SFR: Al Gore's mistakes?

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Philster, Oct 11, 2007.

  1. Sloan Craven

    Sloan Craven Active Member

    The thing is, Kerry is right, there is no SINGLE piece of credible evidence that man is contributing to global warming. But if you put all the pieces together, there is definitive climate change, and there is evidencce to support that this climate change is being pushed by increases of certain isotopes in the environment, and there is evidence that humans are the primary party in putting those isotopes into the environment,
  2. Philster

    Philster Active Member

    Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn! I can barely keep up with the discussion when we're talkin' elements, and you wanna start trifflin' with isotopes! I can't be puttin' no numbers after thangs like carbon and hydrogen! SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOUUUT! :eek:
  3. KerryS

    KerryS Ignored Member

    Can you show me any respectable -- or convincing -- sceintific evidence to prove my statement false?
  4. smc

    smc Active Member

    Sure. Here's a link to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change Report.

    Here's a good article written by Gregg Easterbrook of the Brookings Institute: authority sources on global warming

    Those sources are quite impeccable and the literature compelling. There's much more information available. Convince yourself if you care.
  5. Jeff Hale

    Jeff Hale B.I.G.F.F.

  6. Rich L

    Rich L New Member

    If you actually read the 14 volumes of the ipcc report plus the summarys for policy makers you will find one very important fact. Now I'm just paraphrasing here but it goes something like this....this is what we did, this is what we found but we really aren't sure....sounds very convincing to me. If you read the report you will also find that the basis for the study neglects volcanic and solar activity. I'm not pointing that out, they flat out say it in the report. How can you come to those conclusions while neglecting solar activity without being intellectually dishonest? The ipcc claims 1998 was the hottest year on record. Google "coronal mass ejection".

    Why is it that a gas which comprises less than .04% of the entire atmosphere causes so many problems? You would think that the global warming alarmists would choose a greenhouse gas that was in greater amounts. Like water vapor.

    My background is in engineering and I've had enough physics, chemistry and thermodynamics to make me want to puke when people who read time magazine and watch cnn are convinced global warming is real beacuse "they said so". there is no consensus in the scientific community, thats just what they print to convince you.

    Did you know the earth as a whole is over 3000 degrees celsius in a vacuum at -273 degrees? Thermodynamic laws tell us the earth is continuously loosing heat. the greenhouse effect is not a 100% efficient insulator. nothing is. a 1 degree change is an error in measurement not a problem

    How would you explain the past ice ages?

    Why is it that over 4 billion years of earth history, global warming is based on 200 years of temperature data? Man hasn't been able to quantify temperature long enough to make such claims. I really don't want to hear about ice cores. I could pick 200 years of data, of my choice, on that graph that trends cooling

    Did you know the former Canadian defense minister said we should look to "alien technology" to stop global warming? Did you know that in Australia, doctors concluded that global warming caused more children to go to the emergency room with fevers? At the conclusion of the study they said, "well we're really not sure if it did or not." Did you know in Sweden they blamed global warming for too much ice which was starving reindeer. Why is it that the media claims polar bears are going to be extinct from global warming because 2 populations are dieing while the other 13 are increasing?

    I've got enough info to trump 20 Gregg Easterbrooks. perpective is all i ask for.

    cheers :beer1:
  7. Philster

    Philster Active Member

    And here I thought Mr. Easterbrook was just a huge Anti-semite who liked football! You learn things everyday!
  8. Josh

    Josh dead in the water

    I caught me a Easter'brook Trout the other day. Does that dispoop globe-AL warning?

    Seriously though, most of the "solutions" for global warming are things we should be doing for other environment/geopolitical/financial reasons anyway. So who cares if it's proven completely or not?
  9. speyfisher

    speyfisher Active Member

    iagree, Whole heartedly! Egad, I never expected such logic from a San Fransiscan. :eek: Hell, I left L.A. becuase I got tired of being thought of as some kind or radical right wing conservative. :beathead: 'Course the fact that they wiped out all the steelhead down there may have had something to do with it too.:rolleyes:
  10. Sloan Craven

    Sloan Craven Active Member

    That's what sicience is, nothing can be 'proven' in science, its just a preponderance of the evidence.
  11. Tim Garton

    Tim Garton Member

    Pray thee, enlighten us, thou most wise, that we may drink from the fount of thy knowledge (aka... put up or shut up).
  12. Charles Sullivan

    Charles Sullivan dreaming through the come down

    I hope global warming is a hoax. As I look at the evidence I don't think it is. It sucks hoping that you are wrong. Reminds me what Beano Cook once said:

    "If France and Germany went to war, I'd root for France, but I would bet on Germany."

  13. Calvin1

    Calvin1 Member

    Too bad noone forwarded this post to the Nobel Commission before they awarded Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize for such a flawed piece of work.
  14. HauntedByWaters

    HauntedByWaters Active Member

    The real problem as someone one knows debate and has partaken in debate in school in the past and taken some logic classes in university; the real problem is nobody knows how to have an actual conversation about anything these days...

    Have a look at the posts, they are all over the place and argue about totally different aspect of a whole but aren't necessarily even the same thing.

    For instance:

    Are we talking about Al Gores character?

    His movie?

    Global warming scientific communties agreeance?

