Why do some take belief in Global Warming as a political issue?

[westwall]

LOL. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But of course our resident wingnuts are so much smarter than the scientists. And we know that all them thar librul scientists from every nation on earth are in on a conspiracy to fool their little minds.

And, of course, companies like Swiss Re and Munich Re are in on the conspiracy, also. As is NASA, NOAA, and every similiar agency in all the other countries. The only people that we can trust are me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee. LOL

Yes, they ahve all been predicting the END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT for what two and a half decades now. I see everything is pretty much the same. Well that's not exactly true. When they started preaching their mantra, there were far fewer polar bears and other critters out there. So the claim that animals are going extinct at a increased rate is FALSE!

In other words, how many tipping points have those very same scientific groups been warning us about for so long now? 20-30? Tipping point after tipping point has passed and guess what...........NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

That qualifies as an EPIC FAIL.

As only the religious zealots can!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Whoa Pilgrim!

How can you say I haven't pointed out anything which is truly serious? In my previous post I said, "And the will be's include extinctions of animal and plant species, deforestation of the world's biosphere, fish stock depletion, growing dead zones in the world's oceans, increased cancer gins in the world environment, air pollution, light pollution, and waiting for three light changes to get through an intersection." Do you mean to say that you really do not think that ever growning dead zones and fishstock depletion in worlds oceans are not serious issues. If so, then please tell what your definition of a serious issue is and give us one hypothetical exanmple?

While I try not to jump up and down about every little warning sign, there is an obvious and deliberate ignorance of past events that absolutely, positively, demonstrate that man has the capability to do two things:

1) Make an awful, ignorant, big mess.

2) Reign in his irresponsible, fellow humans to stop them from making big messes.

The dust bowl was just ignorance. They didn't know ant better. Now we do. We do things differently in most places where we want to keep our soil. Here in the upstate of SC, a similar result was experienced when cotton farmers left the land barren and all of our soil was washed away, for lack of cover. We can't grow crops here anymore and we likely never will, in any foreseeable future. These occurrences also disprove the notion that the Earth "fixes" or offsets man's actions. No one has yet seen the top soil replaced by the Earth in the dust bowl region or our region. It may happen, but not within centuries of it's original demise. Maybe a big flood will bring some dirt in one day.... I don't know.

The passenger pigeon is another great example. The American skies were once black with hoards of them. Men found that they were a good source to feed the labor and made pretty good stuffing for pillows, so, they would put out fermented grain and when hundreds of them were too intoxicated to fly, they would rush the field and club them by the wagon load. When early "environmental extremist" warned that they may kill off the entire species, they were laughed at and it was explained how arrogant it was of them to think that man had the capacity to wipe them off the Earth... how stupid could these "environmentalist" be?

Of course, the rest of the story is that "deniers" of man's capability to severely impact his environment, killed every last passenger pigeon they could find until..... they were no more. They did this in a remarkably short time. These birds, once the most populous bird species on the planet were extincted by man, the last one dying in 1914 in a zoo.

See... if you don't control these morons who think man doesn't have the capacity to have large scale impact on his environment, they will destroy pieces of it as they can. We have the evidence.

Ok. fine..They also set fire to the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland....Arrogance, ignorance and lack of oversight.
Those thngs you mentioned and the illustration above are now regulated.
However, your premise, along with those in the environmentalist movement want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Sweet Willy]

LOL. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But of course our resident wingnuts are so much smarter than the scientists. And we know that all them thar librul scientists from every nation on earth are in on a conspiracy to fool their little minds.

And, of course, companies like Swiss Re and Munich Re are in on the conspiracy, also. As is NASA, NOAA, and every similiar agency in all the other countries. The only people that we can trust are me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee. LOL

Yes, they ahve all been predicting the END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT for what two and a half decades now. I see everything is pretty much the same. Well that's not exactly true. When they started preaching their mantra, there were far fewer polar bears and other critters out there. So the claim that animals are going extinct at a increased rate is FALSE!

In other words, how many tipping points have those very same scientific groups been warning us about for so long now? 20-30? Tipping point after tipping point has passed and guess what...........NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

That qualifies as an EPIC FAIL.

As only the religious zealots can!

