Global Warming And Effect On Fishing

[SpinnerbaitShogun]

First of all, I would like to say hello to you guys. I am a newbie here, but have been reading your posts for years. I have decided to register and share some of my input. I also will be posting a couple personal bests photos from last years catches on here as well, one including a northern pike that won me a catch and release master angler award!

Secondly, my post on global warming does not have any political bias on global warming. I tend to ride the fence on all issues until I have enough data to make a choice, and because I am human sometimes I do make mistakes with my interpretation, thus leaving me open to change of mind on the arrival of new data. My way of thinking is to question all that has been told to me and arrive at my own conclusion.

Some of you have concerns about global warming and the effect that it could have on fisheries. Most of us have deep concerns about global warming, pollution to the environment, etc. That is because preservation of life, and the continuation of life is the primary goal of humanity. Science is our tool that we use to take in all kinds of worldly information from astronomies, biologies, psychologies, environment, etc, and to use that information to make ourselves healthier, live longer, protect the Earth, etc. If science tells us that sugar is harmful to us, then our conduct should reflect that.

If you understand how scientists think, they are naturally skeptics. They are always challenging data, theories, and conclusions by testing them against the laws of physics and the laws of science. That is the realistic skepticism of science that is healthy and leads to truth and understanding. The global warming movements likes to push the lie that there is no debate in the scientific community on global warming, that all scientists agree acrossed the board. This is an absolute lie.

The charts used by the IPCC and in Al Gore movements are deliberately fraudulent and fixed by cherring picking data to justify a claim. Most of the data illustrated by these charts are from proxies. For example, a proxy is acquiring temperature data by using ice cores, tree rings, etc instead of using a direct measurement with a thermometer. If you have seen the Al Gore movie, then you have seen the infamous hockey stick chart. This is the most discredited chart in the global warming claim. This chart is a combination of proxies and direct measurement. The curve in that chart is where the two different measurements meet. That should be an indicator that one of the measurements are inaccurate. Secondly, the mercury thermometer was invented in the early 1700's so why were they still using ice core samples and tree ring sample up to the 1970s instead of a direct measurement. The hockey stick chart shows increase in temperature in the 1970s when oil peaked in the United States, that is also where the proxies and direct measurements meet on the chart. Is it a CO2 increase or inaccurate data. You decide.

CO2 is roughly 5% of the "greenhouse effect" gases in our atmosphere. The most potent gas is water vapor causing 95% of the greenhouse effect. The rest are just trace gases. Man produces 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is roughly .25%. Do you think that .25% can have a drastic effect on the Earth's climate? WHY DOESN'T AL GORE ONCE MENTION WATER VAPOR IN HIS MOVIE WHEN IT IS OVER 300 TIMES MORE POTENT THAN CO2 IN TERMS OF GREENHOUSE EFFECT? The IPCC doesn't touch on water vapor either.

Forests, Oceans, natural pollutants like volcanoes and forest fire make up 95% of the CO2 in our atmosphere. The oceans are the hemoglobin of our Earth. If there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans absorb it. If there is not enough, the oceans boil it out. That is Henry's Law. The Kyoto protocol will require too much economic funding, and have a drastic effect on the economy when they will only have a slight unmeasurable effect on the CO2 in our atmosphere.

CO2 is evenly distruted in our atmosphere. However, thermal charts used by Al Gore show pockets up temperature increases in the Northern Hemisphere. These pockets are located where precipitation is most prevalent and is another indicator of the real cause of warming. The regions shown in Al Gore's movie where the glaciers over antartica are "melting" are actually getting cooler. When these regions get cooler, there is less humidity in the air which results in less precipitation. Because the air is so dry there the glaciers are being EVAPORATED by a process called freeze-drying. If they were melting, the land exposed would not be bone dry but muddy. If those regions were to warm they would actually expand due to increase humidity and precipitation. The video of the glaciers collapsing into the ocean are also a natural process and it is caused by the warm water current coming in from the ocean.

