Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by TomB, Feb 2, 2007.
It'll mean you're less of a girl than you were when you used more ice!:rofl:
Nope mykiss. I agree with you entirely. I hate the rollbacks the bush administration put in, and I will be as angry a voter as there is if the Dems don't take some serious actions quickly. I do however feel that regulations that can't be met are ridiculous and stupid and can only hinder things not help them. Reasonable Regulation, Technology, and Market Forces together. That's what I believe in. I only brought up market forces because gt said the crabbers were going out less because of the cost of gas and a bad harvest and he chalked it up to environmentalism. I had to point out the actual factor in play...
The "market" or the theory of it is based on the same "science" or methodology as science.
If you believe this, then you are contradicting the latter portion of the previous quote.
As people begin to demand clean energy and become more environmentally responsible, the market will respond and instead of harming the environment may work for it. Hmm, that damn market may have a point.
I didn't mean it as a personal attack. I apologize if it came across that way. It was a bit of sarcasm perhaps, intended to give you room to say, "well, I really don't understand every scientific paper in "atmospherics, space science, life sciences, aeronautics, and computer science," but not a personal attack.
I do know a little about how science and the review process work, however. I spent some time as an editor of a scientific journal in the life sciences. I know how tough it is to get highly qualified review of scientific papers in a discipline where I was as thoroughly aware of the literature and the people in the field as anyone. Hence, my remark questioning of your comment that you could "analyze any study" and "see the flaws and weaknesses."
I'm also very involved in interdisciplinary environmental science. It's a huge field and tough to stay on top of. My hat's off to you for even trying.
Really? Does it add to global warming???:clown:
The average US citizen probably does put close to 7 tons of CO2 into the air annually... you have to take into consideration alot of the electricity your house is powered by is generated by combustion of fossil fuels.. and then you take into consideration the LARGE SUVS every one in the U.S. drives put out loads of CO2... then you talk about gas furnaces.. woodstoves... lawn mowers.. cutting the lawn... boating... not to mention every breath you exhale is 25,000ppm C02(not that its the largest contributor) but it does add up. Plus has anyone else everheard the statistic that i read a few years ago that if you operate a two stroke boat motor for 12 hours its the equivalent in pollution of driving an average car like thousands of miles...I forget the exact number..
Plus when you compare all that... to an average person in a non-civilized country who may ride a bike or walk to work... work in a field all day.. then return home by foot... its alot less CO2 production than our lifestyles..
everyone of us using a computer.. watching tv.. turning on lights... heating our home... in general living with luxuries ot ...that other not as advanced countries dont have are thus creating more CO2..
I know here in the PNW our power comes from mainly from hydroelectric but in many other parts of the country COAL is still being burned to generate electricity... and yes its bad in China too ...they just have a few billion people to use as divisers ...so there annual tonnage per person is much lower. Hey at least running a mile in washington isnt the equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes like it is in many asian countries!
Plus again.. when you say "average" some may be lower than average but you have to remember THAT ONE person that is WAYYYY above the average!
I may have been less than clear but I was talking about being able to spot the "value" and holes in the design of studies, not the analysis of the data and findings. I played no part of that end. Although I was often asked to evaluate the "performance" of some researchers in terms of career development, but I had to have my hand held the entire way on the technical side. I never intended to say I understood everything under the sun, but that I was trained to break down a study and look for the blind spots. Sometimes it's as simple as researchers not converting everything to metric (happens all the time), sometimes its more subtle like a researcher failling to control for the effect of light on the control group while looking at frog embryo development in space in a dark sealed environment. I learned more than I ever wanted to about frog embryo development:beathead: I even learned a little about giraffe ankles once. A blood pressure study for prolonged space habitation... See, despite the high blood pressure required to get blood to their brains, Giraffe's ankles don't swell. Like I said, I was priviledged to have that job.
I don't even attempt to stay on top of environmental science. Things change too quickly and frankly as I stated before, predictive branches are not anything I have faith or confidence in...
I like my current life better I must say.
f-.'d up , thats all, fk'ddd up, ya'll are but thats why and then I was gonna because you didn't and we should have
hehe...talk about pouring gasoline on a fire....
"f-.'d up , thats all, fk'ddd up, ya'll are but thats why and then I was gonna because you didn't and we should have"
Words of wisdom and with such clarity. DAVY for President !!!!
So just who employs the so-called 90 percent of scientists, so that they can provide themselves and their families a living. Would be a little bit harder to get those GRANTS, if they were on the other side of the issue.
Aren't these the same Fund suckers that said we were heading to an ice-age only 25 damn years ago. Of course the earth is warming, it's just part of a cycle. So what stopped the ice age? Maybe it was all those caveman fires. And why do they call Greenland "Greenland? because it used to be "GREEN". That koolaid sure must be good! JMHO.
Actually Greenland was named so as a ploy to encourage settlement to that region, as opposed to Iceland. Look it up.
And the Ice age was terminated by orbital forcing, a natural force. Current trends can't be assocaiated with any drivers other than the increase of man-made gases in the atmosphere.
I told you to quit using those big words around me son!
So i guess after all these Billions of years, orbital force ended 25 years ago?
Ok tying up the new fly for the summer swap, 15 tons annually. Can't quite get my materials right for the perfect fly.