The real problem as someone one knows debate and has partaken in debate in school in the past and taken some logic classes in university; the real problem is nobody knows how to have an actual conversation about anything these days...
Have a look at the posts, they are all over the place and argue about totally different aspect of a whole but aren't necessarily even the same thing.
Are we talking about Al Gores character?
Global warming scientific communties agreeance?
Evidence of global warming?
Effects on fisheries?
Et Cetera....et cetera...
Obviously, we could never really have the kind of discussion neccesary to make this kind of debate meaningful to any of us online. On top of that, as stated above, some of us don't even give a shit.
So in summary, when you think about these complex issues and talk to people about them, at least think about staying on point. Don't mix character attacks with science and science with politics. At least try not to.
Also, I agree with the above that threads like this aren't really useful on a fly fishing website. I think this problem could effect fishing immensely but a thread mentioning global warming as it relates to fisheries will never remain ONLY about global warming effecting fisheries.
Ummm... apparently you learned your science in law school. Where I took my graduate level statistics courses we used the term "statistical significance". There is a big difference. If someone doesn't know and understand that difference, the conclusions they draw from reading a study is highly suspect. :beathead: And the conclusions they draw from reading time magazine are highly predictable.
What do you expect? As I recalled another nuthead, Jimmy Carter, won the award. The myth of Global Warming is politically driven by morons like Gore. His "documentary", a Convienent Lie, causes mass hysteria yet proves nothing from a scientific stanpoint. I recall concern for a coming Global Ice Age not too many years back. I didn't believe that either.
Whether you care for Al Gore is one thing - but to suggest that there isn't a consensus in the scientific community on global warming and it's cause is erroneous.
Debates similar to this one have happened throughout mankinds existence on this planet. For thousands of years, mankind thought that the sun was the center of the universe. Scienc proved that one wrong. For some period of time, mankind also thought the earth was flat - again, science to the rescue. In some cultures, diseases were brought on by demons now, we recognize that some disease are either self inficted or that genetics play a role. For many years mankind believed that all matter on earth was composed of fire, ether, and stone, now we know differently. Even still, in 2007, there are people who believe that astrology is what determines the personality of human being etc.. All of these "accepted fact" by the generaly public have proven false through science. Science is what allows us to understand our surroundings, what things are made of, how things interact, forces, etc.. It is fascinating indeed to observe conversations such as this when people are so easily persuaded that science is somehow flawed...
Global warming isn't a new theory by any stretch, it's been a topic I've been aware of for at least 25 years. And with each passing year, the evidence grows increasingly stronger.
Surely for some, solid science won't convince them of the threats and reality of global warming. They've already made up their minds, don't confuse them with scientific evidence. To suggest that humans are not impacting the climate is ridiculous at this point, somewhat like arguing that evolution is just a "theory" but then again, gravity is also a "just a theory".
Anybody ever fly into Salt Lake City, or Denver, L.A., Manhattan? Did you notice that you can see a smog layer that covers hundreds of square miles? What do you think is creating that? And where do you think it goes? It doesn't go away - it stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years in the form of greenhouse gas. In these cities, this is pollution on a small scale, and yet, one can easily see the effects. To suggest that one cannot see greenhouse gas and it's affects is somewhat asking for us to be blind.
As anyone who has at least highschool physics will recall, matter is neither created nor destroyed. It can be transformed into other components however. 1 gallon of gasoline is tranformed into an equivalent mass of other gassses. Now mulitiply that same gallon of gasoline by the number of gallons consumed planet wide on a daily basis. Mutliply that same number by 365 days per year. Now mulitply that same number by the number of years that our population has been burning coal and burning petroleum products. Again, anyone with simple mathematical skills will arrive at an astounding huge number - a number which cannot be ignored. Today, we have 6 billion people on our planet - but that number will double again within a short period of time. Redo that same math and the problem continues grow.
The beauty of science is that it is self correcting. If there is evidence to support alternative ideas, science is able to re-evaluate and revise. That's the nature of science. In the realm of global warming, with each passing year, the scienctific evidence becomes stronger that mankind is having a huge impact on our climate, not visa-versa. Overwhelmingly, the scientific community accepts global warming and that mankind is to blame.
For billions of years, life was not possible even on this planet. And as far as we know, planet earth is the only planet that has life. Without an atmosphere, Mars is simply too cold and too hot for life to take hold. Venus on the other hand, is unable to sustain life because of the immense volume of greehouse gasses that exist there.
But as someone previously mentioned, one isn't going to win a debate on this topic in this forum. However, if one is serious about learning about global warming, what is creating it, and what the effects will be, they're going to have to put their pre-concieved notions aside, and be willing to examine the evidence published by the scientific community on their own. One is going to have to look at a wide variety of sources.
I agree. I don't know why you all are trying so hard to prove that global warming is not human caused when we are finally starting to see some significant movement towards a cleaner environment. Seems like a lot of good can come from this. Or we can just argue about competing evidence and just watch the world continue to get raped...that sounds like a good idea.
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.............
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?
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: