Inconveinient Truth

[MKern]

Have any of you seen the movie by Al Gore. I was a skeptic, but after the movie I am a believer. He used a lot of good facts, plus had some witty jokes. It was like I was back at college listening to a lecture.
Anyway, my point is that if SCIENCE is correct, there will be no such thing as trout fishing with in my lifetime. Not too happy about that. Looks like you old timers lucked out. :lol:

 

[tabasco_joe]

There is far from a consensus among scientists that global warming is man made. Even among those that believe it is there is concern that Al's "facts" are exaggerated.
There have been temperature cycles on the earth for eons. Most of which are caused by the suns cyclic nature. When the Vikings found Greenland there were large forests and little ice pack. They settled there and farmed the land. As the European glaciers contract Roman villages, roads, and mines are being found.
Trout have evolved through these changes for thousands of years and will certainly survive through this cycle. Their range may change but they will be here.
Or we could just take up bass fishing!

 

[Wulff-Man]

As tabasco_joe said, there will be trout, but you may have to go to Canada for them in your later years. The same goes for health insurance and social security! :-(

 

[tomgamber]

Actually some of the theories about global warming say the change in the oceans temperatures could actually result in a cooling period in addition to warming trends. Rapid changes in the oceans temps would wreak havoc on and possibly interupt the convection which takes place in the oceans on the planet. Imagine what the weather in the east coast would be like if say the gulf stream stopped brining warm water northward. Or if the current stopped bringing cool water south along the west coast. I don't believe that we will lose trout fishing in our lifetime. I do believe that man has contributed to the conditions that affect our planet today. I do believe that man can and should minimize his negative affect on the planet. I do believe there are cyclical warming and cooling trends on the earth and that the last "little ice age" was actually caused by oceanic warming in the manner described above. But you can't convince me that removing one half of the oxygen producing ecologies (forests) and continually introducing more and more carbons, in greater and greater amounts, into the atmosphere does not have a negative affect. I have yet to see the film. I'll get around to it. anyway, thats my 2 cents...recycle, pick up your litter, plant a tree, ride your bike instead of driving short distances...there are many things that as individuals we can do that actually make a difference. If we can't to that point, we'll never convince big business to their part.

 

[Wmass]

LET ME PUT THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE IN A VERY SIMPLE AND STRAIGHT FORWARD CONTEXT.

For those who don't believe the earth is warming: It is! It has been absolutely proven with data accumulated from hundreds of sources--> such as tree rings, ice core samples, satelite data, and average temps recorded since the late 1800s. There is definitely something going on and it is happening at a rapid rate--> I am only 28 years old and as a kid I can remember ice skating on local ponds starting in November but now we are lucky if the ponds freeze solid once in an entire winter.


For those who don't believe that Global Warming is caused by man's actions: The perma-frost in the arctic no longer remains solid throughout the entire year, and this change has only occurred in the past 15-20years. The glaciers around the world are melting at a rapid pace. Photos from the 1950s of glaciers in the Andes mountains show huge masses of ice, current photos show that they have shrunken by almost 90%. The icepack in the Arctic is becoming so unstable that polar bears (a species that has adapted to living and hunting on the ice) can no longer feed enough to sustain themselves and breed through the spring. Polar bears are struggling to survive so they are now wandering into local towns and breaking into houses, where they are then shot.


For those who don't want to do anything about it: What do you want to leave your children? How about your grandchildren?


What is the downside of doing anything?: What would be the downside of cleaner fuel sources? What would so terrible about being a little more conservative with our energy resources? As I see it, there is little downside to doing something---> Conservatives point to the economy and jobs but the reality is that this is a poor excuse made up by companies who do not want to change their polution practices.

