Global warming? real or fake?

WFO · Nov-08-2007, 03:03 PM

I'm curious as most of on this board are fishermans and I would like to think that we all have a bit of preserving our outdoor playground for our future generation.

That being said, do you believe in Global warming?

I mean there are several views on this.

1. There is Global Warming and Humans are the ones to blame.

2. There is Global Warming and it is NOT man made, its just a earth cycle

3. No there is no Global Warming it all a political bull shit.

4. I dont give a fuck, fuck you, get the fuck out of my face.

If the option you want is not on here then state your .02

Also, so lets say there is global warming....Does that mean we are all fucked and we cant reverse any of the shit or is there still time?...I think i should do another poll...

yknot · Nov-08-2007, 03:14 PM

I feel global warming is happening and humans are HELPING the speed of its effects increase but I also feel that without us humans it would still happen. It is just that we are helping it along. We in CA can feel the effects already. If there is an Earthquake in N. CA. and it breaks the levees which are below sea level, all of our fresh water is no good and we are as good as dead.

Duffy · Nov-08-2007, 03:17 PM

Yep - them dudes taking ice-core-samples down in Antarctica with glacial evidence going back for thousands of years are full of malarkey. They just want to keep their grants coming so they can stay stranded down at the bottom of the world - for six fucking months - for nothing. Fuck Me.

'Tipping Point' is the issue - why would you want to contibute to it?

FishStalker · Nov-08-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duffy

They just want to keep their grants coming

That about sums it up. If you think that climate scientists on the global warming bandwagon are all objective, I have a bridge you might be interested in.

As Crichton says:

Quote:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Duffy · Nov-08-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FishStalker

That about sums it up. If you think that climate scientists on the global warming bandwagon are all objective, I have a bridge you might be interested in.

Been on station at the South Pole for half-a-year, have ya?

dougiestyle · Nov-08-2007, 03:37 PM

once they start running all cars on water, that will solve everything! and boats...

Troy · Nov-08-2007, 03:40 PM

I think anyone who denies the science of global warning has a screw loose. Are we to blame? Probably not entirely but I'm sure the industrialization of the earth over the last 100+ years has contributed.

I don't doubt that scientists' chasing grant money influences how and what they tell us but come on..... to say the climate hasn't changed is a joke. Have you seen the pictures of the polar ice melts?

**PHOTOG** · Nov-08-2007, 03:41 PM

Oh, just when I thought it was a boring day. A lot of agenda is spoonfed to the public as HARD FACT...Go carbon date a rock.....

**PHOTOG** · Nov-08-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dougiestyle

once they start running all cars on water, that will solve everything! and boats...

Okay, its done...just develop it before chevron buys the patents.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_articl...?storyid=68227

Duffy · Nov-08-2007, 03:49 PM

I think, based on what I’ve been told by Dave Hofmann (NOAH), it is the speed at which things are changing - not that they’re changing, which has happened during a thousand previous cycles.

From what he describes, like many volcanoes going off all at once in a hundred years - except of course, there have only been a few in the last century.

Again, even with the information - it’s not like our greed’s going to let us do anything about it. And the Chinese and Indians will insure that it's all for naught.

WFO · Nov-08-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troy

I think anyone who denies the science of global warning has a screw loose. Are we to blame? Probably not entirely but I'm sure the industrialization of the earth over the last 100+ years has contributed.

I don't doubt that scientists' chasing grant money influences how and what they tell us but come on..... to say the climate hasn't changed is a joke. Have you seen the pictures of the polar ice melts?

That reminds me. If your interested in hunting polar bears or want to try polar bear meat, you better do it soon before they go extinct or get put on the endangered species list.

kimorb · Nov-08-2007, 04:03 PM

You have two options. You can believe the people who have spent their lives measuring stuff to try and find out if it is a real effect or you can believe the people who want to make money out of selling oil/ coal other hydrocarbons that when burnt contribute to global warming. An awfully large number of the studies that refute manmade global warming are funded indirectly by oil companies and friends. Strangely enough they are the same sort of organizations that the tobacco companies used for a long time to try to tell us that the connection beween lung cancer and cigarettes wasn't there. A certain President and his cronies beholden to big oil was one of the strongest voices against human induced global warming.

I tend to just log on to read fishing reports and rarely contribute anything here mainly as my fishing is somewhat limited and thus I don't have useful things to add.
As a scientist I have been following the global warming debate probably for the last 15 years in the literature and thus feel reasonably qualified to at least make a comment.