Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by otter, Jun 25, 2006.
I think Al Gore should sit down and chat with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and the Gates Foundation. That is some serious pocket change that could be used to battle the massive threat of Global Warming. Helping find cures for disease, improving education, etc won't help anyone if we are all dead!!
"It doesn't take much research to see this is mostly not a natural thing happening. We did it"
"Mostly"? Do you have a rough percentage? I haven't read as many studies as some of you have, so maybe you can help clarify this for me.
As always, you can find any number of quite convincing arguments for both sides...
nature is cyclical, humans could only contribute like .0001% like ChadK said, or it could be more. Theres just really no way to be certain how much we impact it.
At least in the matter of Global Warming. Now, tearing down rain-forests and building huge dams on all of the major rivers etc., that just plain sucks and is much more hazardous to our environment than me having to drive to work 4 days/week.
first post in a while here... can we get past the 'has pollution affected gcc?' question. because it has. period. even the gvt has conceded that humans have affected the climate. but now we must 'verify' it which entails numerous well respected scientists in agreement and a few oil-funded 'scientists' who say its a crock. A few powerful people champion these reports further delaying any chance of anything actually getting done. having taken a few environmental studies and ecology classes i can't really imagine how anyone can honestly believe it's cool to release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and nothing bad will happen. Go take some chemistry, learn the carbon cycle. what's too bad is the people that really need to see this movie are the ones that arent going to.
Chad K, I will buy you a ticket to this movie. Saying that we cannot alter the present course of things is the most absurdly wrong statement in this thread. US emission levels did not rise significantly between 1990 and 2000 because of the clean air act despite an enormous growth in industry. If our gvt got off its ass, democrats and republicans, and did something productive, results would surely be had. in a nutshell this is really simple. carbon is a green house gas. the earth emits carbon, and then later it is sequestered. there is a balance, that does go up and down (glaciations). right now we are emitting far more carbon than the earth can handle, as well as other insulative gasses. thus we have warming. anyways, im all for acting locally on smaller projects, but hell this is serious. wake up everyone.
on a more related note, to the site anyways, yesterday i caught my biggest ever largemouth out of my pond. It was 21.5" and i'm guessing about 5 lbs. it took a cork popper. pictures once i develop, i havent gone digital yet.
We've been blessed with the only lush green planet in our solar system. As far as I know, there is NO fishing on any other planet in our solar system. Earth is made up of 5/8th water. (a rare thing anywhere but here) If we want to go fishing, we need to be good stewards of our water. If we want to live on dry land, we need to be a good steward of dry land. In my book, "Good Stewardship" is defined as (Responsible Ownership) So maybe just maybe, we would want to be careful how we use our blessings. Absolutely NO politics involved here. Just REAL concern.
Assuming you mean Carbon Dioxide, because Carbon is not a gas. So, tell me, does anything on earth use CO2? Hmm... maybe plants that take in CO2 and water and produce Oxygen... And air temperature heats water? You think that a warmer atmosphere has that significant an effect on the ocean temperatures? I have no doubt that the earth is warming, but I don't believe there is anything near consensus in the scientific community (at least not from everything that I have read) as to why the earth is warming. The most logical explanation that I have read is a different idea, but this truly is one of those issues that we are not going to come to a consensus on.
In fact, it's funny how people will bash and bash on how stupid our gov't is (not saying you have done that, btw) and then turn around and say 'It is true, even our gov't says it is true'. Yes, this topic is definitely a hotspot and unfortunately we can't say for sure why it is happening, we do not have the historical data to back up anybody's point. Do we know the temperature (empirically) of the layers and locations of the earth 2k years ago? No. Do we know the various gas levels in the atmosphere from 2k years ago? No. Does that mean we should continue to run amok in our environment? No, we need to be conversation minded, but taking that to extremes and assuming that we can interpolate scientific data back thousnads of years based on maybe 100 years of data when we truly don't understand the base interactions within this world today is absurd. Or so it seems to me.
the cycle part of carbon cycle refering to changes between gaseous and other states. look up the definition of sequester. carbon is emitted in the form of carbon dioxide, and the ocean and organisms reabsorb much of this carbon. this cycle must have balance. this is why people are all about biodiesel. it's not that it doesnt pollute, it's that it is carbon neutral. the plants used in biodiesel take in the same amount of carbon as is released when the fuel is burned so there is not a net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. it takes many thousands of years for dead stuff (carbon) to turn in to the coal and oil that we use. we use it very quickly. thus, emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is not anywhere near being carbon neutral. which is bad. is that any clearer. i really don't know that much. if you want real science, google james hansen, the leading climatologist at NASA. he knows his stuff and recently has been silenced for trying to express the gravity of the problem. he is a government scientist who understands climate systems better than just about anyone.
