View Full Version : Interesting article on global warming/anglers

04-10-2008, 01:04 PM
Saw this article and found it interesting. Don't know if anyone else has run across this but hopefully you will find it a good read.



04-10-2008, 01:59 PM
The final quote I find interesting:
"We know now that climate change has the very real potential to affect fish and wildlife resources and activities that hunters and angers hold dear ... and on a landscape level scale that is incomparable in modern times," warned Matt Hogan, executive director of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

On a broad scale that may be true, but the tree blights and logging operations of 100 years ago were much more dramatic and impactful on our trout populations in the Smokies than our current change in climate patterns.

I am a firm believer in cleaning up our act with respect to the environment and particularly trying to limit the amount of new damage we do. Likewise it would be nice to try to fix many of the errors of the past. But (despite what Al Gore says) there is not complete agreement among the science community that,
1) This may not be part of a much larger weather pattern and that we don't have enough data to fully understand the pattern (in fact, during the 70s there was quite a bit of talk about us heading into a new ice age), and
2) even if we are headed into a true warming period we may have little (or no) ability to change the direction we are headed in (many of the greenhouse gases that have been released into the atmosphere have been there since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution...)

My opinion is that the destruction of habitats is much more important than global warming to our hunting and fishing resources...

Let me hop back off my soapbox...

man, I need to go fishing. Its almost been 3 weeks (excepts for two miserable hours in the pouring rain last Saturday...).

Brian Griffing
04-10-2008, 02:20 PM
Interesting. Now I am going to ruffle a few feathers with this I'm sure, but here goes. I am still not so sure about global warming, and even less sure than I was just a few months ago. When I started looking into it more seriously I found some pieces if information that rarely make the front page. Now I am certainly no scientist, but here is what I have gathered from some slightly less eye-popping headlines.
-According to the United Nation's chief meteorologist Michelle Jarraud, global temperatures have not risen for a decade and Jarraud says the data cast further doubt on some global warming theories.
-The weather phenomenon known as La Nina will continue into this summer, causing temperatures across the globe to drop by a fraction of a degree. La Nina has contributed significantly to this year's torrential rains in Australia and some of the coldest temperatures on record across China.
-California meteorologist Anthony Watts says that the Earth has cooled over the last year and that the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree. That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down. Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity, which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.

I am not sure how accurate these scientists' data are, or how well-founded their theories are that are based on that data. But neither am I convinced by the other guys findings, as I have to way no personally verify either. I think the most accurate answer for now is that there are processes taking place on this planet that we don't as of yet understand. This is not to say that I am against protecting the environment. As anglers, I think everyone on this board has an interest in protecting at least some portion of the environment, and that is a good thing. But many of the solutions that have been proposed so far are either impracticable, impossible, ineffective, or down-right snake-oil. Take ethanol as an example. It takes one gallon of gasoline to produce 1.2 gallons of ethanol. And even if every kernel of corn grown in the U.S. was used in the production of ethanol (bringing about inflation, outrageous food prices, and the destuction of native grasses and un-developed lands) it would only meet 10% of the country's fuel needs.
I am not convinced that the sky is falling. When East Africa was stricken with a horrible drought we thought, "Hmmm. East Africa has it pretty bad. Poor guys." When we experience a comparatively minor drought, we think "My God! Global Warming has doomed us all!"
Sorry for the long-winded posting, but this has been a long-standing argument between me and my brother and sister. They think I'm an idiot. I now invite those of you that share their opinion to weigh in.

Brian Griffing
04-10-2008, 02:24 PM
You are the man! I read your post after I posted mine. I am very happy to see someone who agrees with me. It's usually very lonely being right all the time. :D

04-10-2008, 03:53 PM

I think you opened up a can of worms with this post. The #### will start flying over this. Some interesting facts. My wife just paid our gas bill for March 08. The average temperature for March 08 in SW Ohio was 7 degrees colder this year then 07. Another interesting fact, the natural gas usage in the US for a particular week in January of 08 was the most ever for that time of year compared to previous years.

The common belief is that CO2 is the cause of global warming and we must stop CO2 emissions to save the Planet! The reality is the CO2 levels of today are not that far out of line with the CO2 levels at the beginning of the 20th century. Pray tell how can you put forth a lie like that . Well before 1957 there were reams of data on CO2 levels in the atmosphere that were obtained based on a wet chemical method. After 1957 the accepted method for CO2 analysis was an IR method, so all the global warming priests simply declared that all CO2 atmospheric data before 1957 were invalid. So how do we know the CO2 levels in the atmosphere before 1957. Well we use ice core sampling. Ice core sampling for CO2 levels is plagued with errors and false assumptions. This whole CO2 causes global warming is the biggest false truth that has been put forth by so-called science since bloodletting was in vogue. It is no more accurate to say that CO2 cause global warming than it is to say that umbrellas cause rain because we sure see a lot of them when it rains.

Our country has gone mad over CO2 emissions. We have more coal in the ground in the US than any other country. We could be turning this coal into gasoline and into chemicals. We could be self sufficient in terms of chemical feed stocks and gasoline. We would re-industrialize our nation but we have all these carbon neutral prophets running around talking carbon sequestration and wind power. The sad fact is we have 3 carbon neutral prophets running for president. I don't mean to go on but there is a lot of information out there about the truth concerning global warming and the scientific fact is that CO2 is not going to end life on this planet as we know it.

Enjoy the mountains, catch some fish and don't worry, the Smokies will be there 50 years from now, just as we know them today.

John B

04-10-2008, 04:36 PM
GW is a hoax and money grab. We are so much more responsible than we were 20, 30 or 40 years ago it isn't even up for a vote! The sky is not falling!
Glad to hear others with this opinion. So who is going to talk to Dingell, probably C Gauvin among others?

04-10-2008, 05:29 PM
My eyes were pried open while I was an undergrad in ecology and evolutionary biology. And brother, Jswitow is right. Money grab. It's scary how many divergent opinions are hushed and lecturers booed when presenting their work, work, that is, that does not agree with tenured professors. Or, more importantly, seek to reach coveted government grants from the National Science Foundation, US Geological Survey, Department of Energy, or Department of Defense, of which many range from a few hundred thousand upwards to a few million.