Let's see... there are more Bald Eagles now too. And rather than see these sorts of things as the results of massive efforts to restore threatened and endangered habitats and species, you actually ignore all that and use the results of these massive efforts to say : "see....I told you the polar bears would be fine".... yeah dumb ass... cause we have made monumental efforts to preserve their habitat and species.

You are a blathering fool.

Dude: Hey westwall, why do you have a banana in you ear?

westwall: to keep the crocodiles away.

Dude: There aren't any crocodiles around here.

westwall: See, it's working. A banana in your ear keeps crocodiles away. I'm a scientist!

 

[Sweet Willy]

Whoa Pilgrim!

How can you say I haven't pointed out anything which is truly serious? In my previous post I said, "And the will be's include extinctions of animal and plant species, deforestation of the world's biosphere, fish stock depletion, growing dead zones in the world's oceans, increased cancer gins in the world environment, air pollution, light pollution, and waiting for three light changes to get through an intersection." Do you mean to say that you really do not think that ever growning dead zones and fishstock depletion in worlds oceans are not serious issues. If so, then please tell what your definition of a serious issue is and give us one hypothetical exanmple?

While I try not to jump up and down about every little warning sign, there is an obvious and deliberate ignorance of past events that absolutely, positively, demonstrate that man has the capability to do two things:

1) Make an awful, ignorant, big mess.

2) Reign in his irresponsible, fellow humans to stop them from making big messes.

The dust bowl was just ignorance. They didn't know ant better. Now we do. We do things differently in most places where we want to keep our soil. Here in the upstate of SC, a similar result was experienced when cotton farmers left the land barren and all of our soil was washed away, for lack of cover. We can't grow crops here anymore and we likely never will, in any foreseeable future. These occurrences also disprove the notion that the Earth "fixes" or offsets man's actions. No one has yet seen the top soil replaced by the Earth in the dust bowl region or our region. It may happen, but not within centuries of it's original demise. Maybe a big flood will bring some dirt in one day.... I don't know.

The passenger pigeon is another great example. The American skies were once black with hoards of them. Men found that they were a good source to feed the labor and made pretty good stuffing for pillows, so, they would put out fermented grain and when hundreds of them were too intoxicated to fly, they would rush the field and club them by the wagon load. When early "environmental extremist" warned that they may kill off the entire species, they were laughed at and it was explained how arrogant it was of them to think that man had the capacity to wipe them off the Earth... how stupid could these "environmentalist" be?

Of course, the rest of the story is that "deniers" of man's capability to severely impact his environment, killed every last passenger pigeon they could find until..... they were no more. They did this in a remarkably short time. These birds, once the most populous bird species on the planet were extincted by man, the last one dying in 1914 in a zoo.

See... if you don't control these morons who think man doesn't have the capacity to have large scale impact on his environment, they will destroy pieces of it as they can. We have the evidence.

Ok. fine..They also set fire to the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland....Arrogance, ignorance and lack of oversight.
Those thngs you mentioned and the illustration above are now regulated.
However, your premise, along with those in the environmentalist movement want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Bullshit.

I am not throwing out the baby with the bath water. I hunt. I hunt responsibly. I am not advocating a total abolition of it. THAT is throwing out the baby with the bath water. You are trying to insist that everyone is an extremist. You can't even see a reasonable post like mine, that shows an example of responsible behavior against irresponsible behavior and come away with anything but some extreme view that I am advocating "throwing the baby out with the bath water". It's absurd. You guys can't accept reasonable, middle of the road logic. You insist on fitting everything into one of two little boxes.

AND... these things ARE NOT all regulated, much less are people capable of being responsible on their own, which was the main point. These claims that regulation isn't needed and that people should just be trusted to voluntarily be reasonable is BULLSHIT. They will spend all sorts of money to go down to Argentina SO THEY CAN BE IRRESPONSIBLE ASSHOLES. YOu think they would do any different here if the conservationist and environmentalist didn't smack their dumb asses down?

 

[Sweet Willy]

Another great example is the Federal Waterfowl Stamp program. We have been using the revenue from Duck Stamps to preserve and restore habitat for decades. It is only these actions by man that have kept the waterfowl from being decimated by loss of habitat. And again.... idiots like westwall, when shown that waterfowl populations are stable will say "see.... I told you that the ducks were fine" and totally discount the MASSIVE efforts over decades to to preserve our resources.

