• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

More reasons to doubt Global Warming alarmists

Cal

Well-known member
By Neal Boortz

The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.


Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.


Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.


The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?


It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.


It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?


How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.


The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.


The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.


Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.


Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.


What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?


Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"


Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?


In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.


There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.


Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.


Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.


Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.


Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.


During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.


Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?


Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?


On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
 

movin' on

Well-known member
CAL, CAL, CAL....you've got to stop this!! This global warming thing is for real and extremely serious! It is not a laughing matter. At the current warming rate, we'll all be goners by 2010 or so. Anybody who ignores the paranoid, desperate, ridiculous media's warning is a complete and total fool! You'll think twice when you're swimming in the melted ice caps, Cal! You'll wish you'd never doubted this very serious and ominous situation. Why just today they predicted a high of 27 and it got all the way to 28! Scary is the only way to describe events like that. By the way, I'd stay away from all types of avian unless you want to catch a sure and fatal flu that will take you out before the global warming does!!!!!!!
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Cal said:
By Neal Boortz

The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.


Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.


Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.


The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?


It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.


It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?


How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.


The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.


The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.


Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.


Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.


What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?


Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"


Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?


In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.


There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.


Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.


Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.


Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.


Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.


During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.


Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?


Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?


On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

A couple of things here. "How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening." That is 1 degree celsius and the experts say that even a rise of 2-2.5 degrees rise in average temps would be devastating. You also state that there are over 160000 glaciers in the world and MOST have never been measured. However, you then state that the MAJORITY are growing instead of shrinking. If MOST have never been measured, how do you know that the MAJORITY are growing? I guess it depends on who you listen to. I have read reports that the ice core samples show that the level of CO2 is much greater today than it was thousands of years ago. Who knows for sure? I don't believe your "experts" and you scoff at anyone who says anything different. But I do really hope you are right.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
Cal said:
By Neal Boortz

The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.


Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.


Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.


The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?


It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.


It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?


How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.


The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.


The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.


Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.


Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.


What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?


Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"


Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?


In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.


There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.


Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.


Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.


Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.


Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.


During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.


Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?


Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?


On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

A couple of things here. "How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening." That is 1 degree celsius and the experts say that even a rise of 2-2.5 degrees rise in average temps would be devastating. You also state that there are over 160000 glaciers in the world and MOST have never been measured. However, you then state that the MAJORITY are growing instead of shrinking. If MOST have never been measured, how do you know that the MAJORITY are growing? I guess it depends on who you listen to. I have read reports that the ice core samples show that the level of CO2 is much greater today than it was thousands of years ago. Who knows for sure? I don't believe your "experts" and you scoff at anyone who says anything different. But I do really hope you are right.

Does it really matter? All we can do is take one day at a time and live it. By the time anything changes too much, one way or another, we will all be dead and gone. Leave it to the Liberals to worry themselves sick over something they can't do anything about anyway.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
schnurrbart said:
Cal said:
By Neal Boortz

The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.


Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.


Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.


The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?


It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.


It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?


How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.


The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.


The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.


Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.


Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.


What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?


Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"


Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?


In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.


There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.


Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.


Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.


Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.


Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.


During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.


Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?


Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?


On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

A couple of things here. "How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening." That is 1 degree celsius and the experts say that even a rise of 2-2.5 degrees rise in average temps would be devastating. You also state that there are over 160000 glaciers in the world and MOST have never been measured. However, you then state that the MAJORITY are growing instead of shrinking. If MOST have never been measured, how do you know that the MAJORITY are growing? I guess it depends on who you listen to. I have read reports that the ice core samples show that the level of CO2 is much greater today than it was thousands of years ago. Who knows for sure? I don't believe your "experts" and you scoff at anyone who says anything different. But I do really hope you are right.

Does it really matter? All we can do is take one day at a time and live it. By the time anything changes too much, one way or another, we will all be dead and gone. Leave it to the Liberals to worry themselves sick over something they can't do anything about anyway.