I'm not an apologist for agressive environmental destruction, quite the opposite. But when facing important issues, our trusted universities (which tout themselves as being institutions for the free-flow exchange of ideas and sciences), they fall flat on their hind quarters and support one theory over many that exist. It's kind of like when Einstein was laughed at when no other scientist believed in the existence or efficacy of his theory of relativity.

Just my two cents, I could go on, by why raise the blood pressure? heh.

04-10-2008, 06:07 PM
whew, I thought I was one of the only people left that didn't believe it. The founder of the weather channel has come out and said global warming is "The greatest scam in history". Even NASA has come out with a press release stating that changes in the arctic climate have nothing to do with global warming.

04-10-2008, 07:31 PM
Haha seems that everyone is in agreeance here in that gw is a bunch of hogwash. Could the earth have been on a warming trend? Sure, but it is a fact that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. Now i'm sure that these harmful emmisions are not good for the environment, but i hardly believe that they are causing polar icecaps to melt.

Like others, i believe that the destruction of habitat is more to blame and a more important issue. However, money talks and right now gw is where it's at.


04-10-2008, 07:49 PM
Loss of habitat due to deforrestation is a much bigger problem than "climate change" ("climate change" covers both cooling and heating). We do need to cut carbon emissions, if for nothing else than to decrease our dependency on OPEC and for the health of our lungs, but I agree, the sky is not falling. I tell you what is scary: Using our food to put fuel in our cars. It takes about 90 years for nitrogen to process through the planets natural processes and back into the soil. Nitrogen replacing pods and legumes will not replace it quickly enough at the rate we are burning it. Hybrid and electric cars are the way to go. Burning corn only increases the cost of food around the planet and will cause us to eventually run out of nitrogen. We can use nitrogen taken from the atmosphere, but this will on serve to screw up the oceans ecosystem by adding too many nutrients too quickly. We have the ability to power our country with solar farms, wind farms, tidal harnesses and nuclear. There is no reason to be in the back pockey of OPEC and the Saudi's...JMO.

04-10-2008, 10:24 PM
The situation with the corn/ethanol has some other side effects that aren't pleasant for anyone who loves the outdoors. First of all, all that extra farmland, that the gov't was paying farmers to keep idle, and in many cases was providing riparian cover and habitat for ducks and other migratory birds is now being put to the plow to meet the demand. Secondly, all that extra fertilizer, etc is now going to be washed downriver, right past New Orleans and into the gulf; because the Mississippi is contained by levees almost all the way to Head of Passes (the start of its delta), all that muddy river water, along with its nutrient load is dumped into the Mississippi Canyon, instead of being filtered through our dying marshes. This creates a dead zone in the gulf every summer, and it will only grow with more corn being planted upstream.

I can only nod my head in agreement with what has been posted above; it's a money grab (by both private corporations trying to capitalize on the hysteria, and government on all levels, seeing an opportunity to increase taxes "to benefit the environment")...but it has also become a cult, a religion. Look at the reaction to those who even question the basic premise - these whackjobs are calling for censorship, and even prosecution a la Holocaust deniers in Europe. Yes, we should cut down on emissions, but not at the cost of checking our sanity and intellect at the door.

04-11-2008, 07:28 AM
This thread is very refreshing. I am glad I am not the only one who thinks this global warming bs is just a big hoax!

04-11-2008, 08:52 AM
Let's get something straight here. Global warming itself is real, not a hoax. The earth is getting warmer. I don't think there is any serious debate among the climatologists on this point. (Why not, the earth's climate is constantly in flux, and has been both warmer and colder than it is currently.) The questions now are: (1) is this just natural, manmade, or some combination and (2) what do we have to do about it. The answer to #2 is that we have to invest countermeasures of some sort. If it's mostly natural, then carbon reductions will have a minimal impact, but we still have to adjust to the changes. Rising sea levels alone means major investments in coastal areas just to keep the water out. Climate changes means that agriculture and water supplies are going to be stressed (just ask Atlanta).

Any way you look at it, it's going to cost us and the money has to come from somewhere. So let's dispense with this notion that it's just a hoax perpetuated by governments to raise taxes -- someone's gotta pay. Even the US Military is planning for increased conflicts due to resource shortages brought on by climate change. Let's hope the consequence come slowly so we can adapt more easily.

Now here's the thing I don't get about the opinions voiced above. Most of you say you support reduced emissions, "cleaning up or act", and environmentalism in general. Yet the same control measures that would have to be implemented to control carbon emissions are the same ones that would lead to less traditional pollutants (NOx, VOCs, CO), acid rain, particulates, and heavy metals. Not to mention less dependence on foreign oil. I hope it's just the pace of change that some alarmists have called for, not the direction.

Also, I don't know where some of you are getting your information on this matter. CO2 is substantially higher (more than 25%) in the atmosphere than it was in 1900 and it's been growing exponentially (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html). Correlation of this trend with rising global temperatures is problematic, but when you see trends like this, you can understand what's got the climatologists' panties in a wad. No one knows if the C02 concentrations and emissions are related to GW, but it certainly calls for increased scientific investigation. To call it a "money grab" and a "hoax" is less than useful.

The founder of the Weather Channel, by his own admission, hasn't studied climate change but instead has read papers and talked to people, which is great. But to use him as an authoritative source is like using the founder of Kroger to tell us why there's famine in Africa.

04-11-2008, 09:38 AM
Eastprong, I respect your dissenting opinion.

1) I think most everyone is in agreement that a reduction in CO2 would be a good thing, but the question is: at what cost? Too many of the schemes that have been devised put huge amounts of money into questionable hands, while potentially not reducing CO2 by much at all. But as someone has pointed out already, there were no reliable methods for measuring CO2 before 1957 (or 1959), so to say that there is more in the atmosphere now that in the 1800s, is hogwash. Look at how dirty and polluted our cities were during the start of Industrial Revolution. The sun used to be blocked out by the pollution of factories in mid day. We are still paying for the many sins of the past. Clean up more? Sure, who wouldn't be for that. Reduce our reliance on foreign oil? Absolutely. Will it cool our planet? Doubtful.

