NFR - Global Warming Poll

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Scott Keith, Oct 18, 2007.


Do you believe in Global Warming?

No, the Earth is not warming 6 vote(s) 3.0%
Yes, the Earth is warming and it is mans fault 98 vote(s) 49.5%
Yes, the Earth is warming as part of its natural cycle 86 vote(s) 43.4%
How does this relate to fishing? 8 vote(s) 4.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Davy Active Member

    Posts: 2,021
    SIlverton, OR
    Ratings: +16 / 0
    #5. Ain't gonna fricken matter in my lifetime so what does it really , uh, matter. And that's on both sides of the hysteria. Shut up is what I say and fish. By the fricken way, this is a FISHING board, not a environ-terrorist-whackjob board. Ok, maybe a whackjob board since Chris lets me stay around. But jeeez
  2. Old Man Just an Old Man

    Posts: 21,785
    Dillon, Mt
    Ratings: +1,722 / 0
    What difference does it make. We can't do anything about it. It is mother natures way of saying we all fucked up.

  3. Gary Thompson dirty dog

    Posts: 3,891
    East Wenatchee, WA
    Ratings: +131 / 0
    OMJ just said it best, We all fucked up.
    Just man bring man.
    I try to do my best not to fuck up to much.
    But it takes a hour to drive to the fishing hole, that would take a week to walk.
    Now I'm sad, so what the hell tomorrow is opening day for rooster pheasant and I'm driving to parking lot and walking to hunt. Not sad any more.
    You all have a good weekend hunting, fishing, or chasing momma around the house.
  4. Old Man Just an Old Man

    Posts: 21,785
    Dillon, Mt
    Ratings: +1,722 / 0
  5. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
  6. Randy Knapp Active Member

    Posts: 1,132
    Warm Springs, Virginia, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    The earth has been on a warming trend for a long time with a few exceptions like major volcanic eruptions. Whether the recent acceleration is due to Man, the sun, some yet undetermined cause, or just some snowballing effect is difficult to ascertain but change is occuring. As long as there are political and monetary gains to be made by analysis and how the results of such analysis is published , it will be difficult to separate fact from fiction, but I think the changes are obviously happening. It is also a sure bet that Man has some influence on enviornmental changes. One must try to recognize our human responsibility toward good stewardship but balance it with our need to consider all our fellow humans in our global decision making process. I would have voted for a combination of natural and manmade had there been a choice.

    Randy Knapp
  7. sashjo Member

    Posts: 531
    Lakewood, WA.
    Ratings: +4 / 0
  8. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    nytimes, washingtonpost, latimes, christian science monitor, WSJ, UKtimes, PI, Seattle times, oregonian, chicago tribune............each and every morning.

    relying on the FAUX Fantasy Network is not a good idea if you have any intention of being half way uptodate.

    now go klickity on the link...........carry on.......................
  9. David Dalan 69°19'15.35" N 18°44'22.74" E

    Posts: 1,995
    Walla Walla, WA
    Ratings: +783 / 0
    The earth has been gradually warming for a long time now. I think the argument that we've accelerated it MAY be true, but irrelevant. I personally walk to work and will gladly change habits to reduce emissions, however my efforts are mostly cerimonial and will have no lasting impact for two reasons...

    1. If the elevated CO and Methane levels are causing addtional warming, there is good evidence to sugges the time frame between excess production and increased temperatures is large. In other words what is happening today is the result of emissions/production from decades ago. Changing habits right now will not yield and impact for possibly decades to come. I think its worht changing habits, but most policy makers and citizens of the earth lack the fortitude to make changes that yield results in the distant future.

    2. The econmics are not there. Habits don't change unless there is an economic reason to do so. Most developing nations have econimic incentive to continue producing copious amounts of greenhous gasses and almost no motivation to reduce output. The 200 or so million us citizens can build cleaner coal power, reduce vehicle emissions and it won't make a bit of difference if massive developing nations (India, China, Russia and all of South/Central America) choose not to participate in process.

    Higher temperatures and elevated sea levels are nothing new. Geologic evidence shows thousands of transgressions and regressions (evidence of ice forming and melting repeatedly) over the earths history. Some of the ice melting events were the result of bollide impacts, extinction causing volcanic eruptions and such. Others surely must have been the natural result of cycling green house gas levels.

    The end may be near, but it ain't from global warming.
  10. BFK Member

    Posts: 332
    North Sound, Wash.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Next, gt, you'll be linking to the National Enquirer, which is about as credible a source as Al Gore.

