jeb

Because if it was a good thing, the nightly news and the EPA wouldn't have anything to scare you with. Bad news sells and brings in research money, plain and simple. Now, before anyone gets worked up, I do believe we should invest in research. I just don't believe we should go off tilting at varioius windmills based on demostrably bad science like in the Global Warming/Climate Change field.

Exactly right. It might work if all of our population was squeezed into an area as small as Western Europe, but simply does not work here. We are just too spread out. Here's a FACT for you. There is not one single passenger rail system/company in our country that is profitable. They would all be bankrupt if it were not for various govt agencies propping them up. Inner city or cross country.

Actually, you have that backwards. But let's just assume for the sake of arguement that you're right. It still shows that the models are wrong, the predictors are wrong and the data is wrong. Which all leads to my central point that this branch of science is just not anywhere close to mature enough to put anymore than a passing acknowledgement to. Certainly not anything we should be dumping billions/trillions of dollars in to "fix" what is most likely not broken. Not that there is the real political will power to do that anyway. Many reasons why that fantasy is not going to happen anytime soon. First is very evident, that as energy prices are forced up, extracting fossil fuels using more expensive methods (like oil sands) becomes economically viable, especially compared to the highly subsidized "green" sources. Another would be that forcing higher energy costs on ourselves through govt regulations, restrictions, etc will further erode our economy in many ways, like continued job losses to countries that are not anti-business, less money for consumers to spend, degraded quality of life, etc.

The original post is just another chicken little story about what could happen if all the dire predictions from all the failed computer models come true. They are simply scare tactics to keep the research money flowing, IMO. Fires have always happened. Trying to prevent them from occuring as they naturally do makes them worse when they do happen. I was at Yellowstone a couple of years ago and it's a tragedy waiting to happen with all the dead timber left to lay there and rot. Park guides said the same thing. But the enviro-whackos insist it not be disturbed. I'm sure they'll all be wringing their hands the next time it burns, telling us we caused it. So tell us, what is you are doing to combat this supposed train wreck from happening? This is not a problem, if you buy into the whole religion, where turning off lights in rooms not being used or driving to the store once a month less often is going to help at all. Heck, even the economy killing Koyoto agreement was only predicted to have a miniscual impact, and you know they were even over selling that. This is an uplug from the grid, live in a cave kind of thing. You think anyone is going to go for that? It's all fun and games for the gullible public when it's abstract. "Oh, I heard on the news we're all going to melt and die. We have to do SOMETHING about it!!! Let's blame those evil companies (but not the one giving me a paycheck, of course)!!" But try and tell them you're only going to allow them 2 hours a day of electricity or that the govt now controls their thermostat and how many miles a year they get to drive and see what they say.

And I can't believe people think this even approaches settled science. I do believe the earth is warming. It doesn't take a legion of scientist to realize that it has been warming overall since the last ice age. I just a ) don't agree that man has anything to do with it, b ) that warming is as destructive as the chicken littles want us to believe and c ) that there's anything we could do about it, no matter the cause. Getting our national debt under control will benefit future generations, not running around saying the sky is falling.

It's FAR more likely the unsustainable national debt we're piling up will be far more of a problem for them than the fantasy world Chicken Little scenarios like the one that started this thread. And we can actually do something about the debt.

Seems like we read a lot of posts here about stripers in the Rocky Branch area. And from there, you can easily run to the dam or down to the Prarire Creek area where stripers are also commonly caught.

Agree that the spots are nice on TR, and bigger on average that the Beaver ones. I attribute that to the longer minimum length to keep them, which is why I'm not in favor of the AGFC's idea to decrease the size limit from 12" to "keep 'em all". Looks like a good day on the water, Jeff! I like that summer DS bite. Some of the most consistent fishing of the year if you can find good structure that will hold them.

Have a great trip, Phil! Happy travels.

Can you show me where someone here said "dumping in our streams is not going to hurt anything"?

Nice sunfish!

No way to do it that I can see, at least not directly. You'd have to put it someplace public and then link it in. Like one of the photo hosting sites, your own server space, maybe Dropbox (not sure if that's something the iWorld has?), etc.

Odd way to state it, that they are "capable of". Obviously, it means they are not 100% wind powered or they wouldn't have used that term. I'd guess they use that language as a way to put themselves on the map for something. And that's smart of the civic leaders of that small town to do, if that's the case. Whatever attracts more people and more business.

Looks like it was a young man from Springdale: http://www.4029tv.com/news/arkansas/northwest/crews-searching-waters-near-rocky-branch-for-missing-man/-/8897460/20305402/-/mslwi5/-/index.html

Will she? The ethanol thing hasn't turned out that way, given the marginal/highly erodable lands being brought back into the farm production to take advantage of the high crop prices, and increased starvation in developing countries because of those same higher crop prices.

Saw that on the news last night. Sad there was a life lost.

JDMidwest is correct. I was merely wanting to follow Phil's posted rules. Those have now officially changed, so I have no issues participating at this point. My reticence was entirely about respecting the forum.

I wish. I miss having a man of integrity in the White House. Hell, Clinton had more integrity than the child king we have in there now.

One of the funny things I've seen over and over in the 100's of discussions I've been in about GW on the internet is folks in the "sky is falling camp" often claim anyone who is not in their camp is all for creating more pollution, relaxing pollution controls, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth in almost every case. But folks have this black/white mentality at times. It's sad what China is doing to their country in the rush to become a global economic powerhouse. We were there once also though, as a younger nation. Hopefully they will reign it in sooner rather than later. But I personally do not believe it causes any additional "climate change".

The GW debate is far more political than the other things you mention because so much power and money is at stake. I didn't say it should be. Only that you cannot have any meaningful discussion about GW w/o involving politcs.

No idea how you connected any dots there. I think you're making up dots.

Sorry I made you walk all the way back to your truck to shut your lights off, Riverfish. I tried to get your attention from where it was parked, but didn't want to climb in your truck w/o permission. Sounds like you had a great day! Nice work.

What does it matter when the politics came? The point is, obvioiusly, it is impossible to seperate the politics from the GW discussion.

That's your statement, not mine. The scientist are simply chasing a paycheck, by and large.

That is simply your opinion. My opinion is that there is no hard evidence that man has anything to do with "climate change". Your "sky is falling" outlook is not shared by a large segment of the population.