|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 9, 2005 6:21:54 GMT -6
Bob said
I have always wondered what the "H" was for... Harrybutt maybe?? ;D
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on Feb 9, 2005 6:48:45 GMT -6
Tex, when GWB walked away from Kyoto in March 2001 I'll give his administration credit that they must have their done their homework, even if they did come to a different conclusion than the 55 other developed countries. But where, after their no doubt exhaustive research, was their alternative solution? GW certainly has had a few things on his plate in the 4 years since then, but I doubt his environmental and energy experts were running the war in Iraq, so again where is the alternative plan? As for influence, when the world's most powerful nation sits at the negotiating table holding the trump card that if it walks away then the talks will likely collapse (but thankfully didn't), a fact that everyone else was all too aware of, and given the concessions that had already been made to the USA, I'd call that influence. Regarding the French and Germans, the worst offender can hardly cry foul because they have more to do to clean up their act in order to level the playing field than other nations must do. And the USA is not alone in bearing the cost of such efforts, in the UK CO2 emissions are above the world average and we must invest substantially more in renewable resources to meet our Kyoto targets, and we too will see jobs lost in the traditional power generation industries and other industry sectors. This article www.energybulletin.net/2166.html offers what I think is a reasonably balanced view of the issues we have been discussing, and also makes the point that with new technologies come new opportunities for jobs and wealth creation. I have highlighted a few of the points below. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 9, 2005 8:57:41 GMT -6
Credit where credit is due, the British have put their money where their mouth is on reducing CO2 emissions.
Re: Kyoto-
1) It doesn't even pretend to reduce CO2 emissions, it just moves them around. 2) How mysterious is it that those who would bear the lion's share of the cost of implementing Kyoto would balk at it?
Nuclear power is an expensive way to keep the lights on because we have made it so. Hate to emulate the French (and admit it) but this is one thing that they did right - develop a good standardized reactor design and build enough of them to get the cost per unit down and simplify personnel training.
Hate to say it (and certainly excluding the Brits and some others from this category), but much of the world just flat resents US power. I read much in the French papers about the need to "contain" American hegemony, "counterbalance" the US, etc. Sometimes, international conferences see the mask drop and turn into a bitch session about the US. Example: the recent International Conference on AIDS in Bankok. Never mind that the US spends more on AIDS research and relief than all of the other countries in the world combined, let's pile on. One could say that this doesn't have much to do with CO2, but diplomacy never occurs in a vacuum. From an American standpoint, you have (in Kyoto)a proposal to reduce CO2 emissions that doesn't reduce CO2 emissions (but will cost the US dearly) concocted by many of the same players who talk incessantly at home about the need to "contain" or "counterbalance" US power. I smell some linkage here.
I see the supporters of Kyoto as falling into three basic categories: 1) a few honest players such as Britain that are really concerned about CO2 and trying to get something going. 2) lots of bad faith players that are using Kyoto as a subterfuge to fuck the US economy over if they sign on or paint them as anti-environment if they don't. 3) Lots of folks who don't really understand Kyoto but want to feel good and sing a little Kum Ba Ya and feel good that they have "done something".
