An Inconvenient Truth

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

  1. silver south paw

    Posts: 122
    Mill Creek, Wa
    Ratings: +0 / 0
  2. Fish Hunter Too many people, not enough fish

    Posts: 200
    WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    I'm confused, I thought All Gore Jr. invented everthing on the planet?

    It's really quite simple - if we will just do what Al Gore Jr. tells us to do all will be right in the world.

    Zeig Hile Gore Jr.!
  3. Mingo the Menehune stole my beer

    Posts: 2,619
    Happy Hour, WA
    Ratings: +348 / 1

    [IMG]

    I was wondering when this was gonna turn to some babble like this.......................dude, there are many flavors of Kool-aid in this world, some are blue, some are red..........it's all still Kool-aid and you seem to be drinking a lot of it. The movie starred Al Gore, not the "Flat Earth Society". If you believe it, fine, that's your choice, but how you got wound up about tax breaks, hatchery fish and press leaks is beyond me............some people choose to look deeper than the "facts" Gore puts out, but scientists who dare to question his assertions are treated like pond scum.
  4. mrpunkin Bryan Corey

    Posts: 152
    Battle Ground, WA
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    I am all for protecting out environment and thus don't have a problem with this movie, but I was just watching a few shows the other day that show that global warming is more of a recurring act that happens in waves over thousands and thousands of years. They showed that way before any industrialization there was a "global warming" that happened and did the same thing that is starting now, and then there was an ice age, etc etc.

    I know its happening, and i'm sure its influenced by us, but I also do find vailidity in all I have read and seen on it also being cyclic. Either way, ill do my best to protect it just because I love our planet and don't see any reason why anyone, even someone who doesn't see any truth in global warming, would not try and just do their part to preserve it as best they can.
  5. Michael Brady New Member

    Posts: 300
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    The cyclic pattern is caused by the tilt of the earth changing. A few degrees change in tilt over a thousand years causing more sun for the Northern Hemisphere which then causes an increase in global temperature. Or Tilt the other way and less sun for the N. H. causing a decrease in global Temp.

    All of the Ice ages on the earth were caused by changes in the earths tilt or by the emissions of dust from volcanoes high into the earths atmosphere blocking out the sun.

    We are not experiencing any change in the earths tilt or any unusual volcanic activity. Our global warming is directly from Carbon Dioxide emissions. The science is proven, its time we do something about it.
  6. Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Posts: 7,020
    Not sure
    Ratings: +1,003 / 0
    There's no question that earlier warming and cooling cycles were natural phenomenon that managed to occur due to unknown factors and entirely without assistance from man.

    The notion that man has precipitated or accelerated the current round of warming is more hotly debated in groups like this than it is in scientific circles. Yes, there are *some* scientists who disagee with that notion. But for the most part, there is an unusually high level of agreement among mainstream scientists (those who regularly subject their findings to the peer review process and those who have no afflilations with or are paid by groups who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo) that man's activities have played a significant role.

    O mykiss correctly pointed out why the question continues to be such a hot button: the combined influence of oil companies, auto manufacturers, 'end times' religious nuts, and polluting industries who would have to spend millions of dollars to clean up their current emissions. If you look at where these groups target their political contributions, it's usually to Republican candidates and causes.

    That's why there's such a tendency among political conservatives to discredit the notion of man's contribution to global warming and to shoot the messenger when the message disagrees with what they've already chosen to believe.

    If it had been Mother Theresa delivering the message of An Inconvenient Truth instead of Al Gore, she would have been criticized just as vigorously Gore has. For some, the message is indeed inconvenient, regardless of whose mouth it comes from.

    K
  7. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    .
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    I grew up in the sixties and seventies. People like me have had "ten years, tops" before irreversable damage would lead to all our deaths at least once a decade. Forgive me if I look at this stuff with a fair but jaded eye. The deserts were oceans. Frozen tundras have fossils of ferns. Yosemite National Park was crafted by glaciers. Cold comes, cold goes. Hot comes, hot goes. I can think of lots of good IMMEDIATE reasons to improve emissions, slow down or reverse deforestation, protect wetlands, and do lots of other "good" things that have no connection to a big scary "heat" gun to our heads.