Unlike you self-centered rightwingers, we try to think about our fellow man, not to mention our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Of course, most of those living right now will be quite old or dead before, hopefully, anything really drastic happens--maybe. But why wouldn't you want to protect the land and the seas and save species for future generations? Because big business and big oil know that anything that improves the environment costs them big money and you wouldn't want that to happen.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
Soapweed said:
schnurrbart said:
A couple of things here. "How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening." That is 1 degree celsius and the experts say that even a rise of 2-2.5 degrees rise in average temps would be devastating. You also state that there are over 160000 glaciers in the world and MOST have never been measured. However, you then state that the MAJORITY are growing instead of shrinking. If MOST have never been measured, how do you know that the MAJORITY are growing? I guess it depends on who you listen to. I have read reports that the ice core samples show that the level of CO2 is much greater today than it was thousands of years ago. Who knows for sure? I don't believe your "experts" and you scoff at anyone who says anything different. But I do really hope you are right.

Does it really matter? All we can do is take one day at a time and live it. By the time anything changes too much, one way or another, we will all be dead and gone. Leave it to the Liberals to worry themselves sick over something they can't do anything about anyway.

Unlike you self-centered rightwingers, we try to think about our fellow man, not to mention our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Of course, most of those living right now will be quite old or dead before, hopefully, anything really drastic happens--maybe. But why wouldn't you want to protect the land and the seas and save species for future generations? Because big business and big oil know that anything that improves the environment costs them big money and you wouldn't want that to happen.

You have it all wrong, schnurrbart. The Liberals are the wasteful ones. They won't allow lumbering and the logical thinning of trees, which are a renewable natural resource. They want to take cattle out of our national forests. Thus the grass doesn't get grazed and the trees die and fall down. All of this unused underbrush makes gargantuan forest fires. Not only is this completely wasteful, but if anything is causing "global warming," this is as big of a factor as any.

Same way with slaughtering horses. They are a renewable resource. Process the old unusable horses and get some good out of them.

You Liberals put yourself on a pedestal and think you are thinking of your fellow man, your children, and your grandchildren. No, you are wasteful and illogical. Liberals like to gripe about the status quo but they never have any solutions to any problems. Their ideas reek of stupidity and completely lack in any common sense.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
we try to think about our fellow man
I don't think I could think about men if I tried. I prefer the opposite sex. You democrats have a long and storied history of protecting "what people do in their own bedroom" so maybe you actually do think about men a lot. It would explain your actions.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
schnurrbart said:
Soapweed said:
Does it really matter? All we can do is take one day at a time and live it. By the time anything changes too much, one way or another, we will all be dead and gone. Leave it to the Liberals to worry themselves sick over something they can't do anything about anyway.

Unlike you self-centered rightwingers, we try to think about our fellow man, not to mention our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Of course, most of those living right now will be quite old or dead before, hopefully, anything really drastic happens--maybe. But why wouldn't you want to protect the land and the seas and save species for future generations? Because big business and big oil know that anything that improves the environment costs them big money and you wouldn't want that to happen.

You have it all wrong, schnurrbart. The Liberals are the wasteful ones. They won't allow lumbering and the logical thinning of trees, which are a renewable natural resource. They want to take cattle out of our national forests. Thus the grass doesn't get grazed and the trees die and fall down. All of this unused underbrush makes gargantuan forest fires. Not only is this completely wasteful, but if anything is causing "global warming," this is as big of a factor as any.

Same way with slaughtering horses. They are a renewable resource. Process the old unusable horses and get some good out of them.

You Liberals put yourself on a pedestal and think you are thinking of your fellow man, your children, and your grandchildren. No, you are wasteful and illogical. Liberals like to gripe about the status quo but they never have any solutions to any problems. Their ideas reek of stupidity and completely lack in any common sense.

Oh, come on! You can do better than that I know. I've read much better arguments from you before. You would rather allow drilling in the fragile north country with tight controls ( I would hope anyway) and then when the accident happens, as it would sooner or later, then you say "whoops". Sorry but that doesn't help the environment. You aren't interested in protecting it, you only want to use it. Don't even pretend that the conservative attitude toward the environment is good. You have too bad a track record for that.
 

andybob

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
Unlike you self-centered rightwingers, we try to think about our fellow man, not to mention our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Of course, most of those living right now will be quite old or dead before, hopefully, anything really drastic happens--maybe. But why wouldn't you want to protect the land and the seas and save species for future generations? Because big business and big oil know that anything that improves the environment costs them big money and you wouldn't want that to happen.

