±«Óãtv

Son - take off your coat and tie and stay awhile.

Please can someone in the ±«Óãtv inform us licence-payers of the budget assigned to this meretricious, biased rigmarole? And why is it coming out of ±«Óãtv News funds?

Did you actually sample any of the BBQ rattlesnake? And if so, did it taste like (organically-raised, free-ranging) chicken?

If you get the chance, gator-on-a-stick is another peculiarly southern American phenomenon...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I'm a Brit and recently a US Citizen.
I keep the ±«Óãtv Front page as my ±«Óãtv page as I think the ±«Óãtv does a great job relative to other media.
I find these posting particularly irksome and an embarrassment to my Britishness.
hubertgrove #2: "meretricious, biased rigmarole" sums it up nicely.
It's a free country so don't mind me. You will not have to hear from me again.

The Powder River Basin is in Wyoming and Montana, not Colorado. The Wyoming mines supply about 40 % of the total coal mined in the U.S.

Doesn't sound as if environmental revolution has come to the rattlesnakes, however. Typical rotten human behavior.

You'll have to call me a skeptic, because I can’t believe that pumping carbon dioxide underground, will ever be a good idea. Even if there is enough solid ground above the oil well, to prevent the CO2 from immediately escaping to the atmosphere, nothing can stop an earthquake and nothing lasts forever. Co2 Sequestering will only make our problems worse in the future.

“It will cost $1bn to build the carbon capture equipment and the plant will use a quarter of the power it generates to run it.�

Surely they could buy enough solar panels or molten salt solar collectors, to produce them same amount of power. Add the cost of 20 years of coal and its shipping costs, to the building cost of the power plant and the one billion dollar carbon sequestering equipment, now the solar panels seem cheap.

Please leave the oil and the coal in the ground.

A cap a trade system will only work, if the cap is dramatically reduced every year. I’d only be in favour of such a system, if it actually reduces carbon dioxide emissions. And you are correct. I am horrified at the prospects of a cap and trade system making it economical to dump coal emissions on future generations.

If wind and solar energy were viable concepts, they wouldn't need cap and trade to work. The more fancy the scheme needed to try and force a technology, the better off we are without it.

The whole "anthromophic climate change" argument has become a bit of a fairy tale in the last few years. Between catastrophic cooling in the 1970s and catastrophic warming in the 1990s and, well, nothing happening in the last 10 years so the term just changes to "climate change" (convenient as any fluctuations can be used as proof of man-made change) we are, pun intended, tilting at windmills.

The problem with wind is that it's only good, under the most favorable conditions, 20% of the time. The other 80% of the time those "green" energy users are still pulling from evil coal plants.

My solution? Stop trying to socially engineer power sources. If there wasn't such a phobia over nuclear power, we'd have pretty much solved the whole "green vs efficient" argument right off the bat. In America, if it wasn't for those onerous regulations that don't actually solve anything, a nuclear power plant would cost $4 billion for a more reliable alternative to the excessive wind+coal method being used now. Fuel's cheaper, generation is more reliable and the waste is minimal by comparison (America has plenty of places no one, or thing, lives to bury it). We would have nearly a billion years of fuel and, best of it all, it doesn't put evil CO2 into the atmosphere.

The way to solve this is to simply stop taxing companies, stop regulating companies and stop trying to pick and chose winners. If wind or solar were the wave of the future, they wouldn't need cap and trade or tax subsidies to survive. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to pay for hydrocarbon based fuel if someone can put up solar panels on your roof for less?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

7 - have you ever /met/ a rattlesnake? i'm sure if they treated humans more kindly we'd be inclined to do the same.

Must start by saying I'm sorry about the poor rattlesnakes, do they kill them all?

As for LaughingTarget's comments, what exactly is "anthromophic" climate change? I assume he means anthropogenic climate change.

There's been a warming of approximately 0.7 C since 1970 which I've yet to hear any scientist classify as "Catastrophic cooling" in the 70s or "catastrophic warming" in the 90s, I'd suggest you look up the definition of catastrophic. The last decade has seen 8 of the 10 warmest years on record, so I'm not sure how that equates to "nothing happening", and personally I'm quite content to use the term global warming.

