An Inconvenient Truth

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by otter, Jun 25, 2006.

  1. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...


    I have a gas guzzling 4x4. 2 actually... I have no plans to get a smaller rig. Instead, several days per week I vanpool. That way I don't have to feel bad (or light in the pocket book) when I want to drive somewhere to fish :cool:
     
  2. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Most of the opposition to the theory that anthropomorphic factors are a significant cause of global climate change comes from a strange coalition of right wing Christian fundamentalists and apologists for American business - i.e., those who believe that any sensitivity towards the natural world borders on the sacreligious and that the decline of the environment is almost to be welcomed as a fulfillment of the End Times prophecies, and those who are transfixed by a quasi-worship of the laissez faire economics that causes them to believe that only bad things can come from interfering with business (as usual). It is only stating the obvious to point out that these two factions dominate the Republic Party and their leadership today. (I mean, is it any coincidence that the only Republican of national stature that doesn't shamelessly ally himself with the Christian right (John McCain) is also the only Republican of national stature that is willing to suggest that humans appear to be a significant cause of climate change and that maybe, given the stakes at issue, we ought to think about doing something about that?)

    The business apologists' suggestion that the economy is going to go to hell in a handbasket if we act decisively to cap (or preferably) reduce green house gas emissions is a farce. Whatever negative impact there might be from curbing human activities that produce green house gases would be more than offset by the economic growth generated by the discovery and production of new, "greener" technologies, to say nothing of avoiding the catastrophic economic consequences that global climate change will wreak over the longer term (unless you believe that we can have a balanced and growing economy based on the manufacture of air conditioners). If I recall, around 1940 we confronted a pretty serious threat to life as we knew it, and reorganized the economy to address that threat. My gosh, not only did we live through it, it launched America's great economic ascendancy. What the f*&+ are we so afraid of now? I suppose nothing, but that is not going to stop the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Independent Petroleum Association of America from trying to bamboozle every American into believing that we're going to turn into a third world country if we try to do something to curb human caused green house gases. People who believe that are the ones who are drinking Kool Aid.

    As an aside, it's really too bad that GOP has changed so dramatically that most Republicans today no longer have a clue who people like Morris Udall, Bill Ruckleshaus, Mark Hatfield and Pete McCloskey were because anyone who actually has the temerity to suggest a balanced approach to the economy and the environment is marginalized if not drummed out of the party outright. As long as the GOP stays in power, I think it is pretty clear that the U.S. will continue to stay in the dark ages on this issue.
     
  3. Porter

    Porter Active Member

    Take it a step further...get an eco car and still vanpool...that way you don't have to feel bad about saying you don't feel bad, just don't make a slight difference ..make a big difference. :clown: (JK) ..I hear you ChadK

    Hey sold the ford ranger pu that avg. 20 mpg.....for a honda civic..avg 42. But I hate the idea of not throwing crap in the back and going to the dump...or going to Pacific Top and getting gravel/dirt/bark when I want to.
    Sacrifices are being made :(
     
  4. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    I'm curious about what makes this topic so contentious? Is it the uncertainty?

    I read that fewer and fewer Americans take science in school anymore, beyond minimal requirements. If there is a lack of science education among Americans, I wonder how many of those who've posted in this thread are writing from a base of rational logic instead of visceral opinion. I find a lot of scientific articles difficult to understand - anybody enjoy Scientific American for their leisure reading? And I've taken a lot of college biology, physics, chemistry, and organic chem.

    I suspect that most folk's opinions are based on the second or third-hand biased sources of information that they choose precisely because they support their preconceived personal biases or political persuasion. I read a lot of science, but no direct climate research, only second-hand. Any of you actually read the direct research? If so, what does that say?

    Sincerely,

    Salmo g.
     
  5. 509

    509 New Member

    Well, if you want to find out how much you contribute to Global Warming go to the following web site:

    http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9008204&contentId=7015209

    I don't think most people realize how much they contribute to global warming with their lifestyle. We came up with 1/4 of the average American household....but then again...All our household energy comes from solar energy. Our commute to work is 3/4 mile. And I haven't taken a jet trip in over ten years.

    Go through the calculations and see what you want to cut out of your lifestyle to meet the Kyoto targets.

