'If you don't believe in climate change you must be sick'

[cb1000rider]

That sounds like a reasonable assessment with realistic questions to me...
It's much better than spinning it into a political "liberal" issue and totally discounting it.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Now go out and buy some more ammo cause it is gonna be a cold winter and you are not going to want to go out when it is 20 just to get a few more cases of .45's.

20 degrees would be awesome.

[Oldgringo]

We have Frost Advisory up here from 0300 to 0900 hrs. tomorrow.

[mamabearCali]

Holy cow.....where are you at again?

[anygunanywhere]

Climate changes all the time.

http://junkscience.com

The idea that we can impact the climate is preposterous.

Yes we must be good stewards of our resources and not be wasteful.

Climate change, carbon credits, the drive to so called renewable energy and killing coal and other fossil fuels is not driven by science. It is driven by a political agenda, and anyone who believes different are the sick ones. The drivers of climate change are the very ones who want to disarm you, in case you have not noticed.

Anygunanywhere

[Oldgringo]

Holy cow.....where are you at again?

We're Camp Hosts for MT FW&P on Flathead Lake in NW Montana about 70 miles south of the Canadian border at 48°North......and it. Up here, summer is over today.

[mayor]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... acism.html

The radical leftist agenda:

Resolving skepticism about climate change alarmists, she added, is a challenge equitable to overcoming ‘racism or slavery in the U.S. South’

The scientists behind the event recently put out a statement calling for humans to be packed into denser cities so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature.

And fellow attendee Yale University professor Karen Seto told MSNBC: ‘We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].’

key words: ‘We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].’

[MechAg94]

In the OP, the quote was that these people wanted to compress all us humans into a small area and leave the rest to nature. Can you imagine the cesspool that one area would be? It would be horrific. And that is not even mentioning they probably wouldn't have any decent shooting ranges.

[Oldgringo]

In the OP, the quote was that these people wanted to compress all us humans into a small area and leave the rest to nature. Can you imagine the cesspool that one area would be? It would be horrific. And that is not even mentioning they probably wouldn't have any decent shooting ranges.

New York City?

[VoiceofReason]

It's interesting to me to see that people don't believe the climate is changing. I'm going to ignore all the drible about reducing the human population, it's just distracting.

The vast majority of the scientific community believes that the climate is changing (warming). I find it "interesting" to see that many conservatives don't accept it.. And there are liberals too (VM: Progressives) - but I think that denying it at this point is simply sticking your head in the sand.

The question is - how much of it is due to humans and how much of it is something else... I think that's still up for debate, but certainly "we" aren't helping the situation.

How much does the climate need to change before people start to think that it might be a real thing? However much that is, I hope it's not too much...

What if they are right? I have seen some very smart people be wrong and some “very slow” people be right.

There are things we can do just to hedge our bets that would benefit us.

Businesses should be encouraged to turn off their advertising signs when the businesses are closed. This would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released in to the atmosphere by millions of tons in a few weeks. Drive around any large city at two or three in the morning and notice how many advertising signs are lit up and the business is closed. Add to that the thousands you didn’t see then multiply it by New York, Chicago, Dallas, L.A. etc. etc. Turning these signs off would not cost anything. As a matter of fact it would save the business owner money. It not only would greatly reduce the amount of fossil fuel used to generate this electricity but it may just reduce the cost of electricity and natural gas for everyone. Businesses need to have security lights but they don’t need to waste electricity advertising when the business is closed and very few people are out to see the signs.

The Federal government should subsidize the rebuilding of a new, modern railroad. Passenger cars could be made of newer lighter materials and railroads could be rebuilt to allow trains to run faster and not have to slow as often for city crossings. Freight could be shipped much cheaper and with far less fuel used per ton than by truck. Passengers could travel much cheaper and with far less fuel used per passenger than by aircraft. For an extra charge a passenger’s personal automobile could be shipped in separate cars on the same train. Imagine driving to the train station, handing a valet your keys, traveling in comfort to your destination, and then having a valet bring your car to you with your luggage still locked in the trunk. No baggage checking or baggage claim, no shuttle, no rental car, fewer restrictions on what you can carry, and when have you ever heard of a train being hijacked and crashed into a skyscraper?

There are other things we could do but people are too busy arguing. Well if it is true and we do nothing about it, it will be self correcting.

[philip964]

I am what I think in the most polite liberal terms that is used to describe me is a "skeptic".

That said, I believe the English proverb is "Waste not, want not".

Conservation and recycling are good things.

We just should not worry about carbon dioxide. It is not a pollutant. Sorry Supreme Court, you are idiots.

If you disagree with me. Please take the following test.

What part of the atmosphere is Carbon dioxide.

a. More than 10%

b. More than 5% but less than 10%

c. More than .05% but less than 5%

d. Less than .05%

[K.Mooneyham]

Since this is a gun forum, something gun related should be said on this topic. The type of people who want to jam humanity into a few mega cities aren't going to be too fond of the shooting sports, nor of self-defense by the average citizen. So, when I vote against global warming zealots, and environmentalist control types, I feel that I'm also protecting firearms rights in a roundabout way.

[VMI77]

If there is global warming nothing we do is going to stop it. China and India aren't going to stagnate their economies, neither is Russia, most of the rest of Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Besides which, our manufacturing was moved to places like Mexico and China precisely because we could pollute those countries and take advantage of their cheap labor, without having to worry about unions or worker rights, OSHA, or the EPA.

[cb1000rider]

"Because they're doing it" is never a good reason in my mind.

So it sounds like there is majority agreement that the climate is changing, on this forum at least. Not everyone - but most people who are speaking up on this forum. What I don't know is how much we as a species are contributing to the problem. However, it seems unwise to me to chalk it all up to natural causes and not do anything about it because we don't know if we're contributing significantly or not... Or not do anything about it because other countries won't immediately get in line with the program.

It's like anything else - a cost/benefit analysis needs to be done. What's hard here is to determine the benefit, as it's not immediately tangible.. It might be tangible to our children or our children's children, but that's obviously a very hard sell (just look at our deficit). I don't advocate crippling the economy, but I might advocate things like tighter emissions standards that provide other fringe benefits (such as less dependance on foreign oil).

To me, completely rejecting reasonable attempts reduce things that could contribute is unwise... And I stress the "reasonable".

[The Annoyed Man]

And fellow attendee Yale University professor Karen Seto told MSNBC: ‘We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].’

Seriously?!?

She has apparently never observed what happens when you put too many rats into one cage.