eric1978

Dammit!

No, I don't dispute that, but it doesn't really matter. Climate change is happening and it's because of us. I'm not going to argue that point anymore because it's already settled according to scientists...the people who know about science. But we basically agree Wayne, that we need to start moving toward alternatives...you're clearly not opposed to that as long as the alternatives are viable. No one, right OR left, wants a vehicle that can't go more than a couple hours without having to recharge it, and no one wants a truck without enough power to haul a boat. Where I think we differ is who we look to and expect to solve the problem. It's simply too big for individuals to really make a substantial difference by decreasing their carbon footprint with recycling and conserving energy with efficient bulbs and windows and what-not...not that those aren't good things to do...we should all be making small sacrifices to help out. But what we truly NEED is the governments of powerful nations to intervene and regulate, to make DRASTIC changes in energy policy. We aren't gonna make any progress until that happens, because like you said, the private sector is just gonna keep producing the "sure thing" until they are FORCED to do otherwise, the environmental consequences be darn. I'm with you on that. I think we should start by giving tax breaks to families with two children or less. If you have three or more, you get no tax benefit for doing so. Also, it should be federal law that birth control be FREE for women with ANY health-care policy, and rubbers should be dropped from the sky by the trillions, especially around schools, cities, and third-world countries.

I have no idea, but I know Al has caught some there...maybe he'll chime in.

Thanks for the tips. They both look like good options, but the GoPro is definitely a badarse lookin' camera that shoots great footage. But a couple questions about it: Is it as bulky as it looks? Seems like it's kinda cube shaped and would be tough to slip into a pocket. Is that right? Can you really only take 5MP photos, or am I missing something? You can get 1080 HD video, but only 5MP pics? Weird. How is it for macro shots?

They have smallmouth in Hawaii, believe it or not. Go getchu some a them Samoan Smallies! Oceans have sharks and things that sting you anyway...screw that.

I can't explain it to you better than Al already has, so re-read his post: If you were interested in knowing, you'd Google it yourself. The information is out there, you just have to click your mouse a few times.

Sorry, I had to...I'm a Seinfeld geek.

Yes, we do. Temperature data can be extrapolated from ice-core samples up to 800,000 years ago, and longer-term but less detailed temperature data can be extrapolated from sediment-core samples in the hundreds of millions of years. But we don't really need to go back that far to see that something drastic is happening now. Just look at the second graph that shows temperature data for the last 2,000 years. Is that not a glaringly obvious anomaly going on in the last 50-75 years of the graph? It is to me. Then look at the third graph, which shows CO2 levels. Is there any doubt that because of the industrial revolution we've hugely increased the amount of CO2 in the last 100 years to beyond natural levels? Is there any doubt that CO2 emissions can and do have an effect on global temperature? This data tells only one story, and I don't understand how anyone can come to any conclusion other than human pollution is &%*$#!@ up this planet.

JDC's Sunburst thread prompted me to post this question, since I'll be in the market this summer for a new camera and right now I'm bored to death. It's gotta be waterproof, and I'd like one that takes HD video and sharp photos. Those are really my only requirements. Any suggestions?

Those are great pics for a camera phone! You did well...that's a tough river.

Never in natural history has the Earth's climate changed so dramatically and so quickly as it has in the last 100 years, save for events like the asteroid impact that caused the K/T Extinction or massive volcanic eruptions. And the proof that the climate change is man-made is the direct and identical correlation shown on graph to the increase of CO2 in the same time frame. That's ALL the evidence I need, since there is NO indication of ANY other factor being the cause. Our way of life is exactly WHY we need to do it NOW. What way of life will future generations have if the planet is no longer hospitable to human needs? Making the switch to sustainable, clean energy doesn't necessarily mean a negative economic impact. If we led the world in a revolution in technology, we could once again be number one...and as far as I can tell, that's probably the ONLY way we'll ever be top-of-the-heap again. Continuing to fork over trillions of dollars a year for oil to people who board US flights with explosives in their underwear is NOT helping us.

Fixed. Science is not propaganda. Science is objectively drawing logical conclusions from data.

That position has been out there for a long time and has been a battle cry from countless progressives, but the energy companies spend so much money on lobbyists and political payoffs, and so thoroughly and effectively propagandize our society, that any prospective or even proposed legislation hardly has a snowball's chance in hell. We've got to get big business out of government, or progress will continue to move at a snail's pace.

