for the skeptical

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gearhead

    gearhead Active Member

    So just who employs the so-called 90 percent of scientists, so that they can provide themselves and their families a living. Would be a little bit harder to get those GRANTS, if they were on the other side of the issue.
    Aren't these the same Fund suckers that said we were heading to an ice-age only 25 damn years ago. Of course the earth is warming, it's just part of a cycle. So what stopped the ice age? Maybe it was all those caveman fires. And why do they call Greenland "Greenland? because it used to be "GREEN". That koolaid sure must be good! JMHO.
     
  2. Sloan Craven

    Sloan Craven Active Member

    Actually Greenland was named so as a ploy to encourage settlement to that region, as opposed to Iceland. Look it up.
    And the Ice age was terminated by orbital forcing, a natural force. Current trends can't be assocaiated with any drivers other than the increase of man-made gases in the atmosphere.
     
  3. Zen Piscator

    Zen Piscator Supporting wild steelhead, gravel to gravel.

    I told you to quit using those big words around me son!
    :rofl:
     
  4. gearhead

    gearhead Active Member

    So i guess after all these Billions of years, orbital force ended 25 years ago?
     
  5. Daryle Holmstrom

    Daryle Holmstrom retiredfishak

    Ok tying up the new fly for the summer swap, 15 tons annually. Can't quite get my materials right for the perfect fly.
     
  6. TomB

    TomB Active Member

    gearhead- for how much the right complains about paranoid conspiracy theorizing liberals, your views on the scientific community are worth a hearty chuckle. your understanding of the science itself (orbital force etc.) were equally entertaining. Im glad to see k-12 education is still producing fine critical thinkers....or was it k-8?
     
  7. fredaevans

    fredaevans Active Member

    Between 1000 AD and 1300 AD that's correct; average 'temperature' was 1-3 degrees C HIGHER than now. Global warming started right after the last 'ice age' about 100,000 years ago (if I remember my history correctly).
     
  8. gearhead

    gearhead Active Member

    is itt graipe or cherree today? chuckle!
     
  9. Mike Danahy

    Mike Danahy @#)$%# river otters!

    so what exactly is the environmentalists evil agenda anyway. Who is behind them and how exactly are they trying to screw everyone over? I consider myself one, and while I know that few people, if anyone, think their own beliefs and actions are evil, I'm just curious as to why so many others have such a bad opinion of us.
     
  10. gearhead

    gearhead Active Member

    C'mon Tom, you getting your info from a blog that suits your opinion? try looking it up for yourself, education is not a bad thing, a libral mind is a sad thing to waste. It was Green, and populated for almost 400 years, 'till the end of the warming period of that time.
    So what was the cause of "that warming period, i ask you? C'monnnnnnnnnn.
     
  11. Cactus

    Cactus Dana Miller

  12. gearhead

    gearhead Active Member

    DM, it's not that you or anyone is evil, it's not that at all, but the opinions may be based on the replacing of the words "Historical" and "Fact", with "Agenda".

    For example recently Al Gore stated that if we do nothing about Global warming now, NewYork will be under water by the year 2036. Now c'mon, how can anybody take a point of view or arguement serious with all these exaggerations. Everbody on both sides of this issue want the same thing, a healthy enviroment. Sometimes i think global warming is not cyclic but, caused by methane releases from all the bullshit. It really is hard to tell.
     
  13. Dave Grimmer

    Dave Grimmer Member

    I think everyone agrees there is a possibility that humans are contributing to global warming. And I think everyone agrees that if that possibility is true, than greenhouse gas emissions are the source of that contribution. So, if these to items are agreed upon, then why not hedge our bets and try and reduce the emisions, just in case. The environmentalists idea of this is not a step backwards, it is a huge leep forward.

    Green building codes provide great living spaces and cost the occupant less to heat and cool. Great step forward.

    Buying food from the farmers market, when possible, gives you the freshest food available, and it has not been shipped across the globe. Great step forward (okay and backwards). But hey it keeps your money in your local economy, preserves open agricultural land, and is easier on the environment.

    Dave
     
  14. Cactus

    Cactus Dana Miller

    I don't think that anyone would argue with that Dave, but these two things would have a negligable effect on global warming. However that's not to argue that they shouldn't be done for other virtues.

    Some studies have shown that a total elimination of the internal combustion engine would only result in a 10% reduction in the rate of global warming at best. This doesn't even stop or reduce warming, only slows it miniscually!