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 9, 2005 9:29:57 GMT -6
Tex said Along with a pass the Smores... Oh yeah.. stomp out the campfire... CO2 emissions you know ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on Feb 9, 2005 15:40:20 GMT -6
Re: Kyoto- 1) It doesn't even pretend to reduce CO2 emissions, it just moves them around It creates a level playing field. As I have previously said, it is commonly viewed as the beginning of the solution, not the solution itself, and creates a platform for further negotiations and measures. So just carry on regardless? If the cost of implementing Kyoto was so great to the USA, and I remain sceptical about that, it was because it emits the lion's share of CO2. Other nations are bearing the cost of their shares. I don't really want to digress from the subject at hand, but I will address what you said about the French. You are quite right that the French do talk about "the need to "contain" American hegemony, "counterbalance" the US, etc." They don't resent US power, they think it's dangerous and it's no secret that the French and Germans want to create a federal European superstate. In their view, which is shared by many across the globe and not just Europe, since the demise of the former Soviet Union there is a huge imbalance in the world with a single superpower that could do, and they believe already has done, exactly as it wishes. I have no axe at all to grind with America, in fact Sam and I spend as much time in your country as we can because we enjoy your lifestyle, and the friendliness and generosity of American people, but I too, like many other people in the UK, think that there needs to be a balance in the world. Not an opposition, just a balance. Would you disagree that this would be so wrong? Should one country have the final say in world affairs because the rest dare not speak out? I would like to see a stronger more unified Europe to create that balance, what I don't want is the French and German vision of a United States of Europe with our laws made in Brussels, our economies controlled in Bonn, and France and Germany at the helm. None of which has anything to do with Kyoto which was around a long time before France was vilified for refusing to support the USA over invading Iraq. GW walked out of Kyoto in March 2001 at a time when the USA and France enjoyed a much more fruitful relationship. I am not a fan of the French nor an apologist for them, but their current anti-USA rhetoric really should be no great surprise when you consider the anti-French 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' rhetoric that has been thrown at them from across the Atlantic. There may as you say be a few countries tagging along with Kyoto for the ride, but you credit the vast majority of governments, such as my own (and you don't now how much it pains me to speak up for Tony Blair) who are genuinely seeking a solution to this global problem, with very little intelligence if you really believe Kyoto is an anti-American plot that we/they have somehow been suckered into. Look at it this way : It could just as easily be claimed "Bush pulled out of Kyoto to give the USA a competitive advantage over other developed nations to fuck their economies and paint them as banner waving anti-American commies" Now the Bush adminstration may be diametrically opposed to the principles of Kyoto, but to say that so many nations got together under the umbrella of Kyoto to somehow fuck-over America is proposterous, and falls firmly into the trap of thinking that anyone who is not for you is against you. The fates of the world's economies are so closely entwined that failure of the US economy, if indeed Kyoto could have even made more than a dent in it, would have a knock-on effect on many of the nations that you believe were trying to bring it about. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 9, 2005 17:16:02 GMT -6
I would point out that the US became the only superpower by default when the Soviet Union collapsed and certainly didn't seek out the position. I suspect that there are many other Americans beside myself that would gladly cede being the daddy to whoever else is willing to step up to the plate and assume the mantel. Just maintaining 35,000 troops in Korea, with another 70,000 in rotation necessary to back them up, the materiel to make them effective and the maintenance and ancillary services to back them up is a tremendous burden. The EU might want to think long and hard about what they ask for, they might get it. To those who complain about the US acting unilaterally, I would suggest this: Fund and man your own military and the you can do with it as you please. Unlike some of the other players that have been on the field, the US has no extraterritorial aspirations and is not looking for colonies. If someone else wants the worldwide burdens that the US has shouldered, I for one, would be grateful to them.
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 9, 2005 17:22:41 GMT -6