2) There has been no direct correllation between the activities we all engage in and Global Warming. None that is conclusive. Everyone skews the statistics for their own opinions. The earth has gone through many large and small fluctuations in temperature over the years. To say the current trend is entirely of our own doing (or even partially of our own doing) has not been supported by conclusive scientific fact.

3) Global Climate Change, if the warming trend continues, will have some profound impact on our planet, no doubt about it. But again, can we really reverse what our planet is doing, if we really haven't created the problem? We need to take appropriate measures to protect what we can, but if we get hysterical and spend money in the wrong areas we will not help ourselves one bit. And as someone also pointed out, there is some scientific evidence that the last few years have actually been colder, not warmer than in the past. And while the drought in the SE has been a great finger pointer for the GW debate, what about the historic drenching of the midwest this year? Chicago has had one of (if not its most) severe winter on record in terms of snow and temperatures. All of these things on their own can be used to support any point of view, but looking at them together does not point to Global Warming...

Here is some interesting points and counterpoints listed in websites in the comments section of the following blog: (down at the bottom)

One that is really interesting is that the polar ice caps on mars are melting, as well...what does that tell us?...

04-11-2008, 09:57 AM
The CO2 now is not higher than it was in 1900. That cannot be stated as fact. That is where the carbon neutral demagogues are wrong. As I stated in my earlier post the CO2 alarmists use ice core sampling to get their CO2 data prior to 1957. I would suggest that all CO2 skeptics Google Zbigniew Jaworoski to find the truth about sampling ice cores for CO2 data.
The reality is the oceans are the major sink for CO2. The solubility of CO2 in seawater is the key. The deep ocean layers are colder than the surface layers. The solubility of CO2 is higher in colder waters. The circulation of the oceans will over time take up the CO2.
The oceans are rising is another claim. Are they? Where is the data supporting this along the coastal US? But even if the oceans rise slightly consider this, the oceans are rising from the melting of the ice. Ice is cold, yes. Will not the average temperature of the oceans fall over time because of the melting ice? Will not the surface area of the oceans increase? So you have average colder temperature of the oceans and more surface area at a lower temperature. How does that affect the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2. Well the oceans will take up more CO2. This is the natural balance that has been occurring and will despite what we mortals do. This is how the Good Lord created it! Oops we don't want to go down that path now do we.

04-11-2008, 10:47 AM
Point 1: Even if you don't believe the pre-1957 estimates, look at the trend from 1957 to now (Figure 1 from the reference I gave.) That's actually more alarming. And just because the pre-1957 estimates are not based on direct measurements, doesn't mean they're hogwash! (See footnotes in the table at: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html) The methods are indirect, but they are based on science (Not that it matters, given the post-1957 trend.) Finally, the cities were indeed dirtier at the start of the Industrial Revolution, but the scale was much, much smaller. (Cities themselves were much smaller, industrialization was confined almost exclusively to Western Europe and small parts of N. America, and areas outside of the actual cities were unaffected, unlike today where it's everywhere.)

And the first thing that popped up on Jaworowski was Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski. Interesting fellow; publishes in journals refereed by Lyndon LaRouche.

Point 2: I agree and think I said this. My point was: should we abandon scientific inquiry or pursue it further? The evidence strongly suggests the latter. I hope you're not saying that just because a causal link hasn't been established means it's settled. There's much uncertainty that demands investigation.

Point 3: I don't pretend to know where the money is best spent, in prevention or adaptation, but it will have to be spent. Given the multiple positive environmental aspects of GHG controls -- not to mention reduced dependency on foreign oil -- it would make sense to invest some money in them. How much? I don't know. More than the deniers and less than the alarmists. I should run for Congress with a response like that.

Also, I think you're interpreting recent weather patterns incorrectly. GW doesn't mean it's necessarily going to be hotter and drier. It means that a small change in overall temps lead to big changes in short term weather patterns (more extremes, more variability) and long term climate patterns. This seems to be exactly what's going on, at least here.

04-11-2008, 11:32 AM
I see you try to negate my recommendation by using typical global alarmist tactics. Try and create a smokescreen of B#ll by making some statement that some oddball referenced him. A respected scientist like Dr. Jaworoski is referenced by millions. You are letting your religion get in the way of facts.

" Zbigniew Jaworoski, MD, Ph D, D SC, a multidisciplinary scientist, is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland. He has served as the chairman of the Unites Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and has studied glacier ice samples from around the world, analyzing traces of heavy metals and radionuclides."

This quote was taken from Dr. Jaworoski article " Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase" published in the Spring of 97. Dr. Jaworoski was the main spokesperson for the Bush administration when they presented to Congress why they did not want to go along with the Kyoto agreement.

The statement that we must pursue further the casual link between CO2 and global warming is not what our country is doing. We have accepted as fact this BS and are spending billions in non-productive money to go down the path of the carbon neutral religion of whom Al Gore is Pope. We will elect a carbon neutral disciple no matter which side wins and we will further waste our resources on this nonsense. It behooves everybody to learn for themselves the hoax that is Global warming as being caused by CO2. Do not accept as facts the rhetoric spewed out by these alarmists before it drives more and more factories to China.
I apologize for my passion but I have seen the industrial base of this country dry up for the last 30 years and I see no end in sight. Remember we all can't cut each others hair or be fishing guides to make a living. Someone has to create the wealth that makes a country great and the sad fact is all the wealth is now being created in China.

Brian Griffing
04-11-2008, 11:53 AM
It means that a small change in overall temps lead to big changes in short term weather patterns (more extremes, more variability) and long term climate patterns. This seems to be exactly what's going on, at least here.

That's what is always going on. Since the dawn of time. Is the drought in the southeastern U.S. the result of global warming? I don't know, was the Dust Bowl? Or the Little Ice Age from 900 -1800 A.D.? Does global warming have anything to do with the Gobi Desert spreading? Did it kill the dinosaurs? Did global warming dump feet upon feet of snow in New England this winter? Again, I don't know. But I don't think anyone can credibly say "yes" either.