30 years ago they were warning us about global cooling with predictions of wild storms, violent and unpredictable climate changes, etc. Same thing we are hearing now. You can't have it both ways. What is scary about this global warming movement is that they are using scare-tactics, cherry picked data, fraudulent data, and animations of stranded polar bears to make up our minds about political decisions down the road. This is thought-control propaganda which is not far off of what the nazis used to rally their troops. This is a distraction to real environmental problems such as pollution of our waters, air, soil from companies who police theirselves, and it is a distraction to the biggest contamination and pollution crime that is happening under our noses... depleted uranium. We are dumping our nuclear waste in someone elses backyard which is causing countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to be uninhabitable forever. The result of this contamination is already apparent from the skyrocketing of cancers and birth defects and malformations. Why waste our energy on a theory of what may or may not harm our Planet when we could be doing something about the things that ARE harming our planet and our health.

 

[SpinnerbaitShogun]

I also wanted to mention a few more things. The Southern Hemisphere is cooling and the Northern Hemisphere is warming. Also, global warming is a good thing. If you all can think back in history when the first Europeans settlers came to America, we were just coming out of what was called "The Little Ice Age". Food was scarce, disease was rampant, crop yields were terrible.

The more CO2 in our atmosphere, the better. CO2 is an aerial fertilizer, which means that the more CO2 in our atmosphere, the better yields our plants and crops produce. By stripping CO2 from our atmosphere, if it were possible, would lead to a global famine.

Also, the data used in Al Gore's movie actually proves that CO2 cannot be responsible for the warming trend.  The charts illustrated that CO2 lags temperature and doesn't lead it.  A dependent variable cannot not lead an independent variable.  You cannot have boiling water first before the burner.  The burner (independent variable) must be applied to the water (dependent variable).

Please concentrate on what your city, state, country is doing to protect our water, air, and soil from harming contaminants that can have a disastrous effect on the health of us and the planet. And trust me, there is plenty of real issues to be concerned about, i.e., radiation from depleted uranium, mercury, etc.

[Guest avid]

Welcome to the forum SBS,

But PLEASE let's not go down this road again.

It always leads to arguments.

I don't fish the "hemisphere".  I fish my local lakes.

Some days are cool some are warm.

when it comes to bass fishing that's all I need to know about this subject

with all due respect.

avid

[Troutfisher]

Welcome aboard!  I am siding with SBS on this one.  I agree with his point of view and enjoy listening to differing viewpoints.  The controversial issue of global warming is ever present in our society today, and I believe if people can discuss it in a reasonable manner and present facts and evidence in a timely fashion, it should be discussed.

[llPa1nll]

Well I am certainly no expert when it comes to global warming and to be honest I have not made up my mind as to the validity of it. What I do know and believe how ever is the ever present danger of pollutants getting into our atmosphere, lakes, and soil. Acid rain, mercury levels, untreated waste these are some of the pollutants I am concerned about. Living in the part of the country I do, some of the pollutants come down with the rain and infect fish and other wildlife. In the Northeast some lakes have exceedingly high PH levels to the point where they may no longer sustain fish. I also have heard of some reports that birds of prey that feed on fish in these regional rivers have had serious issues with their reproductive systems.

I have personally been on a stretch of river here in my own state that the smell of untreated waste was so strong and potent I had to leave. I also read in BASS about the bass in the Potomac R. having both sex organs, no cause or reason has been found. I personally think these problems are more troubling than global warming because they are happening now rather than decades from now. Now I have no experience about these topics but they concern me.

[Dan:]

Do a forum search for "global warming." There are tons of threads about this subject already and I don't think we need another.  

[senko_77]

Spinnerbaitshogun, those are some great points and that was a great post.

