|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 14, 2005 16:40:28 GMT -6
Nope, plenty of places for those 4 stroke engine to ride. Just not in Yellowstone. Don't reverse my opinion at all that they should ALL be banned. I did admit that I knew nothing bout snow mobiles once Bob brought it up, but so what? Still doesn't ch-ch-change my mind, but now I know more than I did before and just have a stronger stance and an educated opinion.
I don't go back on thinking Bush was wrong in ch-ch-changing the law no matter what type of snowmobile he "allowed".
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 14, 2005 16:56:39 GMT -6
No Joe, I admit, didn't research it at all , no going to either! But I did mean on the Yellowstone scale of hundreds per day passing by the grapes, which I do think I wouldn't want to drink that wine . Sorry I didn't make that clear. Deb
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 14, 2005 17:00:52 GMT -6
No Joe, I admit, didn't research it at all , no going to either! But I did mean on the Yellowstone scale of hundreds per day passing by the grapes, which I do think I wouldn't want to drink that wine . Sorry I didn't make that clear. Deb All is forgiven I was just being a wise ass(Denice is standing over my shoulder reading this she wants me to add hole to the ass part ) Wasn't trying to ch-ch-change your mind on the snowmoblies only trying to make a point. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 14, 2005 17:19:43 GMT -6
Joe! You a wise ass? Naaaaaaah, say it ain't so! Hey, it's all in fun, discussion and even a bit o learning. I like the banter, even the down and dirty (well mostly anyway )
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 14, 2005 17:21:07 GMT -6
Me to.
Joe ;D
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 14, 2005 17:34:18 GMT -6
Nope, plenty of places for those 4 stroke engine to ride. Just not in Yellowstone. Following that logic, you also *MUST* be for banning cars from Yellowstone as well, as the 4-stroke engine is the same as what's in your car! AND they are very quiet as well, just like your car. I take it you have never been on a snowmobile anywhere around Yellowstone. Until you have, and know the issues first hand, so you can cut through the crap you have posted from your "research" on the internet, I will simply conclude you just don't know what you are talking about and are attempting to rely on others. "Trust No one, Assume Nothing!" Smart words to live by, Hedo69. Meet me in Yellowstone one winter and let me show you the idiocy of the info you posted. .................Bob
|
|
|
Post by Harrybutt on Feb 14, 2005 21:45:30 GMT -6
How long/often you been snowmobiling in Yellerstone, Bob? I ain't surprised, just hadn't thunk about it....
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 14, 2005 22:00:35 GMT -6
How long/often you been snowmobiling in Yellerstone, Bob? I ain't surprised, just hadn't thunk about it.... Unless I'm mistaken, and you'd think I'd know, the first time was around '86 or so. My Dad took a group out ever year soon after he blew his knee out skiing in Snowmass in '79. I brought him home early that trip, continued to ski the next few years while he tried his best to get me to try the snowmobile. It took me a few years to relent. Nothing more majestic than seeing the Park in the dead of winter. And there is no way to do it that becomes a more personal journey than on a snowmobile, where you can stop, turn the engine off and "LIVE" the incredible beauty that you simply cannot see any other way. Those who haven't experienced it will never know that of which I speak. ..................Bob
|
|
|
Post by Harrybutt on Feb 14, 2005 22:27:53 GMT -6
Nice memories, Bob. {seriously} I would like that too. BTW, shouldn't we be loggin the fuck out of that place?
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 14, 2005 23:53:36 GMT -6
BTW, shouldn't we be loggin the fuck out of that place? Got your saw ready? Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 15, 2005 8:07:08 GMT -6
Well Bob,
As long as it gives you that sense of majesty Bob. Fuck the animals and the environment.
So, you are really of the opinion that unless you experience something first hand, you are unable to obtain any sort of REAL knowledge on it? I understand you a lot better now.
