Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

It can be a "power grab" (I think it is in many cases) and still a real threat.

Obviously, I have all sorts of issues with the push to be "green".  I view most of this as political pandering, we need to "do something".  There is very little reality in most of this.  The US really isn't doing all that much about it that impacts individual citizens, some additional spending which is pretty small relatively.

The term has had various "legal definitions".  I think most of us here understand what the term meant originally.  Since then, it has morphed.  But you can't ban a think legally without defining it.

The major point for me is that rifles en masse are used in a very small percentage of gun crimes.  The media coverage of course suggests something else because some cases involve publicized mass shootings (most of which would be as bad or worse if a shotgun were employed).  So, some magical ban on these rifles could not possibly dent crime figures by any statistical amount, and mass shooters would resort to other types of weapons.

The term has had various "legal definitions".  I think most of us here understand what the term meant originally.  Since then, it has morphed.  But you can't ban a think legally without defining it.

The major point for me is that rifles en masse are used in a very small percentage of gun crimes.  The media coverage of course suggests something else because some cases involve publicized mass shootings (most of which would be as bad or worse if a shotgun were employed).  So, some magical ban on these rifles could not possibly dent crime figures by any statistical amount, and mass shooters would resort to other types of weapons.

Which term are you referring to, "assault rifle" or "assault weapon"?

As for the term assault rifle, it has a very specific definition that is defined by the gun manufacturers industry and the US military. I do not recognize anyone else's attempt to expand or change that definition. And if you pay close attention, gun bans proposed by politicians, never attempt to ban assault rifles as they are pretty much already illegal. They use the term "assault weapon" as a means to scare the public and to associate AR-15's and other sporting rifles as something to scary to allow people to own.

As to your point about rifles involved in crimes, I agree with you completely. 

The reason I am skeptical about this issue is that those that are demanding that we all pay a tax to prevent "global warming" or "global cooling" or "climate change" or whatever they will call it next week, are doing everything that they demand that the rest of us don't do. I see it as a power grab by those in position to grab that power and influence. Nothing more.

There are a lot of things to be skeptical about. 

That said, there are some things that are basically well-founded:

• CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
• The Earth's temperature is warming [at least partly] due to the increase from 280->400+ ppm of CO2. 
• Man is responsible for [most of if not all of] the increase in CO2 due to burning fossil fuels.
• Ergo, man is responsible for [at least some of] that warming. 

This is all basic stuff, and in my mind, has been more than well enough demonstrated as to be beyond skepticism by anyone who actually looks at the evidence. 

That said, I think there are three different groups when it comes to climate change: deniers, skeptics, and alarmists:

• Deniers: These are the people who claim CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, claim it can't be a problem because it's a small amount, claim it's rising due to anything but man, that the Earth isn't actually warming, or anything else that essentially says "it's not happening and it's all a left-wing conspiracy". I personally find this group to have absolutely zero credibility on the issue. Most I find don't know shit about the issue and spew whatever "their tribe" comes up with to deny it.  
• Alarmists: These are the people that claim we're obviously warming the planet due to CO2 and that we absolutely must do everything in our power to stop it. Within this group, there are several contingents. First is the left-wing greenie wacko who just believes that if humans are doing something, and it changes the environment, it MUST be bad. Second is some of the scientists and policy types who think that we should do something to reduce based on the precautionary principle that we're in relatively uncharted territory here and it "could" get really bad based on models/etc. And the third are people who don't know shit about the issue but "their tribe" finds it important, they should be on board. What I often find in this group is that the first and third groups generally know nothing about economics, or actual feasibility of green alternative energy, and overestimate how easily we could transition away from fossil fuels. Group one can be ignored for the same reason I ignore the deniers. Group three is generally ignorant and boring to argue with because they don't know enough. I do think there can be a LOT of constructive dialogue between the skeptics and group two, though.  
• Skeptics: This is the group that accepts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we're burning a shit-ton of it and warming the planet, but isn't quite sure whether that's bad enough to worry about, or if it's bad enough that it's worth spending a shit-ton of money [and creating a huge economic drag in doing so] trying to stop it. This is the group that looks at the question of is "warmer" bad, or might even be beneficial? If it's bad, how warm is "too" warm? What will be the cost in 2100 to mitigate the economic effects/dislocations that might occur due to that warming? What will be the natural transition away from fossil fuels due to new technologies over that time frame, and is it worth trying to force technology before its time to slightly accelerate that transition? How much will it freakin' cost, and is it worth it? Generally this group is the one that says as long as warming isn't going to lead to catastrophe, we as a world society and economy can probably just ride it out and be fine. 

As you might imagine, I consider myself in the skeptic group. Global warming is happening, it's real, and we're responsible for it. But the question of if it's actually a "problem" and what we should do--if anything--about it is where there is a lot of room for debate. 

What we should do, IMHO, are a few things, as "insurance" in case this gets really bad, mainly get rid of coal.

What we should do, IMHO, are a few things, as "insurance" in case this gets really bad, mainly get rid of coal.

Yep. But you have to replace it with something, and the only real answer is nuclear power plants.

I do not like fracking. At all.

What we should do, IMHO, are a few things, as "insurance" in case this gets really bad, mainly get rid of coal.

sounds great wake me when China and India do the same

no reason to give up coal in the US only if it wont solve the problem

China is building coal power plants as fast as they can