Hate to say it (and certainly excluding the Brits and some others from this category), but much of the world just flat resents US power. Hence the European desire for the US to follow this stupid treaty. Kyoto Controversy Continues Friday, December 17, 2004 By Steven Milloy The international global warming worry-wart community is meeting in Buenos Aires this week to figure out how to get the U.S. to participate in the global economic suicide pact known as the Kyoto Protocol (search). Russia’s recent ratification of the Protocol allows the treaty become effective in February 2005 — though it's pretty widely known that Russia only signed on in exchange for European support of Russia’s admission to the World Trade Organization (search), not because President Putin frets about a less frigid Siberia. The treaty will nevertheless be a meaningless gesture without U.S. participation — not only is the U.S. the largest energy consumer, but the real purpose of the treaty is to hamper the U.S. economy, to Europe’s advantage, by rationing American energy use. Although the U.S. Senate, in 1997, and President Bush, in 2001, wisely rejected U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, there are worrisome efforts in the Senate and White House to do something on global warming. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.—both dyed-in-the-wool global warming worriers— have introduced legislation to impose mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (search). While President Bush’s recent public statements seem to indicate that he may also be falling for global warming junk science so far, he’s only for voluntary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions as well as “technology-based solutions. President Bush is also being pressured by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to do something on climate. As Mr. Blair has been a major supporter of President Bush’s effort in Iraq, it’s possible that Blair may have chits to call in. Peruvian Plants Debunk Kyoto Despite the anxiety-fest in Buenos Aires, the real global warming news this week comes from the Peruvian glaciers. Ohio State University glaciologist Lonnie Thompson reported at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union that he found two prehistoric plant beds dating back 5,000 and 50,000 years, respectively, near a high Andean glacier. The plants' ages were pinpointed through carbon dating; until recently, the plants had been covered by ice. Climate clamor-ers, upon hearing such news, will likely jump to the conclusion that the receding glaciers, which revealed the plants after covering them for thousands of years, are simply more evidence of manmade global warming. But a more thoughtful person might point out the plant find is a strong indication that, thousands of years ago, the high Andean climate must have been warm enough to cause the glacier to be recessed and to allow for the plants to grow in the first place — a time frame that obviously predates oil and gas companies, the internal combustion engine, the industrial revolution, and recorded history. So neither the warm climate that sustained high Andean plant growth 5,000 years ago, nor the subsequent frigid climate that caused the glacierization, could possibly have been caused by human activity. So if natural forces caused those climate ch-ch-changes, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that perhaps natural forces might also be largely responsible for whatever climate ch-ch-changes may be occurring now? “Any prudent person would agree that we don’t yet understand the complexities with the climate system,” said Thompson. It’s too bad he didn’t deliver that message in Buenos Aires. Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of "Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams" (Cato Institute, 2001).
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 9, 2005 17:28:54 GMT -6
Arctic Warming Update[/size] JunkScience.com January 15, 2005 Supplemented January 26, 2005 "Once again claims are flying thick and fast regarding dramatic, in fact, unprecedented Arctic warming. Once again, we look at the available data, now updated to the end of 2004. Once again, we find the claims to be dead flat wrong." Full article: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 9, 2005 17:34:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by JustIan on Feb 10, 2005 3:06:03 GMT -6
I have always wondered what the "H" was for... Harrybutt maybe?? ;D The H stands for Harold, as in, "Our Father, who art in heaven, Harold be thy name" (snort). Actually, I've heard numerous explanations for the H over the years. The first is that it stands for "Holy," as in Jesus Holy Christ, a common enough blasphemy in the South, abridged to H by fast-talking Northerners. Other colorful Southern epithets include Jesus Hebe Christ and Jesus Hebrew Christ, which abbreviate the same way. The drawback of this account is that it is so boring I can barely type it without falling asleep. Luckily, the other theories are more entertaining: (1) It stands for "Haploid." This is an old bio major joke, referring to the unique (not to say immaculate) circumstances of Christ's conception. Having no biological father, J.C. was shortchanged in the chromosome department to the tune of one half. Ingenious, I'll admit, but whimsy has no place in a serious investigation such as this. (2) It recalls the H in the IHS logo emblazoned on much Christian paraphernalia. IHS dates from the earliest years of Christianity, being an abbreviation of "Jesus" in classical Greek characters. The Greek pronunciation is "Iesous," with the E sound being represented by the character eta, which looks like an H. When the symbol passed to Christian Romans, for whom an H was an H, the unaccountable character eventually became accepted as Jesus's middle initial. (3) Finally, a reader makes the claim that the H derives from the taunting Latin inscription INRH that was supposedly tacked on the cross by Roman soldiers: Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Hebrei (Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Hebrews). Trouble is, the inscription is usually given as INRI: Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum (J.C., King of the Jews). Nonetheless, this is the kind of creative thinking I like to see from my Teeming Millions. With every passing day, my mission on this earth comes closer to completion.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Feb 10, 2005 10:44:32 GMT -6
