SFR: Al Gore's mistakes?

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

  1. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    as already pointed out, mr garton, review your statistics 101 course. science is just that, science. that means dealing with statistical PROBABILITY. when the conclusions are something akin to 97-98% certainity, you really can't get much better than that in any scientific investigation.

    if you choose to make yourself aware of the volumes of literature, see above posts for some starting points, you will find a concensus among the scientific community that indeed, climate change is here and a reality.

    even the common corporate owned media was reporting an unprecidented melting of the artic ice this summer. that is UNPRECIDENTED!!! now if you choose to watch 'an inconvenient truth', you know exactly what that means. the fact that the computer models were decades off on this prediction of melting is disconserting as it would suggest the process is more rapid than first believed.

    is the greenland ice cap melting? yes it is and it is also melting far more rapidly than predicted. these are on the ground observatoins by a variety of folks. shutting down the gulf stream is going to usher in the second big chill for europe and the entire east coast, not a happy thought.

    now if you choose, continue drinkin' the kool aid or just stick yur head in the sand but either way, climate change is'a'happin' and its moving at a lost faster pace than any group of scientists have been able to predict. which simply points out the unknown, from a scientific point of view, about our lack of knowledge regarding this occurance.

    what some would want to suggest is that since we can't fit this into a neat shoe box and tie it with a ribbon, it does not exist. bullshit.............
  2. BFK Member

    Posts: 332
    North Sound, Wash.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    The reality is that man's effects are more widespread and hazardous than we at first believed:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

    From this it's apparent that we must immediately clean up the environment of all mankind's pollutants and return to a true agrarian society...
  3. FlyOrDie Member

    Posts: 52
    The Republic of West Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    The reason why the Conservative argument about global warming has changed over the years -- from global warming does not exist, to there's no proof it exists, and finally to it may exist, but it's not human caused -- is simply to keep the corporate status quo going and avoid any personal responsibility. Living with the philosophy that global warming is beyond our control and not caused by any behavior on the part of mankind means we can continue to consume and use petroleum based products at unparalleled levels; we can continue to drive our 6 mpg SUVs and Hummers to and from the grocery store; we can continue to deny that anything we do will have an adverse impact.

    As we are beginninng to see, however, that philosophy -- which many people believe was created and imparted into our society by the big oil corporations themselves, through secretly commissioned "talking papers" and studies supposedly done by independent scientists; in fact, some of the same ones proffered here as evidence that there's no real proof global warming exists whatsoever -- is eroding among the public, albeit perhaps too slowly.

    How many new hybrid automobiles are we seeing these days? How much more emphasis on biodiesel and alternative energies are we seeing, just within the past few years? Even the explosion in organic farming in recent years relates to a greater belief that mankind must be better stewards of Mother Nature in order for Mother Nature to survive.

    Personally, I think we're living in a watershed era -- not only for the future of our environment, but in terms of Western philosophy. In 100-200 years, when historians look back on this time, I think the rift we're seeing in environmental thinking will be viewed much the same way as Locke vs. Rousseau, nature vs. nuture, etc. Of course, by then, historians will also be able to tell who was correct, too. And for arguments sake, let's just say that there is no definitive proof, and we don't know whether or not man's behavior has any impact on global warming. Why not, then, just err on the side of caution, assuming that what you do can make a positive difference, rather than do nothing, and perhaps have our grandkids be forced to live with our mistakes?
  4. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    .
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Hey GT
    Compare http://www.dxlc.com/solar/history/hist1954.html

    To http://www.dxlc.com/solar/history/hist2004.html

    to http://www.dxlc.com/solar/history/hist2006.html

    to http://www.dxlc.com/solar/history/hist1959.html

    You really think we understand anything? I've read the IPCC report, and they basically acknowledge "If we don't understand the contribution of something, and it contradicts our going in position, we've chosen to ignore it"

    I am in full support of doing everything reasonable to curb emissions, and protect the environment, yet while so many people here scream about how "we should let the world court (what other "ruling body" do you think they have in mind for adjudicate grievances and enforcing "recommendations"?) take over because we're doomed if we don't do something now!", many of those same people scamper around the world impacting the hell out of it by fishing in Australia, the Seychelles, etc.

    Do you think THEY are going let you do your thing if they gain control. And yes, there is a they, and they are trying to gain control over your activities, from the food you eat to the clothes you buy (how much methane went into the atmosphere for that steak on your plate? Your shirt travelled how far on a container ship!?!?), whether you think I'm paranoid or not.

    How far down the road do you think it is before when you try to purchase an airline ticket you are asked the question "Reason for Travel?" Do you really think your answer of "Fishing!" is going to get you on that plane? What is going to be a good enough reason for travel. Death in the family? Job interview? No not a job interview because the overall impact on the environment with you moving someplace, and probably not to a situation where you will be able to ride your bike to work, would work against the greater good. At best there is going to be a carbon tax to begin with that may double the price of your flight. One more step towards seperating the haves, who will be able to do whatever they want, and the have nots. How much money do you have GT? I'm thinking just about everyone on this board is going to be pushed down, not elevated. Check out how Unkle Al lives http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070227c.html He can afford to since he's getting rich being the Heat Meiser.

