for the skeptical

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by TomB, Feb 2, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TomB Active Member

    Posts: 1,620
    Ratings: +58 / 0
  2. HogWrangler Member

    Posts: 332
    Stanwood WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Tom B. you know the terrorists are the ones who cause global warming. But seriously this really sucks.
  3. LT Member

    Posts: 528
    Spokane, WA
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    I have a feeling people who politisize everything will find a way to rationalize this study as well. For them nothing short of god coming down from sky and saying, " hey dudes, you're causing global warming", will suffice. Of course the next question out of a skeptics mouth will be, "was that our god or one of those other gods that doesn't know S*^t".
  4. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,477
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Why you gotta be ridin' folks like a rodeo show and callin' them uninformed? Biggest weakness the "left" has is that they are convinced they are correct. They've been told that from Kindergarten on. So anybody who disagrees with them is stupid, or evil. Am I on the "right"? Hell no! Stop saying it's "not about sex and money" when the majority of your platforms come back to those two topics! I like both sex and money! They seem to only like one publicly, and F-up the other in their personal lives privately...

    I'm on an entirely different axis... I hate to expose how little confidence I have in mankind, but when I see a suspect died in a single car accident in a high speed chase with the cops my first thought is "That'll save us money!" Not proud to admit it, but there you go...

    I am "informed" enough about scientific methodology to be able to analyze any study, and even if I don't understand the topic see the flaws and weaknesses. I used to participate in interdisciplinary review boards of research programs and papers covering atmospherics, space science, life sciences, aeronautics, and computer science.

    When I see that NASA's own numbers for "average global temperature" varies over 40% from their high to their low estimate for a year that HAS OCCURED, I don't have any confidence in predictions based on those numbers. I wouldn't have let that paper out of committee...

    I am very active in environmental causes. I am concerned with poisoning and overharvest. I actually do believe we are impacting global warming. But I don't care. Why? I don't believe we can throw it off more than a couple hundred years in either direction, which is a drop in the bucket for the normal cycle range. It's been thrown off before, it'll be thrown off after we're gone. You'll note I keep saying we aren't "causing it" and that we aren't "significantly affecting it". Those who say we are "Causing it" are the uninformed.

    It's the old butterfly syndrome. Too many tiny things involved. Will warming add moisture to the atmosphere? Cloud cover reduces warming by reflecting energy, but where in the atmoshpere will that moisture go? These are complex questions nobody has the hope of answering. What about this winter. It has to be filled away as an aberration, but what if it isn't? The weak hurricane season? once again no proof of anything, but certainly flew in the face of ALL the expert predictions for a season worse than the previous. Of course the predictions for a terrible season were blamed on what? Anyone? Anyone? That only tells us about the abilities of the experts, not what nature is doing.

    Natural systems take care of themselves and it takes alot to throw them off their cycle. Note I didn't say to change them because change is inevitable, remember that? Oh Oh! I said inevitable. Since gt used his D&D references maybe he'll start quoting Pokemon!:rofl:

    Here's the kick in the nuts folks. America can't stop it. we're actually getting better and better, slowly yes, and the last administration slowed it down more, but they haven't done anything irreversible. So we adjust the sails next time and point in the right direction again. It really is the rest of the world. World regulation won't change it. why? Because Gambia will be forgiven its sins. Remember oil for food? World bank loans being forgiven or covered by grants? Heck China will be ignored, but the country making the greatest strides, the US will have its feet held to the fire. Why? Because "everybody hates Sinatra" as a comedian once said. But the "Chairman" didn't get his bones kissin' anyone's ass, and neither should we. That's not paranoid. Who are you rooting for in the Superbowl if you don't follow either team? The superpower? It's human nature. It's why tabloids sell. Folks want to see the rich and powerful brought down. We are Britney Spears, and the world is tired of us forgetting to put on our panties!

    I don't care if 200 islands in Indonesia disappear, and neither would you if you really looked into the definition of "island" they are talking about. Forests became deserts when we hadn't even domesticated horses and camels. Change is inevitable!

