Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2) 3 4 5 »


Re: Inconveinient Truth

Joined:
2006/9/14 10:34
From Southeast PA
Posts: 521
Offline
Quote:

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

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

Posted on: 2007/3/6 12:49


Re: Inconveinient Truth

Joined:
2006/10/2 12:29
Posts: 27
Offline
Please don’t get me wrong, I did not post that link to dispute that fact that the earth is in a warming trend. It was posted to show that there IS great debate among scientists as to the cause (despite what you see on CNN or the nightly news)...is it caused by humans or something natural? I believe, either way, that it is in our best interest to conserve what natural resources we have and search out alternatives for the future...

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

Posted on: 2007/3/6 13:07


Re: Inconveinient Truth

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 19011
Offline
Quote:

Wulff-Man wrote:
Quote:

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

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


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

Ahhh, the sweet smell of heffermint.

Posted on: 2007/3/6 13:15


Re: Inconveinient Truth

Joined:
2006/9/14 10:34
From Southeast PA
Posts: 521
Offline
Quote:

FarmerDave wrote:
You may be on something ...

HAHA!
How did you know? Talk about an inconvenient truth! (KIDDING!)

Posted on: 2007/3/6 13:41


Re: Inconveinient Truth

Joined:
2006/9/14 10:34
From Southeast PA
Posts: 521
Offline
Quote:

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.

Posted on: 2007/3/6 13:48


Re: Inconveinient Truth

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 19011
Offline
Quote:

Wulff-Man wrote:
Quote:

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.

Posted on: 2007/3/6 14:57


Re: Inconveinient Truth

Joined:
2006/9/16 23:22
Posts: 597
Offline
Good post Farmerdave! I just replace all light bulbs with those stupid looking floro bulbs. Does than even me out for buying the Suburban?

Posted on: 2007/3/6 22:00


Re: Inconveinient Truth
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/13 12:42
From Altoona, PA
Posts: 2259
Offline
Quote:

FarmerDave wrote:
Quote:

Wulff-Man wrote:
Quote:

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).

Posted on: 2007/3/7 7:56
_________________
Padraic
Never challenge a cat to a staring contest


Re: Inconveinient Truth

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 19011
Offline
Quote:

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.

Posted on: 2007/3/7 8:20


Re: Inconveinient Truth
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 17:32
From Gettysburg
Posts: 9282
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2007/3/7 8:34


Re: Inconveinient Truth

Joined:
2006/9/14 10:34
From Southeast PA
Posts: 521
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2007/3/7 9:02
_________________
"It ain't the meat, it's the motion"


Re: Inconveinient Truth

Joined:
2006/9/14 10:34
From Southeast PA
Posts: 521
Offline
Quote:

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.

Posted on: 2007/3/7 9:21


Re: Inconveinient Truth

Joined:
2006/9/9 16:33
Posts: 681
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2007/3/7 9:42


Re: Inconveinient Truth

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:20
Posts: 235
Offline
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_w ... of_a_scientific_consensus

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

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

Posted on: 2007/3/7 9:56


Re: Inconveinient Truth

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 19011
Offline
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.

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!!! ). 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.

Posted on: 2007/3/7 10:29



« 1 (2) 3 4 5 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Will you be fly fishing this autumn?
Yes 95% (139)
No 0% (0)
Thinking about it 4% (6)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/10/31 17:56
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com