Would love to meet you in Yellowstone some winter. Love to, we could hike up thru the woods quietly, not giving off any noise, fear to the wildlife, no oil drips, etc. And I gurandamntee you I would walk away with no less sense of grandness and majesty than you did have previously with your machine. I have done it all my life and have yet to feel deprived.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 15, 2005 8:16:18 GMT -6
Yellowstone is about the only place in the fifty states that I haven't been. Any suggestions on where to fly etc., tours, etc. I don't like cold, so winter is out.
|
|
|
Post by Harrybutt on Feb 15, 2005 10:25:42 GMT -6
I will as soon as the guvment loggin grant comes through!
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 15, 2005 10:31:06 GMT -6
Could make lots of firewood, at $250. a cord out here that good money. ;D
Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 16, 2005 19:25:18 GMT -6
Would love to meet you in Yellowstone some winter. Love to, we could hike up thru the woods quietly, not giving off any noise, fear to the wildlife, no oil drips, etc. And I gurandamntee you I would walk away with no less sense of grandness and majesty than you did have previously with your machine. I have done it all my life and have yet to feel deprived. Tell me Hedo69, just *WHEN* was the last time you "hiked" Yellowstone in the winter? For that matter, when was the last time you were *IN* Yellowstone during the winter? Yup, I think one needs experience before they rant and rave on a subject they obviously know nothing about. No oil drips? No noise? Then I am quite sure you are for banning all cars from Yellowstone during the summer, as they cause quite the stir, what with 25,000 per day headed through the park scaring all those poor animals. You *ARE* for banning all cars, right? RIGHT? Did I miss something? Or does your ignorance about snowmobiles prevent you from understanding 4-cycle bikes have the SAME engine as what's in your car? NO MORE pollution than what's in your car? Limited to 1000, it doesn't even take a rocket scientist to realize snowmobiles cause less pollution than cars. Noise? You have obviously never heard a 4-cycle snowmobile engine. They are pretty damn quiet! But I forget, you admitted you didn't know anything about snowmobiles when you so blatently lambasted them. So I will forgive your ignorance. When you choose to listen only to the environmental nazis, I wouldn't expect rational thought. ............Bob (have a FUCKING nice day!) ;D
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 16, 2005 19:39:55 GMT -6
A few bison in Yellowstone. BOY, don't they seem scared of those snowmobiles?
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 16, 2005 20:44:48 GMT -6
Re: Kyoto - If one is adopting policies that encourage industry to move from the US to developing nations in order to lower global CO2 emissions, here are a few numbers to consider:
CO2 emissions (in metric tons) per million dollars GDP by country for a few selected countries:
United Kingdom 454 United States 679 Canada 754 Australia 808 Thailand 1,213 Vietnam 1,732 Venezuela 1,911 India 2,441 China 3,454 Trinidad & Tobago 3,773 Russian Federation 4,567
Source: World Resources Institute
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 17, 2005 19:47:43 GMT -6
Re: Kyoto - If one is adopting policies that encourage industry to move from the US to developing nations in order to lower global CO2 emissions, here are a few numbers to consider: CO2 emissions (in metric tons) per million dollars GDP by country for a few selected countries: United Kingdom 454 United States 679 Canada 754 Well AIN'T THIS some SH*T? Sure looks like the US of A cleans it's sh*t a bit better than Canada! Tar'nashin! ............Bob ;D
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 17, 2005 21:30:29 GMT -6
Yes Bob, if I thought we could get away with it, I would ban the cars too. You don’t understand me at all. I don’t speak to you on this subject as a liberal, wowed by the bob-named environmental nazis (you are really hung up on nazis). I speak to you as a pure unadulterated nature lover. With less and less area every day for our wildlife to run and be wild, tis sad we go and take this away as well. A small part of me even envy’s you for seeing it up close, but I would rather never go than do even a small bit of harm. Maybe you think this small minded, but I really don’t care what you think of me.
Hardly, I listen to my heart and my mind. Having spent most of my life in hanging out in the wood (albeit-the southern woods) I learned to love and respect what I saw there.
No Bob, they don’t look scared at all. That is so much sadder than the alternative. You may as well be taking pictures of cows. You and your snowmobiling ilk, yes, me and my auto driving ilk, my want of a good hamburger or a nice big lot to build on has taken their soul, their wildness away.