Man HAS to mitigate his impacts on natural resources. We have been doing it for a long time. When we don't we pay huge consequences, like the loss of those resources. And it is always a fight with ignorant fools that say the same stupid crap....

Man's impacts on his environment are all around us and it's always the same SOBs making a mess and the same people cleaning it up, while being cursed and called names by the people who made the mess.

 

[thereisnospoon]

While I try not to jump up and down about every little warning sign, there is an obvious and deliberate ignorance of past events that absolutely, positively, demonstrate that man has the capability to do two things:

1) Make an awful, ignorant, big mess.

2) Reign in his irresponsible, fellow humans to stop them from making big messes.

The dust bowl was just ignorance. They didn't know ant better. Now we do. We do things differently in most places where we want to keep our soil. Here in the upstate of SC, a similar result was experienced when cotton farmers left the land barren and all of our soil was washed away, for lack of cover. We can't grow crops here anymore and we likely never will, in any foreseeable future. These occurrences also disprove the notion that the Earth "fixes" or offsets man's actions. No one has yet seen the top soil replaced by the Earth in the dust bowl region or our region. It may happen, but not within centuries of it's original demise. Maybe a big flood will bring some dirt in one day.... I don't know.

The passenger pigeon is another great example. The American skies were once black with hoards of them. Men found that they were a good source to feed the labor and made pretty good stuffing for pillows, so, they would put out fermented grain and when hundreds of them were too intoxicated to fly, they would rush the field and club them by the wagon load. When early "environmental extremist" warned that they may kill off the entire species, they were laughed at and it was explained how arrogant it was of them to think that man had the capacity to wipe them off the Earth... how stupid could these "environmentalist" be?

Of course, the rest of the story is that "deniers" of man's capability to severely impact his environment, killed every last passenger pigeon they could find until..... they were no more. They did this in a remarkably short time. These birds, once the most populous bird species on the planet were extincted by man, the last one dying in 1914 in a zoo.

See... if you don't control these morons who think man doesn't have the capacity to have large scale impact on his environment, they will destroy pieces of it as they can. We have the evidence.

Ok. fine..They also set fire to the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland....Arrogance, ignorance and lack of oversight.
Those thngs you mentioned and the illustration above are now regulated.
However, your premise, along with those in the environmentalist movement want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Bullshit.

I am not throwing out the baby with the bath water. I hunt. I hunt responsibly. I am not advocating a total abolition of it. THAT is throwing out the baby with the bath water. You are trying to insist that everyone is an extremist. You can't even see a reasonable post like mine, that shows an example of responsible behavior against irresponsible behavior and come away with anything but some extreme view that I am advocating "throwing the baby out with the bath water". It's absurd. You guys can't accept reasonable, middle of the road logic. You insist on fitting everything into one of two little boxes.

AND... these things ARE NOT all regulated, much less are people capable of being responsible on their own, which was the main point. These claims that regulation isn't needed and that people should just be trusted to voluntarily be reasonable is BULLSHIT. They will spend all sorts of money to go down to Argentina SO THEY CAN BE IRRESPONSIBLE ASSHOLES. YOu think they would do any different here if the conservationist and environmentalist didn't smack their dumb asses down?

Yes you are. You and the rest of the environmental movement care only for your special interests.. BTW, I enjoy fishing and boating as well. I like to fish from a boat too..Which means I want clean(er) waterways. I am the guy who you see cleaning up the river bank after the one weekend a year ( opening week of Trout season) douche bags show up fish for a day or two and then leave a mess behind.
Anyway, I insist nothing. Your side is being led by extremists. You must comply or be excluded as a traitor and you know it.
Middle of the road? Yer kidding. With the democrat leadership being told what to do by the environmental extremists, there is no middle ground.
When one suggests moderation and common sense in environmental regulations, the far left goes bonkers. They want it all and nothing less. To them it's agree with 100% of their agenda or it's Zero%

 

[Chris]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

Republicans hate science because science involves facts.

They prefer mythology.

Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

Republicans hate science because science involves facts.

They prefer mythology.

Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

Democrats hate science because it doesn't give them control of trillions of additional dollars.
That's why they have to lie and fabricate hockey sticks and change data and lose the original.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Ok. fine..They also set fire to the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland....Arrogance, ignorance and lack of oversight.
Those thngs you mentioned and the illustration above are now regulated.
However, your premise, along with those in the environmentalist movement want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Bullshit.

I am not throwing out the baby with the bath water. I hunt. I hunt responsibly. I am not advocating a total abolition of it. THAT is throwing out the baby with the bath water. You are trying to insist that everyone is an extremist. You can't even see a reasonable post like mine, that shows an example of responsible behavior against irresponsible behavior and come away with anything but some extreme view that I am advocating "throwing the baby out with the bath water". It's absurd. You guys can't accept reasonable, middle of the road logic. You insist on fitting everything into one of two little boxes.

AND... these things ARE NOT all regulated, much less are people capable of being responsible on their own, which was the main point. These claims that regulation isn't needed and that people should just be trusted to voluntarily be reasonable is BULLSHIT. They will spend all sorts of money to go down to Argentina SO THEY CAN BE IRRESPONSIBLE ASSHOLES. YOu think they would do any different here if the conservationist and environmentalist didn't smack their dumb asses down?

Yes you are. You and the rest of the environmental movement care only for your special interests.. BTW, I enjoy fishing and boating as well. I like to fish from a boat too..Which means I want clean(er) waterways. I am the guy who you see cleaning up the river bank after the one weekend a year ( opening week of Trout season) douche bags show up fish for a day or two and then leave a mess behind.
Anyway, I insist nothing. Your side is being led by extremists. You must comply or be excluded as a traitor and you know it.
Middle of the road? Yer kidding. With the democrat leadership being told what to do by the environmental extremists, there is no middle ground.
When one suggests moderation and common sense in environmental regulations, the far left goes bonkers. They want it all and nothing less. To them it's agree with 100% of their agenda or it's Zero%

My "side"? Exactly what "side" do you presume that to be? You are calling me a democrat?

This is the bullshit of which I speak. You have to try and sort everything and everyone into two neat little boxes. And you're WRONG. I am no democrat, nor am I an environmentalist or a global warming advocate. I am a conservationist. In fact... if you want to have a pissing contest about picking up garbage on the river, this is the organization I founded and direct:

Tyger Enoree River Alliance

This is the Plastic Shot Shell Component Mitigation Program I developed and we implemented last season.

Mitigation program


This program was fully funded by private donors and implemented this past waterfowl season. We are developing a new load with Polywad, a shell manufacturer in Georgia, for next season. You can read more about our program from some press in SC Sportsman magazine:

Conservation group pushing bio-friendly shotgun shells for waterfowl hunting - South Carolina Sportsman


My friend, I am not here blowing smoke like these arm chair assholes. I DO THIS FOR A LIVING.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

Republicans hate science because science involves facts.

They prefer mythology.

Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

If you came to this thread to be clever, you lost.

 

[Big Fitz]

And that's the rub isn't it. You folks allways claim that mankind is in "deep and serious trouble" yet can not point to anything that is truly serious. Instead you have to make crap up. Here's the deal. There are 7 billion of us on this planet. That is successful by any margin. The only thing that can truly wipe us out is an asteroid strike which you folks conveniently ignore because that doesn't allow you to put in place your governmental "solutions".

Whoa Pilgrim!

How can you say I haven't pointed out anything which is truly serious? In my previous post I said, "And the will be's include extinctions of animal and plant species, deforestation of the world's biosphere, fish stock depletion, growing dead zones in the world's oceans, increased cancer gins in the world environment, air pollution, light pollution, and waiting for three light changes to get through an intersection." Do you mean to say that you really do not think that ever growning dead zones and fishstock depletion in worlds oceans are

not serious issues. If so, then please tell what your definition of a serious issue is and give us one hypothetical exanmple?

Secondly, I never said anything about "wiping us out". It should be clear that I am talking about issues with potential to make life on earth a living hell, not wipe us out. You are also wrong when you say that 7 billion people presently living on earth is successful by any margin. Yes, there are presently 7 billion of us living here, but the fact you ignore is that presently we are on borrowed time becasue a population of 7 billion at our present life style is not sustainable as evidenced by all the things that I listed in my previous post which are going wrong. Successful means sustainable and sustainable at 7 billion we are not unless everyone here, excepting the Elites of course, takes a severe hit on lifestyle.