    Evidence of global warming?

    Effects on fisheries?

    Et cetera...

    Obviously, we could never really have the kind of discussion neccesary to make this kind of debate meaningful to any of us online. On top of that, as stated above, some of us don't even give a shit.

    So in summary, when you think about these complex issues and talk to people about them, at least think about staying on point. Don't mix character attacks with science and science with politics. At least try not to.

    Also, I agree with the above that threads like this aren't really useful on a fly fishing website. I think this problem could effect fishing immensely but a thread mentioning global warming as it relates to fisheries will never remain ONLY about global warming effecting fisheries.
  15. Flyborg

    Flyborg Active Member

    I'm a proponent of Global Warming. Massive human die-offs and bonefish in my backyard sound pretty damn good.
  16. Philster

    Philster Active Member

    Ummm... apparently you learned your science in law school. Where I took my graduate level statistics courses we used the term "statistical significance". There is a big difference. If someone doesn't know and understand that difference, the conclusions they draw from reading a study is highly suspect. :beathead: And the conclusions they draw from reading time magazine are highly predictable.
  17. sashjo

    sashjo Member

    What do you expect? As I recalled another nuthead, Jimmy Carter, won the award. The myth of Global Warming is politically driven by morons like Gore. His "documentary", a Convienent Lie, causes mass hysteria yet proves nothing from a scientific stanpoint. I recall concern for a coming Global Ice Age not too many years back. I didn't believe that either.
  18. FlyOrDie

    FlyOrDie Member

  19. Steve Buckner

    Steve Buckner Mother Nature's Son

    Whether you care for Al Gore is one thing - but to suggest that there isn't a consensus in the scientific community on global warming and it's cause is erroneous.

    Debates similar to this one have happened throughout mankinds existence on this planet. For thousands of years, mankind thought that the sun was the center of the universe. Scienc proved that one wrong. For some period of time, mankind also thought the earth was flat - again, science to the rescue. In some cultures, diseases were brought on by demons now, we recognize that some disease are either self inficted or that genetics play a role. For many years mankind believed that all matter on earth was composed of fire, ether, and stone, now we know differently. Even still, in 2007, there are people who believe that astrology is what determines the personality of human being etc.. All of these "accepted fact" by the generaly public have proven false through science. Science is what allows us to understand our surroundings, what things are made of, how things interact, forces, etc.. It is fascinating indeed to observe conversations such as this when people are so easily persuaded that science is somehow flawed...

    Global warming isn't a new theory by any stretch, it's been a topic I've been aware of for at least 25 years. And with each passing year, the evidence grows increasingly stronger.

    Here's a story on the topic from NASA - the same guys that were able to utilize science to send men to the moon, that sent un-manned spacecraft to the end of our solar system, etc..

    Surely for some, solid science won't convince them of the threats and reality of global warming. They've already made up their minds, don't confuse them with scientific evidence. To suggest that humans are not impacting the climate is ridiculous at this point, somewhat like arguing that evolution is just a "theory" but then again, gravity is also a "just a theory".

    Anybody ever fly into Salt Lake City, or Denver, L.A., Manhattan? Did you notice that you can see a smog layer that covers hundreds of square miles? What do you think is creating that? And where do you think it goes? It doesn't go away - it stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years in the form of greenhouse gas. In these cities, this is pollution on a small scale, and yet, one can easily see the effects. To suggest that one cannot see greenhouse gas and it's affects is somewhat asking for us to be blind.

    As anyone who has at least highschool physics will recall, matter is neither created nor destroyed. It can be transformed into other components however. 1 gallon of gasoline is tranformed into an equivalent mass of other gassses. Now mulitiply that same gallon of gasoline by the number of gallons consumed planet wide on a daily basis. Mutliply that same number by 365 days per year. Now mulitply that same number by the number of years that our population has been burning coal and burning petroleum products. Again, anyone with simple mathematical skills will arrive at an astounding huge number - a number which cannot be ignored. Today, we have 6 billion people on our planet - but that number will double again within a short period of time. Redo that same math and the problem continues grow.

    The beauty of science is that it is self correcting. If there is evidence to support alternative ideas, science is able to re-evaluate and revise. That's the nature of science. In the realm of global warming, with each passing year, the scienctific evidence becomes stronger that mankind is having a huge impact on our climate, not visa-versa. Overwhelmingly, the scientific community accepts global warming and that mankind is to blame.

    For billions of years, life was not possible even on this planet. And as far as we know, planet earth is the only planet that has life. Without an atmosphere, Mars is simply too cold and too hot for life to take hold. Venus on the other hand, is unable to sustain life because of the immense volume of greehouse gasses that exist there.

    But as someone previously mentioned, one isn't going to win a debate on this topic in this forum. However, if one is serious about learning about global warming, what is creating it, and what the effects will be, they're going to have to put their pre-concieved notions aside, and be willing to examine the evidence published by the scientific community on their own. One is going to have to look at a wide variety of sources.
  20. Diehard

    Diehard aka Justin

    I agree. I don't know why you all are trying so hard to prove that global warming is not human caused when we are finally starting to see some significant movement towards a cleaner environment. Seems like a lot of good can come from this. Or we can just argue about competing evidence and just watch the world continue to get raped...that sounds like a good idea.