To the people of Wyoming...

[JWP58]

The sustainable energy argument pushed by the media and the likes is utter nonsense. Until they want to start talking nuclear energy production then it is not about true sustainability, it's about control and power.

Yvonn is a typical mega rich liberal. They've forgotten what it is to be the common man with common man problems, and therefore see common people as beneath them. As a hunter, I trust a rattlesnake more than his pompous rear end. I do appreciate what Rinella is trying to do here though. People need to be receptive to hearing more viewpoints than their own, especially those they don't agree with.

Absolutely. I'm glad I got to hear what he had to say. I believe some follow up question opportunities were missed, but I'm totally stoked brah to hear how much he loves Wyoming lol...

 

[Jimbob]

Does your friend have 100’s millions of dollars and political influence to shut down hunting seasons and ban firearms??

Does he fly around the world on his private jets and lecture nations like disobedient children not to use carbon based fuels for transportation and energy??

Does he use ignorant bigoted racist terms like “ redneck” to denegrate and demean classes of people??

Not following your logic. Ok to be friends with middle-class people with little political influence but not friends with rich and influential people that have different views?

My friend flies and drives a Jeep that does not have great gas mileage he is still critical of traditional forms of energy. I don't think he is a hypocrite for voting for parties that want to go to alternative energy sources.

All I am saying is that somebody can have different views than me and it doesn't make them an enemy. It also doesn't mean I am complacent about my own views.

 

[JWP58]

Not following your logic. Ok to be friends with middle-class people with little political influence but not friends with rich and influential people that have different views?

I guess it depends which one is an azzhole?

 

[Billinsd]

I think most people agree that science shows the earth has gone through periods of time both hotter and colder than our current time. I think where the debate is lies in just how much on an impact man makes on these changes, and what we can (or cannot) do to keep the earth in it's current state.

The thing about geological time is how really, really slow and how long it takes for things to happen. The dinosaurs did not go extinct in a day, a year, a hundred years, a thousand years, it was much longer. I remember my geology professor in the 80s saying that "cavemen" came onto the scene there were mass extinctions of many mammals, very fast geologically. That's a small population of people with primitive weapons wiping out a lot of animals. Humans have been around for a very, very short time geologically speaking

Below is derived from something I read, that I felt helped explain my thoughts on the matter....

Truth Matters.
it is obvious that the Earth, a living system, is constantly heating or cooling. We should not deny that fact.

The earth isn't living, it is dynamic, very dynamic.......Just being technical..... : ) Since the earth is so dynamic everything is an experiment to how the earth will respond. No one really knows. Scientists like geologists look at what is going on now to try and "predict" what will happen. None of this science is exact at all.

People Matter.
Even if we can establish beyond doubt that global warming is real and it is caused by humans, that does not mean it is bad and that we should cripple ourselves or our posterity in devising “solutions” to it. Our goal should be human flourishing. Unfortunately, some think human destruction is the solution to global warming. “Population management” is the euphemistic phrase for the advocacy of mass abortion, euthanasia, and other forms of population control aimed at reducing human population to numbers not seen in centuries.

What I've heard from the geological community at the University I got my BS in Geology from said that humans are not the main cause of global warming, however, they are adding to it some. The populations in India, China, especially are unsustainable it seems like. Us Americans do live well, better than the rest of the world. The rest of the world cannot live as well as us, there aren't enough resources I believe. The big problem that I don't know is fixable is world overpopulation. Us Americans and our standard of life is pretty much insignificant to what the rest of the world is doing. I think human destruction in overpopulated parts of the world is "probably" going to happen. It will probably happen, by disease, famine, and starvation, only on a much larger scale than we are at now. War is a possibility too. I don't see population management happening. It's a very logical solution, however, I don't see it happening. Personally, population management violates our American Constitution and I am against forcibly making people have abortions or not having children, because it violates their rights. The only places that population management can happen is in totalitarian regimes, like China, and China is no good and I believe they stopped doing this. It would be great if people decided to have less kids. However, this only seems to happen in developed countries. I don't see how even China can develop to the extend the US has, but they are. Overpopulation is bad, real bad. There is no solution that I can see happening right now.

Compassion Matters
Whether we see many more storms or fewer storms, whether they are the result of global warming or cyclical climatological events, one thing is certain: They will continue to produce victims who will need our help. Compassionate action relieves the suffering of victims and we should all help where and how we can.

Right, this is what the world should do. However, the US can't help the whole world and the whole world can't live here.

 

[Billinsd]

The sustainable energy argument pushed by the media and the likes is utter nonsense. Until they want to start talking nuclear energy production then it is not about true sustainability, it's about control and power.

It sure seems like it!! I believe this is the game many on the left are playing. I also believe most on the left are not nearly as smart as they think they are. I think many are "truly" afraid of nuclear power. Most liberals are emotional and not logical. Yes, yes, yes, nuclear is the answer to sustainable energy. Any real scientist or engineer will agree. Would I be uncomfortable living next to a nuclear power plant? Maybe, at least a little. I'm not really afraid of nuclear power, but rather the government, which I do not trust. Bill

 

[Violent Hippie]

ChouinTARD. Admitted to trying to dodge the draft as well. WY is awesome !

 

[Billinsd]

I've never heard a black man called a redneck in my life. And I'm friends with a lot of country ass black men.

Red neck is a term from when a bunch of miners in the Appalacia, spelling, lol went on strike and put red bandanas around their necks and the state government came in? I'm going from memory. : ) That is where the term originated. It has evolved into meaning a red, sunburned neck, from working in the hot sun. Bill

 

[Okhotnik]

Red neck is a term from when a bunch of miners in the Appalacia, spelling, lol went on strike and put red bandanas around their necks and the state government came in? I'm going from memory. : ) That is where the term originated. It has evolved into meaning a red, sunburned neck, from working in the hot sun. Bill

And used as an ignorant bigoted derogatory term for white rural people

The racist Regressives , like Chouinard , love to use the term to dehumanize and shut down any conversation.

That’s why Chouinard took his Patagonia operations to China to subjugate Chinese sub human slave labor to make his over priced products so he could purchase multiple mansions and private jets.

There are no
Labor laws in China and Chouinard ,the racist eco warrior , jumped on this because he did not want to pay a living wage to his employees in the US.

Yet some on here still worship him

 

[LostArra]

The big problem that I don't know is fixable is world overpopulation. Overpopulation is bad, real bad. There is no solution that I can see happening right now.

Winner right here!

 

[rob86jeep]

There's so much hate in here for a guy trying to do some good for the environment. Why is it that if people don't believe EVERYTHING that you believe then we resort to name calling?

One big thing I picked up on in these comments is a lot of people calling him a hypocrite for several different reasons. Well, I hate to tell all of you that you're no different. If you trust biologists regarding grizzly hunting, then you should trust them for the reintroduction of wolves. If you trust scientists for EVERYTHING else is in life, you should trust them on climate change. Picking and choosing specific things to believe and disbelieve just to suit your preconceived ideas or what you "want" just makes people look ignorant.

 

[KurtR]

Problem is a lot of the scientists didn’t want wolves and the climate change is ever changing. With so little info it is still a work in progress. Fact is the green energy is the biggest con of the 21st century.

 

[Ratbeetle]

The problem is not the scientists, that community will generally police their own through peer review. The problem is the politicians, the celebrities and the elites who cherry pick data for sound bites for the useful idiots who can't see that to those groups, they only exist to further an agenda.

 

[jmez]

Remember back in the 80s when the destruction of the ozone layer was going to kill us all? Of course not, we're all dead.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Ratbeetle]

Remember back in the 80s when the destruction of the ozone layer was going to kill us all? Of course not, we're all dead.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Or the 70s when "global cooling" was all the rage? The world was headed into the next ice age!

You can thank CFCs for saving the planet.

 

[jmez]

Tsk, tsk. Taking less than 100 years of admitted flawed data and applying it to a planet estimated to be 4.5billion years old is the very definition of science.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Dustin the wind]

I don’t know anything about this old fool, but I do know that when I see someone wearing pategonia clothes that they 1. Drive a Subaru 2. Are not from around here 3. Definitely don’t agree with me politically.

I would probably rather go out in public naked than wear a piece of pategonia anything.

 

[Montana Slim]

It seems there is just quite a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation out there on just how much, and in how many different fields of study, research has been done and is being done... there are very good reasons to be concerned about the future - there are some tough things coming down the line I'm afraid. Some of which could possibly be avoidable.
I guess I would just encourage everybody to read broadly and not get stuck in place, only seeking out information that agrees with already formed points of view. That is a pretty myopic way to live.

 

[Jimbob]

Going off on tangents now but Bill Gates is really involved in new Nuclear energy tech. An episode on Netflix about him highlights it. His (Gates) conclusion to clean energy is absolutely Nuclear.

 

[KurtR]

It seems there is just quite a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation out there on just how much, and in how many different fields of study, research has been done and is being done... there are very good reasons to be concerned about the future - there are some tough things coming down the line I'm afraid. Some of which could possibly be avoidable.
I guess I would just encourage everybody to read broadly and not get stuck in place, only seeking out information that agrees with already formed points of view. That is a pretty myopic way to live.

Which you are assuming as there is no factual data with the proper time table to back it. Is trying to have less emissions a good thing of course but at the detriment of society or not being able to see the long term is worse than the short term benefits is a question. I have asked this of wind energy before and no one really knows how many gallons of diesel is involved in building one tower. Then the life span is roughly 20 years and blades and generators are being replaced. They are a really inefficient way to generate electricity and the on top of the negative effect on both animals and the landscape are they worth it? It’s green energy so it has to be right every thing green is good? Is it really green or has it been sold that way buy some good sales man making lots o money both off government subsidizes and the construction. You say nuclear and people almost faint but if you look long term 0 emissions and environmental impacts it’s tough to beat. I look at all view points and as has been stated what happened to the 70’s ice age those guys were cutting edge scientists back then and thought they had it right. The ozone is a little different it had a specific problem with specific things that were causing it and was able to be targeted. Climate change is still in data gathering mode in another 10000 years maybe they have enough to have a definitive answer but right now it’s a lot of guessing and most guesses lead to dollar bills.

 

[rodney482]

There's so much hate in here for a guy trying to do some good for the environment. Why is it that if people don't believe EVERYTHING that you believe then we resort to name calling?

One big thing I picked up on in these comments is a lot of people calling him a hypocrite for several different reasons. Well, I hate to tell all of you that you're no different. If you trust biologists regarding grizzly hunting, then you should trust them for the reintroduction of wolves. If you trust scientists for EVERYTHING else is in life, you should trust them on climate change. Picking and choosing specific things to believe and disbelieve just to suit your preconceived ideas or what you "want" just makes people look ignorant.

by name calling you mean like “Redneck”