The insurance companies are not science challenged

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

I had some free ranging chickens once, but they didn't hold up very well. The last one was murdered right in front of me by a mangy trespassing dog.

He didn't hold up very well either, since I was carrying my single six with the magnum cylinder installed at the time.

Chas

So I guess the moral of the story is don't steal any chickens from a well armed farmer.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

So I guess the moral of the story is don't steal any chickens from a well armed farmer.

At least don't do it right in front of him.

Chas

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by noonereal

So I guess the moral of the story is don't steal any chickens from a well armed farmer.

At least not if your a mangey old dog.

Dave

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib

There is no doubt about it. Science is based upon empirical evidence, not opinion. Here is an article by Joseph Romm entitled "The cold truth about climate change" which addresses the issue:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...arming_deniers

As Dr. Romm put it: “What matters is scientific findings - data, not opinions.”

OK, I'll stipulate that climate change is for real and caused by man-generated CO2 emissions. What then?

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

OK, I'll stipulate that climate change is for real and caused by man-generated CO2 emissions. What then?

Perhaps we should all slit our wrists. For the good of the planet, doncha know?

Chas

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

Perhaps we should all slit our wrists. For the good of the planet, doncha know?

Chas

Nah, all that blood would soak up too much oxygen.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib

"Nunquam aliud Natura aliud Sapientia dicit."
- Juvenal

What is needed is to restore the natural balance. All life depends on a delicate balance of the great forces of nature. With these elemental forces, it only takes a small change to result in catastrophic meteorological events causing destruction and devastation across the continents. What the scientists are saying is that we must reduce the carbon emissions or face the consequences. The earth has the capacity to restore the depleted ozone; but it will not happen unless we stop spewing industrial gases into the atmosphere at the current rate. We must act now, for it will be late to counsel then or pray when the consequences of our delay have been visited upon us. The earth is speaking to us and we should listen, for “wisdom ever echos nature’s voice.”

OK. Then how should we and the rest of the world achieve this lofty objective realistically?

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

OK. Then how should we and the rest of the world achieve this lofty objective realistically?

We can all slit our wrists. I'm beginning to think it's a hell of an idea.

But I'll slit a few throats first, just to have someone to light my way to the next world.

I wouldn't want to get lost.

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib

Two things must be initiated: (1) reducing population growth; and (2) reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. The world must take action on both fronts now. If we don’t take decisive action now, we are very likely to starve. The evidence indicates that the global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate. It’s time that we face up to the facts; or come face to face with the reality of global warming at the grocery store when we are fighting in the isles for the food on the shelves. If mankind is to survive, we need to stop denying the facts and resolve to change our ways.

Chicken Little, is that you???

Chas

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib

Two things must be initiated: (1) reducing population growth; and (2) reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. The world must take action on both fronts now.

I'm good with the second point, although the "how" is the tough part. As for your first point, just how is this done? Besides, the wealthy, industrialized nations pumping out all the greenhouse gases have, for the most part, exceedingly low birth rates. In western Europe, birth rates are low enough to cause concern about excessive population shrinkage, below what is necessary to maintain their standard of living. I'm not sure overpopulation in Niger or Burundi has a global impact in terms of pollution or global warming.

Study this chart for a moment and you'll discover that the countries pumping CO2 into the environment are not the same countries overpopulating the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...fertility_rate