for the skeptical

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Posts: 2,051
    Ratings: +53 / 0
    I'm a bit more concerned about the fact that if I wanted to, I couldn't eat the fish I catch because they are basically mercury filled thermometers with fins anymore. Industries on this planet need to stop releasing krap into the air and water anyway.
  2. doublespey Steelhead-a-holic

    Posts: 598
    Bothell, WA
    Ratings: +22 / 0
    Damn, i love those "Nothing we do will make any difference" posts.

    Means we can keep doing whatever we want and God, GWB, or ~somebody~ is watching over us and will make sure nothing bad happens. Or the fatalistic idea that nothing we do really matters and that these are just big cosmic cycles beyond our understanding (sounds vaguely Stoneheng-ian :) )
  3. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,477
    Ratings: +3 / 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

    Thanks Cascade. I know coming from me it wouldn't have been believed. Lay folks don't understand stats and misinterpret them, much like the reporters who repeat the numbers. The only thing I would argue with you here is that it isn't as good as it gets. It's as good as they can do with flawed data. Remember the accuracy of the data they are working with...

    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.

    China population: 1,313,973,713. India population: 1,027,015,247. US population: around 300,000,000. This is the reason all this stuff falls apart. How are those countries supposed to elevate their shitty-ass standard of living without increasing emissions? Sorry China, you'll have to lose 2,000,000 folks every winter to freezing? Sorry India, your rural infant mortality rate is going to stay at 60%? China will pass us in emissions in 2 years with no end in their escalation in sight. India? I would have to dig to get those numbers, but someone else pointed it out correctly. Do you want to live like the "average" Indian or Chinese? Do you want them to live as well as you? Oh, and what about all those scientific predictions about population? 4 billion was going to starve us all and kill the planet in under 5 years or some such stuff. We're at over 6.5... Hmmm... right again Scientific Community! Science is pretty darned good at explaining small scale, chemical and physical phenomena. Predicting multi-variable phenomena in an uncontrolled setting... Not so hot...

    And the Bush administration backed out of Kyoto because it needed to be more "even handed with regulating China and India".

    No Bushy backed out because it sucked. No one talks about who else doesn't like it. Lets see... That would be the countries with more than one television set per city block... Oh, and look! Countries with one television set every 100 miles too!
    After reading that I am still paranoid when I say it is political? To them we cause the climate change and they die. Oh yeah, it's all in my mind...

    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.

    Not really true. Slowly american industry is making changes as the necessary technology to make those changes without sacrificing production or raising costs prohibitively becomes affordable. Market forces again. Filters and after burners on smokestacks, Heat sinks on discharge recycled into the producing facility for energy. It's slow but it's happening.

    Anyway Cascade I want to thank you for doing what I've asked folks to do all along. Enter into a fact based debate. Not call names and insult... You rock. Do you fish Saltwater with size 2 and above hooks? I think I have some flies I won't be using anymore. And they're pretty good...
  4. Will Atlas Guest

    Posts: 0
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    philster, I dont really fish saltwater much. thanks tho. I agree that China and India will be increasingly problematic for the environment as they industrialize. But, again I dont think thats a good reason for us to not do anything.

    You doubt the power of Science, I doubt the power of the market. Scientists think science answers everything, economists think the market is the answer to everything. They're probably both wrong. Additionally, if we pioneer clean energy technology, we'll have a MASSIVE market with China and India as fossil fuels get more expensive.

    -The Diggler
  5. Davy Active Member

    Posts: 2,021
    SIlverton, OR
    Ratings: +16 / 0
    if I use less ice in my martini tonight , will that contribute to the cause or worsen the effect of global warming?
  6. SteveA Gnu to the board

    Posts: 281
    Western WA
    Ratings: +33 / 0
    Judging from the majority of the posts following this statement I have to deduce that LT is psychic.

    Why do so many people feel personally threatened by the very idea of humans contributing to global warming?

    Steve A
  7. Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Posts: 2,494
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +792 / 0
    WOW! Is this hyperbole, or are you really the smartest person on earth?

    Tom, all I can do is sigh...