I agree with Eastprong that more study needs to be done, but I disagree that global warming is a foregone conclusion. There is absolutely no consesnsus. And how can there be when the Earth is the same temperature it was eight years ago? So while I consider myself to have a conservationalist perspective (as opposed to an environmentalist), I am not about to stop driving my truck.

04-11-2008, 12:01 PM
I'm not going to comment on the validity of GW or not. What I find most troubling is the discussion, over the past couple years, has jumped from the scientific arena to the political one. Battle lines on both sides of the issue seem to largely be drawn along party affiliation. Not in every case, but there is a definite political air to the public debate and that debate appears, to the casual observer, to be drawn along political leanings (left vs. right).

What I find the most troubling about this is once it becomes a geopolitical debate, science and seeking of the truth will be thrown out of the window.

I disagree with the folks who say it's a money grab. I think it's much worse than that, it's a power grab. That power grab will ultimately be a money grab because with power comes money and with money comes power, they go hand in hand. But I think the political debate today is largely one of power and position. Which side can convince the largest population in the electorate of their being "right" on the issue will secure political power (both in the US and abroad). The UN debates about carbon credits and allowing "developing" nations (like China!) a more lax allotment. China is a developing nation? Go to Wal*Mart and tell me China is struggling?

It's power and influence that is, in my not so humble opinion, driving the public debate and rational objective science is getting thrown out of the window.

Unfortunately, I don't think we can believe much, if any, that we hear from either side. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle but we may never know for sure.

Sorry about the rambling.


04-11-2008, 12:02 PM
Ever hear the old phrase, "Foggy old England."

It wasn't fog, it was smoke from stoves. They burned coal and wood to create that fog over London.

Forest fires use to but themselves out.

It was the same all over the planet.

I wonder how much all of this had on global warming back then?

04-11-2008, 12:17 PM
As the saying goes, "Think globally, act locally."

Even if the media conjures up sensational stories about the earth will be an oven to hold a large audience that doesn’t mean that the potential of environmental damage is not always present. As long as people are still making industrial decisions, those decisions will affect ecosystems. There are lots on greenhouse gasses. Many are naturally produced. The ones that are artificially produced should not get all the attention.

Despite the tendency for a gas to float up and be everyone’s problem, others stick around where they began. The habitat of the trout is very local. Trout can’t just move because the water warms up as it is finding its way back to the ocean. Headwaters don’t connect like the highway system, so when a trout habitat is threatened the trout are not able to find a suitable home.

We screwed up “wild” a long time ago. But GSNP is still a wonderful effort. When the damage was done to the Appalachia area trout by logging and dams, everyone was ignorant about the consequences. The original brook char are gone, and there are way too many people that are surprised when told that there was no bows, browns, or cutthroat it this area originally. Now “wild” needs an asterisk footnote saying “Well, this may not be completely wild, but it is that kind of wild that will take our abuse and make a lot of people think nothing was done wrong.”

The real threat going forward is that people continue arguing. If there are no agreements, there are no actions. What happened in the past is now worthless because you change history. It doesn’t even matter what past data is valid because you still can make a bad decision and a good decision. Odds are that good and bad decisions will continue to be made. If you’re stuck on cost-benefit analysis, the short term will say that destroying habitat is the most profitable, but the long term will disagree.

04-11-2008, 12:36 PM

I do apologize. But one scientist, doesn't hold the truth, when uncertainty rules. On the other side are lots of other distinguished scientists with different interpretations. (It's interesting that the Bush Administration had to dig this guy up to support their policy. Couldn't find an American scientist?) As I said, it doesn't really matter -- look at the post-1957 trends!

And I have also said there is great uncertainty in linking carbon conc. to GW. I'm not convinced there is a link, but there is circumstantial evidence. To hold up this one guy and say there absolutely is no link is just preposterous. The major scientific reports in this area speak in terms of probabilities, not certainties. To a scientist, it's the uncertainty itself that's cause for alarm.

And it doesn't matter if the CO2 is causing GW or not. Because GW is here. It's happened. The uncertainty is if it will continue and if so, by how much, regardless of the cause.

You're on the right track with your description of colder water in the oceans due to polar ice melting (if it accelerates, that is. There's that uncertainty again.). But you're still too hung up on the actual warming being the problem. It's the climatic changes brought about the warming that's the problem. In your example, additional cold and fresh water in the North Atlantic would lower the temperature of the Gulf Stream heading into Europe. Then London and Paris would experience their "true" climates, that of Quebec. So global warming would actually lead to some climates being colder, not without consequences.

You're right -- climate is constantly changing. But it changes in response to something. Global average temperatures is one of those things. I remember reading an ORNL report back in the mid-1990s that said the short term effect of higher average global temperatures was more extreme and variable weather in the US, based on their models. Maybe they just lucky.

04-11-2008, 12:48 PM
I don't know if our emissions are causing global warming, but I do know this: It's not wise to wait until it's too late to do something about it. I would hate to find out that we reacted too late and that we are doomed to the fate of the dinosaurs. Why wait? If there is a credible pattern since 1957, act on it and reduce emissions. It can be done. We are one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world. If we simply invested in other types of energy, the argument would be over. I realize it's expensive, but better safe than sorry. Also, if it would reduce our dependncy on OPEC, I'm all for it, even if it does cost us in the short term. JMO.

04-11-2008, 01:24 PM
I am a university trained biologist who has worked in the environmental area for over 25 years and my personal opinion based on my experiences in the field is that GW may be the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the human race. There was warming between 1100-1400, during the 30's as well as during the mid 90's. It is called climate and it is variable and changes constantly. Remember the coming "Ice Age" of the 70's? The area I fish in Michigan was under a mile of ice as recently as 15,000 years ago and it all melted without the help of one SUV. This all about power, money and loss of freedom people. Al Gore has pocketed something in the area of $100,000,000 off of GW, and every solution involves big intrusive government intervention into your life.

I agree with the earlier statement that habitat destruction is a much bigger problem, but it is not as glamorous. I stopped supporting TU after getting their GW screed a couple of years ago. DU is not far behind I am afraid. These organizations too often join forces with radical environmentalist because they think they have similar agendas, only to find out too late that after they have provided the money, manpower and prestige to advance the radical agenda they are thrown under the bus as the eco-freaks go after the hunters and fishermen.