    As to the "Corporate Media" accepting the Warming. Remember their motto. If it bleeds it leads. Nothing like a headline of "You're going to drown like a polar bear! Details at 11:00!" to put asses in the seats my friend:rofl:

    You made a crack earlier about the communists. It's the Warmmunists you should be worried about. Talk to people in Europe about the European Union, and the changes to their lives in effort to make them "Safer" from things they grew up with. Like food, art, education. They're REALLY happy about giving control over to a "ruling body":hmmm:
  5. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    .
    Ratings: +3 / 0

    Did you catch it in a ripple on a pale mourning dove?:)
  6. fredaevans Active Member

    Posts: 3,116
    White City, Oregon, USA.
    Ratings: +118 / 0
    You can spell the 'word:' China. Exempt from the K-Treaty, and one of the worlds largest producers of air pollution.
  7. ak_powder_monkey Proud to Be Alaskan

    Posts: 3,209
    Eagle River, Alaska
    Ratings: +112 / 0
    What government scientist? Why does snow melt? Because it gets warmer... DUH

    Actually you use ice core CO2 data do figure out temperature data

    This is fair

  8. chk New Member

    Posts: 33
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    "W" does not support the Kyoto agreement and has publicly stated that he will not follow it. In 2001, Bush reneged on the treaty that was ratified on Oct 15, 1992 by Congress.

    We produce most of the worlds carbon emission, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png. We are a major part of the problem. Let's take responsibility for our actions instead of blaming someone else.
  9. ChrisW AKA Beadhead

    Posts: 493
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Not sure if they have surpassed the US in total emissions. On a per capita basis they are FAR behind the US however. Its always easier to point the finger than look in the mirror.

    CW
  10. creekx spent spinner

    Posts: 362
    Rancho Deluxe
    Ratings: +15 / 0
    It's no wonder you believe that lie, it's certainly been repeated often enough...

    First of all, only Congress can enter the U.S. into treaties. The President can neither sign or "reneg" on an international treaty.

    Secondly, the Kyoto Protocol was never ratified by Congress. In fact, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by a vote of 95-0, which basically stated that the US should not agree to any protocol that did not include targets and timetables for both developing and industrialized nations. BTW, as VP, Al Gore had from 1997 to 2000 to push for ratification. Apparently he didn't see it as an important issue.
  11. Calvin1 Member

    Posts: 610
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +7 / 0
    Actually, Article 2, section 2 of the constitution gives the President the authority to enter into treaties on behalf of the US. Two thirds of the Senate have to concurr, or ratify the treaty.
  12. creekx spent spinner

    Posts: 362
    Rancho Deluxe
    Ratings: +15 / 0
    Thanks for the clarification. Zero still falls a little short of the required two-thirds.
  13. Luke Ramirez Still DoubleUgly

    Posts: 283
    Ballard, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    If there's trash on the river pick it up. We all like to think this right? Why is it different if we zoom out and look at the planet as a whole? Let's clean this place up. Screw who's "right." Let's just clean 'er up. By saying that we aren't to blame effectively excuses us from having the responsibility of the clean up. That sounds convenient. Let's just face it: We screwed this place up. Let's man up and fix it!!

    -Luke
  14. FT Active Member

    Posts: 1,242
    Burlington, WA
    Ratings: +102 / 0
    For those of you who have not taken the time to actually read all 14 chapters or articles of the IPCC report, I modestly suggest you do so. And when you do so, please pay attention to all the things the authors of the report chose to leave out of their computer model "forcings" and the reasons they did so. Also pay attention to all the qualifiers they use.

    I'd also suggest that you pay attention to things like how the CO2 "forcings" in the computer models don't come close to how much CO2 that has been released actually gets into the atmosphere when measured.

    The authors also chose to ignore the role sunlight plays in climate and temperatures for the simple reason that it is nearly impossible to predict how much sunlight is going to reach the earth in any given year, let alone over 25 or 100 years.

    Then there is how the authors decided the computer models they relied upon where accurate. They made this decision (and say so in their report) on the basis that several computer models agree with each other on the effects of various artificially introduced amounts of CO2, etc. 90% of the time. Please note, it was not based upon observable, real world evidence, or even extrapolation of real world, observed evidence, it was based upon nothing more than the models had 90% agreement with each other. This is hardly statistical evidence or probability of evidence that something may happen. It simply means the computer models have 90% agreement among themselves.

    Plus there is the inconvienent fact that all living fish, animals, birds, insect, and dead plants along with volcanoes and earth's thermal features (i.e. Old Faithful in Yellowstone Park for instance) release and contribute all but 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, fossil fuels are contributing 1%, a very insignificant amount.

