Inconveinient Truth

[FarmerDave]

Wulff-Man wrote:

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.

Now wait just a dog gone minute. The link provided by od354 has some very good info in it if any of the denier deniers chose to actually look at it. (Denier deniers, I just made that up, pretty good huh?). There are some very prominant scientists and statistitions quoted and talked about in there.

The problem as I see it is that the global warming people don't have a real answer for the deniers. They chose to only criticise and question motive. If you look at it, the deniers mostly question the validity of the "science" and statistics used. I see absolutely noting wrong with that. In fact I see it as a good thing. "Overwelming majority??" Overwelming to who? Sure, its a vast majority who say it is real, but not a dang one of them can say for certain what percentage of it is natural and what percentage is man made. If they say the can, i say prove it.

I say just because the vast majority say they feel it is one way, doesn't mean the case is closed. Science is not Democracy. Many times in history, general consenses in the scientific community has be proven wrong. At one time the world was flat. A little later it was round, and the sun, moon, planets and stars the revolved around the earth. Those were biggies. Galileo's telescope was considered an evil tool. You might argue that was really pre-science, but it wasn't. How about this one. Many details about evolution have been proven wrong. At one time it was thought to be a slow gradual thing, now the consenses is events cause rapid changes. There is a long list of this kind of thing. the hole in the ozone layer? Still there, isn't it? OH, but the CFCs were causing that.

What makes "science" work is people brave enough to buck the "Vast Majority." It would be a whole lot easier to jump on the band wagon and ignore the obvious which is what a whole lot of scientists did. Some of the questions brought up in those articles should have been ovbious, but were ignored by choice. Scientists are human and usually have an idea first before they try and prove it. that is why sound methods and statistics must be used. Most of the early work on this subject did not use them. That is why it is important to have more than one side, and listen to both.

Another point was brought up (sorta). The media reports what they want. Who are they to determine what is fact and what isn't?

ob354, I for one thank you for posting that link, but I'm still not getting rid of my new mini fluorescent bulbs. Haven't started giving Beano to the chickens yet either. :lol:

 

[Biggie]

Good post Farmerdave! I just replace all light bulbs with those stupid looking floro bulbs. Does than even me out for buying the Suburban?

 

[Padraic]

FarmerDave wrote:

Wulff-Man wrote:

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.

Now wait just a dog gone minute. The link provided by od354 has some very good info in it if any of the denier deniers chose to actually look at it.

Yes, and he doesn't seem to be denying that global warming is real. He's just uncertain about the cause. However, he is expressing this in the popular press, not a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

The consensus is clear if you look at peer reviewed scientific journals that humanity is contributing to global warming. The only place these dissenting opinions appear is in popular news (according to a study quoted in An Inconvienient Truth).

It's significant to note too that he is still calling for the development of technologies to trap the greenhouse gasses caused by man. So I doubt the article captures the complexity of his position. In fact, the last paragraph sounds like he disagrees with the methods of the current direction (limiting emissions, etc) rather than its goals (reducing the amount of human-caused green house gases).

 

[FarmerDave]

Biggie wrote:
Good post Farmerdave! I just replace all light bulbs with those stupid looking floro bulbs. Does than even me out for buying the Suburban?

LOL!!!

Why, what's the matter with Suburbans? Great tow vehicle, plus many Suburbans can run on E85 (GM puts a yellow gas cap on their flexable fuel vehicles), but there are only 4 places to get it in PA. Their gas pumps look awfully corny.

http://e85vehicles.com/e85-Pennsylvania.htm


I recently started replacing bulbs with those curly things too, but have been using one in the lamp post for years. Based on that one, they seem to last an awful long time. They should save me a bunch of money in the long run. Forget global warming for a second, who isn't for saving money? Does anyone know if they make a three way bulb yet? It wouldn't be hard, just needs 2 tubes instead of 1. Maybe nobody thought of it yet. Well, you all heard it first, here.

 

[Fishidiot]

I usually pass over threads on fly fishing websites that deal with off topic political issues. However it is downright refreshing to be able to read these well crafted, intelligent posts that address a sensitive political issue without resorting to name calling, profanity and wholesale intolerance for other views.