I agree with Trout, I really like these threads, but people get mad and offended by the smallest things

[Guest the_muddy_man]

Personally I am only worried about the effects global warming has on my butt

[flechero]

Most of us aren't good enough fisherman to apply any of the actual effects of "global warming". (or maybe the fish just haven't noticed any difference) The science of it says the oceans are only a few tenths of a degree warmer now than hundreds, maybe thousands of years ago. (which is well withing the natural heating and cooling trends that take place and are well documented) Even if the effect is 5 fold in smaller lakes and ponds... we are talking 1 degree (maybe) and only in the spawn do I worry about 1 degree.

A skeptic, who me? : I stand with what I belive to be the best scientific evidence... and by todays political standards, that make me a skeptic, or just an evil conservative. I'm good with that. ...lol

By the way, welcome to the forum.... maybe for your 2nd thread you can open up something on religion! ;D ;D ;D ;D

edited for spelling only

[Fish Man]

personally i dont believe it,,,,yes the earth is warmin ,,,no humans didnt cause it.i believe it is natureal and will not have any devistating effects,but if it is true im not gonna go and get worried about it an live in fear,,,i believe that you should enjoy life an not worry bout every little thing that seems to be a problem when you arent sure yet  

[cart7t]

I'm buying some property in Florida several miles inland. Apparently this lower cost land will skyrocket once the polar ice caps melt.  I'll have beach front property, hopefully in my lifetime and at a fraction of the cost.

[Cephkiller]

Forum threads should be treated just like television channels.  I know what I will see on Lifetime network will offend me, so I don't go there  

[Cravin]

Gore is just positioning himself as environmental liar ...I mean leader. yes it's warming up, I didn't do it. This has been gradually happening for a while and the only reason is being sold as the possible "End of the World" now is that elections are coming up in "08. fortunately this is a free country and we can all believe anything we want. so go believe.

If what I said about Gore offends you then  I'm truly sorry, and if your mad enough to call me names thats ok and I can live with that too cause I'm married.

I hope everyone gets enough fishing in before we all burn up!

[Fishin Phil]

I agree with being skeptical, and making my own decisions, but I see it the other way.  There is a ridiculous amount of data showing a corelation between co2 levels and temperature rise at the start of the coal burning, mechanized age (mid-late 1800's).  While there are skeptics in the scientific community (which we absolutley need for a balanced analysis of data), the consensus is that a huge majority believe that global warming is man made.  

I also agree that the data that is being interpreted, is being selected to suit the agenda of both sides. In the middle is the realm of consensus and that one is without question, supportive of man made climate change. Just a decade ago some of the same people that say global warming is not man made were saying it didn't exist at all and that it was a hoax!! At least we all agree that global warming exists.

Either way, the problem is nobody is willing to do anything about it because it will cost money. Reducing emissions costs money. Changing our habits costs money. We are a culture of money, and not value, and that is the true problem. Even if they find that humans only contribute 10% of the CO2, ask any of these CEOs to take a 10% paycut, and it's not such a small number anymore.

I think we can all agree that as fishermen (and women), we are huge on conservation.  I think it's fair to say that most people on these boards practice catch and release and taking your limit responsibly. Our natural enviroment is our livelyhood and passion, so why would anybody on this board not be concerned with the greatest enviromental threat ,man-made or not, that we probably will see in our lifetime. It's like lung cancer, most smokers don't see it as a threat (even though it's common knowledge that there are plenty of carcenigens in cigarettes) untill it's to late.

I agree that the debate is important, but unbiased analysis and not one sided iterpolation is what we really need.  Either way, we all agree global warming is happening, so why don't we all agree to a change($$$$$$$)?

[Cravin]

I agree with a lot of what you said Phil. I'm hearing that its not a majority in the scientific community that support global warming due to man. and I'm hearing more due to solar flairs, They point to warming trends on all the planets and Ice Ages previous to man to support there claims. Either way I don't really know if throwing government money at it can really stop it but I can see the benefit to the environment. I just totally disagree with the Dooms Day tactic and carbon credits that are making certain politicians wealthy. I wont say his name again.

Carbon Credits

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

[Hookem]

Re: Global Warming And Effect On Fishing

Whether man induced or natural is not the point. The point is the subject, so......