Steriotyping doesn't do justice to your debating Schnurrbart, I am from Zimbabwe, formally Rhodesia, we steriotypical right wingers pioneered much of the research toward Holistic Land Management, among other conservation practises. I am concerned for the environment because as land owners we have a responsibility to husband the land and pass it on in a better condition than when we started, this inludes built-up areas as well as farmland and nature reserves, our lack of understaning of our environment has led to our dismal failture to date, this includes concerned environmentalists working on outdated, faulty research.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
andybob said:
schnurrbart said:
Unlike you self-centered rightwingers, we try to think about our fellow man, not to mention our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Of course, most of those living right now will be quite old or dead before, hopefully, anything really drastic happens--maybe. But why wouldn't you want to protect the land and the seas and save species for future generations? Because big business and big oil know that anything that improves the environment costs them big money and you wouldn't want that to happen.

Steriotyping doesn't do justice to your debating Schnurrbart, I am from Zimbabwe, formally Rhodesia, we steriotypical right wingers pioneered much of the research toward Holistic Land Management, among other conservation practises. I am concerned for the environment because as land owners we have a responsibility to husband the land and pass it on in a better condition than when we started, this inludes built-up areas as well as farmland and nature reserves, our lack of understaning of our environment has led to our dismal failture to date, this includes concerned environmentalists working on outdated, faulty research.

In this country, whether they are stereotyped or not, the rightwing cares little about the environment, land, water or air. They don't have to say that, it is obvious in the legislation that they support or that which they don't support. I don't think that dismal failure to be good stewards of the environment comes from a lack of understanding nor outdated or faulty research. Most of the faulty research problem is apparent only in Iraq. Environmental clean-up would cost the huge corporations mega bucks and they don't want to do that. They control the politicians with their donations and politicians are thus grateful. The rightwingers on here are just a bunch of pot stirring guys who have nothing better to do. If the truth were known, most probably really don't believe everything they write. It is just to keep things stirred up. What part of NC do you live in now?
 

sw

Well-known member
Now I have a basic problem with your arguements Schnurbart. The liberals spent millions to put wolves at our door, spent millions on black footed ferrets, stopped logging to save the Spotted Owl, we have to stop grazing to save the Prairie Chickens, we have to stop grazing cattle cause they are the major cause of global warming, I guess you don't have a clue as to what the libs have done to the west. Should this money have been spent on social programs? You bitch and moan about the money being wasted on Iraq. Lets get down to brass tacks. How much did it cost to put wolves here? How much was spent on Black fotted ferrets? How much has been spent studying the Prairie Chickens? Which by the way they killed most of the ones they collar to monitor cause they put the collars on too tight. Now we have our hands tied because environmental regulations, so we have a hard time not being within environmental regulations that were designed for cities and manufacturing. We have increased food outputs per acre at a phenominal rate in the last 40 years and we don't care about the environment? You are nuts. We care more for the land that we care for than all of you "environmentalists" put together. We are trying to be sustainable, to pass what we have to our kids and to leave the land better than what we found. Maybe you should come out and take a look sometime, you don't have anything else to do but stick your nose where it don't belong. Oh yea, I forgot, that is also a liberal trait.
Facts are, the Spotted owl will nest where ever it wants, the black footed ferret does not live on Black tailed prairie dogs exclusivley, the deer and elk poplulations are in serious decline because of the wolves and no logging being allowed so there is no regrowth for winter feed and their winter range is being developed by people who want to live with nature. Ironic is it not? Now we are spending all of this money fighting fires to protect the mansions built by rich out of state environmentalists cause the forest is so overgrown that once they start you cannot stop them. Oh yea, that is due to global warming, not the lies of the left. If you can show me one piece of evidence that has P<.05 that shows inconclusively that global warming is real, not this concensus BS, I will then maybe believe.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Good post, sw. When I see where some eastern liberal like schnurrbart questions the environmental stewardship of ranchers like Soapweed, it makes me want to puke.