 

[Wulff-Man]

FarmerDave, you make some very good points, and I agree with many of them. I just don’t think that they necessarily support the deniers. I have to admit that I skimmed over the article od354 posted but didn’t have the time to read it closely. I wish I had the time to read enough to draw definite conclusions on the whole issue (if this is possible!), but right now I have to just go with what I pick up along the way, like the “vast majority” of people. Then I could make more confident decisions on the matter, and become a “denier decider” if you will.

Whether it’s an overwhelming majority or a vast majority of scientists who say GW is for real (the natural phenomenon, not the president) is pretty much just semantics. There will always be individuals and studies that contradict the majority, and I agree this is a good thing, and they should be seriously considered and made part of the decision process and not rejected out of hand for emotional reasons.

“Not a dang one of them can say for certain what percentage of it is natural and what percentage is man made.” True, but this will probably never be possible to any great degree of certainty. If there is enough credible evidence that a “significant” amount is caused by man, then we need to act as best we can. From 1970 to 2000 (subtle political comment) a lot has been accomplished in cleaning up the environment without knowing what the exact percentage of benefit would be, just that we contributed to pollution and reducing emissions will improve the situation.

I agree with your comments about majority opinion and the flat earth/center of universe lesson, and I often have the same thinking as it applies to many situations. It’s a lesson and a caution, but that doesn’t mean the majority is wrong. You just have to look at the facts that the majority, and minority, present. And some details on the theory of evolution may be changing, but that doesn’t mean the whole concept is wrong. And I certainly support your caution about blindly accepting what the media says, especially on scientific matters.

So I guess I’m agreeing with a lot of what you say. All I can say is from what I have seen to this point, GW is for real, and it sure looks like we are contributing to it to some extent. And I wish I knew more.

 

[Wulff-Man]

FarmerDave wrote:
Forget global warming for a second, who isn't for saving money?

Well I guess it's time to come clean and admit that I drive a Prius. I feel like I'm at a "Prius Annonymous" meeting. It's odd, but I feel like when most people hear that they think you're some kind of far left wing enviro-whacko nut job. Honestly, I bought it because of the practicality, since I commute 100 miles a day. And regardless of the recent news about the mileage not being what has been previously advertised, I get 50 to 55 MPG during my rush hour freeway commute. But I do believe that we as a country need to move away from the whole mentality of soccer mom's needing gas-guzzling super-SUVs that can go off-road up a mountainside, just for driving around suburbia.

 

[ryanh]

Wmass,
I am a graduate of a higher school of learning with a useless major in environmental science. Believe me I have heard it all. seen slides of tanker ships floundered in a desert of sand (the sea evaporated) being showed by hairy legged profesor chicks in birkenstocks. I was taught that the world would run out of oil in 2030. (i graduated in 99).

Guess what, then i got a job. Then I was on the front lines of the environmental fight. Rest assured that the permafrost is still frozen. There are not polar bears right now treading water trying to stay alive. They are atracted to towns. What would you rather eat 3 month old seal blubber or bacon?

Not to be harsh on you but I have heard all of this drivel. I have preached much of this drivel. Then one day I discovered that it did not jive whith what I was actually seeing in real life.

We should be good stewards of the environment, but we are cleaner now (by orders of magnitude) than we were 20 years ago. And this trend will continue as we learn. It does no one any good to preach earth first. As far as I am concerned Al Gore is THE biggest hypocrite there is and as an Environmentalist I am offended by his type. He has subverted our cause to server his own agenda.

He gets rich, we get poor, and the earth still gets screwed.

 

[Will]

This topic is really too large to cover at length here. I'll confine myself to saying that the website od354 linked to has a particular axe to grind as a source of global warming "skeptic" information. What I posted earlier about the scientific consensus is not wrong. Yes, it is possible that a handful of skeptics are correct that man is not causing global warming (although the skeptics were wrong back when they denied for years that warming was happening at all). But, in my opinion, we have to go with the best science currently available in making policy decisions.