    It can be argued either way, but to the truly objective, the fact that it's happened cyclically, including "mini-freezes" in the last 300 years, has got to shift a little crediblillity to the "not our fault" side on the warming side. Are we poisoning wildlife and ourselves? Yes! Is it stupid to not address that globally right now and in hurry? Yes! Are we making it hotter? Well... Until the true believers can acknowledge that those that don't believe it aren't necessarily idiots, they will continue to alienate folks who can be recruited to help on an immediate and local level.

    To alter a line from Rick James on Dave Chappelle "political correctness is a hell of a drug". Tell folks living in cardboard boxes in undeveloped parts of the world that they can't have refrigeration because temps have gone up a fraction of a degree. Tell China it has to stop what it's doing. Central or what used to be called "eastern" europe? We actually are doing a pretty good job cleaning up in this country. Is it slow? Yes! Is it in the right direction and pretty good progress considering the lack of impact on our lifestyles in this country? Yes! In the long run does 8 years of an administration that is "less than sensitive to the environment" mean irreperable damage? No, we just have to push as hard as they have next time and reestablish some balance. That's how those dudes in wigs designed this country... Are we even close to the worst offenders even taking into account the percentage of resources we consume? NO! Lets do better by all means, but unless you're ready to start speaking out about the rest of the world to change, you're worthless and weak!

    I'll be honest with you, I activelly fight for and educate my kids about all the "good" fights listed above because I am concerned about myself and my children getting poisoned or suffocated by what we do. I don't particularly buy that we will drown because of what we do. But the bottom line is, ask yourself this question: as long as we fight those fights together does it really matter what you believe? :thumb:
  8. Jonathan Gardner Jon Gardner

    Posts: 57
    Spokane, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    I am a conservative. Financial conservative, political conservative, idealogical conservative. Registered Republican, although the parent organization doesn't always speak for me, nor I for it. That being said, I don't see why the huge fuss is being made in a fly fishing forum about the global warming "scare". I respect the environment, am careful when accessing lakes and rivers. I catch and release as carefully as I can. I don't have a problem with those who keep a fish now and then, but I never do. I drive a fuel efficient car, even though it annoys me that it is gutless. I don't pour my engine oil on the ground, I recycle and compost. I may have even been seen to hug a tree now and then. In my life and in my my fishing, I am a conservative. That means I strive to conserve the resources available because it is the right thing to do, for myself, my kids and my grandkids - and yours too. If you love to fly fish, it would seem a safe assumption that you love the outdoors. Mountains, trees, water, wildlife - all of the natural ecology. Even if only from a purely selfish motivation, it only makes sense to protect and defend that which you love. No fear mongering scare tactics necessary.
  9. creekx Member

    Posts: 352
    Rancho Deluxe
    Ratings: +8 / 0
    Well put, mrpunkin.

    Which is more noble:

    1. Doing what's right for the environment simply because you care, regardless of your political leanings, or

    2. Using the issue and fear-mongering to push an entire sociopolitical agenda?

    To summarize: The motives of scientists who receive government grants or are funded by environmental lobbies like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace cannot be questioned, but if evil corporations fund research, we are to immediately dismiss and discredit their work.

    ...and no debate here would be complete without the obligatory religion-bashing.

    The day science declares the debate over on any issue, is the day science dies.
  10. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    was a time lindasjon, when the republican party reflected your values. after all it was RMN who actually did more to protect our environment than anyone following teddy R.

    that is not the case today, unfortunately.

    yes, the earth does move in cycles. but as pointed out, they occur over time periods that are very hard for us, who are here but for an eye blink, to comprehend. millions of years of forces we still do not understand have shaped out planet and our environment.

    what we are now seeing are changes measured in years not millenia. years, that is our time on earth and we are screwing this place up right and left.

    probably time to understand that during our brief life time we are making our environment unfriendly to life itself.

    do we understand all of the contributing causes? hell no. will we ever?? hell no. does that give us license to do nothing about the contributing factors we control?? hell no.
  11. mrpunkin Bryan Corey

    Posts: 152
    Battle Ground, WA
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    Completely understood that we have an effect on our environment, and should be accountable for it. I, as Philster said as well, can think of many reasons to cut emissions aside from warming.

