Philster, I don't agree with your point of view, but I respect the fact that you have an opinion and you believe in something, (and that's on top of the respect I have for you after reading some of your FR posts; you are obviously an experienced angler). However, I don't agree with this sort of issue being on this particular board. You're not going to change anyone's mind on the issue anymore than they might change yours. But what's more likely to happen is people are going to start disrespecting one another over what is clearly much closer to a political-related issue than a fishing-related one. Again, this is said only in all-due-respects. Dave
Global warming is about money, power, and control. Who gets the money. Who gains in power and control. Nothing more. There is not one creditable piece of evidence that man is contributing in any significant manner to global warming.
and here i thought that climate change was actually a communist plot. that you all for clarifying your ignorance.
Kerry -- This is a big statement. Do you have any creditable -- or credible -- evidence to support your statement? -- Larry
Al Gore invented the interwebnetsuperhighway. He is the Adam to all us cyber yakkers. He is our father. He is our guiding light. He cheeses out eco-friendly flatulence that smells like crushed fruit.
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,
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!
Sure. Here's a link to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change Report. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html Here's a good article written by Gregg Easterbrook of the Brookings Institute: http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en...60517.pdf+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.
Here is someone who believes on the contrary. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/here-are-the-facts-bolt/2005/10/07/1128562994584.html
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:
And here I thought Mr. Easterbrook was just a huge Anti-semite who liked football! You learn things everyday!
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?
iagree, Whole heartedly! Egad, I never expected such logic from a San Fransiscan. 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.
That's what sicience is, nothing can be 'proven' in science, its just a preponderance of the evidence.