Here is a list of some of the scientific organizations that agree global warming is real and man is contributing to it:

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
US National academy of sciences (and the national science academies of all the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China, and Russia, among others).
US National Research Council, 2001
American Meteorological Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program (commissioned by the Bush administration)
American Geophysical Union position statement on greenhouse gases and climate change Geological Society of London.
Position Statement on Global Climate Change adopted by the Geological Society of America
Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change by the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
Australian Medical Association statement on climate change
American Chemical Society statement on Global Climate Change

The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

You can read about these issues (including the identity and positions of skeptics like Dr. Allegre) at the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientific_consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic

 

[FarmerDave]

Wulff-Man, it sounds to me like we agree on just about everything on this subject (see my earlier responses on this thread). And I'm a Republican (but not a party liner).

I agree that GW is a problem (actually, both of them are but that is a different story). I even stated a couple times that they will never know how much of it is man-made. But i do believe at least part of it is, and even the deniers would have a hard time arguing against that with a strait face at this point. I also agree that it is a significantly large part. So ... Yes, we agree. I think we should all put forth some effort to reduce our impact on the environment (and not just GH gas). Unfortunitely, my new diet consists of a lot of rabbit food, so I am occasionally emitting more green house gasses than usual. :lol:

And about your Prius. Great car for Urban and suburban commuting. I think all urban and suburban commuters should have something similar instead of SUVs. I do own an SUV, but it is because I have a farm, and need a tow vehicle (its a truck dammit!!! :-D ). Will be towing something this afternoon. We also use it on trips, and the wife uses it as a grocery getter (cheaper than getting a third velicle). I also have a long commute (93 miles RT), but there is very little stop and go, so i doubt I would get 50 mpg with a Prius. The biggest problem (pun intended) is I don't fit in it. I don't fit in very many sub-compacts. I need something a little bigger, or at least more head and leg room. What i would like to get as a small car with a diesel engine, and preferably made in USA (which ruled out the VWs). Ford makes a very economical and clean burning diesel for the Focus, but they don't sell it in the US. If they did, I'd buy one. Would also like to see a plugable hybrid (runs on electric until the batteries get low and switches to a small gas of deisel engine). Now that would save me some gas money. Last year I was in the market for a commuter car. I needed one quickly, and I considered the overall cost (shame on me). Ended up buying a mid-sized used car for cheap (2.5 grand cheaper than a used econobox with same miles), and it gets me 30 mpg and still has a decent ride. Second choice (Focus) was only rated 33. and had worse ride (although quite good for it's size). It would have taken a minimum of 7 years to make up the difference in pice with fuel savings. Hoping it lasts at least 4 years (approx 150K miles on it buy then). By then, I'm hoping more choices will be available. If not, I may take a closer look at the VWs.

 

[Wulff-Man]

Perhaps the most telling of the organizations listed is the American Chemical Society, which is the major association of chemical manufacturers, not a science organization, per se. The FCCSP commissioned by the Bush admin. is also interesting.

Thanks for the links. Although there can be some issues with Wikipedia since, as I understand it, the information is basically provided and edited by anyone who wants to contribute (and this certainly could be fodder for the "deniers") it's a good source and can provide links to other sources.

 

[FarmerDave]

Will, I agree that the subject is too big to cover at length. I think we also have the same opinion on global warming. That is the important thing. I also respect your opinion (more than most). All I was saying is one should always know the opposition. Hold your friends close, hold your enemies even closer (or something like that). :-D

As far as the link goes ... Of course it is a "source of global warming "skeptic" information." "Axe to grind???" Maybe. Even if it is true, so what? Where else are you going to find other ideas on the subject, CNN?? I don't think so. Say, you aren’t in favor of book burning, are you? ;-)

It seems that nearly every time someone disagrees with mainstream, they are attacked either personally or they are accused of having an agenda or they have an axe to grind. Often it is true, but sometimes it is not. One problem is that statements like that are often used because the person making them doesn’t have an answer for the argument. To me it smells of frustration, but we all do it. I know what you are saying and I agree. We need to consider the source. But consider the source of the info as well, not just of the guy who owns the site. You could be throwing the baby out with the bath water!!!

Oh yea, what Wulff-Man said.

