Jump to content
Dan K., it makes absolutely no difference how many articles you want to quote from. I believe that at one time one of the contributors to this thread even declared that I had been "out linked." If I didn't have to work, I could spend a bunch of time and post a zillion articles to support my views and the views of the majority of climate scientists. Makes no difference. That's the reason for the Blah, Blah, Blah. it makes no difference what you want to believe. Our government spent vast amounts of tax dollars to develop space travel and super sonic flight. These could not and would not have been achieved by private investment alone. They were done for the common good, the common benefit of us all. The benefits derived from these expenditures are far too many to mention. It is my OPINION that tax dollars and human energy should be devoted to the development of clean, renewable sources of energy and to new ways to power our vehicles. The additional benefit would be less pollution and eliminate the need to debate climate science.
By the way rhys, you do have a very creative, fun and interesting way with words. Your education in communication really shows! Thanks.
God is a concept, by which we measure our pain. I like John Lennon's definition. As I see it, there is more than one climate debate. There are those who say that the activities of man COULD NOT be contributing to climate change. Then there are those, myself included, who agree with the vast majority of climate scientists, ( the people who study these things), who say that the activities of man ARE CONTRIBUTING to climate change. Then there is a group who dispute that the vast majority of climate scientists BELIEVE that the activities of man ARE CONTRIBUTING to climate change. Then there are those who try and derail the entire discussion by pointing out the obvious, that the climate has always changed, and thereby making the false argument that since climate has always changed, it can't be proven that man's activities could have anything to do with climate change today. No matter what anyone chooses to believe, it is quite a coincidence that the changes we seem to be experiencing are almost exactly what climate scientists predicted. Dryer, drought conditions in the West, milder, drier winters in the Rocky Mountain regions, wetter and colder in the Northeast. Could be just a coincidence, and next year could be completely different, or this could be a trend, who knows. One thing that we do know is that continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels does create pollution that is harmful to the environment, and COULD contribute to climate change. The technology of the internal combustion engine, and burning fossil fuel for energy, has changed very little since it was invented. During that same time period we have gone from just learning how to fly, to super sonic jets and space travel. So no matter what you choose to believe, what is the argument against devoting the same amount of time, energy and research that we used to get into space, to developing cleaner, renewable sources to power our vehicles and to produce our energy?
We don't know the facts of this case yet. The police are being very careful about releasing information for some reason. There is at this point an indication that a body has been recovered, that an autopsy is being performed and that preliminary murder charges have been filled. There is also hear say evidence that MJ plants have been cut down, and a report that the perp was found in possession of MJ and a stolen vehicle. At this point we don't know if the MJ is related to the disappearance of the victim. It certainly appears to be the case, but I prefer to wait until we know all the facts of this case before blaming MJ.
Blah, Blah, Blah ,Blah, that's why I said no reason to start up the debate again. There is evidence of climate change, as you noted, the question is, is this long term or an anomaly, are the activities of man causing this change? Most of the worlds scientists agree that the activities of man are causing this change no matter what you want to believe or how many articles you can find to suggest otherwise. Doesn't change the facts or the results of scientific study.
And yes slope maintenance has done a great job. Even during the driest period during January, the skiing was still pretty good and it's really good now. It may not last too long, so I would suggest gettin on out there.
marc, the debate is not about if the climate has ever changed. You know this. It is whether or not the activities of man are causing the climate to change now. Most scientists agree that the activities of man are contributing to climate change now. The "deniers" are those who don't believe in science. But we've been through this before and no reason to start up again. No matter what anyone wants to believe, the skiing is as good "right now" as it has been all season! Not all that deep, but with the recent cold temps, snow quality has really improved! The icy base is not an issue on most runs, but it's there on Rolex. Skied Priest Creek lift line, skiers left in the trees yesterday and it was superb! I would suggest that anyone who cares should partake while the gettin is good!
I did not say and do not say that the President has lied about anything here. He is being very careful as he should be. This is a very difficult situation and we don't want to play into the hands of our enemies and give them even more reason to hate us. Not that they need more reasons in their warped minds. Scott I think you meant Iraq, not Iran. Iraq and Syria are pretty much lawless territories and our unfortunate expedition in Iraq is what created this vacuum that has allowed ISIS to grow. I do believe they are heel bent on world domination and are a potential threat to the world if they are not all killed. As I said, the question is, who will do the killing?
Can't believe it but I must agree with Harvey. We can't be the worlds policemen, but we also cannot allow ISIS to become a global threat. There is no sense in thinking that a negotiated solution is possible with these murderers, they must be killed to stop them. The issue is who is going to do the killing. At this point we must encourage Arab and Muslim countries in the region to stand up and fight and eliminate the ISIS threat. We can and should offer support and weaponry. At some point it may be necessary to have U.S. troops on the ground and in the battle. The problems then may become worse before they get better. What will happen if U.S. troops are captured, tortured and beheaded on video. How will we respond? When territory is captured, who will it be turned over to? Who will hold the territory? Is peace ever going to be possible in the region with the divide between the Sunni and Shia? What about the Kurds? Will American peace keeping forces be required to stay in the region forever? And if so, how do we keep a U.S. presence from become a recruiting tool for those who already hate us and from fostering more resentment and hatred of the west? These are complex questions and the reason this conflict is so difficult and we must be careful in our response to the great challenges before us.
Great letter Bob. Thanks for speaking out and speaking up.
I could use that $122K a year as well! It is obvious that the coal industry is important to the region today. The problem lies in the future. With the development of cleaner, cheaper forms of energy on the horizon, the coal industry and the region, will have to adapt. Hopefully, those who are in charge will be forward thinking and not be taken by surprise and suffer economic disaster.
Harvey, the President is hardly a pacifist and to call him naive as to history couldn't be farther from the truth. Recent history has proven how disastrous the consequences are of over reaction and particularly invading a country that had nothing to do with attacking the U.S. The President is asking congress for authorization for the use of military force to fight ISIS. This is not the act of a pacifist. Killing Bin Laden was not he act of a pacifist. What would you suggest that he do? Invade which country? The President is being cool and calculated as usual, and building a coalition as he should. He is not going to rush in with six guns ablaze, a la Bush, and create more of a mess. The conflict in the middle east must be fought and won by Muslim and Arab forces. The U.S. can offer aide and support, but we cannot be the primary fighting force lest we become an even bigger recruiting tool for the enemy. The President is building a "radical islamist nation?" What? Then why in the world would he be asking for authorization to use military force? Another grand conspiracy theory about how the President is secretly trying to destroy America?
Last login: yesterday
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.