There are too many selfish people who only think of their rights, their wants. This is what I mean…and if you really can’t understand it, even if you don’t agree, then you are not the nature lover you claim to be.
You have a lovely day as well.
Deborah
|
|
|
Post by Bluejay on Feb 18, 2005 12:12:52 GMT -6
Interesting numbers Tex. Measuring per gdp is a good way of expressing the environmental efficiency of a country's economy.
Interestingly, 8 of the top 10 worst polluters per gdp are former Soviet republics.
The numbers I got from the world resources institute, for 2001, are a little different...
Country co2 tons/gdp (PPP) world rank Russian Federation 1521.7 5 Trinidad and Tobago 1502.4 6 Australia 726.9 29 China 649.5 35 Canada 637.8 36 United States 631.2 37 Thailand 457.2 56 India 445 59 United Kingdom 405.8 66 Viet Nam 308.4 82
world average 573
Canada, US and Australia are above the world average.
And if we measure per capita (the measure of a society's environmental efficiency, rather than purely an economy's) in thousands of metric tonnes per capita:
Qatar 70.1 1 Netherlands Antilles 46.2 2 Bahrain 28.8 3 Kuwait 21.3 4 United Arab Emirates 20.9 5 United States 20.6 6 Aruba 20.6 6 Trinidad and Tobago 20.5 8 Brunei Darussalam 18.9 9 Canada 18.7 10 Australia 18.2 11 Saudi Arabia 16.9 12 Nauru 16.2 13 Singapore 14.7 14 Faeroe Islands 14.2 15
Lastly, in terms of overall quantities, we get (in metric tonnes): United States 5883119000 1 China 2792482000 2 Japan 1238699000 3 India 1071638000 4 Germany 857969000 5 Canada 576770000 6 United Kingdom 544359000 7 Italy 460965000 8 Korea 427324000 9 Mexico 424281000 10 France 407199000 11
Obviously China and India need to get their houses in order. Bush is right to call them on the mat. But fighting global climate ch-ch-change must start and end with the US. Lets get *our own houses* in order first.
bluejay
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 18, 2005 12:58:53 GMT -6
I would add that any comparisons should take into account that countries with high urban (and densely populated non-urban) areas and moderate climates are at a distinct advantage in any comparison.
The US and Canada (Canadians may talk like Europeans but they drive like Americans ;D) are absolutely wasteful of motor fuel. There are plenty of other advantages to greater efficiency in fuel use (other than reducing CO2 emissions) such as cost savings, oil conservation, less urban congestion, less smog, less dependence on foreign oil, less wear on the roadways, etc. that it appears wise to me to go ahead with measures to squeeze more efficiency out of our fuels. If CO2/Global Warming theories don't pan out, we are still better off for the reasons stated. If they do pan out, we have made a good start at reducing CO2 emissions.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Gary on Feb 18, 2005 18:29:48 GMT -6
I've been away for the past few weeks and won't be around to do any detailed response to this topic, but...
Bornagaindruid quoted a study that said in part:
"Several hundred people at the time of the accident reported nausea, vomiting, hair loss and skin rashes, and a number said their pets died or had symptoms of radiation exposure," he said. "We figured that if that were possible, we ought to look at it again. After adjusting for pre-accident cancer incidence, we found a striking increase in cancers downwind from Three Mile Island."
Please, do NOT take one group's study/opinion and consider it to be FACT. I can GUARANTEE you that NO one in the vicinity of TMI, worker or members of the public were ever exposed to enough radiation that they would have symptoms of radiation sickness.
As for the increase in cancer rates, these studies rely so much on statistics, and the rates for these types of cancer are so low, it is hard for anyone to agree on what effect if any the accident had on cancer rates.
This is apparent when you read the different court decisions. The evidence is just not overwhelming. But, I don't consider myself enough of an expert to give an absolute on that.
My main point is, the level of exposure needed to suffer physical symptoms of radiation sickness did not happen at TMI.
|
|