    Found your "Florida-sized" iceberg yet? Inquiring minds want to know...
  11. Ethan G. I do science.. on fish..

    Posts: 987
    Ellensburg, WA
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    Hmmm...I seem to sense some hostilies here... But really, if we clean up, what's there to lose? If the earth is just warming, then we just live cleaner. Nothin' wrong with that.
  12. Mingo the Menehune stole my beer

    Posts: 2,631
    Happy Hour, WA
    Ratings: +377 / 1
    I don't know about all this stuff, but I caught these fish last month at Lincoln Park right in front of the swimming pool................




    and these guys came from Picnic Point..............



  13. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,477
    Ratings: +3 / 0

    They got Taxi's at Picnic! Man, all I need now is a Chino Mero find its way up here!
  14. Rich L New Member

    Posts: 20
    san francisco, ca
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    beware of manbearpig. he's half man, half bear and half pig. some people say he's not real. well i'm hear to tell you he's very real and he's going to get you!

    can you sign the manbearpig awareness sheet? i'll give you a bumper sticker to slap over the HOV lane sticker on your prius.
  15. jasmillo Member

    Posts: 424
    Ratings: +7 / 0
    Not trying to call out BFK here at all but my guess is that you probably agree with most things the WSJ, Sean Hannity, Rush, etc. I right? If it's left leaning, it's not credible?? I absolutely could be wrong about that but just a guess.....

    The fact of the matter is that unless you are conducting the research or reading every study in detail and verifying the data, the collection and testing methods, etc, than you don't know SH*T. I myself tend to agree with many others on this forum-we should be conscious of the decision that we make and the "possibilty" that it could be having an effect on the climate in general. If the final determination is that "global warming" is not a human caused than in the very least we have a healthier place to live. You can't argue that similar types of human activities people are proposing may have an impact on global warming are definitely having a negative effect on the earth's fisheries...we should all be able to agree on that on this forum......unless of course Sean Hannity or Al Franken say otherwise.....:beathead:

    Common sense people...turn off the the T.V.'s and radios. There are 7 billion of us. If there were 7 billion deer on the planet wouldn't most of the hunters on this forum be bitching about the detrimental effect the "overpopulation" of deer was causing on the health of the earths ecosystems? Now imagine most of the deer were burning up resources as fast as humans are??? Is it not common sense that we need to at least consider that our mere presence (let alone the burning of fossil fuels, etc.) may be having a detriminatal effect on the earths ecosystems???? I'm not saying it's the doomsday scenario some folks are predicting. But, I think you would have to be incredibly ignorant to think we don't need to consider changing at least some of our "habits" just based on the fact that there are 7 BILLION (7,000,000,000) of us and counting. Don't think you have to have a Phd to understand the effects of that........

    By the way Rich L...I think i saw the manbearpig outside my building on 4th ave today. it was wearing a dress with womens boots but it was 500 lbs and had a 5 o'clock shadow. wasn't a man nor a women...had to be the manbearpig posing as a homeless person. scary, seriously
  16. Copper Jon What a Jim!

    Posts: 159
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Maybe we all better just take a listen to what our president has to say about it...

    Sounds like some of the posts on this thread.
  17. ChrisW AKA Beadhead

    Posts: 493
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
  18. BFK Member

    Posts: 332
    North Sound, Wash.
    Ratings: +0 / 0

    Jasmillo-- Thanks for the post. I am not trying to be confrontational here, so please take what I say that way...

    I don't see climate change or global warming as a left/right issue, though some folks apparently do. I really dislike the polarization that comes from the addition of politics to a discussion of this nature, or about nature, for that matter. Science should be politics-free, but that is far from the case with the several discussions we've had about the subject.

    Politics enters (or should) into the decision-making process after a clear-cut case has been made or need develops. That certainly isn't the case here.

    My skepticism is not acquired from anything or anyone; rather it's natural. When someone looks at an extremely complex system and says: here is the simple answer (or problem or solution), I'm skeptical. I start looking at what they've said and if their statement doesn't make sense, I start asking questions. If I don't get or find satisfactory answers, then I dig further. Such is the case with the "anthropogenic global warming" debate. People are claiming absolute answers when there are few, if any, absolutes in nature.

    My skepticism also comes into play when I read non-rational statements, sloppy arguments and see evidence of sloppy thinking. Debate is good, and there is nothing wrong with it in my way of thinking. However, when posters make claims they can't back up and then start calling folks names because they disagree with them instead of providing proof of their assertion, well, that's not debate.