 

[FarmerDave]

Fishidiot wrote:
I usually pass over threads on fly fishing websites that deal with off topic political issues. However it is downright refreshing to be able to read these well crafted, intelligent posts that address a sensitive political issue without resorting to name calling, profanity and wholesale intolerance for other views.

Who asked you Fishidiot!!!

 

[od354]

Bottom line is that we could go back in-forth all day giving examples of supporters of both sides, and there ARE ample supporters on both sides of the issue. Is Global Warming real and caused by man? Who knows for sure, neither myself nor anyone on this forum can say for SURE. Most of us learn from the media outlets that we watch or read on a daily basis and its left up to us to decide whether we believe the info or not. It just smart business to get ALL the facts on a topic, not just the one put out there by people/organizations that may OR may not be on the straight and narrow. I am sure all of us just by the mere fact that we are fisherman believe in conservation, so whether we practice it to keep the fishing good or to "save the Earth" as long as it’s getting done, in the end what’s the difference?

...and just to reitorate...I am not a Global Warming denier, I just dont believe that the science/facts are strong enough yet to make bold statements like "its a fact" or "its not a fact"...

 

[tomgamber]

Wulff-Man wrote:

Well I guess it's time to come clean and admit that I drive a Prius. I feel like I'm at a "Prius Annonymous" meeting. It's odd, but I feel like when most people hear that they think you're some kind of far left wing enviro-whacko nut job.

Whats wrong with that!!!! As long as you aren't vandalizing things and causing harm to others, I don't think theres anything wrong with doing everything you can to help the environment. Maybe because I am a left wing, liberal, enviro-whacko. But I wouldn't chain my self to a tree, ram a whaling boat head on or throw blood on people wearing fur. I don't want your guns. Your religion is your business, not mine. And i think a woman has a right to choose what she does with her body, not me.

But being a liberal and caring about the environment, and being leery about saying so on a board that is about fishing and the outdoors is part of the very problem. The papers and their editorial sections want to label everything black and white. Why can't you feel a certain way about issues that are traditionally either conservative or liberal. That term "conservative" doesn't even have anything to do with conservation and don't let anyone tell you different. You can fight for the 4th amendment and still fight for clean air. You can believe or not believe in god and still think a strong military is a good thing. You can think the government has too much say in how we live our lives and believe that corporations should be held responsible for the damage they do to our environment.

Being embarrassed about saying I bought a car that will save me money and use less fuel and thereby create less pollution is just stupid. Frankly when they make one that will hold 6 people and their things for a week long vacation and actually lowers gas mileage considerably, i'll run out and buy one.

OK, i feel better. Man, I hope the weather gets better soon...

 

[jrcll]

the april issue of flyrod&reel has a very good article on ethanol, ...how much energy it takes to produce and the by product of it

 

[Wulff-Man]

Tomgamber, I was exaggerating quite a bit about being sensitive for owning a Prius. When you say "Being embarrassed about saying I bought a car that will save me money and use less fuel and thereby create less pollution is just stupid" it strikes a chord because I have many times had to chuckle and shake my head when I hear the derogatory "those so-and-so Prius-driving so-and-so's.........." comments, for just the reasons that you stated. I also understand that nobody wants to be preached to about their decision or preference to drive a big car or truck. You just have to approach the subject with some tact.

 

[steve98]

Global warming is BS!!!

The Earth has been able to survive for over 4billion years
90% of that time without the existance of man.
It takes care of itself.
And won't let something as isignificant as man ruin its existance.

Steve98

 

[Padraic]

steve98 wrote:
Global warming is BS!!!

The Earth has been able to survive for over 4billion years
90% of that time without the existance of man.
It takes care of itself.
And won't let something as isignificant as man ruin its existance.

Steve98

99% of species that have existed on Earth are now extinct, and the Earth is just fine.

We aren't worried about the Earth. We're worried about us.

 

[SlumpBuster]

1. Al Gore is an idiot with no friends.
2. Global Warming is happening but we'll most likely see a rise in temps of about 5 degrees over the next hundred years. trout won't disapear and the world won't end. Hopefully though PA will one day have ocean front property.
3. This week was the coldest ever in March. Can't remember the time that it was -2 in March. Also its been quiet a long time since streams have been quite so frozen over as this year.