Are they intentionally making themselves look like nutjobs?

Quote: It gets pretty cold this time of year in Tibet. For centuries, the solution to this problem was a win-win: just burn that huge pile of yak dung that’s been accumulating all summer.

For millions of nomadic Tibetans, it’s a system that works. But that system comes at a hefty cost. Tibetan homes have some of the worst indoor air pollution in the world, and the soot the dung fires release is a big contributor to climate change.

Yak dung, when used as fuel, is arguably dirtier than coal but is definitely much cheaper. Particulate pollution from burning animal dung greatly increases the risk of lung cancer and other respiratory ailments, the occurrence of which can be slowed by switching to cleaner ways of heating homes.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology..._help.html

Yakkity Yak-- don't burn crap?

If libs want to address the problem with the indoor smoke from Yak Crap, then have at it. But when it comes to global warming they must be getting desperate with this story - these people have probably burnt that crap for centuries.

I don't know if anyone here caught it, but Kerry is now calling global warming our "climate tragedy."

(12-15-2014 01:00 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  If libs want to address the problem with the indoor smoke from Yak Crap, then have at it. But when it comes to global warming they must be getting desperate with this story - these people have probably burnt that crap for centuries.

I don't know if anyone here caught it, but Kerry is now calling global warming our "climate tragedy."

I'm calling Obama our "presidential tragedy".

What's sad is that none of these simpletons even bother to offer practical tips for polluting less. There are simple things that people can do that reduce pollution, and their utility bills. Win-Win!

(12-15-2014 12:41 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Yakkity Yak-- don't burn crap?

If people that advocate global warming awareness were in charge of marketing for a company, they'd run that company into the ground.

The argument has always been framed incorrectly. Instead of focusing on science that people can't really see or feel in their day to day lives--and in most cases even understand--their message should have been:








Anyone can get behind keeping the air and water clean and the forests intact. These are true environmental issues that people can see, feel, and understand. Protect these three areas of the environment and everything else will be better off too.


Coke doesn't tell you that you should drink their product because of the science behind it. They tell you to drink it because it is delicious and refreshing. This is a lesson environmental groups need to learn if they ever want to be taken seriously.

So what then NN? Should they not publish stories like this one...which may be totally plausible and a clear issue that needs addressed...just because a few people can't read the word dung without giggling like a 10 year old?

(12-15-2014 04:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So what then NN? Should they not publish stories like this one...which may be totally plausible and a clear issue that needs addressed...just because a few people can't read the word dung without giggling like a 10 year old?

By all means you need to send poor people who use yak dung as fuel your paycheck so they can afford green energy to take the place of their yak dung.

Lead by example

(12-15-2014 04:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So what then NN? Should they not publish stories like this one...which may be totally plausible and a clear issue that needs addressed...just because a few people can't read the word dung without giggling like a 10 year old?

I'm not saying that, although I think this story is a big pile of yak dung, but you market to your audience. In this case, your audience is a normal person--not a scientist.

To use this story as an example, instead of saying this is a major contributor to global warming, they should be focusing on how burning yak dung is a terrible indoor air pollutant and it is negatively impacting the health of the people that use this method of heating / cooking. If you get people to understand that it is bad for your health to breathe in the fumes of burning yak dung, then they'll eventually switch; and if there truly are global warming consequences of doing this (which if there are, it is so small, it isn't worth mentioning), then they'll also be addressed.

Obama has been spreading his dung all over the country. I wonder how much it has hurt the environment?

(12-15-2014 05:02 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 04:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So what then NN? Should they not publish stories like this one...which may be totally plausible and a clear issue that needs addressed...just because a few people can't read the word dung without giggling like a 10 year old?

I'm not saying that, although I think this story is a big pile of yak dung, but you market to your audience. In this case, your audience is a normal person--not a scientist.

To use this story as an example, instead of saying this is a major contributor to global warming, they should be focusing on how burning yak dung is a terrible indoor air pollutant and it is negatively impacting the health of the people that use this method of heating / cooking. If you get people to understand that it is bad for your health to breathe in the fumes of burning yak dung, then they'll eventually switch; and if there truly are global warming consequences of doing this (which if there are, it is so small, it isn't worth mentioning), then they'll also be addressed.

+1

Yep, good stuff Niner.