Absolutely true, but that doesn't mean one side isn't right, and one side isn't wrong. And I know I said I'd stay out of the trainwreck this time, but I'll break that promise once again out of sheer boredom... Here's an analogy concerning the few dissenting scientists the energy companies have culled out to support their claims: You find a lump somewhere on your body, and you go to 100 different doctors for examination. 99 of them say, "Oh, that looks malignant and dangerous...you should have that removed immediately." But then one of them says, "Ah, don't worry about it...that'll cost too much to remove it." What would you do? Would you think to yourself, "Hmmm, all these doctors are just trying to make a profit off of my lump here. I'm sure there's no scientific basis for them to tell me this lump could kill me...they're just making stuff up in a huge conspiracy to make money." I doubt it. You'd have that thing sliced off as soon as possible. Climate change is the lump on our planet, and scientists are the 99 doctors telling us to remove it. Big business and bought-and-sold politicians are the one doctor telling you it'll be too expensive to worry about it. Climate change isn't really up for debate anymore. It's as close to scientific fact as you can get...we're just waiting for the rest of the humans to catch on and catch up, kind of like evolution. Look around, there are people out there who STILL think the Earth is 7,000 years old and human beings cohabitated with dinosaurs. We KNOW that simply isn't true, but they believe it anyway. Does that mean their "opinion" is as factually accurate as those who understand the Earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old? Of course not. The climate change issue is different from many other debates currently in the forefront of modern society, in that it is one that is not dubious and in flux, subject to opinion in the way that, say, gun control or abortion or the appropriate size of government is. Those issues ARE up for debate, and there are sound and legitemate arguments on BOTH sides. That's not the case with climate change. We know the science. We know the reality. And just because a substantial chunk of this country's population doesn't accept it as reality, doesn't change the fact that it IS, far more than likely, reality. The only reason it enters the realm of political debate is because the consequences of fixing the problem affect business and the uber-wealthy's cash flow. If there were no business, there would be no reason to deny the reality of climate change, just like if there were no religion, there would be no reason to deny the reality of evolution. But science operates independent of business, just as it operates independent of religion. It deals in data and fact. Political debate on the matter has no impact on the REALITY of the issue, it only slows down the progress to begin moving in a more environmentally friendly direction. Yes, Al Gore has made a bundle of money on the issue as an advocate and an investor. And yes, because he is truly a legislative insider, so to speak, it does seem somewhat crooked and unfair. But that doesn't mean his position on the core issue isn't RIGHT. Innumerable people who deny the reality of climate change are also making a bundle of money, from energy companies to lobbyists to politicians to pundits...but that doesn't mean their position on the issue isn't WRONG. Just like in a criminal trial...both attorneys are being paid, but the truth lies only on one side. This is America...someone is making money on anything and everything here, and that's a big part of the problem. So we ALL need to stop looking at this debate through the lens of politics, because politics only muddies the waters of science and reality. The science is all but settled, and if it weren't for propaganda and outright lies coming from OUTSIDE the realm of the scientific community, we would all be in agreement and could start the long and hard process of fixing the huge problems we've created for ourselves. Americans put WAY too much stock in opinions, and don't ask themselves enough WHY they feel the way they do. Did you really reach that conclusion on your own, or did you let someone else decide for you?

That's so sad that it's almost hilarious, JD. Junkscience.com is run by Steven Milloy, a FOX News columnist and a lobbyist for Phillip Morris and Exxon-Mobil. Try harder next time.

We know who the Senate minority works for. 'Nuff said.

I'm a genius. Slam, Here's the plan. Convince your lovely wife that Wheat is the most indispensible employee she's got, and operations would simply grind to a halt without his undeniable expertise and aeronautical prowess. Have her give him a substantial raise without any additional responsibilities. We tuck away the extra money, and one year from today the three of us go on an epic fishing adventure. I'm thinking New Zealand or Argentina. Let me know which you'd prefer and I'll make the arrangements. I'll also assume the plane tickets will be on the house. This is gonna be sweet. Eric

Moment of silence temporarily broken... You're gonna have to do better than that, Wayne. That's such a tired, old argument to use against the infinite amount of legitimate data and fact provided by the vast majority of the scientific community. A few bad apples don't always spoil the bunch. Moment of silence resumed...

I will observe a moment of silence for Keith Olbermann by staying out of this one. The rest of you have fun banging your heads against the bricks. Science and reason cannot penetrate them. Good night and good luck.

Welcome Slam. First lesson on Ozarks fishing: Multiquote 101 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

I'd probably stay out of that hole then. That's nasty.

Seems to make life better? When you're on the water is when you're actually living. Work is just...work.

They had one of those at the KC boat show last weekend and I spent quite a bit of time checking it out. I'm a canoe guy, but I gotta say, that's a sweet kayak. If they weren't so expensive I'd buy one. Of course they still have the lack of rod storage problem and you can haul more gear in any canoe than that Jackson. But I think it would really be pushing it to try to run the rapids in that video in a canoe...fortunately (or unfortunately, depending how you look at it) we don't have anything like that in MO to worry about.

I resized your images and added them to your report for you. That poor brookie sure looked beat up, but still pretty!

TF brings up a good point. Both of these cats were killed with clean head shots. That's a pretty clear indication that the shots fired were calmly and carefully aimed with the intention of killing the animals BEFORE they became a threat. If the cats had made aggressive moves toward either of these shooters, the carcasses would have been turned over to MDC with holes all over them, or at best a bullet-wound or two in the animal's chest, since the hunters would have more than likely emptied their rifles in a state of panic. The head shots, to me, are enough evidence that these animals were killed in a methodical and premeditated way, not in a frenzied spasm of terror. They need to make an example out of someone, or the people who have no respect for nature will continue to behave as if it is their right to kill whatever they want wherever they want.