    Personally I think of warming and cooling as the planets version of crop rotation. It's time for us to go... In thousands of years, when the ice comes back. Lakes become meadows, NATURALLY. Mountains crumble into the sea, as Hendrix said... Eventually.
  5. Jeremy Floyd fly fishing my way through life

    Posts: 2,569
    Quesnel, BC
    Ratings: +323 / 0
    Sweet maybe soon they will be able to grow grapes in england again like the Romans used to.
  6. Keith Hixson Active Member

    Posts: 1,507
    College Place, Washington
    Ratings: +55 / 0
    I'm sure there is global warming. I'm also certain that to a certain degree mankind is contributing. I also am informed that the United States is doing far more than most nations about decreasing global warming. But I also know that global warming and cooling have cycles. During Roman Empire we know that British Isles provided much of the grapes for the wine in Rome then there was a mini ice age. So I am confused as to how much is normal and how much is man caused. And after listening to interviews with some of the scientists from the recent Paris conference, they aren't sure either. I think global warming has become a political issue and alarmists wanting to push our technical society back into the pre-industrial revolution age are using global warming to push their opinions. Most of the problems with global warming occur in third world countries which we have little or no control over. I see so much hypocrisy within the enviromental community. They drive SUV's and don't ride bicycles, so how can you believe and enviromentalist extremist? I am a moderate on the issue because I believe we should fight pollution to the best our ability. But I am not totally convinced that all the global warming is man caused and neither are most of the scientists who are studying these issues. So I always say, let's protect our enviroment but let's use reason and logic and not allow ourselves to get sucked in by radicals on either extreme.

  7. swc7916 New Member

    Posts: 47
    Kirkland, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Philster: Well said. At least someone is thinking for themselves out there.

    Do you actually believe anything the UN says? Has anyone actually READ the UN report? Or are you just reading what the Seattle Times says about the report? This report is subtitled "Summary for Policymakers" - how can it be more political than that? Poliiticians know that environmentalism is the wave of the future. When Gorbachev was ousted as leader of the Soviet Union, what did he do next? He became involved in the Green movement (he founded Green Cross International.) The same thing with Al Gore. When he lost the presidency, he started pushing his environmental adjenda. These guys aren't scientists; they're POLITICIANS! They want you to hand over control of your life to them. Throughout the middle ages, the Catholic church held sway over governments - the people were loyal to the Pope first, then the King. Why? Because only the Church had the truth and only by following its' dictates could you be saved. The environmental movement is attempting to do the same thing - The end is coming and your only hope is to trust them to save you. They're offering you the Kool-Aid; are you gullible enough to drink it?
  8. Diehard aka Justin

    Posts: 866
    Seattle, Washington, USA.
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    Hundreds of scientists specializing in this field from all over the world just all agreed that it is man caused. A 90% certanty is huge in science. I don't see what there is to debate :confused:
  9. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,477
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Okay. I realize nothing I say will be listened to, so is there anyone here who is a statistician? Can you please explain to our "informed" friends what todays popularly repeated sentence "90 percent confidence that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities were the main drivers of warming since 1950." means, and how that sentence doesn't tell you anything by itself?
  10. Old Man Just an Old Man

    Posts: 21,791
    Dillon, Mt
    Ratings: +1,722 / 0
    As I sit here and read all of the junk on Globel Warming. I have to stop and think that all of the Scientists that say we are to blame. Well 100 years ago they didn't have all the smart people that are out there today. So global warming wasn't in the news as much as it is today.

    I believe that this is just a cycle the the earth is going thru. Nobody can stop it so quit trying.

  11. Keith Hixson Active Member

    Posts: 1,507
    College Place, Washington
    Ratings: +55 / 0
    If you read it correctly, they didn't say it was totally man caused but 90% chance that man contributed to the warming trend. Big difference from saying it is totally man caused. Read carefully. Highly opinionated scientists often quoted opinions as facts in the past. They have done it in the past and they will do it in the future. The problem with these reports is they contain truth but it sure hard to sort out the truth from fiction. That's why I am always skeptical of anything that comes from the UN or some global conference. "Don't me nothing."

  12. Diehard aka Justin

    Posts: 866
    Seattle, Washington, USA.
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    Ok, I read through the other post about global warming and it looks like there are definitely some people that believe it is not man-caused. That is fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinions/conclusions. I guess my concern is, even if there is the possibility (or even probability) that the warming isn't man-caused and we will all be fine, why do we want to take the risk? What if all the studies out now are right and it is man-caused and by the time everyone accepts it, it is too late and we have serious warming problems?

    Also, even if global warming isn't man-caused, I see a lot of good things coming out of trying to prevent it. Less pollution, more renewable resources, more environmental awareness, etc. Everyone knows about the pollution in places like LA, but we even have air quality issues here in Seattle. If nothing is done about all these pollutants, stuff like this is going to continue to get worse. Why would you want that even if it had nothing to do with man-caused global warming?
  13. chadk Be the guide...

    Posts: 5,057
    Snohomish, WA.
    Ratings: +41 / 0
    I expect it to get worse. Much worst. Deathly worse. Right up to the day of the next presidential election....

    I think man is contributing to the real issue of global climate change. But again, I think we should focus our efforts on known pollution issues, reducing our fossil fuel dependencies (especially foreign sources), etc. I think we can all agree on creating a healthier environment and managing our resources better. SUV's that get 10 miles per gallon don't benefit any of us (unless you have stock in big oil) for example.