 

[tomgamber]

Wmass wrote:


For those who don't believe that Global Warming is caused by man's actions: The perma-frost in the arctic no longer remains solid throughout the entire year, and this change has only occurred in the past 15-20years. The glaciers around the world are melting at a rapid pace. Photos from the 1950s of glaciers in the Andes mountains show huge masses of ice, current photos show that they have shrunken by almost 90%. The icepack in the Arctic is becoming so unstable that polar bears (a species that has adapted to living and hunting on the ice) can no longer feed enough to sustain themselves and breed through the spring. Polar bears are struggling to survive so they are now wandering into local towns and breaking into houses, where they are then shot.

this is all great evidence, and while its all true, this paragraph does absolutely nothing to prove or even point the finger at a man made cause. Remember I'm with you on this. But if you want to convince someone that A+B=C. You can't just show them B and C. I don't think Jack could get his guy acquitted based on what you have presented. That is why we shouldn't discourage those who are actually trying to prove what we believe to be true. Why do you think there is such an aggressive campaign against global warming activists. They are afraid of the day we find the smokig gun.

What is the downside of doing anything?: What would be the downside of cleaner fuel sources? What would so terrible about being a little more conservative with our energy resources? As I see it, there is little downside to doing something---> Conservatives point to the economy and jobs but the reality is that this is a poor excuse made up by companies who do not want to change their pollution practices.

More people should have this attitude. Then it wouldn't even matter if we are correct in assuming that man is the problem.

 

[redrockgrizzly]

I saw a show not so long ago, (history channel, NG or simular) on the Wooly Mammoth and the ice age. there is a theory that the WM went extinct because of global warming. I thought that was interesting.

 

[od354]

Just to add info to the disscussion...there are other opionions on this topic and wherther you believe it or not, Global Warming is by no means undisputed scientific fact...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

 

[Coughlin]

I think Tomgambler has it right when he quotes Wmass about addressing the problem. As a matter of inference, man is an obvious suspect. Ok. But whether we are to blame or not shouldn't be the issue. The data are clear that significant change is happening and little of it appears to be good. Conservation and research on alternative fuels NOW is the answer.
Coughlin

 

[harry]

Mike:
Tell me you don't really believe what politicans expound
upon. After all what did Al Gore invent.

 

[schrec]

MKern,
IMO, I doubt trout fishing would dissappear. The average temp would rise a few degrees F. Spring fed waters would still be cool enough. An increase in storms and moisture in the mid-atlantic and eastern states -- which I heard could be one result of increased global warming -- would result in stronger underground spring flows with more water in the table. Marginal water might lose trout, but would probably become better for smallmouth bass, they're better fighters anyway. ;^)
The sky ain't falling yet, young man.

old timer,
schrec

 

[Will]

Just because you can find a scientist here or there who remains skeptical doesn't change the fact that there is an overwhelming majority view among climatologists that global warming is real and it is caused by man. You also can find scientists who doubt that HIV causes AIDS or that cigarettes are carcinogenic. We've got serious policy decisions to make here and around the world, and for my money it makes sense to listen to the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion rather than the outlying views.

 

[FarmerDave]

Global warming is a fact. What is actually causing it is the unknown. From what I have read, most scientists agree that the earth is on a warming trend, even without human contribution. Most agree that humans are contributing to it. what they don't know is how much. ... and we will never know that. That is why it is such a political football.

As far as Al Gore goes, he is one of the biggest hypocrites alive. His mansion? He uses more energy in one month than the average American uses in 2 years. He says that is OK, because he buys green credits. What a bunch of hogwash. Unless he has his own reactor or hydro-electric dam in his back yard, it is only lip service for a fee. The electricity all comes from the same grid. Yes, he pays for green energy to heat his buns and make his creme broulet, but that simply means everyone else is using the dirty stuff to heat their beans and wieners. ITS ALL THE SAME GRID!!! And lets not forget the stunt he pulled on the Connecticut river in 2000 during the second worste drought in 100 years. The guy thinks everyone else in this world is stupid and can't see that kind of horsepoo.

That said, if his efforts draws more attention to the issue, then more power to him. I just think he would be a whole lot more convincing if he practiced what he preaches. He certainly has the money.

Another interesting fact is that livestock produce way more greenhouse gasses than automobiles. So, instead of installing catalytic converters on wood burners, maybe someone should work on fitting one on a cow. I know what you are thinking, but if you all turned vegitarian to get rid of livestock, then they will be installing converters in your underwear.
:lol:

P.S. the trout are not going anywhere unless the state gets so populated that all the water is used up. That is just stupid scare tactics.