    509
     
  6. Porter

    Porter Active Member

    Salmo...It is those with power have little knowdlege and those with knowledge have little power, I did a lot of science classes, I'm sure some did more, some not.....but science gets in the way of religion...which gets in the way of people's rights...which have an effect on politician's approach to leglislate, because the guy/gal running his program/career is telling him/her what he has to do not to offend or defend ....C'mon...you want to fix a problem ..do you ask the stock holder or the guys working the plant. :confused:
     
  7. Nailknot

    Nailknot Active Member

    There is a broad based assumption that we can't replace petroleum with other fuel sources. While I'm sure Exxon is happy to agree with this- it's rather unimaginative if not downright unamerican to think we innovate our way out of the dead end. Greenhouse gas emissions or no, isn't it time we stopped sending billion every day to King Saudi, Venezula, Nigeria and other rouge states?
     
  8. 509

    509 New Member

    As someone that has been closely following the technology behind alternative energy.....you do that when you have a solar house. The "magic bullet" solution to our energy problems is not in sight.

    In 1996 Barrons had an article by a gentleman that promised a mini-gas turbine generating plant for every home within three to five years. Within 10 years he promised that we would be swapping out that turbine for a fuel-cell generating plant. The propane dealer that year was promising a complete cooling, heating and electric generating plant for next year. Well, it is ten years later and nothing new has shown up!!

    DOD has been spending a minimum of 2 billion dollars a year on fuel cell technology for the past 10 years. We're still waiting for breakthroughs on that investment. Every couple of years there's talk of new battery technology...but my house still runs off lead-acid. New solar cells that are much more efficient hit the news releases...but somehow they never seem to pan out.

    I think eventually there will be a breakthrough...but it will be much tougher than we think. Don't forget that its not just us looking for a breakthrough....Japan is 95% dependent on imported oil. They haven't found the magic bullet and while they are better at imitation rather than basic research...they are good and looking just like us.

    The good news is the Hubert's peak in oil production is starting to look more and more like the real thing. That will decrease supply of oil and increase price signifcantly making alternative energy sources much more attractive. However, it will result in dramatic changes in our lifestyles if this happens.

    In the short term, we can stop using oil and natural gas for generating electricity. Coal, nuclear, and hydro all do fine jobs of generating electricity. There really is no alternative to oil for transportation. We probably can stretch out the oil supply for a few more years with this strategy. At the very least we need to be thinking about 55 MPH speed limits again.

    These will be very interesting time for the next decade or two until we find that magic bullet.

    Oh, almost forgot......when I did the carbon calculator almost half of our contribution to global warming came from hunting, fishing and other outdoor trips!! That shouldn't count!!

    509
     
  9. otter

    otter Banned or Parked

    Here's what's absolutely cool to me.........all of the way alive, upfront brains on this forum! Sure as hell smarter than yrs. truly. If you can outsmart a trout - or a steelhead - then we can sure as hell figure our way out of this climate mess. I said at the beginning that this isn't about politics. Its about do it. The way i've always dealt with bosses, lawyers and politicians is to go out and get it done. The next thing you know is you have the boss, the politician or the lawyer running about a hundred yards behind you saying, "hey, wait up, wait up". And you keep running, and they get more agitated, and start hollering "stop, stop, wait up for me". So you stop and let them catch up, and then tell them that they are either on the bus or off the bus. They seem to mind pretty well after that.............

    And I agree that this thread - as more than a few of us have pointed out - is not about fishing exactly. Nor is the want ad and for sales thread on this site about fishing, exactly. So if global climactic change is really a king hell subject here ( hello, moderator) maybe there should be a separate thread on this site. Either that, or we can go our separate ways. But I remember the american revolutionary war person who said "Gentlemen, we can either all hang together, or we can each hang alone." So lets keep the conversation going.


    Otter
     
  10. fredaevans

    fredaevans Active Member

    Not sure if this is already in the thread but (today) news on the internet that MARS is (apparently) going through its version of global warming. Hummmm?:confused:
     
  11. Porter

    Porter Active Member

    Okay...how many 100.00 dollar bills were falling out of your pocket when they were chasing you?......The only bus they will get on is the one that leads to a better life for them and their support crew...and most of the time that is at the expense of __________ :confused: Always ask...Cui bono?

