Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by plecoptera419, Sep 19, 2013.
What is that I smell? Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop...
Whenever I read articles like this, I can't help but realize the power and dangers of being wrapped up in a paradigm. Without considering the accuracy of the claims in the article, I was instinctually disappointed at the idea that the planet might NOT be heading towards catastrophic overheating at the hands of humans. If these claims were true, it would mean I was wrong in believing climate change scientists and the agenda pushed by "libtards" like Al Gore. It would mean that yokels who haven't touched scientific thought since the 9th grade could say "I told ya' so." It would also mean that we might not be cooking ourselves to death - which would be a very good thing. But It wasn't the long-term fate of planet earth, or even the short term fate of salmonids that my mind was concerned with while reading the article, it was the idea that my agenda was being attacked and I might be wrong.
In situations like these, it scares me how easy it is to get so rooted into an opinion that I'll dismiss an argument purely because I don't like the implications of it being correct. Because I consider myself to be on the "open-minded" and "progressive" side of the debate, the idea that I'm being closed-minded isn't even on my radar. Anybody else ever realize their own bias when they read something like this and hope that scientists and policy-makers don't fall into the same trap?
Do you think Al will be a stand-up guy and give the money back?
I read the article and I don't think it says anything of significance about the main features of global climate change. For as long as I have been following this issue, there have always been data that weren't perfectly predicted by the models. The models themselves are based on prior data, so they can't always accommodate natural variation in data such as those discussed here.
That said, by far the majority of deviations from model expectations have involved observations that climate change is progressing more rapidly than models have predicted, probably due to feedback loops that weren't accommodated in the models. So, while I'm sure the climate change deniers will jump all over this as the smoking gun that scientists don't know what they are talking about, the climate scientists will debate and learn from this and develop some new hypotheses that can be tested by more research. That's how science advances.
It doesn't advance by denying the findings already obtained.
Did anyone else see the article in the Seattle Times earlier this week about a seminar local weather guru Cliff Mass tried to organize to discuss climate change (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021826582_westneat15xml.html)?
He tried to pair a group of scientists with a group of deniers (ie. non- or psuedo-scientists, or those in the pocket of big business who stand to lose the most should emission regulations ever be imposed) for an open and honest discussion about the facts. Turns out that both sides have become so entrenched in their own orthodoxy that the discussion quickly deteriorated into name-calling before the seminar was held (and which Mass cancelled before it even began.)
To paraphrase Cruick's very good point above, "Don't try to confuse me with facts - I already know what I want to believe."
You mean the world really is round? Sure does look flat to me!
Oh come on Kent...do you really believe those "scientists" in academia don't have any bias or stand to profit from this debate? One only needs to follow the money to see that pure, unbiased science has been whored out by pimps, from every walk of life, who stand to profit.
Creating a false narrative to get the momentum and sell the theory is a clever tactic... until the foundation of the argument begins to crumble. At that point, those who started it become incensed that they've been found out and simply double down on protecting the goose that lays their golden eggs.
I've come to the conclusion that human's are incapable of looking at things from a global perspective. We're too short-lived to identify with concepts that could encompass decades, let alone centuries or thousands of years. You don't have to look any further than our fisheries to see how poorly we grasp the bigger concepts. And the more we look at the details, the harder it gets to see the bigger picture. We are, by and large, incapable of grasping anything but our immediate needs and surroundings.
The good news is, that guy who says second-hand cigarette smoke isn't bad has already debunked the IPCC report through his heartland-institute (the guys who think global warming is fake because the unibomber) funded "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change".
Personally, I look forward to the hurried demise of the human species. I do everything I can to contribute toward that cause on a global scale because I, for one, look forward to the apocalypse, and plan on enjoying it immensely.
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
I do so hope they're salmonfly's who use fly fisherman to wreak havoc on trout species that killed their kind in mass. Year round season, no reg's and no limits!
“I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern: a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure.”
Agent Smith - The Matrix
Just received this image and the context below from a friend. Seemed like a perfect thing to share in this discussion.
Context: "At the Wednesday college convocation, a social scientist with a degree in statistics fudged data that she wanted to hide from us. Those of us who knew the data set -- two English profs, me, and a sociologist -- called her out. It's on par with the time an economist told a committee that inconvenient data could not be presented because there was no room on the page. Egad."
"global warming" morphs into "climate change".... weren't you just a happier person before the lobbyists got their "hooks" into "your" minds??