As far as the article's concerned, I'd certainly support a system of carbon pricing, whether a carbon tax or cap n' trade, dependent on which is the most effective. There certainly needs to be some price on carbon commensurate with the damage it's causing the planet.

Personally I'd like a mix of nuclear energy, though it's always required some form of subsidy (in the U.K. anyway), and renewables - as technology advances and economies of scale kick in they'll be competitive with fossil fuels; land based wind is nearly there already.

Upstater:

7 - have you ever /met/ a rattlesnake? i'm sure if they treated humans more kindly we'd be inclined to do the same.

In fact I am more than familiar with rattlesnakes; I have even been struck by one --- striking me in defence although I was unaware of his presence.

Rattlesnakes use their venom to paralyze their prey and will only use it as a defensive tool when absolutely necessary. It requires far too much energy and time to reproduce the venom "wasted" for a defensive strike for the snake to react without just cause.

Case in point: while leading a group of birdwatchers across a southern Canadian grassland we encountered a rattlesnake coiled up, basking in the sun adjacent to several small burrow openings. I knelt down very close in front of the snake and attempted to get a photgraph of bothe snakes head and rattle (tail end) in close focus. To achieve this closeup image with both body parts in sharp focus I leaned slowly ever closer to the snake. experience had taught me these snakes will only strike if threatened.

Suddenly through the lens I saw a mouse dash across my field of vision at exactly the same time that the snake struck out and "nailed' the mouse. It happened so quickly I did not snap the photo and I fell backwards reacting to the strike. Still the now recoiled snake did not strike my nearby legs. Instead the snake watched the mouse now affect by the paralyzing venom, drag itself down the hole it was running towards.

The snake considered me for a few more moments and then... followed the mouse down the hole... exposing its now unprotected length to me as it instinctively pursued its meal.

No... rattlers are not the malicious demons popular myth describes.

The snake that struck me was a six inch long newborn. I stepped on it in rubber boots as it lay presumably sleeping in the sun at the doorway to my farm quonset.

My children, friends and I often encountered rattlesnakes on our farm. They would rattle to warn us, and leave us alone if we were equally polite. I continue to encounter these wonderful creatures on hiking and canoe trips... as many as five or more per day... without being struck, and my family and I have actually swum with them in a favourite swimming hole where they merely observe us with curiousity.

Being the ethical man don't you think thatsomething like rattlesnake roundups are cruel and an outdated form of entertain,ment? Afterall most americans are overfed and undernourished and do not need to kill the snakes .Also at what point would events like these lead to a threatened or extinct species.lastthe snakes arepart of the ecosystem and area necessary component of it .You by not mentioning thatcan also say you are a hypocrite

It's a common journalism practice to create controversy in order to atract an audience. Ethical man cannot educate anyone, if no one is paying attention.

The true hyoocrites are those that insist that renewable enrgy must be cost competative, while they are happy to give polluters a free ride, and those that are in favour of nuclear power, but are unwilling to work in a uranium mine.

I understand that science needs funding, but it's really not a good time to be spending money on nonexistent things like Jackalopes and man made or any other kind of global warming. Come back to Texas and see us some time. It's usually much warmer. We've been experiencing unseasonably low temperatures...

Actually, now is the perfect time to spend money, the economy could really use the boost, but we need to ensure that something of lasting value is produced.

What could be more valuable than an almost free energy source?

If global warming doesn’t exist, then please tell me why there was less ice in the Arctic at the end of last summer, than ever before recorded.

Hey everyone. After you post your comment join us in the facebook link posted at the bottom of the "Jackalope hunting on the
great frontier" article.

Just be sure to use your mouse and copy what you wrote before you post your message as you might just lose it in the security check if you dont.

Looking forward to your opinions.

My cousins who live in nearby Snyder kept a herd of Jackalopes that grazed around their oil wells.

Theirs were larger animals than the one shown in the photo.

Stick around. You may see an adult jackalope. They stand about 6 feet tall.

CW

There must be a large number of specie of jackalope. In Lac La Biche. Alberta, Canada, I saw a well preserved specimen. This specimen was about the size of a large chihuahua.

Interesting to hear the specie is so international.

Musum34