    We predict all sorts of doom and gloom for earth for a possible climate that earth has experienced MANY times! Thirteenth century Europe, with a climate within the predicted future levels, experenced great strides and growth in culture and population. When the little ice age (global cooling!)struck in the late fourteenth century, there was enormous loss of life caused by famine and desease. Europeans had to learn to depend on different crops and new technologies to survive.

    Even if we were to be able to eliminate ALL man made causes of global warming (impossible) AND it proved to be the only cause of the current global warming (highly unlikely), earth will at some future time go through a normal climate fluctuation. Wouldn't we be better off to learn how to thrive in that new climate rather than bemoan the inevitable change?
     
  15. Dave Grimmer

    Dave Grimmer Member

    These were just two examples of many that could add up to a much larger over all impact. The idea being floated now about putting large turbines under water in areas of high tidal flow for power generation is another example. It is being considered off of Point Wilson here in Port Townsend. What if all new roofs were photo voltaic? Perhaps we could really figure out clean nuclear. My point is we need to find other sources of energy and become more efficient in the use of our existing source. Regardless of the cause of global warming, humans current energy plan is not sustainable.

    Dave
     
  16. Jeremy Wolf

    Jeremy Wolf Combat Flyfishing The greatest Sport in the World

    My friends, I would have to agree that there is no doubt that global warming is happening! Did we cause it? I don’t know, but dose it matter if we did! I think that there is a lot that we can do that can better our world. For example In Iraq the magistrate of oil will only give the power plants crude oil (because it is cheaper) to run there plants. Running the plants on crude oil, is not the most efficient way to produce power. If the power plants used diesel fuel then they would be able to produce 3 to 4 times as much power, as they do now decreasing the amount of power plants needed to produce power. This is just one example of bad decisions made by people in power around the world. It is all about politics. I think that as Americans we are doing a lot to help slow the process of global warming but we are such a small percentage of the world. We can only do so much.
     
  17. The Greenland Ice Core Project (try a google search with this phrase for more information), a consortium of scientists who are studying past climatic variation, are drilling cores down through the ice at various locations in Greenland. Why do it there if there was no ice there 400 years ago? In fact, they can establish a continuous record of over 100,000 years of ice accumulation in Greenland.

    Approximately 1000 years ago when Vikings first explored the margins of the North Atlantic, they found a few areas along the southern shore of Greenland that were free of ice and covered by arctic vegetation, hence their optimistic name, "Greenland." Those areas still exist today, but the land mass of Greenland has been covered, virtually entirely, with an ice sheet for hundreds of thousands of years.

    This is a very thick ice sheet, I might add, several kilometers thick. It is second only to the antarctic ice mass in terms of quantity of ice. It is melting at an alarming rate. Or at least it is a rate that alarms climate scientists, perhaps it is not alarming to others who are either not so attuned to the implications of that melting or who have their heads in the sand.

    Dick
     
  18. Jim Kerr

    Jim Kerr Active Member

    Skeptical does not rhyme with testicle, but it sounds like it should. :beer1: :beer1: :beer1:
     
  19. Dave Grimmer

    Dave Grimmer Member

    Spoken by someone doing, or willing to do. so little to help!
     
  20. papenfus

    papenfus New Member

    Philster,
    Your dismissal of the findings in the IPCC report seems to hinge on this quote and your scepticism regarding any predictive science/modeling with regards to complex systems.

    I think the scientists involved would be the first to admit to the 'uncertainties' in the science. Is this reason to disregard their findings and continue with our business as usual approach.

    Of course, these sytems are dynamic and always in natural flux, but I think it is foolhardy to believe that human actions/decisions do not influence these complex systems and that human behavior cannot be influenced/managed to meet common goals.

    It would be quite convenient for me to have your laissez-faire attitude towards the future, but unfortunately I am quite concerned about the environment I leave behind for my children, their children etc. and I do believe that the decisions we make today will influence their future.

    I also believe that the scientific method, even when dealing with large uncertainties, is the most efficient way to go about dealing with these important problems.

    Sure, in a few thousand years none of this may be meaningful...but what about the next 100, 200 or 300 years? You really don't care?

    I don't mean for any of this to be personal, but I do find your hands-off, we can't do anything attitude (regarding human influences on climate change) to be not very useful or constructive.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.