I will get off my soapbox now by saying I hope most fly fisherman are smart enough to see through this crap and continue to put their efforts into protecting our fisheries and our hobby from those that would take both away under the guise of saving the planet from the evils of mankind. RANT OFF.

04-11-2008, 01:54 PM
Once again to claim that because CO2 is going up and the alarmists claim there is a link between higher CO2 and the earth warming is a reason to spend billions of dollars perhaps trillions on stopping CO2 emissions is insanity.

How do the CO2 alarmists know that the CO2 has gone up since 1957? What if the CO2 levels during the 50's actually hit a low point and are simply returning to a higher equilibrium value. We won't ever know this because as I have said the pre-1957 data that goes against the CO2 =warmer earth theory is simply discarded.

I put forth Dr. Jaworowski because those open minded people who do Google him and do further investigation will be led to other scientists and scientific evidence that presents the other side of the global warming theory. The problem is that most people believe what they hear when it comes to scientific evidence because it is said by scientists. Well this CO2 = global warming theory is no longer put forth solely by scientists but by Left leaning politicians who want to say what sounds good or feels good with the intention of advancing their political agenda.

Let me ask you CO2 = warming, people, where will we get the energy to drive the factories that we now have left if we don't burn coal or natural gas? We can get it from nuclear right. No because we get only 15% or less of our power from nuclear. France gets what 75%. You can check these facts and get more accurate data. So how do we cut our CO2 emissions in the next 30 years? We have to reduce our power generation or impose carbon sequestration requirements on all industrial energy producers and users. What will that do to our economy? You are right just have the product or good you are producing made in China. We are driving our industrial base out of this country and the consequences are dire. All we will have left to generate wealth is our land and our assets which we will have to sell to the Chinese to get cash.

I am not some wild crazy old man who spouts this off to argue, I am a concerned Scientist and an Engineer who has 30 years of experience in my profession with a graduate degree in Chemical Engineering. I am also a registered professional engineer so I am not a closed minded stupid red-neck. I have no monetary interest in whether CO2= Global Warming is the belief of the land or not, for I have made my money to live comfortably the rest of my life, I just hate to see my country choose such an ill informed path to financial bankruptcy.

04-11-2008, 01:55 PM
Well, I suppose it's all getting political and though some hate to mix fishing with politics or religion that matter ( personally I think fishing and religion go hand in hand, but thats just me...) barring all the stats, widgets, and percentages, and surveys and who says what and why and what for...the truth is that we do know how it will all come to pass - its already been laid out...the big picture anyhow, so I think we should be good stewards of the resources as best we can and with what we've got, but Lord knows, its not whats the most important thing...enjoy what we have and share that wealth for the time we have and most of all - keep it in perspective.

04-11-2008, 02:03 PM
Whether any of us believe in global warming or not, we cannot deny the disasterous effects of coal mining/burning in our region and especially to our park and streams. Part (note I said part!) of the reason our streams are so acidic is from coal emissions from TVA and the midwest. A HUGE part of the reason our kids have the highest asthma rates in the country is from burning coal. The devastation from "mountaintop removal" coal mining in undeniable in WV and KY and is now heading our way since our lawmakers were just bought off by National Coal. Look at the barren moonscapes and headwaters buried under 50 feet of coal across the border on I-75. That's what the landscape we know and love around here is going to look like soon.

Why are we arguing about global warming? I think we can all agree that the coal industry has been VERY destructive to our area. Our decision to to conserve or not conserve may or may not have ANY effect on global warming, but you can be darn sure it will have an effect on our parks and streams.

04-11-2008, 02:15 PM
I just hate to see my country choose such an ill informed path to financial bankruptcy.

BINGO! That's exactly what needs to be considered before we just start "doing something"...that sort of reaction is based totally on emotion (and man's ego that we have that much power). Think about this - how can we improve the environment if we impoverish ourselves by tanking our economy? We won't have the ability to fund research, etc...Yes, we should try to reduce emissions (and we have), for a whole host of reasons unrelated to the theory of global warming - but, we have to look at the big picture and think through things carefully. Again, it is the law of unintended consequences - if we act due to panic and fear, we will probably get an unintended result we won't be happy with.

I started out as a meteorology major, before I switched to computers. From what I saw concerning the study of the atmosphere, it is incredibly complex, with multiple variables that change constantly. We've gotten pretty good with the 3-day forecast, but much beyond that becomes very uncertain. These models that are constantly touted (by both sides in the argument) are only as good as the logic in the code and the data that is fed to them. You can go to the NWS site in your area - look at the "Discussions" section, where the meteorologists summarize what is happening in the atmosphere that led them to make their forecasts; they use multiple models, and quite often, they are in sharp disagreement with each other. Things get even more problematic when you start going weeks and months out in advance.

A lot of the people banging the drum the loudest for GW are not specialists in Climatology or Meteorology, or they aren't even scientists at all. I look at people like Dr Gray at Colorodo State, who can calmly discuss their positions without resorting to hysterics or loaded language.

Brian Griffing
04-11-2008, 03:22 PM
Also, if it would reduce our dependncy on OPEC, I'm all for it, even if it does cost us in the short term.

Sounds like you just ponied up to take my share of the bill. :biggrin:

Seriously though, there are people a lot smarter and more educated than me piping up on this debate. Scientists, engineers, and the like. And I'm certainly no business man or economist, and I can speak much more intelligently about the integration of rotary-wing close-air support and mortar fire, but I'll pose this question anyway: Why spend tax payer money on this?
I am sure someone will tell me why I'm wrong, but won't free, open markets eventually take care our dependence on foreign oil. Gas prices will continue to rise because people will pay continue to pay them. And eventually, somebody will put a product into play, at a reasonable price, that will reduce the demand for gas, and prices will drop. After all, I imagine horses cost a lot more before the advent of the internal combustion engine (adjusted for today's dollars ofi course).
In the mean time, most of our electric power is generated by burning coal. So if there is to be some sort of government regulation, shouldn't it be beneficial incentives to companies that provide eco-friendly products, like power companies who properly filter their exhaust with emerging technologies, instead of cutting deeper into my paycheck to fund programs that may or may not be viable.