Those are interesting points. I find it interesting that many fly fisherpersons like to think of themselves as environmentally conscious and aware and/or wanting to make a difference, but many of us (including myself) drive a gas-guzzling carbon-monoxide gushing truck or SUV. Probably most of us could get away with a smaller car that isn't 4X4. I know I could, but somehow it's phsychologically difficult for me to give up my SUV.
But, I know I should, and I am seriously looking at getting a different, smaller rig that gets better gas mileage. Because of gas costs. Partially, but primarily because of emissions. It has to start somewhere, and even a little bit helps, right?
I have a gas guzzling 4x4. 2 actually... I have no plans to get a smaller rig. Instead, several days per week I vanpool. That way I don't have to feel bad (or light in the pocket book) when I want to drive somewhere to fish
Most of the opposition to the theory that anthropomorphic factors are a significant cause of global climate change comes from a strange coalition of right wing Christian fundamentalists and apologists for American business - i.e., those who believe that any sensitivity towards the natural world borders on the sacreligious and that the decline of the environment is almost to be welcomed as a fulfillment of the End Times prophecies, and those who are transfixed by a quasi-worship of the laissez faire economics that causes them to believe that only bad things can come from interfering with business (as usual). It is only stating the obvious to point out that these two factions dominate the Republic Party and their leadership today. (I mean, is it any coincidence that the only Republican of national stature that doesn't shamelessly ally himself with the Christian right (John McCain) is also the only Republican of national stature that is willing to suggest that humans appear to be a significant cause of climate change and that maybe, given the stakes at issue, we ought to think about doing something about that?)
The business apologists' suggestion that the economy is going to go to hell in a handbasket if we act decisively to cap (or preferably) reduce green house gas emissions is a farce. Whatever negative impact there might be from curbing human activities that produce green house gases would be more than offset by the economic growth generated by the discovery and production of new, "greener" technologies, to say nothing of avoiding the catastrophic economic consequences that global climate change will wreak over the longer term (unless you believe that we can have a balanced and growing economy based on the manufacture of air conditioners). If I recall, around 1940 we confronted a pretty serious threat to life as we knew it, and reorganized the economy to address that threat. My gosh, not only did we live through it, it launched America's great economic ascendancy. What the f*&+ are we so afraid of now? I suppose nothing, but that is not going to stop the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Independent Petroleum Association of America from trying to bamboozle every American into believing that we're going to turn into a third world country if we try to do something to curb human caused green house gases. People who believe that are the ones who are drinking Kool Aid.
As an aside, it's really too bad that GOP has changed so dramatically that most Republicans today no longer have a clue who people like Morris Udall, Bill Ruckleshaus, Mark Hatfield and Pete McCloskey were because anyone who actually has the temerity to suggest a balanced approach to the economy and the environment is marginalized if not drummed out of the party outright. As long as the GOP stays in power, I think it is pretty clear that the U.S. will continue to stay in the dark ages on this issue.
Take it a step further...get an eco car and still vanpool...that way you don't have to feel bad about saying you don't feel bad, just don't make a slight difference ..make a big difference. :clown: (JK) ..I hear you ChadK
Hey sold the ford ranger pu that avg. 20 mpg.....for a honda civic..avg 42. But I hate the idea of not throwing crap in the back and going to the dump...or going to Pacific Top and getting gravel/dirt/bark when I want to.
Sacrifices are being made
I'm curious about what makes this topic so contentious? Is it the uncertainty?
I read that fewer and fewer Americans take science in school anymore, beyond minimal requirements. If there is a lack of science education among Americans, I wonder how many of those who've posted in this thread are writing from a base of rational logic instead of visceral opinion. I find a lot of scientific articles difficult to understand - anybody enjoy Scientific American for their leisure reading? And I've taken a lot of college biology, physics, chemistry, and organic chem.
I suspect that most folk's opinions are based on the second or third-hand biased sources of information that they choose precisely because they support their preconceived personal biases or political persuasion. I read a lot of science, but no direct climate research, only second-hand. Any of you actually read the direct research? If so, what does that say?
Well, if you want to find out how much you contribute to Global Warming go to the following web site:
I don't think most people realize how much they contribute to global warming with their lifestyle. We came up with 1/4 of the average American household....but then again...All our household energy comes from solar energy. Our commute to work is 3/4 mile. And I haven't taken a jet trip in over ten years.
Go through the calculations and see what you want to cut out of your lifestyle to meet the Kyoto targets.