Edit:
Texan said:
...some eastern liberal like schnurrbart...
No offense to anybody else from Illinois (if any). :wink:
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
sw said:
Now I have a basic problem with your arguements Schnurbart. The liberals spent millions to put wolves at our door, spent millions on black footed ferrets, stopped logging to save the Spotted Owl, we have to stop grazing to save the Prairie Chickens, we have to stop grazing cattle cause they are the major cause of global warming, I guess you don't have a clue as to what the libs have done to the west. Should this money have been spent on social programs? You bitch and moan about the money being wasted on Iraq. Lets get down to brass tacks. How much did it cost to put wolves here? How much was spent on Black fotted ferrets? How much has been spent studying the Prairie Chickens? Which by the way they killed most of the ones they collar to monitor cause they put the collars on too tight. Now we have our hands tied because environmental regulations, so we have a hard time not being within environmental regulations that were designed for cities and manufacturing. We have increased food outputs per acre at a phenominal rate in the last 40 years and we don't care about the environment? You are nuts. We care more for the land that we care for than all of you "environmentalists" put together. We are trying to be sustainable, to pass what we have to our kids and to leave the land better than what we found. Maybe you should come out and take a look sometime, you don't have anything else to do but stick your nose where it don't belong. Oh yea, I forgot, that is also a liberal trait.
Facts are, the Spotted owl will nest where ever it wants, the black footed ferret does not live on Black tailed prairie dogs exclusivley, the deer and elk poplulations are in serious decline because of the wolves and no logging being allowed so there is no regrowth for winter feed and their winter range is being developed by people who want to live with nature. Ironic is it not? Now we are spending all of this money fighting fires to protect the mansions built by rich out of state environmentalists cause the forest is so overgrown that once they start you cannot stop them. Oh yea, that is due to global warming, not the lies of the left. If you can show me one piece of evidence that has P<.05 that shows inconclusively that global warming is real, not this concensus BS, I will then maybe believe.

I'll answer part of your rant. First thing you should know is that I am not an "environmentalist". I did not get on to anyone specifically. I used the collective pronoun "you" to mean conservatives. I also doubt very much if you can say for a fact that liberals spent millions on putting back wolves where they once lived. I would imagine that it was the Dept of Natural Resources but I am sure that because they are a govt agency and you (collective again) don't like anything govt, you are saying that they have to be liberal. I am also not saying that you personally don't do a good job taking care of your property but the attitude of the conservative in general is to not worry about wilderness areas of any kind if there is some profit to be made out of it for someone. Oil will not come out of the ground without a mess. During the 50s, there were thousands of oil wells and attempts at oil wells in so. IL and now there are STILL thousands of acres that haven't grown anything in 50 years. Sure the process is safer now. So are tankers but every once in awhile something happens like Exxon Valdez which is still causing pollution to this day. I don't believe nor do I think you believe that cattle are a major cause of greenhouse gases. But I do my part by eating beef almost every day. I have been in the west. I lived in Lakewood, Co for awhile. I go to Denver now each year to talk to cattlemen from all over the country. However, I will admit that I don't know much about the ins and outs of leasing federal land for grazing. Maybe you got the idea that I lump all conservatives into the same pile. I don't but I do lump the policy makers of the conservative party and many of the every day folks in that party together. Not all conservatives are assholes just as not all liberals are either. BTW, Illinois is NOT an eastern state.. It may be east of you but that doesn't make it eastern.
 

andybob

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
In this country, whether they are stereotyped or not, the rightwing cares little about the environment, land, water or air. They don't have to say that, it is obvious in the legislation that they support or that which they don't support. I don't think that dismal failure to be good stewards of the environment comes from a lack of understanding nor outdated or faulty research. Most of the faulty research problem is apparent only in Iraq. Environmental clean-up would cost the huge corporations mega bucks and they don't want to do that. They control the politicians with their donations and politicians are thus grateful. The rightwingers on here are just a bunch of pot stirring guys who have nothing better to do. If the truth were known, most probably really don't believe everything they write. It is just to keep things stirred up. What part of NC do you live in now?