04-11-2008, 03:28 PM
I do think we can react without breaking the bank. For one thing, OPEC is taking care of the fossil fuel issue for many. So, something will be done if for no other reason than fuel economy. That's allowing the free market to work, so I think it will be good for the economy if it's not mandated and allowed to come to fruition due to economic reasons/fuel costs. I know if they come out with an economic (as in cheap) electric car, I am going to buy one for in town and save my 4Runner for fishing trips! ;) Good to read every one's points. I know there is a lot of knowledge to be gained from you guys.

04-11-2008, 03:34 PM

I understand your concern about coal removal and acid rain. We have come along way from the days of acid rain. We have acid scrubbers now that can knock out the SO2. We limit the burning of high sulfur coal. The removal of coal is now done here in Ohio with the stipulation that the area be put back to a sustainable habitat or the people must restore the land close to what it was. I see this being done in eastern Ohio with open pit mining. The Coal companies have to fill in the pit and restore the top soil and get grass to grow after they remove the coal. In the United States, we have a 250 year supply of coal that will provide all the energy we need for industry, people and cars. We can convert coal to gasoline and chemicals. We don't need oil form the Middle east or Venezuela. Just look at Eastman up in Kingsport. They have a coal to chemicals operation. We can do this all over the coal regions of this country.

It's a matter of what quality of life we want. Do we want a pristine environment with 0% pollution? If you do then you must be willing to accept the results of such an environment, that being no middle class with a ruling class of financial engineers, lawyers and politicians and those of us who depend on what they give us. Or you can take a little pollution but have a sustainable industrialized economy with a strong middle class and a country that is self sufficient using the resources that the Good Lord put under our feet.

04-11-2008, 07:47 PM

Appreciate the comments. Unfortunatley only a very small fraction of the steam plants in our region or the midwest (whose smog we end up with) use the scrubbers you described. Unfortunately, in KY, WV, and as of last week TN, we don't have those types of regulations in regards to mine clean-up. With mountaintop removal, the tops of mountains are literally scraped into the adjacent valleys (and burying the headwaters of streams under tons of rock). This type of devastation simply can't be undone. I don't know what the answer is and obviously we can't completely eliminate fossil fuels, but there's no reason we can't all conserve as much as possible. Check out these pics (sorry if the links don't work):





Here's some other links on mountaintop removal coal mining:


04-12-2008, 02:11 AM
"Observations," rather... here's another interesting article

>>>>>>>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/feb/feb08.html (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/feb/feb08.html)

The entire premise of the GW article bothers me: Take the first sentence for instance:

"Global warming could force elk and mule deer from much of the American West." :confused: It's a grand assumption based on what? A new study? The writer has basically said, Its here, it exists and its coming to get the Elk. The key word here is "could" Mule Deer populations could multiply at an alarming rate forcing every human from their homes by the year 2037. That could also happen; not likely but it could happen.

Tornadoes?---Global warming
Floods?---Global Warming
Hurricanes?---Global warming
Drought?---Global Warming
Wild Trout Disappearing?---Global Warming
You name it---Global warming

"Wild trout could disappear in lower Appalachian streams.Two-thirds of the country's ducks may disappear." :eek: Could? May? Might ? Yikes...More fear ! take action now! We COULD tell you exactly how, but decided to save that until the next election---Just know there is a financial solution somewhere on Capital Hill.

"Groups representing nine major hunting and fishing organizations planned to meet Thursday with the House committee chairman who hopes to write legislation to curtail greenhouse gases linked to global warming.":p

a.k.a CLOUDS....that's right folks, water vapor .The atmosphere, like our politicians who are so concerned with it, is full of it. In fact, its the #1 most abundant "greenhouse gas" <<<<< another catch phrase. ...the clouds must be stopped. With your paycheck there's always hope...

The Earth is a closed system....there can never be any more or any less water

Don't get duped... Anyone who says that we'd be better-off without industry hasn't considered what a city of 1,000,000 looks like where every family burns a wood fire; much less where the trees come from.:frown:

Also, Griff, I agree. The price of everything can be explained through the open market.

04-12-2008, 11:32 AM
I am orginally from WVA, I have personally seen what strip mines and clear cutting does to our environment. But I have also seen how quickly nature can repair what man destroys. I still own land in WVA and the some of the land that adjoins my land was clear cut 6yrs ago. It disturbed me to see the blithe that was left. 6 years later the Forrest is returning and replacing what the lumber company destroyed, in 30 years it will be back to hardwood forest. It still makes me sick, but it also show me that nature is a much stronger force then we are lead to believe. Take the GSMNP most to it was clear cut and unless you are a trained botanist you can not tell today. Don't get me wrong, man is doing some evil thinks to earth and we should work toward some our more harmful practices. Rachel Carson "Silent Spring" helped start the environmental movement, great book, but some of her predictions of how long it would take for the earth to repair itself were way off. It has been determine that the nasty muddy gunk on the bottom of lakes and rivers for some reason can take chemicals and break them down in an fraction of the time that has been predicted.
GW, is it real? I personally am on the fence. Is it the end of our plant as we know it? NO. Will there be changes? possibly. Are we under estimating the regenerative powers of the planet? Yes. Do we need o change how we treat the plant? Yes, but not at the cost of our livelihoods.

04-12-2008, 07:11 PM
I don't know about global warming. I do know there are a lot of politicians, power seekers, wealthy people, business leaders and scientists all over the map on it. I also know a guy like me never stands a chance. Guys like most of us are a hair on the tip of the tail of the dog.

I do know a lot of my beautiful home state of Kentucky has been put on trains, barges, and trucks and hauled off to somewhere else. What has been left behind looks more like the surface of the moon than the beautiful hillsides of Eastern Kentucky.

I think John Prine said it better than I ever could.


When I was a child my family would travel
Down to Western Kentucky where my parents were born
And there's a backwards old town that's often remembered
So many times that my memories are worn.

And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking
Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away

Well, sometimes we'd travel right down the Green River
To the abandoned old prison down by Adrie Hill
Where the air smelled like snakes and we'd shoot with our pistols
But empty pop bottles was all we would kill.

And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking
Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away

Then the coal company came with the world's largest shovel
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man.

