planes, throw money down the hole, and raise the temperature of the earth.:lol:
 
Plant growth is CO2 sequestration. Some schemes target algae directly. I don't think sequestration is money down the hole.

There are four basically different plans to sequester CO2. Pump it into the earth, Pump it into a very cold submarine environment (essentially stimulate methane clathrate formation) Stimulate algae growth, and I forget the fourth.

You can't rely entirely on terrestrial plants to absorb the CO2 though. Annual plants only remove the CO2 for a season, and we are deforesting. Reforestation (to the extent that it is underway) is a good thing. Nevertheless, the increase in CO2 over the past 100+ years can be traced to carbon that had been essentially permanently sunk (250 million year old fossil carbon). The equilibrium has to shift when you do this, and I don't see mathematically how you can sequester the excess CO2 into plants (entirely) particularly given our conversion of forests to croplands (long term sink --> short term sink).

It's nice to see that people here are familiar with this stuff!!
 
Last edited:
... and most of all no farting!

LOLOL!! Right on brother!!

Seriously, any plan that reduces the economy is not a good one. But, would you agree that any plan that is cost effective and creates american jobs might be a win-win?
 
Ok great show me the evidence that when we institute those idea that the temp will come down.

There was a very controversial paper in Nature that the ban on air flight following 9/11 had a statistically meaningful (and dramatic, immediate) effect on temperature.

In that case I think it might have had to do with particulate reduction in the atmosphere but not sure. Did you see it?

Proof that reducing CO2 will reduce temp is hard to come by since we haven't tried it.....
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top