Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL

[SupperDuck]

[Mark K]

Let's get some of those folks in the NE U.S. measuring snow by the foot instead of inches to post on the subject of global warming.

[Dingy]

In all fairness Po, ice in a glass is not the same as a glacier. Glaciers/icebergs have a portion of of their mass above the current water level whereas ice cubes in a glass are largely submerged and are already displacing water. Many glaciers also occur on land and only meat the sea at the "shore". IF they melt the waters gotta go somewhere.

I am a scientist and I do not know where I stand on this issue. You really have to ask yourself whether humans are part of the natural system. All these theories run on the basis that everything we humans do alters what would normally happen...DUH! Perhaps we humans are part of Earth's ecosystem (obviously) and the things we do are no different than a squirrel eating all of the acorns in an oak forest, thereby no new trees will grow.

[JJ McGuire]

What happened to the hole in the ozone layer?

[bamahunter]

PLet me keep this real simple: It has never been changes in global temperatures that have convinced me that there is a problem...It is the % composition of CO2 in our air that scares the hell out of me...We have twice as much CO2 in our air now (in terms of parts per million) than we had 250 years ago...We are screwing with the basic chemistry of the air we breathe and the speed with which this has happened is far greater than can be explained by any natural phenomena that has occurred during that time period...Nobody debates that...

As for your so-called credible scientists, over 2200 scientists ratified the IPCC declaration, the National Academy of Sciences says its true, the Nobel Prize Committee nominates Al Gore but you would cite a couple of state agency scientists?

For your first comment... How about you look up the percentage of volcano's and forest fires contributions to CO2. You find a way to prevent those and you'll win a Nobel Prize.

For the second comment, if you understand anything about research you know that scientist have to have funding to make a living. Therefore, you will find thousands of scientists that are jumping on numerous topics in hopes of gaining funding for further studies. Right now the hot topics are nano-technology, alternative fuels, and global warming. The easiest way to get funding is writing proposals with one of these three in the topic. Twenty years from now there will be new issues and all this will be a thing of the past.

[bamahunter]

What is the most abundant greenhouse gas? CO2? Nope its water vapor.
:

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

[bamahunter]

China is not beating us b/c of some so-called "pollution restrictions," they are beating us b/c they have much cheaper labor.

And a population of approximately 1.4 BILLION doesn't hurt them either!

[sportsman450]

I know nothing about global warming, so I have no comment about it per se, but I will make this comment. There is no other group that I know of that is as selective about the "science" they choose to believe as duck hunters are. Bottom line, is if it indicates some sacrifice might be needed, it's bogus, but if it indicates "more" it's the gospel.

[gator]

There is no other group that I know of that is as selective about the "science" they choose to believe as duck hunters are.

hello kettle............you're black

gator

[GordonGekko]

You really have to ask yourself whether humans are part of the natural system. All these theories run on the basis that everything we humans do alters what would normally happen...DUH! Perhaps we humans are part of Earth's ecosystem (obviously) and the things we do are no different than a squirrel eating all of the acorns in an oak forest, thereby no new trees will grow.

that was my question precisely, i don't know if anyone has answer that, and I consider that to be the threshold question.... because our eco-system is very adaptive and tends to correct itself at times.....

[Po Monkey Lounger]

"What happened to the hole in the ozone layer?"

That's now old school --- yesterday's news in the world of "what can we scare everyone with today".

Lets see, just from memory, we have had the global cooling scare; then a hole in the ozone layer causing global warming; CO2 levels causing global warming; now CO2 levels causing climate change, whether warming or cooling, which is much more convenient and easy to prove, with pretty much any weather pattern usable to prove the hypothesis; bird flu epidemic; AIDS mass worldwide epidemic; sunami threats posed by earthquakes; massive earthquakes predicted on fault lines; nuclear contamination from nuclear plants; nuclear war; etc. etc.

Geez, it is all so uplifting. I am sure you guys can think of more examples. But yet, somehow, someway, we are still here, worried more about how many ducks will fly over our decoys.

[mottlet]

Took an international environmental law class when I was at Ole Miss. Big part of our grade was coming up with a Kyoto type treaty regarding climate change. The professor divided us all up, and gave us our marching orders. Didn't tell us what country we were, but we all had explicit instructions concerning what we could negotiate on, where we had to stand firm, etc. China wants to grow and come out of the stone age. The U.S. doesn't want to have to clean up if China and India don't have to, because they're still "developing." Tiny island nations want everybody to clean up because they don't want to have to swim for it. Let me tell you what we figured out real quick. If everybody doesn't give up something, we're up the creek. And the whole exercise gets pretty pointless when a few bigger players take their ball and go home. Granted, this exercise assumed that climate change was real, so we didn't get to yell about that. But if a bunch of law students can hammer something out...