  8. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,477
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    I doubt the power of science beyond one or two variables in a controlled setting... Seems there's lots of evidence popping up that Cholesterol isn't a good predictor of Heart attacks but something known as "Little A" is. And that lowering cholesterol with statins as we have been doing can lead to parkinsons... You'd think we'd know our bodies by now... Complex systems are just that, Complex. By the way, you need to reexamine your soul. The sentence "Additionally, if we pioneer clean energy technology, we'll have a MASSIVE market with China and India as fossil fuels get more expensive." suggests a belief in market forces driving development of clean technologies. And that's actually what's gonna get it done I feel. Not government, or multi-governmental organizations. I mean cmon. Stopping clear cutting in the rain forrest is pretty easy. Put some blue helmeted folks there with guns and shoot at the sound of chainsaws. Anybody doing anything about deforrestation? Anybody mention deforrestation anymore? No money in it... Aaah, but the long line of lawsuits waiting to happen in the world court if "global warming" becomes internationally policed? WOOOOOOOOO-DOGGY!
  9. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,477
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Personal attack again. Good job. Nope. Interdisciplinary review is a great way to avoid tunnel vision. It's standard practice at lots research facilities and "think tanks". Not my fault I worked someplace like that. And yes, I did feel priviledged to be there and heard some of the great historical figures of Science and Technology speak on a regular basis. I met Kelly Johnson of the Lockheed Skunkworks and Edward "Father of the Hydrogen Bomb" Teller. No matter what you think about their impact on the world, they are major historical figures and I will go to my grave amazed that I had the opportunity to even be in the same room with them. Once again doesn't make me special, just a job perk. The fact you don't know how common Interdisciplinary review is doesn't make mean I'm bragging, it just means you don't know how that world works. I could easily say " Don't talk about my job, I don't come down to yours and cover the buttons with the pictures of food on it with stickers so you can't work the register..." See. Personal attacks are easy and don't accomplish anything. I don't know what you do or did for a living, and I don't make assumptions about what anyone else here does, how old they are, where they've traveled, who they've met, or even if they dare practice a love of which we do not speak... I've met writers, carpenters, photographers, real gee whiz engineering folks on this board. You never know who you're going to meet on the net. If you meet me, you've met someone who is still impressed he met someone. That's hardly bragging. Some would say it's sad :confused:
  10. o mykiss Active Member

    Posts: 1,309
    Ratings: +181 / 0
    Philster, having read everything you've written about this subject in the last several days I realize I'm probably whistling in the wind, but I have to say your apparent faith in the beneficence of "market forces" and their role in environmental progress strikes me as naïve or disengenuous. I guess you must believe that factory and coal fired utility operators put those afterburners on out of the goodness of their boards' warm little hearts? Where do you think we'd be if we didn't have state and federal clean air, clean water, and other environmental laws, emission standards for autos, etc., etc.? Air and water quality haven't improved in here the last several decades because business wanted to (or because technological advances led the way). Regulation forced the technological change that led to improvements in air and water quality. Go to China if you want to see how business takes care of the environment when there aren't strong environmental laws and regulations and/or efforts to enforce those laws/regulations.
  11. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,477
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    It'll mean you're less of a girl than you were when you used more ice!:rofl:
  12. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,477
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Nope mykiss. I agree with you entirely. I hate the rollbacks the bush administration put in, and I will be as angry a voter as there is if the Dems don't take some serious actions quickly. I do however feel that regulations that can't be met are ridiculous and stupid and can only hinder things not help them. Reasonable Regulation, Technology, and Market Forces together. That's what I believe in. I only brought up market forces because gt said the crabbers were going out less because of the cost of gas and a bad harvest and he chalked it up to environmentalism. I had to point out the actual factor in play...
  13. Mulligan Stephen Mull

    Posts: 653
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    The "market" or the theory of it is based on the same "science" or methodology as science.

    If you believe this, then you are contradicting the latter portion of the previous quote.