Thanks, Ian; I was about to post that article myself! For those that are interested, it is from The Straight Dope column a number of years ago.....Jake
|
|
|
Post by luckyhedo on Feb 13, 2005 12:54:56 GMT -6
George Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001 and has had 4 years to put forward an alternative to replace it before it is ratified next week. He has not done so. He could have used the USA's influence, as I stated previously, to produce a solution that was acceptable to America. Again he did not do so. I think the fact that he simply walked away from the whole process clearly demonstrates the emptiness of his statements "My administration takes the issue of global climate ch-ch-change very seriously" and "We'll be working with our allies to reduce greenhouse gases". An administration that didn't hesitate to rally support from the international community to rid Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction which were claimed to be a threat to America and its allies, continues to snub that very same community in its efforts to tackle their very real concerns about the threat of CO2 emissions to the global climate. His unilateral response was a plan to allow the USA to produce more CO2, not less. www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1932Simon Well said Simon ! And this is the mess GWB created with this unilateral isolationist thinking: "By adamantly refusing to do anything to improve energy conservation in America, or to phase in a $1-a-gallon gasoline tax on American drivers, or to demand increased mileage from Detroit's automakers, or to develop a crash program for renewable sources of energy, the Bush team is - as others have noted - financing both sides of the war on terrorism. We are financing the U.S. armed forces with our tax dollars, and, through our profligate use of energy, we are generating huge windfall profits for Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, where the cash is used to insulate the regimes from any pressure to open up their economies, liberate their women or modernize their schools, and where it ends up instead financing madrassas, mosques and militants fundamentally opposed to the progressive, pluralistic agenda America is trying to promote. Now how smart is that? The neocon strategy may have been necessary to trigger reform in Iraq and the wider Arab world, but it will not be sufficient unless it is followed up by what I call a "geo-green" strategy. As a geo-green, I believe that combining environmentalism and geopolitics is the most moral and realistic strategy the U.S. could pursue today. Imagine if President Bush used his bully pulpit and political capital to focus the nation on sharply lowering energy consumption and embracing a gasoline tax. What would that buy? It would buy reform in some of the worst regimes in the world, from Tehran to Moscow. It would reduce the chances that the U.S. and China are going to have a global struggle over oil - which is where we are heading. It would help us to strengthen the dollar and reduce the current account deficit by importing less crude. It would reduce climate ch-ch-change more than anything in Kyoto. It would significantly improve America's standing in the world by making us good global citizens. It would shrink the budget deficit. It would reduce our dependence on the Saudis so we could tell them the truth. (Addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.) And it would pull China away from its drift into supporting some of the worst governments in the world, like Sudan's, because it needs their oil. Most important, making energy independence our generation's moon shot could help inspire more young people to go into science and engineering, which we desperately need. Sadly, the Bush team won't even consider this. It prefers cruise missiles to cruise controls. We need a grass-roots movement. Where are college kids these days? I would like to see every campus in America demand that its board of trustees disinvest from every U.S. auto company until they improve their mileage standards. Every college town needs to declare itself a "Hummer-free zone." You want to drive a gas-guzzling Humvee? Go to Iraq, not our campus. And an idea from my wife, Ann: free parking anywhere in America for anyone driving a hybrid car. But no, President Bush has a better project: borrowing another trillion dollars, which will make us that much more dependent on countries like China and Saudi Arabia that hold our debt - so that you might, if you do everything right and live long enough, get a few more bucks out of your Social Security account. " ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) SEE: www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/opinion/13friedman.html?hp&oref=loginLOU
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 13, 2005 17:26:52 GMT -6
American turds. Whatever happened to the gold old benevolent superpowers of old, like the USSR?
|
|
|
Post by Harrybutt on Feb 13, 2005 17:30:44 GMT -6
Americans prove that political benevolence is a state of mind. The problem with what all the "conservatives" see as our grand benevolence almost always comes with rather large political strings attached to secure positions of our large corporations and lobbies. There is ALOT more quid pro quo than meets the eyes.....butt that anin;t fun to look at.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 13, 2005 17:44:43 GMT -6
HB, it's hard to argue with generalities and bromides. An apple a day keeps the doctor away. One good turn deserves another.