    I also believe that this planet is the work of an amazing God and that we are here to take care of it, which I do my part. That also though is why I find some of my beliefs lie in the idea of cyclic warming and cooling. Who is to say that the whole ring of fire won't blow in 25 years covering the earth in a cloud of ash and over a period of weeks remove all the global warming from the past 100 years?

    I don't know what will or won't happen but I will continue doing my part on the assumption that everything has concequences and one of those may be drastically increased global warming due to lack of environmental concerns. But who knows, maybe even if global warming gets worse a natural disaster will happen, shield out the sun, and life starts over much cooler on earth.
  12. chadk Be the guide...

    Posts: 5,057
    Snohomish, WA.
    Ratings: +41 / 0
    :rofl: I doubt it. Coming back from the dead just to do a polically motivated docudrama would surely get a lot of peoples attention.


    Then again, you may be right. Al Gore has about as much personality as a dead mother theresa, so we probably wouldn't even notice the difference :clown:
  13. chadk Be the guide...

    Posts: 5,057
    Snohomish, WA.
    Ratings: +41 / 0
    Exactly.

    Actually, I don't hug many trees, but I do plant them. I plant as many on my property as I can. And I volunteer to help grow and plant them in public places when I can. Trees are a great way to fight CO2 emissions. The more trees the better. Who could be against planting trees? :confused:
  14. Michael Brady New Member

    Posts: 300
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    You should be Environmentally Conservative, only repubs don't know what that is because they refuse the science, just like they refuse to believe in evolution.

    (Uh, just look at the fish you are catching, they are all related)

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003090367_greenhouse28.html

    Way to go America, leading the world in CO2 emissions for the entire existence of the automobile.
  15. creekx Member

    Posts: 352
    Rancho Deluxe
    Ratings: +8 / 0
    How ironic. The very people who preach that it is healthy and necessary to question authority, will not question "authority" when it fits within their own ideology, nor will they allow any room for debate.

    Their message is simple: You either partake of Al Gore's koolaide, or you are an evil, environment destroying, right-wing, christian whacko. It's unfortunate, because in their zeal to own the issue and gain politically from it, they lose any moral ground - and we all lose in the long run.
  16. 509 New Member

    Posts: 497
    WENATCHEE, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    I notice that both Germany and Canada have decided not to meet their targets under Kyoto. The social costs were just to high in their eyes.

    I'm wondering how many of us would be willing to change our lifestyles to meet the Kyoto targets (which might not be enough to reverse global warming)?

    My WAG. We would have to eliminate jet travel for general transportation. In western Washington that would eliminate all those Boeing jobs and the multiplier jobs. For personal transportation my guess is that we would probably have to use Jimmy Carter's gas coupons. His plan was to ration gas at 10 gallons per licensed driver per week. We would have to change the way we generate electricity and price of electricity would triple or quadruble.

    My question: Given your understanding of global warming would you be willing to make the above changes to your lifestyle??

    So much of the discussion has focused on new technologies...well in almost all cases they won't arrive in time. Don't use that argument.

    When the typical American adds up the impact you can see why Congress voted 95-0 against Kyoto and Germany and Canada are bailing.