The most notable faulty rasearch is the belief that the denudation of the dry, bittle ecosystems are due to overgrazing despite the massive biomass of wildlife supported by these areas in recorded history, the real problem is selectve grazing due to understocking, and not rotating before the grazed areas begin to recover, and are gazed too soon, while the rest of the forage is underutilised and goes moibund, and dies. Publc parks are managed around the tourists, not the flora and fauna, causing complex problems to he environment due to managing large herds of semi tame animals that centre themselves in artificial ecosystems around the tourist
access areas, instead of migrating over a larger area (sorry, brief and simplistic ) Urban planning (or lack thereof) is a whole different thread-building on flood plains and swamps resulting in flooding and silting of water systems (again brief and simplstic)
I now live in Hoke count N.C. managing for a large pig operation while bulding up my Tuli cattle herd
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Today my wife, son, and I journeyed to Rapid City to take in some of the Stock Show. We traveled across much pastureland that is infested with prairie dogs. Their habitat strongly resembles piles of pimples on a teenie-bopper's face. How in the world the Liberals can justify protecting those sorry little terrain tearer-uppers, is way beyond me. If the whole species went extinct, the whole country would be ever so much better off. We should take truckloads of the little varmints back east and dump them on golf courses and lawns of Liberal animal rights protection people.
 

memanpa

Well-known member
texan
i think 99% of those folks from ILL. are offended more by Schnozzbert and the fact he lives there than any little comment made by you :D :D
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
memanpa said:
texan
i think 99% of those folks from ILL. are offended more by Schnozzbert and the fact he lives there than any little comment made by you :D :D

There you go again with the weak attempts at insulting people with WAG exaggerations and name calling. Surely it can't be more than 50%.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
andybob said:
schnurrbart said:
In this country, whether they are stereotyped or not, the rightwing cares little about the environment, land, water or air. They don't have to say that, it is obvious in the legislation that they support or that which they don't support. I don't think that dismal failure to be good stewards of the environment comes from a lack of understanding nor outdated or faulty research. Most of the faulty research problem is apparent only in Iraq. Environmental clean-up would cost the huge corporations mega bucks and they don't want to do that. They control the politicians with their donations and politicians are thus grateful. The rightwingers on here are just a bunch of pot stirring guys who have nothing better to do. If the truth were known, most probably really don't believe everything they write. It is just to keep things stirred up. What part of NC do you live in now?

The most notable faulty rasearch is the belief that the denudation of the dry, bittle ecosystems are due to overgrazing despite the massive biomass of wildlife supported by these areas in recorded history, the real problem is selectve grazing due to understocking, and not rotating before the grazed areas begin to recover, and are gazed too soon, while the rest of the forage is underutilised and goes moibund, and dies. Publc parks are managed around the tourists, not the flora and fauna, causing complex problems to he environment due to managing large herds of semi tame animals that centre themselves in artificial ecosystems around the tourist
access areas, instead of migrating over a larger area (sorry, brief and simplistic ) Urban planning (or lack thereof) is a whole different thread-building on flood plains and swamps resulting in flooding and silting of water systems (again brief and simplstic)
I now live in Hoke count N.C. managing for a large pig operation while bulding up my Tuli cattle herd

I lived in Rocky Mount and then Louisburg while I worked at the RM post office for 3 yrs.
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
I would imagine that at least 55% of voters in this state agree with Schnurrbart... Most are in the more urban areas but that is the majority of the state by far.... Even a measureable amount of republicans would agree with his stance on the enviro to some extent.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
IL Rancher said:
I would imagine that at least 55% of voters in this state agree with Schnurrbart... Most are in the more urban areas but that is the majority of the state by far.... Even a measureable amount of republicans would agree with his stance on the enviro to some extent.

Downstate--300-350 miles south of you-- is the Shawnee Nat. Forest. I live about 7-10 miles north of there. Beautiful country but not solid forest area. Some 250000 acres are included. There is a battle going on over ATVs and horses. Both are damaging but I would imagine, knowing how most of the ATV drivers act and what is fun for them (mud bog driving), that the ATVs cause the most damage by removing the vegetation from areas and then this causes erosion. I can't really imagine that horses can cause the same extent but the Forestry Service is closing some trails for both.
 
Top