|
|
|
Post by Harrybutt on Feb 13, 2005 18:00:56 GMT -6
Just a response in like/kind ![:-*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/kiss.png)
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 13, 2005 18:41:15 GMT -6
But no, President Bush has a better project: borrowing another trillion dollars, which will make us that much more dependent on countries like China and Saudi Arabia that hold our debt - so that you might, if you do everything right and live long enough, get a few more bucks out of your Social Security account. " ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) I hear-tell there is OIL GALORE in Alaska! What a SHAME Lib'rul pundits keep us from going after it. ![:-[](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/embarrassed.png) Sure seems like ONE way to reduce out dependance on the Middle East. Or, do you just have a problem with "oil," Lou? ..............Bob
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 14, 2005 8:20:06 GMT -6
O, give me a fucking break Bob. You pick one little item out of the hundreds he has done that you have a modicom of knowledge on, and blast me because I go and learn a little about it? It is just like a COCKAMAMIE CONSERVATIVE CROCK OF CONFUSION that I am sooooo used to hearing come out of your mouth. No one needs to rip you a new one, just use your MOUTH!!!! ;D ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
|
Post by DT on Feb 14, 2005 9:10:45 GMT -6
COCKAMAMIE CONSERVATIVE CROCK OF CONFUSION Ya Mon, I like dat Deb.....LMAO ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 14, 2005 9:33:44 GMT -6
Hey guys, 76 and sunny here today - will take the wife's car to town and put the top down. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) Bundle up up there. ;D
|
|
|
Post by DT on Feb 14, 2005 9:40:06 GMT -6
Dayem Tex, ya know how to rub it in. I wuv Chicago but hate the winters here. And now for first time ever we get winter ozone alerts makes me want to move ![:'(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cry.png)
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 14, 2005 14:39:27 GMT -6
COCKAMAMIE CONSERVATIVE CROCK OF CONFUSION Ya Mon, I like dat Deb.....LMAO ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) No Dt, it just proves that Liberals believe everything they are told even if they know nothing about it. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Harrybutt on Feb 14, 2005 14:52:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Feb 14, 2005 15:01:38 GMT -6
COCKAMAMIE CONSERVATIVE CROCK OF CONFUSION That would make a good band name.....Jake
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 14, 2005 16:13:46 GMT -6
No, it really means that we don't mind researching to find the truth. It really means that if we don't know the answer, then will look to find it. It really means, that maybe we don't know it all, but try to learn what we can to educate ourselve to discuss things intelligently.
I am sorry, soo sorry you guys have a problem with a little study and research....I would lump you all together as "CON-surv'tives" and say at least we are able to learn new stuff instead of spewing the same old shit, but I am bigger than that and don't feel you ALL fall into the same pile of crap.
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 14, 2005 16:16:26 GMT -6
No, it really means that we don't mind researching to find the truth. If you reasearch it first. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 14, 2005 16:29:01 GMT -6
I did Joe, care to point out where I erred? Here is a bit more info for you folks. Straight from Yellowstone themselves.
A SAMPLING OF NATIONWIDE REACTION TO SULLIVAN'S DECEMBER 16 RULING:
Chicago Tribune
ìJudge Sullivan's decision is not an assault on respectful users of national parks. It is, rather, a timely reminder of why these magnificent preserves were created in the first place.î --December 24, 2003
Des Moines Register
ìNature took precedent over noisy engines with a judge's recent ruling limiting snowmobiling in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. Pollution will be reduced. Wildlife will be left in peace. Visitors will be more likely to enjoy the quiet. What a victory for conservation.î --December 29, 2003
Philadelphia Inquirer
ìThe Bush administration ordered up new science (at a cost of $2.4 million in taxpayer dollars), which confirmed the old. As is its habit, the administration then decided to ignore facts it found inconvenient.î--December 27, 2003
Great Falls Tribune (Montana)
ìIn revisiting the ban, Bush promised that any ch-ch-changes would be based on science. In fact, new Park Service and EPA studies both supported the ban as the favored option for reducing pollution. Meanwhile public comment ran upward of 90 percent in favor of the ban.î --December 26, 2003
CONCLUSIONS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S OWN STUDY CONCERNING SNOWMOBILE IMPACTS IN YELLOWSTONE:
On February 20, 2003, the Bush Administration completed a two-year, $2.4 million restudy of the snowmobile issue and reached the same conclusion that the National Park Service had reached in November 2000 during the Clinton Administration. Banning snowmobile use in favor of full public access on snowcoaches, the study reported: "...best preserves the unique historic, cultural, and natural resources associated with Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks" and..."yields the lowest levels of impacts to air quality, water quality, natural soundscapes, and wildlife..."