    As people begin to demand clean energy and become more environmentally responsible, the market will respond and instead of harming the environment may work for it. Hmm, that damn market may have a point.
  14. Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Posts: 2,494
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +792 / 0
    Philster -
    I didn't mean it as a personal attack. I apologize if it came across that way. It was a bit of sarcasm perhaps, intended to give you room to say, "well, I really don't understand every scientific paper in "atmospherics, space science, life sciences, aeronautics, and computer science," but not a personal attack.

    I do know a little about how science and the review process work, however. I spent some time as an editor of a scientific journal in the life sciences. I know how tough it is to get highly qualified review of scientific papers in a discipline where I was as thoroughly aware of the literature and the people in the field as anyone. Hence, my remark questioning of your comment that you could "analyze any study" and "see the flaws and weaknesses."

    I'm also very involved in interdisciplinary environmental science. It's a huge field and tough to stay on top of. My hat's off to you for even trying.

  15. Roper Idiot Savant

    Posts: 4,317
    Glenraven Ranch
    Ratings: +796 / 1
    Really? :eek: :eek: :eek: Does it add to global warming???:clown:
  16. WaFlyCaster Tricoptera

    Posts: 464
    Fife, WA
    Ratings: +1 / 0

    The average US citizen probably does put close to 7 tons of CO2 into the air annually... you have to take into consideration alot of the electricity your house is powered by is generated by combustion of fossil fuels.. and then you take into consideration the LARGE SUVS every one in the U.S. drives put out loads of CO2... then you talk about gas furnaces.. woodstoves... lawn mowers.. cutting the lawn... boating... not to mention every breath you exhale is 25,000ppm C02(not that its the largest contributor) but it does add up. Plus has anyone else everheard the statistic that i read a few years ago that if you operate a two stroke boat motor for 12 hours its the equivalent in pollution of driving an average car like thousands of miles...I forget the exact number..

    Plus when you compare all that... to an average person in a non-civilized country who may ride a bike or walk to work... work in a field all day.. then return home by foot... its alot less CO2 production than our lifestyles..

    everyone of us using a computer.. watching tv.. turning on lights... heating our home... in general living with luxuries ot ...that other not as advanced countries dont have are thus creating more CO2..

    I know here in the PNW our power comes from mainly from hydroelectric but in many other parts of the country COAL is still being burned to generate electricity... and yes its bad in China too ...they just have a few billion people to use as divisers there annual tonnage per person is much lower. Hey at least running a mile in washington isnt the equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes like it is in many asian countries!

    Plus again.. when you say "average" some may be lower than average but you have to remember THAT ONE person that is WAYYYY above the average!
  17. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,477
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    I may have been less than clear but I was talking about being able to spot the "value" and holes in the design of studies, not the analysis of the data and findings. I played no part of that end. Although I was often asked to evaluate the "performance" of some researchers in terms of career development, but I had to have my hand held the entire way on the technical side. I never intended to say I understood everything under the sun, but that I was trained to break down a study and look for the blind spots. Sometimes it's as simple as researchers not converting everything to metric (happens all the time), sometimes its more subtle like a researcher failling to control for the effect of light on the control group while looking at frog embryo development in space in a dark sealed environment. I learned more than I ever wanted to about frog embryo development:beathead: I even learned a little about giraffe ankles once. A blood pressure study for prolonged space habitation... See, despite the high blood pressure required to get blood to their brains, Giraffe's ankles don't swell. Like I said, I was priviledged to have that job.

    I don't even attempt to stay on top of environmental science. Things change too quickly and frankly as I stated before, predictive branches are not anything I have faith or confidence in...

    I like my current life better I must say.:cool:
  18. Davy Active Member

    Posts: 2,021
    SIlverton, OR
    Ratings: +16 / 0
    f-.'d up , thats all, fk'ddd up, ya'll are but thats why and then I was gonna because you didn't and we should have
  19. TomB Active Member

    Posts: 1,620
    Ratings: +58 / 0 about pouring gasoline on a fire....
  20. Kevin J. Burnham Active Member

    Posts: 2,148
    Ratings: +141 / 0
    "f-.'d up , thats all, fk'ddd up, ya'll are but thats why and then I was gonna because you didn't and we should have"
    Words of wisdom and with such clarity. DAVY for President !!!!
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.