An Inconvenient Truth

Fish Hunter

Too many people, not enough fish
#62
05tacoma said:
Gore... invented internet, saving us from global warming... what next? World peace? I hope, hope, hope, he runs for president!
I'm confused, I thought All Gore Jr. invented everthing on the planet?

It's really quite simple - if we will just do what Al Gore Jr. tells us to do all will be right in the world.

Zeig Hile Gore Jr.!
 

Mingo

the Menehune stole my beer
#63
stokes said:
The Flat Earth Society told me Global Warming isn't real.

They also said that hatchery fish are as good as wild, I shouldn't be worried about my privacy (they'll take care of it for me), whatever they do is fine because God is on their side, tax breaks for the rich are more important than help for the poor, press leaks are treason unless it came from them, there oughta be limits to our freedoms, and I'm either with them or the terrorists.

"Mission Accomplished", they've scared me into submission.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm in the last throes of duct taping my house shut.

(That oughta lock it up)

p.s. The honourable Senator from Alaska is a pompous ass. :cool:

p.s.s. Thank you to to the Men and Women of our Armed Services. Seriously. I have the highest respect for your service and sacrifice. My qualms lie with what you are asked to do by those who have never walked a mile in your boots.



I was wondering when this was gonna turn to some babble like this.......................dude, there are many flavors of Kool-aid in this world, some are blue, some are red..........it's all still Kool-aid and you seem to be drinking a lot of it. The movie starred Al Gore, not the "Flat Earth Society". If you believe it, fine, that's your choice, but how you got wound up about tax breaks, hatchery fish and press leaks is beyond me............some people choose to look deeper than the "facts" Gore puts out, but scientists who dare to question his assertions are treated like pond scum.
 
#64
I am all for protecting out environment and thus don't have a problem with this movie, but I was just watching a few shows the other day that show that global warming is more of a recurring act that happens in waves over thousands and thousands of years. They showed that way before any industrialization there was a "global warming" that happened and did the same thing that is starting now, and then there was an ice age, etc etc.

I know its happening, and i'm sure its influenced by us, but I also do find vailidity in all I have read and seen on it also being cyclic. Either way, ill do my best to protect it just because I love our planet and don't see any reason why anyone, even someone who doesn't see any truth in global warming, would not try and just do their part to preserve it as best they can.
 
#65
The cyclic pattern is caused by the tilt of the earth changing. A few degrees change in tilt over a thousand years causing more sun for the Northern Hemisphere which then causes an increase in global temperature. Or Tilt the other way and less sun for the N. H. causing a decrease in global Temp.

All of the Ice ages on the earth were caused by changes in the earths tilt or by the emissions of dust from volcanoes high into the earths atmosphere blocking out the sun.

We are not experiencing any change in the earths tilt or any unusual volcanic activity. Our global warming is directly from Carbon Dioxide emissions. The science is proven, its time we do something about it.
 

Kent Lufkin

Remember when you could remember everything?
#66
mrpunkin said:
I am all for protecting out environment and thus don't have a problem with this movie, but I was just watching a few shows the other day that show that global warming is more of a recurring act that happens in waves over thousands and thousands of years. They showed that way before any industrialization there was a "global warming" that happened and did the same thing that is starting now, and then there was an ice age, etc etc. . . .
There's no question that earlier warming and cooling cycles were natural phenomenon that managed to occur due to unknown factors and entirely without assistance from man.

The notion that man has precipitated or accelerated the current round of warming is more hotly debated in groups like this than it is in scientific circles. Yes, there are *some* scientists who disagee with that notion. But for the most part, there is an unusually high level of agreement among mainstream scientists (those who regularly subject their findings to the peer review process and those who have no afflilations with or are paid by groups who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo) that man's activities have played a significant role.

O mykiss correctly pointed out why the question continues to be such a hot button: the combined influence of oil companies, auto manufacturers, 'end times' religious nuts, and polluting industries who would have to spend millions of dollars to clean up their current emissions. If you look at where these groups target their political contributions, it's usually to Republican candidates and causes.

That's why there's such a tendency among political conservatives to discredit the notion of man's contribution to global warming and to shoot the messenger when the message disagrees with what they've already chosen to believe.

