Other than humans, surplus killing has been observed among zooplankton, damselfly naiads, predaceous mites, martens, weasels, honey badgers, wolves, orcas, red foxes, leopards, lions, spotted hyenas, spiders, brown and black and polar bears, coyotes, lynx, mink, raccoons, dogs, and house cats.

And humans have the capacity for rational thought, regardless if we use it of not.

Now back to the hurricane...

 

I still think it's funny that people think if we only drive teslas and give up meat that the climate won't change and there will be no more hurricanes.

Stop listening to al gore.

 

I don't think anyone's saying that. But since the very word 'climate change' seems to throw Trumpniks into a religious, mouth-frothing sort of hysteria, keep on believing what you believe. I'll rely on science.

 

Well the science disagrees with you.

And instead of calling everyone trumpkin just say the majority that matter.

 

It's interesting to see the 180 on creditable threats. When we agree with it, like in terms of building up the military, making more weapons, spending more money on defense, we don't question it. When we don't agree with it, when scientists who have poured over the data are able to make the correlations between CO2 levels since the industrial revolution, we are in total denial, because we simply don't like the answer.

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.

Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?

Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.

Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?

The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.

But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.

Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.

 

So use terrorism as fear/proponent to enact gas/oil changes.

 

I'm confused. Do you disagree with his theory on geopolitical economics? Or do you literally have no counterpoint and prove that you have fallen into the sheep mindset of regurgitating what your political masters say on what should be a wholly scientific issue? I can't imagine walking into a room of scientists and having the absolute inane narrow minded stupidity to tell them they are all wrong. Do you not realize what this makes you look like?

Be true to yourself and say you don't like the economic hit we will take trying to wean ourselves off fuel. But don't sit there and pretend you know better than a body of folks whose entire academic focus is this very subject. It's stupid

 

All of this is thrown out the window when you realize carbon can be a renewable resource, but it has a political barrier standing against it on both sides. China is leading the way in this technology, and we will likely be going into conflict with them to prevent them from achieving it.

 

No, I'm just against fear grenades being tossed for various agendas. "You're supporting bin Laden every time you fill up your gas tank." Yeah ok.