    After how many centuries of organized/political human life....what has been the constant and has never changed......and the fall of all (eventually)? Eliminate that constant and you have the answer to so many of our problems.
     
  12. otter

    otter Banned or Parked

    Porter -

    Zip nada. Number one, didn't have enough. And number two, tight with what i've got. Number three, I'll be damned if i'm gonna suck up to them. Number four, they're opportunists, scavengers, and I would be offering a deadly insult to a hyena if i made a comparison.

    What they go after is a thing that's got a life of its own, to try to suck it dry. And i am, to put it mildly, adverse to that.


    Otter
     
  13. silver

    silver south paw

    Fear and paranoia are the tools of power and the backbone of all political aspirations. Science is not the flaw, but the way that it is imparted upon the public is. CFC's... CO2... water evaporation... they all contribute to global warming- but then what? We keep things as is and die in an arid desert?? We bite the bullet, throw away the current tools of our capitalist machine and live to fish another day?? Two schools of thought for two politcal parties and two different outlooks. Our information is all point counter-point and no matter how you decide to look at the issue it means great struggle or potential disaster. PRETTY SCARY either way, and isn't that how it's supposed to be? A scared public is an uninformed public that exists in a state of panic that looses any capacity for imagination. I don't know the answers to the changes in climate but I have read some of the science as reported by scientists.

    From what I gather the largest contributing factor to climate and the massive effects therein is the current state of the oceans. The ocean's salinity, equatorial temperatures, and how it mixes are what the scientists are talking about as guiding climate fluctuations, with CFC, H2O vapor, and CO2 gasses guest starring in the process. Last I checked humans have very little to do with the hydrological cycles of the ocean. But you won't see much real science on this issue on TV, or in the next political campaign, because that sort of information does not inspire confidence in the public to endorse their leaders. So we are subjected to misinformation to create man made problems that have man made solutions. Not all things are in our control(or need to be), and that is refreshing to me.

    :confused:
     
  14. Rory McMahon

    Rory McMahon Active Member

    you know what is a really bad thing, not sure if its tied to global warming, but it is definately tied to fishing, its acid rain. Think about it, the more acidic the rain gets, that means the more acidic runoff is. If the acidic water runs into a lake that was once alkaline and productive, it would make it less fertile. Taht would make the fish even smaller around here. Can you imagine, a 6 incher being a lunker on the MF.
     
  15. otter

    otter Banned or Parked

    Yup. Its called coal burning power plants. Not only carbon dioxide, but you get acid rain FREE.

    Otter
     
  16. stokes

    stokes Guest

    The Flat Earth Society told me Global Warming isn't real.

    They also said that hatchery fish are as good as wild, I shouldn't be worried about my privacy (they'll take care of it for me), whatever they do is fine because God is on their side, tax breaks for the rich are more important than help for the poor, press leaks are treason unless it came from them, there oughta be limits to our freedoms, and I'm either with them or the terrorists.

    "Mission Accomplished", they've scared me into submission.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'm in the last throes of duct taping my house shut.

    (That oughta lock it up)

    p.s. The honourable Senator from Alaska is a pompous ass. :cool:

    p.s.s. Thank you to to the Men and Women of our Armed Services. Seriously. I have the highest respect for your service and sacrifice. My qualms lie with what you are asked to do by those who have never walked a mile in your boots.
     
  17. gt

    gt Active Member

    thanks stokes, great summary iagree
     
  18. creekx

    creekx spent spinner

    Its extremely disingenuous how many continually blur the distinction between "global warming" and "human-caused global warming" by using the terms interchangeably. Two very different issues.

    That is a poor (and backwards) analogy.

    Time was, the conventional wisdom was that the earth is flat. Thankfully, a few men dared to challenge that ideology.

    Today the conventional wisdom is that man is causing global warming. The voices that dare question that ideology in the slightest (even just by asking simple questions) are marginalized and no debate is allowed.

    BTW, thirty years ago the conventional wisdom was that man is causing global cooling. Should all debate and research have stopped there?

    [​IMG]
     
  19. gt

    gt Active Member

    so what happens when we change the time axis to, lets say, the past 30 yearsnad jump the temperture upwards 2-3c??? just how does the '...natural cyle of events...' arguement fit???
     
  20. Porter

    Porter Active Member

    '' :thumb: ...... good :)