If it had been Mother Theresa delivering the message of An Inconvenient Truth instead of Al Gore, she would have been criticized just as vigorously Gore has. For some, the message is indeed inconvenient, regardless of whose mouth it comes from.

K
 

Philster

Active Member
#67
mrpunkin said:
I am all for protecting out environment and thus don't have a problem with this movie, but I was just watching a few shows the other day that show that global warming is more of a recurring act that happens in waves over thousands and thousands of years.
I grew up in the sixties and seventies. People like me have had "ten years, tops" before irreversable damage would lead to all our deaths at least once a decade. Forgive me if I look at this stuff with a fair but jaded eye. The deserts were oceans. Frozen tundras have fossils of ferns. Yosemite National Park was crafted by glaciers. Cold comes, cold goes. Hot comes, hot goes. I can think of lots of good IMMEDIATE reasons to improve emissions, slow down or reverse deforestation, protect wetlands, and do lots of other "good" things that have no connection to a big scary "heat" gun to our heads.

It can be argued either way, but to the truly objective, the fact that it's happened cyclically, including "mini-freezes" in the last 300 years, has got to shift a little crediblillity to the "not our fault" side on the warming side. Are we poisoning wildlife and ourselves? Yes! Is it stupid to not address that globally right now and in hurry? Yes! Are we making it hotter? Well... Until the true believers can acknowledge that those that don't believe it aren't necessarily idiots, they will continue to alienate folks who can be recruited to help on an immediate and local level.

To alter a line from Rick James on Dave Chappelle "political correctness is a hell of a drug". Tell folks living in cardboard boxes in undeveloped parts of the world that they can't have refrigeration because temps have gone up a fraction of a degree. Tell China it has to stop what it's doing. Central or what used to be called "eastern" europe? We actually are doing a pretty good job cleaning up in this country. Is it slow? Yes! Is it in the right direction and pretty good progress considering the lack of impact on our lifestyles in this country? Yes! In the long run does 8 years of an administration that is "less than sensitive to the environment" mean irreperable damage? No, we just have to push as hard as they have next time and reestablish some balance. That's how those dudes in wigs designed this country... Are we even close to the worst offenders even taking into account the percentage of resources we consume? NO! Lets do better by all means, but unless you're ready to start speaking out about the rest of the world to change, you're worthless and weak!

I'll be honest with you, I activelly fight for and educate my kids about all the "good" fights listed above because I am concerned about myself and my children getting poisoned or suffocated by what we do. I don't particularly buy that we will drown because of what we do. But the bottom line is, ask yourself this question: as long as we fight those fights together does it really matter what you believe? :thumb:
 
#68
I am a conservative. Financial conservative, political conservative, idealogical conservative. Registered Republican, although the parent organization doesn't always speak for me, nor I for it. That being said, I don't see why the huge fuss is being made in a fly fishing forum about the global warming "scare". I respect the environment, am careful when accessing lakes and rivers. I catch and release as carefully as I can. I don't have a problem with those who keep a fish now and then, but I never do. I drive a fuel efficient car, even though it annoys me that it is gutless. I don't pour my engine oil on the ground, I recycle and compost. I may have even been seen to hug a tree now and then. In my life and in my my fishing, I am a conservative. That means I strive to conserve the resources available because it is the right thing to do, for myself, my kids and my grandkids - and yours too. If you love to fly fish, it would seem a safe assumption that you love the outdoors. Mountains, trees, water, wildlife - all of the natural ecology. Even if only from a purely selfish motivation, it only makes sense to protect and defend that which you love. No fear mongering scare tactics necessary.
 

creekx

spent spinner
#69
I know its happening, and i'm sure its influenced by us, but I also do find vailidity in all I have read and seen on it also being cyclic. Either way, ill do my best to protect it just because I love our planet and don't see any reason why anyone, even someone who doesn't see any truth in global warming, would not try and just do their part to preserve it as best they can.
Well put, mrpunkin.

Which is more noble:

1. Doing what's right for the environment simply because you care, regardless of your political leanings, or

2. Using the issue and fear-mongering to push an entire sociopolitical agenda?

The notion that man has precipitated the current round of warming is more hotly debated in groups like this than in scientific circles. Yes, there are *some* scientists who disagee with that notion, but for the most part, there is an unusually high level of agreement among mainstream scientists (those who regularly subject their findings to the peer review process and those who have no afflilations with or are paid by groups who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo) that man's activities have played a significant role.