I reread my post and found nothing abouts solutions. Why talk of solutions until we can agree on what the problems are?

I suggest you read sxomething other than the doom and gloomers blogs then. According to the best possible estimates this planet can safely sustain a population of around 20 BILLION. If we were able to control the enormous wastage of food (approaching 40%) and actually grow the proper foods for the area instead of planting rice in deserts etc. we coul raise that to around 40 billion.

That won't be neccessary however as the population appears to be leveling off on its own at around 9 billion. No help from us it is doing it naturally. The dead zones in the oceans are caused by local pollution that can be controlled. In fact, there is no problem that can not be controlled by proper envorcement and passing of proper laws to do so.

We have wasted over 100 billion dollars on the fiction of global warming and what has that 100 billion gotten us? Please tell me, because I can't think of a single useful thing to come out of that 100 billion.

On the other hand, had that money been spent on cleaning up the pollution we know is there, the planet would be much better off.

and of course we've moved away from comparing apples to apples and now comparing apples to stereo instructions.

 

[westwall]

LOL. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But of course our resident wingnuts are so much smarter than the scientists. And we know that all them thar librul scientists from every nation on earth are in on a conspiracy to fool their little minds.

And, of course, companies like Swiss Re and Munich Re are in on the conspiracy, also. As is NASA, NOAA, and every similiar agency in all the other countries. The only people that we can trust are me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee. LOL

Yes, they ahve all been predicting the END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT for what two and a half decades now. I see everything is pretty much the same. Well that's not exactly true. When they started preaching their mantra, there were far fewer polar bears and other critters out there. So the claim that animals are going extinct at a increased rate is FALSE!

In other words, how many tipping points have those very same scientific groups been warning us about for so long now? 20-30? Tipping point after tipping point has passed and guess what...........NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

That qualifies as an EPIC FAIL.

As only the religious zealots can!

Let's see... there are more Bald Eagles now too. And rather than see these sorts of things as the results of massive efforts to restore threatened and endangered habitats and species, you actually ignore all that and use the results of these massive efforts to say : "see....I told you the polar bears would be fine".... yeah dumb ass... cause we have made monumental efforts to preserve their habitat and species.

You are a blathering fool.

Dude: Hey westwall, why do you have a banana in you ear?

westwall: to keep the crocodiles away.

Dude: There aren't any crocodiles around here.

westwall: See, it's working. A banana in your ear keeps crocodiles away. I'm a scientist!

Yes, it is all environmentalists who have saved the animals. Only that isn't true is it. No, the vast majority of animal preservation has been accomplished by HUNTERS! The American Bison exists today because way back in 1890 a buffalo hunter decided to save the last herd he found. All of the animals we have today came from that little herd.

Same goes for most of the duck species. You can thanks Ducks Unlimited for their survival.
Rocky Mountain Elk? Hunters. How about Africa. WHich countries have the strongest populations of elephant and rhinocerous? You guessed it, those that allow hunting.

You see dear boy, hunters have done more to preserve animal life than ANY environmental group.

 

[Big Fitz]

Whoa Pilgrim!

How can you say I haven't pointed out anything which is truly serious? In my previous post I said, "And the will be's include extinctions of animal and plant species, deforestation of the world's biosphere, fish stock depletion, growing dead zones in the world's oceans, increased cancer gins in the world environment, air pollution, light pollution, and waiting for three light changes to get through an intersection." Do you mean to say that you really do not think that ever growning dead zones and fishstock depletion in worlds oceans are not serious issues. If so, then please tell what your definition of a serious issue is and give us one hypothetical exanmple?

While I try not to jump up and down about every little warning sign, there is an obvious and deliberate ignorance of past events that absolutely, positively, demonstrate that man has the capability to do two things:

1) Make an awful, ignorant, big mess.

2) Reign in his irresponsible, fellow humans to stop them from making big messes.