    I think its unfortunate that we are discussing about the truth of global warming rather than discussing how to reduce our impact. The discussion is always about the OTHER person reducing their impacts.
  17. 05tacoma Member

    Posts: 246
    Auburn, WA
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    I'm curious, what does believing in evolution have to with this?
  18. Sloan Craven Active Member

    Posts: 2,463
    NoSho, ma
    Ratings: +30 / 0
    A few random brain farts:
    The Al Gore Movie is Stupid. What the hell were people thinking when they made this? THey had a chance to do something great and they bring in Al Gore. I'm passionate about the environment, and I think that people that understand Global Warming don't even know about half of the danger we're in. THe problem is Al Gore. He's a smart guy, a perceptive guy, but one of the dullest people on earth. I'm not gonna pay 10 bucks to watch him for two hours. Not sure id watch him if I was paid 10 bucks. And I'm an educated guy thats actually interested, what about the rest of the american public. This is what they should have done: Have National Geographic film it, have Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones narrate it, and never mention Al GOre or any other political figure Boom, you have a hit. All proceeds can go to research of Global Warming.

    The earth was warmed and cooled several times throughout its existance. But never has it warmed at the speed it is now and never since large mammals roamed the planet has it been this hot. And never has there been so much greenhouse gas pumped into the atmosphere as over the last 6,000 years... since we started agriculture, population started growing, and we started burining everything. As someoen else pointed out, even if we are contributing a small portion, we're still gonna be #$%^&*!!!! It won't be nice and gradual etiher. More crazy weather, more heat waves, more floods, and more hurricanes. And remember that lousy movie when New york freezes. That'll happen. Not that fast. But in a matter of a couple of decades. Growing conditions will change. Food production will drop drastically. Prices of food with increase tenfold. People will stave. In places of drought, people will start fighting over water and land. Many governments will collapse.......The end of civilization is the end of civilization, do we really want to hurry it along.

    Finally, scientific theory is often misconcieved. Theory is not necessarily a hypothesis yet to be proven as we were taught in grade school. Rather scientific theory is a body of knowledge surrounding key concepts. Like the theory of evolution or theory of relativity. Evolution and relatvity are not doubted in scientific circles. They are facts. But they are referred to as theory as a body of information surrounding certain key concepts. Therefore when a scientist discusses therories of global warming, its doesn't mean he or she doubts that global warming exists or that there is not adequate evidence that demonstrates the earth is getting hotter due to human interference.

    Republican or democrat does not matter. Politicans are politicans. They talk a big show but generally lack action. Some of the best environmentalists were conservatives (Roosevelt, Nixon) as well as some of the worst (Reagan, Bush Jr). Just as some of the best envrionmentaists were liberals (Gore) and well as some of the worst (John Kerry). A person interested in the environment should vote based on a candidates beliefs, ideas, and whether you think they will take action; rather than party affiliation. I personally know more staunch democrats that throw away their recyclables than staunch republicans. This is something that scares the %^& out of me and I don't think that blindly supporting one politcial party over another is the solution.

    Some solutions:
    Tax the crap out of pollutors and give tax breaks to those that come up with alternative energy sources and low emissions. Money talks.

    Legislate the use of air-conditioning. Yeah, I said it. Your gonna think about Global Warming more when its 100 degrees and certain body parts are stuck together.

    Come up with our own standards. THere is not another country that is doing it better. Maybe Canada, but I don't know. We need to think big. We need to be unpopular. Tax imports. If people no longer buy cars or anything else from Japan or Europe cause of tariffs, no one will use the fuel to get stuff over here.

    FIX public transportation. A bus can't be half an hour late and a train can't be delayed an hour. I have tried repeatedly to start using public transportation. But it has caused me to miss appointments and flights repeatedly. If its not reliable I can't use it, and anyone else that has a place to be can't either. Look at NYC and London. You can set your watch to a train.

    I've probably managed to piss of just about everyone, so its a good time to stop.
  19. Michael Brady New Member

    Posts: 300
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Response: Nothing, I was just ripping on "conservatives" for fun.

    In all seriousness, we aren't going to get anywhere in the reduction of CO2 without the otherside at least coming to the meeting and understanding the science. The fight against CO2 and global warming has to be realized by all people, so collectively, we can reduce our effects on the atmosphere.
  20. BigBill Banned or Parked

    Posts: 121
    Ratings: +0 / 0

    WORD!