 

[albatross]

There are a number of levels to this issue.

1) Is warming happening or not?

2) Who's to blame, man or nature?

3) Can (should) we do anything about it?


Probably most people would accept that global warming is happening. The "blame" question is intertwined with the "can we do anything about it" question. If man is not the cause, then our actions would probably be meaningless in trying to change it.

If we accept that a change is in progress and that we want to alter the outcome, should we limit our options to reduced CO2 emmissions (and related conservation type efforts) or should we do other more active things to impact climate. For example, I've heard that the Antarctic Ocean is inncredibly iron poor. There has been specualtion that man could seed the Antarctic Ocean with iron and that the resulting algae blooms would tie up huge amounts of CO2. Of course there could be unintended consequences.

Food for thought...

 

[Wulff-Man]

Here's another novel solution: Have you heard about the eminent Nobel Prize winning climatologist who (seriously) has proposed that we pump SO2 into the atmosphere to "shade" us from the sun and therefore cool the earth? You think we have acid rain problems now :-o ??!!! I think that guy must be too smart for his (and our) own good.

I don't think there's much doubt that warming exists. There's just too much evidence, from measurements and analysis by many many experts in the field, to anecdotal information I keep seeing. I'm watching a show about grizzley bears in Yellowstone, and they're talking about how they're running out of a major protein source (some kind of grubs) in the higher elevations because it's getting too warm. I'm watching a show about the Inuits, and they're talking about how they are losing their entire way of life, that they have been living for many hundreds of years, because it's getting too warm. The Glaciers in Glacier National Park are shrinking away to nothing. And so on and so on.

I don't know if it's due to human activity, but I think it is, at least to a significant degree. The CO2 dynamics that are modeled must have some affect. So I agree that we should do all that we can to reduce what we can.

 

[Wulff-Man]

FarmerDave wrote:
Another interesting fact is that livestock produce way more greenhouse gasses than automobiles. So, instead of installing catalytic converters on wood burners, maybe someone should work on fitting one on a cow.

I'm picturing rows of cows lined up, like they are on milking machines, but their @$$es are connected to tubing that takes their "fuel" to a power generation plant. Two birds with one stone!

 

[od354]

Please don’t get me wrong, I did not post that link to dispute that fact that the earth is in a warming trend. It was posted to show that there IS great debate among scientists as to the cause (despite what you see on CNN or the nightly news)...is it caused by humans or something natural? I believe, either way, that it is in our best interest to conserve what natural resources we have and search out alternatives for the future...

And as for Al Gore...lets just take him out of the conversation if we want it to be a credible discussion.

 

[FarmerDave]

Wulff-Man wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:
Another interesting fact is that livestock produce way more greenhouse gasses than automobiles. So, instead of installing catalytic converters on wood burners, maybe someone should work on fitting one on a cow.

I'm picturing rows of cows lined up, like they are on milking machines, but their @$$es are connected to tubing that takes their "fuel" to a power generation plant. Two birds with one stone!

You may be on something ... err, I mean onto something. Why try to make fuel out of corn when the cattle are already doing it for us, right? I was thinking more along the lines of using it to fuel automobiles. Reduce greenhouse gasses, and our dependancy on foreigh oil at the same time. Every dairy farm could double as a fueling station. The only problem I can see is... Well, ... how do I say this without being too offensive. They claim a bus fueled with biodiesel made from used cooking oil smells like frenchfries. Do you see where this is going?

Ahhh, the sweet smell of heffermint. :lol:

 

[Wulff-Man]

FarmerDave wrote:
You may be on something ...

HAHA! :-D :lol: :lol: int: :-D :lol:
How did you know? Talk about an inconvenient truth! (KIDDING!)

 

[Wulff-Man]

od354 wrote:
.... It was posted to show that there IS great debate among scientists as to the cause (despite what you see on CNN or the nightly news)

See Will's post.