The dust bowl was just ignorance. They didn't know ant better. Now we do. We do things differently in most places where we want to keep our soil. Here in the upstate of SC, a similar result was experienced when cotton farmers left the land barren and all of our soil was washed away, for lack of cover. We can't grow crops here anymore and we likely never will, in any foreseeable future. These occurrences also disprove the notion that the Earth "fixes" or offsets man's actions. No one has yet seen the top soil replaced by the Earth in the dust bowl region or our region. It may happen, but not within centuries of it's original demise. Maybe a big flood will bring some dirt in one day.... I don't know.

The passenger pigeon is another great example. The American skies were once black with hoards of them. Men found that they were a good source to feed the labor and made pretty good stuffing for pillows, so, they would put out fermented grain and when hundreds of them were too intoxicated to fly, they would rush the field and club them by the wagon load. When early "environmental extremist" warned that they may kill off the entire species, they were laughed at and it was explained how arrogant it was of them to think that man had the capacity to wipe them off the Earth... how stupid could these "environmentalist" be?

Of course, the rest of the story is that "deniers" of man's capability to severely impact his environment, killed every last passenger pigeon they could find until..... they were no more. They did this in a remarkably short time. These birds, once the most populous bird species on the planet were extincted by man, the last one dying in 1914 in a zoo.

See... if you don't control these morons who think man doesn't have the capacity to have large scale impact on his environment, they will destroy pieces of it as they can. We have the evidence.

Ok. fine..They also set fire to the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland....Arrogance, ignorance and lack of oversight.
Those thngs you mentioned and the illustration above are now regulated.
However, your premise, along with those in the environmentalist movement want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Oh good... less excess population.

 

[Big Fitz]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

Republicans hate science because science involves facts.

They prefer mythology.

Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

What number on the speed dial is this cut and paste special?

 

[Big Fitz]

Yes, they ahve all been predicting the END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT for what two and a half decades now. I see everything is pretty much the same. Well that's not exactly true. When they started preaching their mantra, there were far fewer polar bears and other critters out there. So the claim that animals are going extinct at a increased rate is FALSE!

In other words, how many tipping points have those very same scientific groups been warning us about for so long now? 20-30? Tipping point after tipping point has passed and guess what...........NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

That qualifies as an EPIC FAIL.

As only the religious zealots can!

Let's see... there are more Bald Eagles now too. And rather than see these sorts of things as the results of massive efforts to restore threatened and endangered habitats and species, you actually ignore all that and use the results of these massive efforts to say : "see....I told you the polar bears would be fine".... yeah dumb ass... cause we have made monumental efforts to preserve their habitat and species.

You are a blathering fool.

Dude: Hey westwall, why do you have a banana in you ear?

westwall: to keep the crocodiles away.

Dude: There aren't any crocodiles around here.

westwall: See, it's working. A banana in your ear keeps crocodiles away. I'm a scientist!

Yes, it is all environmentalists who have saved the animals. Only that isn't true is it. No, the vast majority of animal preservation has been accomplished by HUNTERS! The American Bison exists today because way back in 1890 a buffalo hunter decided to save the last herd he found. All of the animals we have today came from that little herd.

Same goes for most of the duck species. You can thanks Ducks Unlimited for their survival.
Rocky Mountain Elk? Hunters. How about Africa. WHich countries have the strongest populations of elephant and rhinocerous? You guessed it, those that allow hunting.

You see dear boy, hunters have done more to preserve animal life than ANY environmental group.

Want to save a species? It seems the three best ways are let people kill it, keep it or put it on the menu.

Case in point, do you think that the population of pigs, cows, chickens, horses, bison, turkeys, sheep, goats, cats, dogs, ferrets, guinea pigs, hamsters.... and a few dozen other animals would be as large if this wasn't true?

 

[Sweet Willy]

Yes, they ahve all been predicting the END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT for what two and a half decades now. I see everything is pretty much the same. Well that's not exactly true. When they started preaching their mantra, there were far fewer polar bears and other critters out there. So the claim that animals are going extinct at a increased rate is FALSE!

In other words, how many tipping points have those very same scientific groups been warning us about for so long now? 20-30? Tipping point after tipping point has passed and guess what...........NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

That qualifies as an EPIC FAIL.

As only the religious zealots can!