Now back to your regularly scheduled tail chasing...

mottlet

[Hammer]

What happened to hole in the Ozone layer? Thanks for asking cause you jsut made my case....

What happened to the hole in the Ozone layer is that a hypothesis that it existed was forumlated by SCIENTISTS, then tested by SCIENTISTS, proven to be true by SCIENTISTS and the governments of the world signed a treaty regulating the use of ChFCs that caused the problem and what do you know- the hole in the Ozone layer is no longer a problem...That is exactly what will happen with GW but you naysayers will come along in 20 or 30 years and say that it was all a hoax and the cutback on CO2 emissions was unnecessary...

Guess you guys dispute the existence of acid rain? I suppose mercury contamination in fish in the Gulf is nothing to worry about either...And that whole thing about DDT, that was just a big environmentalist hoax too...Oh yeah, there are panthers runnign all over the Delta and the woodland elk that were here in the 1800s are still here too...

Now for my surprise although Sportsman 450 kinda beat me to the punch...The point of this entire thread has been to show how selective you guys are in the science you use when debating waterfowl topics...Given the overwhelming scientific concensus on GW, if you are still not sufficiently convinced that GW is real and that human emissions of CO2 are causing it, then there is no amount of science that will ever convince you of anything waterfowl related....

You guys ahve suggested that countries are signing treaties, that companies are spending billions upon billions of dollars and that thousands of independent scientists are publishign bogus research because they have been duped by Al Gore and the lunatic fringe of the radical environmental movement into believing mankind is causing a problem that really results from Mother Nature...I suppose you can come up with equally creative ways to justify spinners, baiting, increasing bag limits, extending the season, etc.

Game/set/match- keep the thread going if you wish, but the point has been made. You naysayers are anti-science when the science doesnt support your world view.

[mottlet]

Game/set/match- keep the thread going if you wish, but the point has been made. You naysayers are anti-science when the science doesnt support your world view.

Okie dokie. You just nullified your entire argument, which was actually pretty good. But the second you claim to have won an argument on the internet, you've let everybody know just how irrational you really are. I mean, it's not like this thread is about something that some msducker is going to finitely prove in the here and now.

Now watch as I hijack the dogschit outta this thread. Duck hunters ARE selective when it comes to the science they want to believe. ALL duck hunters. Sportsman450 and others (I single him out not just because he's been vocal, but because we've locked horns before and I know he already doesn't care what I think ) are anti-spinners. That's great. There is science out there that says spinners are bad for ducks. Now, for the sake of this argument, we'll ignore the fact that shotgun shells are bad for ducks too. Some might even compare decoys and spinning wing decoys to steel shot and hevi-shot. But like I said, let's not go there today. The point I'm trying to make, is that the science that lets us all know that spinners are bad for ducks COMES FROM THE SAME SOURCE as the science that sets the seasons. Not Sportsman450. Not madduck. But qualified, trained wildlife biologists. In fact, some of the biologists that have expressed concern about spinners, are some of the very same ones that count the ducks and set the seasons. Like gator said...pot, meet kettle. BTW, I hate a f'n spinner and think that global warming is real. Just playing games on the internet on a Sunday afternoon.

Y'all be good.
mottlet

[Po Monkey Lounger]

To me, the biggest folly about the entire GW issue is the idea that Man can control our climate in terms of average global temperature. We currently have scientists stating that we should set an upper cap on global temperature increases and a floor on temperature decreases, as if we have the ability to set a thermostat for global temperatures. And all of this is based upon the idea that CO2 emissions are the primary culprit or catalyst for global temperature changes. Such thinking clearly ignore the huge impact that the sun has on our global temps, including that the heat from the sun is greater at times, and less at times during history. (eg. right now, both the planets Mars and Earth are experiencing simultaneous, similar slight temperature increases due to increased temps from the sun.). And even if we had this ability to set the earth on a thermostat by controlling CO2 emissions, such presumes that we could control all emissions, not just man-made emissions. But common sense tells us that volcanoes and other natural occurences will continue to have a huge impact on global CO2 levels, and will continue to be outside of our control.

And who decided exactly what temperature the earth's thermostat should be set at? To benefit whom? If I lived somewhere that had been very cold and covered with ice, I might enjoy a little thawing due to a global warming period.

I guess what I am saying right now is that the "science" right now is too uncertain ---in terms of the condition, the cause, and the cure ---- for many of the extreme actions being proposed. There has been a rush to declare "consensus" for political reasons, as opposed to true scientific research and debate. Why are those scientists who disagree with the UN report and/or the alleged man-made causal aspect to GW, being silenced? What is the harm in legitimate scientific debate?