    There was also a very interesting study done by the American Enterprise Institute on all the climate change papers from 2004 to June of 2007, and this review study found that only 1 out of the 258 studies reviewed made any mention catastrophic climate change. This review study also found that within these 258 papers, 38% of the scientist accepted global warming; 48% were neutral; and 14% did not accept global warming. Hmm, I though you had to have well over 50% (with it being 90% either accepting or not disagreeing with it) accepting something for it to be a consensus. But I suppose I was mistaken since apparently only 38% is needed for consensus. Robert Giengengach, Ph.D., professor of Earth & Enviornmental Science at the University of Pennslvania said, "Less that 10% of the earth's history has been characterized by ice sheets at the poles. We're in the middle of a global ice-age right now, when the earth is much, much colder that it has been during most of its history."

    We also have Jeff Keuter of the Geroge C. Marshall Intitute telling 'FAMILY NEWS IN FOCUS', "Unfortunately, the stakes are so high with this issue, that politicians and policymakers - well-intentioned or otherwise - have a keen interest in how this debate turns out. Some scientists stretch the fact a bit too far to try to provide the answers they are being asked to give."

    I'd also suggest you all read the articles and studies found at http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm and see that there is much less consensus than the media (and some politicians) are trying to convince us there is on global warming.
  15. Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Posts: 7,136
    Not sure
    Ratings: +1,225 / 0
    I swore I wouldn't weigh in on yet another inane global warming thread but news of Al Gore being awarded a Nobel prize this morning has prompted me to ignore my better judgement and wade in.

    In reading the posts above, I'm struck by how many of my fellow flyfishers fall into one of two camps when it comes to Al Gore and 'An Inconvenient Truth': those who dismiss the message out of hand and then want to shoot the messenger; and those who dislike the messenger and thus dismiss the message.

    For all you 'flat-earth' skeptics, the Nobel award (a co-award, actually) should provide some glimmer that there actually are folks out there who have managed to view Gore's message without preconceptions and evaluate it on its merits instead.

    The process of understanding global warming and its causes isn't nearly as black and white as many of you make it out to be. The very few real scientists among us here are trained to have open minds when it comes to what they don't understand. The rest of us could benefit from following their lead.

    K
  16. FT Active Member

    Posts: 1,242
    Burlington, WA
    Ratings: +102 / 0
    Kent,

    This is exactly what I'm trying to get at and get folks to think about.

    As you said, "The process of understanding global warming and its causes isn't nearly as black and white as many of you make it out to be."

    And you voiced why I am a skeptic, "The very few real scientists among us here are trained to have open minds when it comes to what they don't understand."

    Since it is not understood; ts causes aren't clear; and there is skepticism withing Earth Scientist, Climatologist, Meteorologist, Oceanographers, and Environmental Scientist should there be all these somewhat definitive statements being made about it?
  17. creekx spent spinner

    Posts: 362
    Rancho Deluxe
    Ratings: +15 / 0
    Ironically, it seems the open-minded among us are those asking the questions. I would hardly classify those who refuse to debate or answer simple questions and instead resort to tired name-calling ("flat-earthers and "deniers" for example) as being open minded.
  18. JS Active Member

    Posts: 853
    Ratings: +41 / 0
    You know this for a fact? I am not questioning you I am just curious.
  19. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    .
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Hey Ken. It's the Nobel Peace Prize that he was awarded. Not a science prize. It's a political prize, not a "truth" prize. Although I have to agree, he is about a deserving a recipient as Arafat was... They've both done so much for peace!:rofl:

    Actually it seems to be that it's the believers who are less educated in science. Did you miss the "we should believe it because science can't prove anything!" post. The problem is that there is so little understanding of the scientific method, and such a watering down of standards that folks don't understand the point of science is to prove something, not to a "reasonable doubt", but to the point that given the same conditions what you are observing is repeatable, and that the outcome is NOT due to a chance occurence. Are drugs approved when a "preponderence" of evidence shows it is safe and effective? Does the FAA apporove airplane designs for commercial application based annecdotal evidence such as "look at the smog when you fly into Los Angeles!" No they don't, so why should we allow WORLD policy that would literally turn things on their heads to be dertermined by any standards less than the most stringent?

    And for those of you who think some of us are paranoid about the whole "Money and Power" angle Check this out http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/ Futures and Options trading on emissions allowances. Ya'll are dancing like monkeys while somebody's turning the crank.
  20. Rich L New Member

    Posts: 20
    san francisco, ca
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    forget the science and look at some simple math. 4.5 billion years of earth history of which 40% of the time the average global temperature was near or above 20 degrees celsius. All this happened prior to man's existance. since the industrial revolution started the average global temperature has been around 13-14 degrees celsius.

    There is an AP writer named John Heilprin. June of last year (on the same day) he submitted two stories. The first one was about the hottest day in the last 400 years. The second one was about the hottest day in the last 2000 years. Each article basically said the same thing. We look at the data, blah blah blah, its hot. On the surface the stories were correct, but what he failed to include was that in fact it was the coolest it has been in the last million years. His articles are misleading, intellectually dishonest, and negatively influence people.

    There are two natural phenomena that you can take to the bank. earth's climatic variability and people's proficiency at casting blame.

    :beathead:

    its :beer1: :30