Let's see... there are more Bald Eagles now too. And rather than see these sorts of things as the results of massive efforts to restore threatened and endangered habitats and species, you actually ignore all that and use the results of these massive efforts to say : "see....I told you the polar bears would be fine".... yeah dumb ass... cause we have made monumental efforts to preserve their habitat and species.

You are a blathering fool.

Dude: Hey westwall, why do you have a banana in you ear?

westwall: to keep the crocodiles away.

Dude: There aren't any crocodiles around here.

westwall: See, it's working. A banana in your ear keeps crocodiles away. I'm a scientist!

Yes, it is all environmentalists who have saved the animals. Only that isn't true is it. No, the vast majority of animal preservation has been accomplished by HUNTERS! The American Bison exists today because way back in 1890 a buffalo hunter decided to save the last herd he found. All of the animals we have today came from that little herd.

Same goes for most of the duck species. You can thanks Ducks Unlimited for their survival.
Rocky Mountain Elk? Hunters. How about Africa. WHich countries have the strongest populations of elephant and rhinocerous? You guessed it, those that allow hunting.

You see dear boy, hunters have done more to preserve animal life than ANY environmental group.

Yes Fitz...hunters are major contributors to conservation of habitat and species in many cases. I am guessing that you don't really pay attention to my post or links. I AM A HUNTER dumb ass. I founded and direct a conservation group comprised of hunters. Ducks Unlimited chief biologist, Dale Humberg, developed the survey for our shot shell program.

What the hell is your point? I have told you from the start that I am not an extremist. Yet you insist that you must sort people into one of the two boxes that your tiny brain can define.

I am not a PETA or Green Peace type. I am a conservationist, I have not addressed any of this is an extreme manner. You assholes got your panties in a wad over a couple photographs that show human impact and went on your preprogrammed denial speech.

Now...as far as westwalls dumbass point that since the 70s when environmentalist starting carrying on about polar bears, the population has increased, yes it has... BECAUSE of REGULATIONS. There were a couple of distinct laws and treaties with Canada and the USSR that outlawed shooting Polar bears from boats. That alone probably saved the polar bear from extincxion FROM HUNTERS.

Passenger pigeons? HUNTED to extinction.

Now Fitzy, my man, this tendency of your to either say "exhibit A" is either all good or all bad is just STUPID. Yes, hunters and hunters groups have done all sorts of good things. But they also have hunted species into extinction. There are no absolutes in this mess, there is a middle road.

But you keep insisting that everything be classed as "hunter good" "environmentalist bad" so your tiny pea brain can handle it. And by the way, I've lifted my moratorium on name calling: YOU'RE A DUMB ASS.

 

[daveman]

LOL. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But of course our resident wingnuts are so much smarter than the scientists. And we know that all them thar librul scientists from every nation on earth are in on a conspiracy to fool their little minds.

And, of course, companies like Swiss Re and Munich Re are in on the conspiracy, also. As is NASA, NOAA, and every similiar agency in all the other countries. The only people that we can trust are me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee. LOL

Yes, they ahve all been predicting the END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT for what two and a half decades now. I see everything is pretty much the same. Well that's not exactly true. When they started preaching their mantra, there were far fewer polar bears and other critters out there. So the claim that animals are going extinct at a increased rate is FALSE!

In other words, how many tipping points have those very same scientific groups been warning us about for so long now? 20-30? Tipping point after tipping point has passed and guess what...........NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

That qualifies as an EPIC FAIL.

As only the religious zealots can!

Let's see... there are more Bald Eagles now too. And rather than see these sorts of things as the results of massive efforts to restore threatened and endangered habitats and species, you actually ignore all that and use the results of these massive efforts to say : "see....I told you the polar bears would be fine".... yeah dumb ass... cause we have made monumental efforts to preserve their habitat and species.

You are a blathering fool.

Dude: Hey westwall, why do you have a banana in you ear?

westwall: to keep the crocodiles away.

Dude: There aren't any crocodiles around here.

westwall: See, it's working. A banana in your ear keeps crocodiles away. I'm a scientist!

What monumental efforts have we made to preserve polar bears and their habitat?

And no, fear-mongering blog posts and documentaries aren't actually an effort.