And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking
Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away

When I die let my ashes float down the Green River
Let my soul roll on up to the Rochester dam
I'll be halfway to Heaven with Paradise waitin'
Just five miles away from wherever I am.

And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking
Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away

Jeff S.

04-12-2008, 09:40 PM
Well, I for one, am glad to see that there are quite a few more people out there who believe we don't need the "elitists" (Al Gore for one) telling us this junk. They are being worse than irresponsible IMHO by creating a crisis where none really exists! Look at the price of gas (can't drill, can't refine, it would "be bad for the environment"), the price of corn, rice, soy and other staples is going up and up and up and it in turn, will ultimately affect the cost of everything else. And the cylce spins on. And we then have a REAL crisis. Why? Well, there's fewer farmers ( that's another story) and some of what is being farmed is strictly for biofuel purposes (remember, we can't use gas) and not human consumption. Thus, we are feeling the squeeze...and it is unnecessary.

So this man made crisis is NOT ablout global warming, climate control, or anything else but a relatively untested theory that people are treating as a confirmed fact. Time will bear this out, but the cost to our economy, and our pocketbooks, and our way of life will be incalculable.

04-13-2008, 10:24 AM
:smile: Lets face the facts folks. I know for a fact that scientist have to have government funding grants etc. and it makes little difference if they work with in the U.S. or not. No funding from someone with some political agenda = no money for scientist. Oh sure there is the rare guy who patented something he invinted but most are not. Al Gore, love him or hate him, is certainly a front runner in this stuff but so are alot of other folks. Scientist support the political agenda's of politicians and government in general in return for financial assistance. The same thing occurs with most all major universities where alot of research is done. They also bid for goverment grants and loans as well. At this point the enviornment has become a nice platform for politicians to influence voters. I don't think many of these people actually are to worried about it themselves though most will deny that fact at the present. What it comes down to is usually money and certain people who already have plenty wanting more. The truth of the matter is we don't know the truth & those who do are not going to shout from the mountain tops. Yes they're definetly using the environment as an excuse for alot of things right now but thats how you control the masses. When you throw enough "experts" theorizing about something into it, it becomes very difficult to seperate proposed facts from actual facts. Scientist will usually not lie but they will not "completely discredit the possibility". It must be true I saw it on TV, I read it on the internet, or it was on the Discovery Channel not the news so thats got be the truth right? If you control what people are worried about and it usualy only takes one common denominator to do it" I'm getting this from my college psych class" you can use that to affect a large amount of other variables.

04-13-2008, 08:08 PM
So, when scientists are no longer useful to your position, they must be on the liberal dole? May I remind you that the U.S. "dole" has been controlled for the last 8 years by an administration that has constantly squelched any kind of dissent over its any of its policies (GW, geopolitical, or economic), usually through character assassination. Last time I checked, Al Gore has no control over who gets research grants. And the fact that U.S. government-funded scientists, like the sources I referenced earlier, consistently point to (1) the fact that planet is warming and (2) a theory that man-made GHGs are contributing to it? (Note the use of the words "fact" and "theory" in the last statement -- I'm getting tired over distinguishing the difference with you all.) I would say that either those in power (who, for all purposes, are GW skeptics), have let you down or that not even they can any longer deny those points. Given that they're in control of the government sponsored research grants, what other possible conclusion is there? The typical knee-jerk response to that question is: "the mainstream the media has poisoned the public", but on what other issue has that stopped the current administration from acting on its own impulses (even assuming its true)?

I do agree that trying to meet the Kyota terms on a quick timetable is unrealistic and unaffordable. At the same time, those are no reasons to dismiss GHG controls altogether. I'm not for radical change, but for change at an affordable pace. But it's time to move...

04-13-2008, 09:12 PM
Given that they're in control of the government sponsored research grants, what other possible conclusion is there?

You are showing more than a little naivet&#233; concerning how the federal budget process and bureaucracy works. First of all, until very recently, this president hasn't found a budget from Congress that he wouldn't sign, no matter how bloated. Secondly, the career bureaucrats control a lot of the mechanisms of government, no matter who is in the White House; just look at the actions of the State Department. Finally, when you have a pop-quasi-religious movement like gw, the tide of public opinion moves the politicians along - after all, even the Supreme Court reads the newspapers. The biggest thing that President Bush did that had a direct impact on this argument was refusing to sign off on Kyoto, and it was a commendable action; not only was it a worthless scrap of paper as far as reducing emissions was concerned, it would have yielded yet more of our sovereignty - in fact, it could be argued that he would have been in violation of his oath of office for him to have signed it.

As for the assertion that we are experiencing long-term warming...it is indeed that, an assertion. Or, to put it another way, it depends on which set of statistics you believe. And, even if you go along with the concept that warming is occurring, you are still left with the question of what it really means; for example, Dr Gray would readily agree that we have experienced warming - he would say that would be expected, as we have emerged from the "little ice age". That still doesn't mean that the theory that greenhouse gases have caused the warming has merit, or that the warming is continuing. Also, while it is convenient to call it a "theory", it is far removed from a proved theory, such as Einstein's theories of relativity - those theories were proved by observation. The fact that we are having this debate proves that we don't know what the observations mean yet; it would be far more accurate to call it a hypothesis - it hasn't been proven yet, and may never be proven. We do know there was warming going on during the 1990s, but it appeared to peak around 2000, and has been declining since. Is this a long or a short term trend? We don't know. All I do know is, a lot of meteorologists who I respect don't hold to the gw mantra, and they all give pretty good reasons for doing so. On the other hand, a lot of the more prominent gw boosters have no expertise in the area at all...now, which group is more credible?

Finally, some time ago, you posted this:


In which you cited a gov't (NOAA) study that supported the idea of gw....so it seems that your argument that GWB has been suppressing government scientists in their noble quest to get the word out on gw has been refuted...by yourself.

04-14-2008, 12:28 AM
This is my scenario to help explain the difficulties involved with science & politics. I prefer to keep it simple so bare with me please!

