Hunting Forum

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/07/29-0

I especially like the following:

As of June 2007, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change stated:
the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.[90]
Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.

So- now, even the geologists from the Petroleum industry, the ones with the most to lose, are agreeing with anthropomorphic induced climate change.

Maybe the Club should issue a statement...
We, the members of the North American Hunting Club, hereby issue notice that, in spite of the insurmountable evidence against us, we believe that the current increases in global temperatures are caused by nothing more than the normal, cyclical nature of our planet's climate. Despite the virtually universal acceptance of the disastrous effects that CO2 emissions are having on the planet, we are FAR more comfortable with the knowledge that, somewhere, there is a scientist telling us what we want to hear, so we can keep driving our bigassed SUV's. So there.

Now go stick your heads back in the sand.

To believe that you have all the facts without any skepticism you are the one with your head in the sand. I haven't read any of us saying that we don't have an impact on climate cahange but it is to what degree. As was mentioned before the dustbowl days of the 30's wasn't caused by burning fossil fuels and the earth is going to change despite our efforts. Back in the 70's it was the propellents in spray cans and freon gas from our airconditioners that were causing holes in the ozone layer causing our global warming. Today it is Co2.

In determining our flood zones we use the term 100yr flood. This was determined from mother natures history and mans impact had little to do with it. We had major flooding here in the central plains back in 98 but have been in a drought the last 2 yrs. Should I believe that the rains wont be coming back all because of global warming?

The EPA is allready setting higher standards on coal burning plants etc. I just believe there are other motives involved in the POTUS pushing for a cap and trade agenda. Just another way to tax us and increase their revenue.

YH, you know damn good and well that the NAHC wouldn't issue such a statement because they won't even issue a club policy statement against gun bans!

Can you explain which man made apparatus created the climate change that eliminated the dinosaurs? Which one changed the earth from being almost completely covered by water, into one with continents and how did man manage to influence the climate that eliminated those land masses from being tropical forests into varied temperature zones? Can any of the climate issues that have been directly related to the earth's relationship with the sun be correlated to any influences committed by man? Geological surveys of the earth's crust indicate that this has been going on for millennia, and long before the existence of mankind on the planet.

Posted By bpearce on 26 Jan 2013 07:47 AM
To believe that you have all the facts without any skepticism you are the one with your head in the sand. I haven't read any of us saying that we don't have an impact on climate cahange but it is to what degree. As was mentioned before the dustbowl days of the 30's wasn't caused by burning fossil fuels earth is going to change despite our efforts. Back in the 70's it was the propellents in spray cans and freon gas from our airconditioners that were causing holes in the ozone layer causing our global warming. Today it is Co2.

  I know this is a little off topic but the term fossil fuels is another bs pc term.   oil is not a fossil fuel.oil is to the earth what blood is to the body ,draw some and it will replenish itself.while I would agree it may not be a great idea to take to much at once, the whole idea of an oil shortage is bulls...
again I know this is not the thread to discuss this the term fossil fuels is just a pet peave of mine like the term assualt rifle for semi-autos is for RT

RT- 

It is still only a theory. Another theory was it could have been a massive volcanic eruption. Would you call Darwins theory on evolution a fact?

Yote, sorry about that. Oil may replenish itself the problem is the thousands of years it takes to do so.

bp-

Darwin's theory is just that- a theory. It has been widely accepted by the mainstream scientific community, however, and scientists no longer debate it's validity- they are now working out the details.
Yes, the formation of the Deccan Traps also corresponds to that time period.

YH, and we know it's not naturally occurring, why? Because some scientists who are employed by the UN, tell us so? That alone is reason enough to disbelieve their theories. The meteorite theory and the volcanic action theory are two prevalent ideas, but so is the theory of a naturally occurring climate change and even one about greenhouse gases created by the large tropical rain forests that covered huge expanses if the earths land masses; the fact is we don't know the facts well enough to say definitively just what did happen. And that, my friend is exactly the case with today's crop of theories about what is causing the effects we are seeing today!