O mykiss correctly pointed out why the question continues to be such a hot button: the combined influence of oil companies, auto manufacturers, 'end times' religious groups, and polluting industries who would have to spend millions of dollars to clean up their current emissions. If you look at where these groups target their political contributions, it's usually Republicans.
To summarize: The motives of scientists who receive government grants or are funded by environmental lobbies like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace cannot be questioned, but if evil corporations fund research, we are to immediately dismiss and discredit their work.

...and no debate here would be complete without the obligatory religion-bashing.

The day science declares the debate over on any issue, is the day science dies.
 

gt

Active Member
#70
was a time lindasjon, when the republican party reflected your values. after all it was RMN who actually did more to protect our environment than anyone following teddy R.

that is not the case today, unfortunately.

yes, the earth does move in cycles. but as pointed out, they occur over time periods that are very hard for us, who are here but for an eye blink, to comprehend. millions of years of forces we still do not understand have shaped out planet and our environment.

what we are now seeing are changes measured in years not millenia. years, that is our time on earth and we are screwing this place up right and left.

probably time to understand that during our brief life time we are making our environment unfriendly to life itself.

do we understand all of the contributing causes? hell no. will we ever?? hell no. does that give us license to do nothing about the contributing factors we control?? hell no.
 
#71
Completely understood that we have an effect on our environment, and should be accountable for it. I, as Philster said as well, can think of many reasons to cut emissions aside from warming.

I also believe that this planet is the work of an amazing God and that we are here to take care of it, which I do my part. That also though is why I find some of my beliefs lie in the idea of cyclic warming and cooling. Who is to say that the whole ring of fire won't blow in 25 years covering the earth in a cloud of ash and over a period of weeks remove all the global warming from the past 100 years?

I don't know what will or won't happen but I will continue doing my part on the assumption that everything has concequences and one of those may be drastically increased global warming due to lack of environmental concerns. But who knows, maybe even if global warming gets worse a natural disaster will happen, shield out the sun, and life starts over much cooler on earth.
 

chadk

Be the guide...
#72
Kent Lufkin said:
If it had been Mother Theresa delivering the message of An Inconvenient Truth instead of Al Gore, she would have been criticized just as vigorously Gore has. For some, the message is indeed inconvenient, regardless of whose mouth it comes from.

K
:rofl: I doubt it. Coming back from the dead just to do a polically motivated docudrama would surely get a lot of peoples attention.


Then again, you may be right. Al Gore has about as much personality as a dead mother theresa, so we probably wouldn't even notice the difference :clown:
 

chadk

Be the guide...
#73
LindasJon said:
I am a conservative. Financial conservative, political conservative, idealogical conservative. Registered Republican, although the parent organization doesn't always speak for me, nor I for it. That being said, I don't see why the huge fuss is being made in a fly fishing forum about the global warming "scare". I respect the environment, am careful when accessing lakes and rivers. I catch and release as carefully as I can. I don't have a problem with those who keep a fish now and then, but I never do. I drive a fuel efficient car, even though it annoys me that it is gutless. I don't pour my engine oil on the ground, I recycle and compost. I may have even been seen to hug a tree now and then. In my life and in my my fishing, I am a conservative. That means I strive to conserve the resources available because it is the right thing to do, for myself, my kids and my grandkids - and yours too. If you love to fly fish, it would seem a safe assumption that you love the outdoors. Mountians, trees, water, wildlife - all of the natural ecology. Even if only from a purely selfish motivation, it only makes sense to protect and defend that which you love. No fear mongering scare tactics necessary.
Exactly.

Actually, I don't hug many trees, but I do plant them. I plant as many on my property as I can. And I volunteer to help grow and plant them in public places when I can. Trees are a great way to fight CO2 emissions. The more trees the better. Who could be against planting trees? :confused:
 

creekx

spent spinner
#75
How ironic. The very people who preach that it is healthy and necessary to question authority, will not question "authority" when it fits within their own ideology, nor will they allow any room for debate.

Their message is simple: You either partake of Al Gore's koolaide, or you are an evil, environment destroying, right-wing, christian whacko. It's unfortunate, because in their zeal to own the issue and gain politically from it, they lose any moral ground - and we all lose in the long run.