NFR - Global Warming Poll

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


Do you believe in Global Warming?

  1. No, the Earth is not warming

  2. Yes, the Earth is warming and it is mans fault

  3. Yes, the Earth is warming as part of its natural cycle

  4. How does this relate to fishing?

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

    jasmillo Member

    I agree completely...that was the point of my post as well. It is not a left/right-black/white issue. Seems like a lot of people debating this issue make their political leanings very obvious and it really has nothing to do with the issue. I will be the first to admit that I should be more educated myself on this subject and that's why for the most part I have stayed away from this thread and the one that was around earlier regarding the same subject. However, since I currently do not have the to read every piece of research ever published on this subject and I am assuming most people on this forum are in the same boat unless you do it for a living, really all we have to offer to the debate is open minds and logical/rational thought processes. In my mind, the fact that there are 7 billion of us in the world, means we are most likely having some sort of "unnatural' effect on the climate. Who knows though- I could be wrong. I am not an expert but for now I'll be cautious because I'd rather be safe than sorry.

    I simply do not see how any person can say global warming absolutely is or is not human caused....that's why there is a debate. However, all the Gore/Limbaugh/Prius comments sprinkled thoughout this thread shows where most folks get their info on this subject and that's a bit scary in my mind.

    As far as your comment about educating myself about emmisions trading, lawyers lining up to sue the U.S., etc. Again, it's obvious that this would be occuring. Parasites look for opportunity and they jump on it. However, just because parasites are lining up to take advantage of a situation doesn't mean the situation doesn't exist. Those asses are a whole different issue completely.
  2. Jon Borcherding

    Jon Borcherding New Member



  3. Jon Borcherding

    Jon Borcherding New Member



  4. Jon Borcherding

    Jon Borcherding New Member

    In my opinion this is a better question:

    Regardless of weather (sic) or not there is anthropogenic global warming, do you believe that we are better off, as a society, if we encourage the coercive power of government to shape our everyday behavior or are we better off as a society if we limit the coercive power of government to shape our everyday behavior?

    If we agree that there is little we can do to affect climate change, isn't it more important to limit the power of govt. so that freedom and the free reign of ideas can enlighten and enhance our destiny?

    Imposition of order = escalation of chaos.

  5. gt

    gt Active Member

    OR, perhaps the primary question might have been worded as:

    is man accelerating climate change around the world by introducing various emisions into our atmosphere?
  6. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    One thing seems pretty clear from this poll. We are evenly split and this division is just cauing us to focus more or 'being right' and less on taking care of real pressing issues that I bet over 90% of us would get behind. Issues related to pollution in the Puget Sound (Victoria sewage anyone?), over harvest of certain fish in the ocean, protecting our lakes and rivers, habitat restoration, hatchery practices, salmon farming practices, run-off, etc etc. Take these issues out of the hands of the likes of Al Gore and political agendas and watch true progress take off. And if you believe man is responsible for global warming or not, tackling these issues can't make it worse, and if real, can possibly help.
  7. Philster

    Philster Active Member

    Sea lice from farming operations on outmigrating smolt... Definite area for study.
  8. 05tacoma

    05tacoma Member

    My feelings exactly. I've never doubted global warming, only Al Gore's version of it.
  9. gt

    gt Active Member

    i'm surprised no one has quoted the ever popular readers digest or perhaps nostradamus! the fact that so many are in denial regarding 'we the people' and our direct influence on our environment is down right scary.

    can anyone 'prove' that what is happenning is 'caused' by mankind? of course not that is not what is being postulated. big al simply has put the spotlight on OUR collective negative influence on the one and only environment we happen to have.

    gore bashing, scripture spouting, denial of any sort, is not going to resolve what is clear to scientists around the world. 'we the people' are having a direct bearing on expediting the degradation of our environment. sitting back and not changing what we are currently doing is simply going to create a place where soilant green becomes a reality, and i mean your children are going to be suffering for your blind acceptance of the gas and oil company's propoganda.

    butt, i won't be around to see you eat your words, that much is a certainty.
  10. Philster

    Philster Active Member

    "yes, the current change in climate is directly related to human intervention." GT, post #74 :rofl:
  11. gt

    gt Active Member

    oooooooooooh, yet another nanana post. didn't like the bit more precise way of stating the obvious i guess!
  12. Philster

    Philster Active Member

    Yes it's true, I was blinded by the precision of this paragraph:

    "can anyone 'prove' that what is happenning is 'caused' by mankind? of course not that is not what is being postulated. big al simply has put the spotlight on OUR collective negative influence on the one and only environment we happen to have."

    It truly renders one speechless... A mind is a terrible to thing to have wasted.
  13. oilslick

    oilslick New Member


    Nice trigger fish...