    Climate change or global warming is not a black-and-white, yes-or-no issue, despite what some people seem to think and certainly say. Is man the sole cause of global warming? I sincerely doubt it. Does he contribute? Quite possibly. How much? Who knows? Do natural cycles contribute? I think so. Do other sources of heat have more effect? I think so-- based on the reading I've done (and not from the sources you seem to think). Is there a simple answer to all of this? No. I'm willing to have my beliefs disproved, but saying that I get all my views from some television program I've never watched is not the way to do it.

    Political BS aside, should we do more to reduce emissions? Yes. Should we do more to clean up the messes we've made? You bet; I try to do something every day, no matter how small. Should we find alternate fuel/energy sources? Absolutely. Et cetera, et cetera.

    I find it offensive that some folks seem to find it necessary to demonize those who disagree with them, which is unfortunate, as that makes them look foolish. I realize, though, that that is all some people can bring to the argument.
  19. Cactus Dana Miller

    Posts: 667
    Tacoma, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    The idea of scientific consensus should worry us all! It is an attempt to end the debate before it has even began. This attempt to end scientific debate is the most un-scientific thing going.

    There are many instances of scientific "consensus" that are later proven wrong: centuries ago the scientific "consensus" was that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat; 150 years ago the scientific "consensus" was that Piltdown Man "proved" that Africans had smaller brains than Europeans; 100 years ago the scientific "consensus" was that the gorges and scablands of Eastern Washington took millions of years to form; 30 years ago the scientific "consensus" was that we were entering a global cooling phase. It was only through the continued research by scientists (some seriously ridiculed) that they were proven wrong.

    Implying that any scientist who questions the theory of human caused global warming is bought off is simply an ad-hominum attack and an attempt to avoid debate! The truth is that there is money to be made on both sides of the issue; Al Gore is estimated to have increased his net worth 100 times over since he took up his "true calling". There are hundreds if not thousands of grants available to scientists to prove human caused global warming while only a handfull to disprove it. I wonder what the "consensus" would be if these figures were to be reversed?

    Hard facts show that the climate is warming; there are no hard facts showing it caused by humans. Despite this, I believe that man has had some effect on warming, but probably a small one. I'm very open minded to this issue and try to study both sides of the arguement. And I agree with those who say that conservation is good, if for no other reason than it's own sake.
  20. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,477
    Ratings: +3 / 0

    I'm neither left nor right. In my mind both sides have serious blindspots in terms of taking on issues. For the left anyone who doesn't agree with them is "stupid", brainwashed, etc. For the right anyone who doesn't agree with them is immoral or "unamerican". Hard to get anywhere when debates are "left" vs. "right".

    The big difference in my mind is that the "left" attacks people they don't agree with when they don't get their way like little babies.

    The "right" on the other hand attacks people they don't agree with when they don't get their way like little babies BUT they work their asses off at the grass roots level on up to get the changes they want made. THANKFULLY most americans have to agree for changes to get made (it's called checks and balances:beer2:), but you have to respect their commitment. Meanwhile the "left" sits there scratching their heads going "but we're right! How come the immigration stuff/abortion stuff/gay marriage stuff/bring back the troops stuff/tax stuff/etc. didn't pass?! It's those brainwashed right wing TV watching morons, listening to that faux news network, the groper, the drug addict, drinking that coolaid again!" Sound familiar to anyone? Cough-GT-Cough!!! That's the "left"s excuse for EVERY vote they lose. Sad really, because I'm predisposed to go along with the left MUCH more often than I am the right.

    There is nothing "left" or "right" about this debate. Yes it is a political debate, but it's "us vs them" not "left vs. right". Educate yourself about the rest of the world. Educate yourself about the "remedies" being proposed, financial and systemic. Educate yourself about futures trading in emissions, educate yourself about the lawyers already lined to sue the U.S. for those islands that gore said have already disappeared, that haven't. See it's our fault, so if the world court gets control, anyone who suffers from every drought in africa, every inch of coastline that disappears, every drop of acid rain that hurts a crop, or a lake, falls on our doorstep.

    That's why the science has to be sound. That's why rational thought must prevail over emotion and fear. Because it's personal and the world hates us. Whether Muslim extremists, or environmental saviors, we have a target on our foreheads and the venom and energy behind our attackers is irrational, and frankly ignorant. But everyone hates the big dog. WOOF WOOF Baby!
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.