 

[daveman]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

Republicans hate science because science involves facts.

They prefer mythology.

Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

Yeah, yeah, you hate religion and Republicans. We get it.

Yawn.

Meanwhile, Republicans don't hate science. We don't like leftists perverting science to serve their agenda.

 

[Big Fitz]

Let's see... there are more Bald Eagles now too. And rather than see these sorts of things as the results of massive efforts to restore threatened and endangered habitats and species, you actually ignore all that and use the results of these massive efforts to say : "see....I told you the polar bears would be fine".... yeah dumb ass... cause we have made monumental efforts to preserve their habitat and species.

You are a blathering fool.

Dude: Hey westwall, why do you have a banana in you ear?

westwall: to keep the crocodiles away.

Dude: There aren't any crocodiles around here.

westwall: See, it's working. A banana in your ear keeps crocodiles away. I'm a scientist!

Yes, it is all environmentalists who have saved the animals. Only that isn't true is it. No, the vast majority of animal preservation has been accomplished by HUNTERS! The American Bison exists today because way back in 1890 a buffalo hunter decided to save the last herd he found. All of the animals we have today came from that little herd.

Same goes for most of the duck species. You can thanks Ducks Unlimited for their survival.
Rocky Mountain Elk? Hunters. How about Africa. WHich countries have the strongest populations of elephant and rhinocerous? You guessed it, those that allow hunting.

You see dear boy, hunters have done more to preserve animal life than ANY environmental group.

Yes Fitz...hunters are major contributors to conservation of habitat and species in many cases. I am guessing that you don't really pay attention to my post or links. I AM A HUNTER dumb ass. I founded and direct a conservation group comprised of hunters. Ducks Unlimited chief biologist, Dale Humberg, developed the survey for our shot shell program.

What the hell is your point? I have told you from the start that I am not an extremist. Yet you insist that you must sort people into one of the two boxes that your tiny brain can define.

I am not a PETA or Green Peace type. I am a conservationist, I have not addressed any of this is an extreme manner. You assholes got your panties in a wad over a couple photographs that show human impact and went on your preprogrammed denial speech.

Now...as far as westwalls dumbass point that since the 70s when environmentalist starting carrying on about polar bears, the population has increased, yes it has... BECAUSE of REGULATIONS. There were a couple of distinct laws and treaties with Canada and the USSR that outlawed shooting Polar bears from boats. That alone probably saved the polar bear from extincxion FROM HUNTERS.

Passenger pigeons? HUNTED to extinction.

Now Fitzy, my man, this tendency of your to either say "exhibit A" is either all good or all bad is just STUPID. Yes, hunters and hunters groups have done all sorts of good things. But they also have hunted species into extinction. There are no absolutes in this mess, there is a middle road.

But you keep insisting that everything be classed as "hunter good" "environmentalist bad" so your tiny pea brain can handle it. And by the way, I've lifted my moratorium on name calling: YOU'RE A DUMB ASS.

Well it seems to me that when it comes to conservation of a wildlife, you are a tad more rational than your views on climate and the weather.

See, here's the key difference. Climate is not the same as conservation. Climate affects conservation, and conservation cannot affect climate. Never has been. Never will be. If you wish to talk about wildlife conservation and habitat usage, then we might find some common ground.

I am very aware, even as a non-hunter the importance of man's role as a controlling factor of wildlife and our need to do so responsibly. But developing less hazardous bird shot and restocking programs deal in a subject unrelated to the entire issue in this threat in which you eviscerated your own credibility for the sake of a single word and philosophical principle. I know about men firing cannon into the air loaded with birdshot to take out whole whopping lots of carrier pigeons and the foolish destruction of the Dodo. The point is, that we have learned over time about that, and honestly I think a lot of the conservation efforts in this land have gone a long way in the right direction, at least by conservation groups and NOT environmental radical groups that want to wall off nature keeping it pure and sacred.

So there's this bunny trail of a subject that has nothing to do with AGW and it's political ramifications, or the real topic of the discussion. Or do you want to be ignored for more stupid linguistic games?

 

[westwall]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

Republicans hate science because science involves facts.

They prefer mythology.

Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

Really? Why is it then that when the facts don't mesh with your theories you alter the facts?