    I guess some people make money "trading weather". I haven't yet been able to wrap my brain around this concept, but I guess its a volitle market. This week it swang 25%. :eek: :D
  14. gt

    gt Active Member

    yes, it is important to distinguish between inferential statistics and relational statistics, but you know that philster, right? the first is a set of tools commonly used in situations where the researcher has control of the variables in question. the conclusions are of the nature: '...i did A and CAUSED B to occur...'. these are the sorts of experiments which can be replicated by other researchers.

    the statistical tools used in all of this climate research are relational. what is happenning is scientists are looking for patterns in events. examining ice cores tells us that warming and cooling has happened in the past, as an example. but examining those cores also tells the story of time and now long it took for these cycles to happen.

    i have yet to read a single published study which has used the word 'caused' simply because it is not possible to jump to that conclusion given the avaliable statistical tools.

    now some folks are going to say ' what...', but the point is a simple one, 100% of the science community who has engaged in examining all sorts of data are of one mind: climate change is here now and mankind is accelerating the rate at which it is occurring. how sure are they? 96% sure. and remember that 'p' value is the result of a concensus vote which means that the various governments they represent had to sign off. such major polluters of the environment as 'we the people' as well as china had to give the ok so that value is a conservative one at best.

    unfortunately, the media, having an apparent zero understanding of statistics and how the science community uses these tools, interjected 'caused' and thereby had the appropriate straw man to hang from the yard arm.

    sorry to have bored yah'all but please understand what you are reading before concluding.

    and a link from my am reading:
  15. Philster

    Philster Active Member

    Nah... Too easy...
  16. Philster

    Philster Active Member

    It's not the washington post, which seems to read like "people magazine" without the balance judging from the link... but Here is a good jumping off point. Now there are no blatant attempts to scare you, and you do have to read all the words carefully...

    Oh by the way folks, Don't swallow something because it agrees with your general beliefs. Do you really believe that temps have gone up by 6 degrees since 1950 in antarctica as stated in the article GT provided? Because from 1850 to 1990 the accepted increase is .6 celsius, which is about 1 degree Farenheit. Apparently in the last 7 years it's gone up 5 degrees... Those numbers make Al Gore's flick look downright conservative! I can see how a reporter, with no training could read .6 celsius and go with 6 Farenheit though... Although the reporter did sneak through the qualifier "over the western peninsula"... Suprisingly clever. If you only look at winter temps in that area you can REALLY "manipulate" the data:beer2:
  17. gt

    gt Active Member

    to easy........................
  18. smc

    smc Active Member

    Bad link Philster. Always test your data.

    .6 or 6 degress (of separation?) Antartica, or the South Pole, which is the subject of the paragraph you have an issue with is actually warming, with the exception of the western pennisula. An interesting anomaly apparently beyond the scope of that article. The paragraph you question specifically cites the temperature increase at the Western Peninsula of Antartica. What's so sneaky or "clever" about that?

    Or maybe it's just the "fear mongering" that bothers you. I have to agree, there is plenty of hyperbole and more going around, on both sides of this issue.

    You seem to have a decent sense of humor, overshadowed by unfortunate tendency to be condescending. You inferred earlier that you are a teacher. On the one hand, it's probably a good thing that your undergrads are held to such seemingly rigorous standards. On the other hand, it's a shame that you do not hold yourself to the same. Your unbalanced and unsubstantiated characterization of the CCX is just one example.

    But enough - I think that I can say, with a .99 p value, that I'm not going to change your mind or your approach. I don't have to. This is much bigger than you or me. :beer2:

    I will also say that, contrary to the apparent majority of this board, I admire Al Gore and what he is doing regarding our environment. Is he perfect? Far from it. Has he done well, while doing good? I'd have to say yes. I do not begrudge him this, nor do I pretend to know or make judgments on the details of his financial life.

    Philster, you've thrown some spit balls up, hoping they would stick as a Third World perspective. Here's an article by Wangari Maathai, someone I admire, with credentials backed up by accomplishments. She offers a slightly different take on things and perhaps answers some questions on the issues posed by other readers in this and the related thread.

    An iceberg the size of Florida? Take a look at Philsters ego! :eek:

    Back to watching the river.
  19. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Let's say I take a crap on the beach at low tide tomorrow. I bet you could get 99% agreement that Chadk is personally accelerating the rate at which pollution is being introduced into the ocean.

    Now before I have a VW bus full of Green Peace pot heads from Evergreen State college hunt me down for killing the whales or something, shouldn't some analysis be done to see what my impact is compared to all other impacts? So what if 99% agree that I had some impact. 90% of that same group might conclude that my impact is so low compared to other impacts, that we should direct our time, resources, legislation, etc to dealing with specific, quantifiable, problems - where real, observable, measureable results can be achieved.
  20. Philster

    Philster Active Member

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page