--Winter Use Plans for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, Final
Supplement EIS, page72
Specifically, the Bush study determined that allowing 950 snowmobiles a day into Yellowstone, even accounting for new snowmobile technology, would result in significantly greater impacts to human and environmental health than the snowmobile ban and transition to snowcoach access, including:
* A haze of exhaust at Old Faithful geyser
* Twice as much carbon monoxide
* Continuing health risks for park visitors and workers
* More frequent and widespread harassment and displacement of Yellowstone's wildlife
* Greater amounts of engine noise interfering with visitor enjoyment and many of the park's key attractions.
WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN YELLOWSTONE THIS WINTER:
Problems of air pollution, noise, and wildlife disturbance have persisted in Yellowstone this winter, but the phaseout abruptly halted last week had already begun to yield improvements and appreciative remarks from guides and visitors:
ìThere is a very noticeable improvement in the air quality. In my previous visits, you could smell the fuel and you just knew it wasn_t healthy,î said Noreen Campbell of Newark, Delaware, who visited Yellowstone over the New Yearís holiday. ìThis time, it wasnít objectionable. There wasn_t any odor. I think the key point is that this situation in Yellowstone has been studied and we have data. We know if this phaseout of snowmobile use is reversed, we_ll go right back to health problems for people and the environment. We know this, so I hope that doesn_t happen.î <br> --Noreen Campbell, Newark, Delaware (302) 892-1800
ìMy clients whoíve been in the park before have definitely commented that it_s a positive ch-ch-change from what they_ve experienced before,î said Leslie Stoltz a Yellowstone guide from Big Sky, Montana. ìItís been a much more pleasant experience -- much quieter than previous years."
ìFor years, I_ve had people tell me, ëIíd love to visit Yellowstone in the winter, but I wonít because of all that noise and pollution.í I think after this year_s uncertainty, those folks will come to Yellowstone in large numbers. Weíll see an increase in skiers, sightseers, wildlife watchers, and people who just want to get out and relax in a wild setting.î <br> --Betsy Robinson, business owner and guide (406) 522-9825
ìI think one thing that has been way underreported is the tremendous cross country ski and snowshoe potential of Yellowstone,î said Tom Murphy, owner of Wilderness Photography Expeditions in Livingston, Montana. ìWhen Yellowstone is free of snowmobile noise and pollution, I think we_ll see people from all over the world come to ski and snowshoe in the park,î Murphy added.
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 14, 2005 16:32:10 GMT -6
My opinion is they don't belong in Yellowstone. Period. Hence my reason for posting the reversal of the law in the first place. Just because Bob knows a bit about snow mobiles and thinks they should be allowed doesn't ch-ch-change my mind.
I personally think 4 wheelers should be allowed around all the grape vinyards. The oil, fumes and the like should do those grapes some good? Same difference, eh Joe?
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 14, 2005 16:33:55 GMT -6
I did Joe, care to point out where I erred? Here is a bit more info for you folks. Straight from Yellowstone themselves. When you went to hang the snowmobile owners. You were not aware or did research that the band would be lifted for the new 4 stroke engines. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 14, 2005 16:40:07 GMT -6
I personally think 4 wheelers should be allowed around all the grape vineyards. The oil, fumes and the like should do those grapes some good? Same difference, eh Joe? You didn't research this did you ;D They are and they are used regularly on a daily bases my dear. They have become a very important part of our farming operations, due to their size and mobility. Not to mention other equipment we use. Don't harm the grapes in the least. ;D ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) Joe.
|
|