    If a percnetage of this, looking at the big and long term picture, is just a natural process - like the last ice age for example, then perhaps there are other questions that we should be asking. Is it ever OK for an animal to go extinct that no longer can adapt (maybe just not fast enough) to it's changing ecosystem? Would you bring back the dinosaurs and woolly mammoths if you could? Is man a part of the natural world or not? Anyway, I'm just rambling here... Get back to your lattes... :)
  14. rudejude Banned or Parked

    Posts: 83
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    iagree completely and to add, for all of you that think you are informed, think again and stop bitching about it, get off your computer and go enjoy the world while you still can.
  15. David Loy Senior Moment

    Posts: 2,440
    Wolf Bay
    Ratings: +333 / 2
    I haven't read the Times report or the official scientific paper. But sight unseen, I'll state whats been in my gut for a long time, as this topic has polarized this community.
    Is there global warming? Absolutely, no question.
    Has man caused it? I don't think so.
    Has man impacted it? Certainly, maybe to a large cascading degree.
    Should we try to do something about it? Hell yes, regardless of whether it's caused by man or a natural event. The alternative isn't pretty. That said though, we need to be careful just what we do. A half baked idea will blow up. There's always a lot to disagree with but it's piss in the wind. Let's move forward folks.
  16. speyfisher Active Member

    Posts: 1,067
    State of Jefferson U.S.A.
    Ratings: +139 / 3
    iagree All famous big time scientists have an agenda to push. Remember the nuclear winter predictions?ptyd Where is that guy now? Politicians are even worse. :beathead: Rest assured nothing you or I do with have even the minutest effect on the matter. So just enjoy the day and go fishing.:beer1:
  17. salt dog card shark

    Posts: 2,306
    Edmonds WA / Mazama
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    If I correctly recall my statistics class from long ago, any statistic with a margin of error greater than plus+ or minus- .02 is, at best, purely anecdotal evidence, and is without scientific reliability.
  18. jhemphill New Member

    Posts: 69
    renton, wa
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    ice ages have come and gone so have very warm periods and that was way before there were cars and smoke stacks
  19. Will Atlas Guest

    Posts: 0
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    A 90% confidence would mean the following. 90% of the time, the trend in the data (ie. warming) cannot be explained by "random sampling variation". In science (at least ecology), a 95% certainty is considered "statistically significant". However, because of the difficulty of collecting climate data, and the kind of time scale we're talking about, certainty is a bit hard to come by. I would say a 90% certainty is about as good as it gets, and by the time our "certainty" gets any better we'll be covered in sea water and sweating our asses off.

    As for your comment about loudmouth liberals, I have to agree with some cases. Anyone talking in polarized stark terms, convinced they are correct without viewing the otherside is an idiot. I would say however, conservatives are at least as guilty of these political crimes as liberals. furthermore, I think that climate change really doesnt need to be about party politics. Its too big a problem to be solved by half the country, it has and will have a huge impact on all of our lives, and therefore I think its time something started happening in DC to deal with it.

    KEH and all others skeptical of human impacts,
    Consider the facts...Gases such as Co2 and Methane (CH4) contribute to a preexisting phenomenon known as the Green House Effect. Basically they absorb the energy the earth is giving off and turn it into heat. Without ANY greenhouse gases our planetary temp would be somewhere in the realm of -40 degrees, so its a good thing we have them. However, since the industrial revolution the concentration of CO2 in our atmophere has increased from 260 parts per million to 380parts per million. This is the highest concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since say....the dinosaurs, or maybe even before that. There is no denying human industrial activities are playing a DOMINANT role in increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and I think ChadK hit it on the nose. We're not going to stop using energy, so we have to use it more efficiently and find ways of getting it that dont completely F%ck our world over.

    As for your statement that you "am informed that the United States is doing far more than most nations about decreasing global warming." that is pure falacy. Right now the average US citizen puts 7 tons!!!! of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. Compare that with 0.26 tons per citizen in India or 0.78 tons per citizen in China. And the Bush administration backed out of Kyoto because it needed to be more "even handed with regulating China and India". Right now the US (with the exception of local governments and private citizens ) is doing almost nothing. Europe is so far ahead of us, we look like we're in the stone age. The USA needs to be at the forefront of the issue on the global stage, and While I think that George W. is pretty much full of crap as far as his energy policy goes, I think perhaps the house and senate (via bipartisan efforts) are going to start putting some real legislation to work.

  20. swc7916 New Member

    Posts: 47
    Kirkland, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    That's baloney. There's no way that I, personally, produce 7 tons of CO2 anually. Besides, who wants to live like the average person in India or China? Even they don't like it, considering how hard they are trying to improve their living standards.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.