another disturbing impact

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by gt, Feb 15, 2008.

  1. Kent, you are now doing the flip flopping that will remind us all of our good friend John Kerry ;)

    You did in fact say:

    coined: To devise a new word or phrase.
  2. "To my earlier point, Al Gore didn't invent the phrase 'climate change', which is much softer and less-ominous-sounding than 'global warming', although he does in fact use it in his film."

    I never said he did.

    "Instead it was coined by Republican pollster and communications advisor Frank Luntz in a confidential 2003 briefing book for conservative candidates seeking re-election that was leaked to the press, including CBS' '60-Minutes' and PBS' 'Frontline'."

    That's interesting, but the subtle shift to the term 'climate change' predates this by years.

    "Luntz advises use of the term "climate change'' rather than "global warming,'' which he says is more frightening."

    He may very well have advised the use of the term. However he did not invent it. The AGW crowd clearly sees a benefit to using the term, as evidenced by their frequent use of it.

    If you're gonna play the arch-conservative here, at least get your facts straight.

    This has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal ideology. Continued generalization about political ideology with respect to the AGW debate only increases skepticism that it's nothing more than exploitation for the purpose of power. If you truly care about the environment and not political gain, stop trying to divide and conquer - its counter-productive.
  3. Who's trying to divide and conquer?

  4. This is starting to go the way of the infamous evolution debate...

  5. Oh goody. Another global warming debate. It's been what? three months since the last one?
    I'm sure this time around will be much more enlightening. . .:rolleyes:

    How 'bout this thread sticks to the OP's point, and everyone who believes in global warming stays here and has a thoughtful conversation.
    And everyone who thinks it doesn't exist can start their own thread and have their own discussion.
    And everyone who wants to just argue can go>personals>rants.

    "Oh, but wait, Dave! What?!? We can't post differing opinions?!?!"
    We've done that. We're about to do it again. Give this thread back to the OP and start your own thread.
  6. I'd almost forgotten how funny 'yards post was - thanks for the reminder. That said, any bets that Chadk won't have the last word on this? Onward Christian soldier...:rofl:
  7. Simply a reply to your indictment. Put politics ahead of the environment, and we'll see where that gets us...
  8. I think we're talking about the same thing here.

    Given the Bush administration's posture regarding climate change and the environment, that is, the expenses to polluting or emitting businesses are too burdensome, the result is the situation we're in today - denial and inaction.

  9. The knife cuts both ways. Al Gore had the bully pulpit for 8 years, but from the rhetoric you'd think the planet began warming in late January of 2001 - as Karl Rove's weather machine came online.
  10. All too true. But the reality of living in a representative democracy is than the only people with the actual power to change public policy in any kind of meaningful way (such as executive order) are elected by us in a political beauty contest - politicians.

    Fast forward to November 2008 and we'll once again have a choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. The ultimate winner may or may not see global warming the same way in February 2009 as they say they do today.

    Sure we can ultimately vote the rascal out of office. But a lot of damage can be done in just 8 years. If you need proof, just look at the past 7 years. Hence my comments earlier.

  11. And for all the attention global warming or any other environmental problem is getting from the presidential candidates and the media that cover them, we will have no direct basis for voting on environmental issues this year, either.

    ... the indirect record, however, makes some things clear. Anyone who says they couldn't foresee differences between the two candidates in 2000 was being willfully blind. I don't think it will be much different this year, although McCain certainly has a better record than GWB.
  12. In a panel discussion I heard recently on KUOW, one of the participants referred to McCain as a 'competent George W. Bush'.

  13. Right on !! A Friday night brawl with all the regular baiters !!! Flame on boys flame on !!!
  14. You don't need to be a "Rocket Scientist" if you read a few facts. Global Warming is happening. I have a couple of Republican friends that would rather "stick their heads in the sand" rather than watch a movie like "An Inconvenient Truth" or other scientific information... I am amazed how people don't can't or won't attempt to use their brains on the issue. Go fly fish while you can knuckleheads. The end is nearer than you think. :p
  15. WOW, someone actually admitting they will vote for the scary uncle, mrfear! and someone who claims to care about the environement and fish on top of that, totally amazing. you need to get some backbone and recognize that uncle mcfear is actually the current flip/flopper. '...water boarding is torture, make no mistake, take it from a former POW...', until you need to pander to the rightwingnuts, then, '...i will vote to support all options...'. yep, the new flip/flopper, or should we label mcfear, the panderer????
  16. No for McCain!!!!

    That Bomb Iran rework of the Beach Boys was sooooooooooo pandering and sooooooooo in poor taste that I can NEVER forgive him.

    Is that enough O's.
  17. Phil,
    By all means I am no expert in this matter. Who I believe is a credible source will differ from yours. We are entitled to our opinions. Who is credible and who is a crap shoot. I think the scientist who speak with the best abvailable data and no influence from corporate funded universities and corporations will have my ear. Mainstream media is too influenced for my taste. I have read different articles that described the melting artic sheets, cooler sea water and winds that influence our weather. I also believe this global warming will be followed by massive global cooling, mini ice ages. We are having massive de-mineralization of our soil which some believe precedes the ice age. This is another important matter that is being overlooked. The earth is cycling through its stages. Are we speeding this process along? I guess we will find out.
  18. Steve and Alpine - you guys sound kinda bitter. Lighten up and go fishing :thumb:
  19. Sir, you may spin my words however you wish to create your argument. What I am saying is that less than 30 percent of the worlds researchers feel there is not enough information to come to a conclusion.

    Yes, it is career suicide to come to a conclusion based on personal views and beliefs without assimilating all the data. That is a scientists biggest fear, which is often why (especially down here) they do not even look at data until completely compiled for the fear of coming to predeterminations. If even a single mistake is made, it will be scrutinized by the rest of the scientific community and discarded. Reserchers here spend an entire season collecting data with only a single shot to draw relevent conclusions.

    I would like to know what your source is regarding the topic. I'm pretty sure you're not at the bottom of the freaking planet getting it straight from the source!

  20. 30% or the world researchers (i would like to see where you get that number from)..........well i guess that leaves 70% who do believe global warming is for real! the worldwide form on climate change, seems i remember that the statistic they quoted, and by their admission it was conservative, was that mankind was responsible for our climate change with a confidence statistic of 96%. choose to believe whomever you are most comfortable believing, but make no mistake, man has and continues to cause dramatic, statistically rapid changes to the one and only environment we have.

Share This Page