A genuinely concerned/interested, bright scientist begins to work on research involving something (you fill in the blank) that could affect man kind. He goes out and experiments and collects evidence based on the variables that he can find. Possibly not all the variables but just the currently "known variables". He then has to support a given hypothesis and may have formed a theory and presents his findings to the world. This is the point where a public opinion will likely start to take shape though it may be over a period of several years to alot more depending. Public opinion being something that's formed based upon a large amt. of factors such as predetermined personal beliefs, overall level of education of a population & etc. etc.-this can go on for a while. Once a general feel for public opinion is formed politicians, who's #1 concern isn't always their image to the public but mostly is, and who serve on committees which employ all sorts of people via the allocation of government funds including scientist to do research & not all of it bad, will use the given issue to achieve a certain political goal. You would be very surprised at what that goal may be or even how it could seem to have anything to do with the actual topic/issue of research. Did the scientist get used? Absolutely. Was it still to his benefit? Well if your a scientist and need funding to speed up your research via inhanced/better tools at your disposal created by increased funding then possibly. Science actualy takes quite a long time to know anything for certain and some scientist will tell you that nothing is known for certain! Good science is a very long process and politicians need something to fit their immeadiate needs whatever they may be. Thats when politicians realy start to either hype the subject if the current findings didn't quit fit the bill so to speak, or even if genuine non-hyp'd results are ok they at the very least make it appear to be priority #1 for everyone to give them a little more leverage for who knows what! Alot of times its just to "have a horse to trade" to coin the phrase but these things can go in alot of different directions/possibilities when it comes to politics and whats at stake.

Also, if a scientist who has maybe a moral conviction about sticking to true independent research, I suspect this type of research exist alot less then we'd like to believe but I'm a synic by nature, does stick to his guns he does likely put himself at a disadvantage to those who do work with either gov. or corporate backed funding.

Personaly I beleive global warming is a real phenomenon. To what extent has man contributed? Its probably safe to say that we certainly have some and that we need to become better stewards of the environment. Should we wean ourselves off of fossil fuels? Absolutely. Should environmental issues be considered the main reason for the current supply demand issue with oil? Absolutely not. I've seen alot of things that where taughted to be great environmental policy that actualy where bad for the enviroment and the economy as well. However, the issue was used for a certain means to and end which realy had alot more to do with international trade issues then it did the environment. Issues in gov. are not as seperate as you might think.

Just my food for thought! I'm going to drop this thread and move on to something alot funner: fly fishing itself.



04-14-2008, 06:59 AM
Hey ij:

I do indeed understand how the Federal research cycle works. Most of the research programs and their projects are defined at the civil servant level, but must be approved at the Associate Administrator level or higher (appointed). Often research directives themselves come down from the higher levels. Decisions on who gets the awards is made at the civil servant level, so you do have a point.

But so do I. I didn't mean to imply that that Administration has done any direct meddling because I don't know. My point is that, even in an Administration that is clearly on one side of the debate, its agencies not only sponsor valuable (and hopefully objective) research but also put out fairly objective interpretations. (None of them are calling GW a hoax, as has been here, for example). Also, I would think that research findings supporting the Administration's view would be more than welcome and highlighted.

So I haven't refuted myself at all with the NOAA and EIA references. The point is that even when the political inertia is on one side, the agencies' faces on this matter are pretty even handed. And you'd better believe the spin agencies put on these matters comes from higher up. That should be telling us something.

The thing that me started on this post was the notion that we can blame the scientists which I think is very misguided, almost desperate.

04-14-2008, 08:26 AM
Ahhh...but I do blame the scientists, at least some of them - the ones that should know better, but continue to sign off on this due to peer pressure, etc. The others generally have some sort of ideological axe to grind; while it has long been common knowledge that the academy tilts way to the left, a lot of people (including myself) always assumed that the "hard sciences" were safe from that sort of nonsense. However, it turns out that isn't the case - ideology drives thought there too, at least to a certain extent. Every scientist I've read of who isn't on the gw bandwagon has spoke of the pressure to conform to the "party line" on this. Conformity in the scientific world is not something to be valued - there should be vigorous debate, and unfortunately, this isn't happening enough on this.

We have all three remaining presidential candidates "on board" on this, along with most of the rest of the spineless bivalves we call our elected officials; if the top officials are "spinning" against this, it hasn't worked. Billions of dollars will be spent, and it's a no-lose scenario for the gw crowd; if the "actions" fail to stop warming, further, ever-more costly actions can be advocated and enacted...and, if the temperatures fail to rise (proving gw caused by man is a hoax), they can claim that their "heroic actions" saved the day. In the meantime, real environmental problems (such as losing 40&#37; of the country's wetlands here in Louisiana) won't be addressed, and probably that much more of our freedom will be gone in the bargain....but hey, Al Gore and his ilk will be more than a little richer.

04-14-2008, 12:05 PM
Hey look at the bright side, if Obama gets in we may have PETA running the US fish & wildlife service. lol. You never know!!!!

04-14-2008, 03:47 PM
So what IF global warming is happening. Now im not saying it is, I just happen to do a little research for school on possible affects. The question is how environmental limits that are associated with global warming could affect trout populations. Stream temperature is a basic limiting factor that defines suitable habitat for salmonids. Increase temperatures may force trout populations to move upstream, becoming even more fragmented. In a study by Flebbe et. al in 2006, Warmer habitats may change timing of spawning. In a warmer climate, brook trout may spawn later in the fall and hatch earlier due to a warmer winter. Likewise rainbow trout may spawn and hatch earlier in the spring. These increases in temperature could alter the compettive interactions between these two species, furthermore changing the phenology of prey. This would change the timing of food availability which would no longer be synchronized with the metabolic needs of trout. Another factor that may be associated with GW is drought. Drought is also likely responsible for structuring fish populations. According to Utz and Hartman, fish density has been shown to affect growth in the fish, in areas with less fish per unit area experienced significantly higher growth rates in both natural and stimulated settings. Global warming or not, all species of trout are somewhat affected by extreme variable changes in the environment.

04-14-2008, 04:27 PM
If you remember, a few years back, La Nina and La Nino were modern day events created by global warming. Recently, the translations of the Mayans confirm similar weather patterns, but of course, what did the Mayans know, they have predicted the end of the world on December 21, 2012 ;-)