Unlike Darwinism, which has anthropological and archealogical evidence to support evolution, the formation of methane traps are also contentious as to whether they were formed as the earth was developing, or as a result of biological decay, volcanic reactions, or the settling of gas during the various climate changes as well.

Good Lord, man- do a little research. "some scientists who are employed by the U.N."? You're better than that, RT.
Here:
http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds...16605.html
"Back in the day", when this debate first started on these boards, Muller was one of the most quoted skeptics. Nice to see a guy that, even though he's being bankrolled by big oil, still has the stones to tell the truth.
Here's the thing, RT- you aren't a climatologist (as far as I know), and neither am I- so we need to look to the experts... and what do they say? The overwhelming majority say it's anthropomorphic.

BTW- the theory supporting the annihilation of the dinosaurs due to the formation of the Deccan Traps is quite interesting. Iridium is a heavy substance, and not especially prevalent on the earth's crust. Scientists say it sunk to the core when the earth was still in it's molten, formative state. However, it could have been drawn to the surface and blown out by massive eruptions.
The idea of excessive greenhouse gases causing global warming that killed off the dinosaurs fails to account for the iridium layer.

Or.... OR....

Maybe God decided after the Great Flood that He'd had enough of their naughtiness, and spread magic pixie dust (aka- iridium) to choke 'em out.

There are two sides to every issue, and variants in between.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsi...heory.html

ck-
Agreed.
See, now why can't we have more thought-provoking topics like this?

Could it be that on both sides there is almost a cult like atmosphere, that almost any oposeing opinion is seen as bad, and any agreement is seen as weakness, and or betrayal to ones precieved side.

Posted By YH on 27 Jan 2013 12:30 PM
Or.... OR....

Maybe God decided after the Great Flood that He'd had enough of their naughtiness, and spread magic pixie dust (aka- iridium) to choke 'em out.

actually it would have happened before the great flood.YH it amazes me that a self proclaimed intellectual such as yourself would continue to be so foolish as to mock GOD!

Oh yh if I may, Agognostic is somewhere between the two extrems of religion, the Religious Zealots, and the Atheists.

Au contraire, 'yote. According to the YE Creationists, there were dinosaurs on the Ark. And I don't recall proclaiming myself as an intellectual...

ck- that may be the case, but I assure you- I lean towards the Atheist point of that compass, and I'll try to drag as many of my Agnostic brethren in that direction as possible...

Here's another possibility- maybe them dinosaurs all turned into homos...

Posted By YH on 27 Jan 2013 02:53 PM

Au contraire, 'yote. According to the YE Creationists, there were dinosaurs on the Ark. And I don't recall proclaiming myself as an intellectual...

ck- that may be the case, but I assure you- I lean towards the Atheist point of that compass, and I'll try to drag as many of my Agnostic brethren in that direction as possible...

Here's another possibility- maybe them dinosaurs all turned into homos...

yh you answered, a question for me there;" I lean towards the Atheist point of that compass"

And now we know why there are no Dinosaurs" maybe them dinosaurs all turned in to homos"

And as far as My un-natural stance on Homosexuality, I may have to take another look at that un-natural thing. Oh warning this video could be offensive to some.

http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video...uncensored

ag·nos·tic ( g-n s t k) n. 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something. adj. 1. Relating to or being an agnostic. 2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

I think alot agnostics (not all Rt) are just protagonist, put off religion til the end so there's not guilt felt for what they do, gives them freedom to do as they please then they get religion on their death bed. JMO

Now you start squawking you old jay bird you. What you say may be true enough for some Agnostics. I believe many know they can have a conscious, and do the right things without need for a threatened punishment in some blind faith after life. That it is the knowledge that they are doing the right things for the right reasons and not a guilt felt, becuase they maybe be damd to hell if they don't. More than one way to look at anything, I could say many Christains do the right things not because they are right, but because they fear the punishment of not doing right. Who is more selfish, in that regard. Prove within reasonable doubt one way or the other. And that is what an Agnostic is to me