Down here in central Texas, where I have lived all my life of 48 years, I used to fish bedders in Feb through April. Now, its Dec through March.

Likely culprit? Water temp. What controls water temp?

My fishing logs have seen a significant shift within the last 10 years.

Any other possible explanations?

[Dan:]

I agree with being skeptical, and making my own decisions, but I see it the other way.  There is a ridiculous amount of data showing a corelation between co2 levels and temperature rise at the start of the coal burning, mechanized age (mid-late 1800's). CORRELATION IS NOT THE SAME AS CAUSATION. ALSO, THERE ARE STUDIES THAT HAVE SHOWN THAT THE INCREASED CO2 LEVELS MAY HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN A RESULT OF THE HIGHER TEMPERATURES (AS TESTED BY ICE CORE SAMPLES) While there are skeptics in the scientific community (which we absolutley need for a balanced analysis of data), the consensus is that a huge majority believe that global warming is man made. THERE IS MORE CONTROVERSY THAN YOU THINK. THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS/GEOLOGISTS/CLIMATOLOGISTS/METEOROLOGISTS THAT HAVE SIGNED A PETITION STATING THEY DO NOT BELIEVE GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE.

I also agree that the data that is being interpreted, is being selected to suit the agenda of both sides. In the middle is the realm of consensus and that one is without question, supportive of man made climate change. Just a decade ago some of the same people that say global warming is not man made were saying it didn't exist at all and that it was a hoax!! A FEW DECADES AGO MANY SCIENTISTS WERE CONVINCED THE WORLD WAS COOLING AND THEY RAISED AN ALARM SAYING THE WORLD WOULD EXPERIENCE ANOTHER ICE AGEAt least we all agree that global warming exists.WE DON'T, MANY PLACES ON THE EARTH ARE EXPERIENCING COOLING TEMPERATURES--IF ANYTHING IS WARMING IT IS NOT AGREED THAT IT IS SOMETHING MAN MADE OR SOMETHING THAT ISN'T PART OF A NATURAL CYCLE

Either way, the problem is nobody is willing to do anything about it because it will cost money. Reducing emissions costs money. Changing our habits costs money. We are a culture of money, and not value, and that is the true problem. Even if they find that humans only contribute 10% of the CO2, ask any of these CEOs to take a 10% paycut, and it's not such a small number anymore.

I think we can all agree that as fishermen (and women), we are huge on conservation.  I think it's fair to say that most people on these boards practice catch and release and taking your limit responsibly. Our natural enviroment is our livelyhood and passion, so why would anybody on this board not be concerned with the greatest enviromental threat SAYS WHO? WHO HAS EXCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT THIS IS A THREAT TO MANKIND? THIS HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND WE'RE STILL HERE...BUYING INTO THE DOOMSDAY CRISES IS EXACTLY WHAT THE GLOBAL WARMISTS WANT, THAT WAY THEY CAN MANIPULATE PEOPLE INTO FOLLOWING THEM OUT OF FEAR. ,man-made or not, that we probably will see in our lifetime. It's like lung cancer, most smokers don't see it as a threat (even though it's common knowledge that there are plenty of carcenigens in cigarettes) untill it's to late.

I agree that the debate is important, but unbiased analysis and not one sided iterpolation is what we really need.  Either way, we all agree global warming is happening, so why don't we all agree to a change($$$$$$$)?BECAUSE IT ISN'T EXCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT ANYTHING WE DO CAN[ CHANGE IT OR THAT IT WON'T CHANGE ITSELF AS IT HAS IN THE PAST. WHY MAKE SACRIFICES TO CORRECT SOMETHING THAT WILL ULTIMATELY CORRECT ITSELF AS IT HAS IN THE PAST?

[Fishin Phil]

Uh-oh, somebody drank the right-wing Kool-Aid. Quick, turn on the Daily Show. That should snap him out of it. Just playin man. This is exactly what I'm talking about though.

CORRELATION IS NOT THE SAME AS CAUSATION. ALSO, THERE ARE STUDIES THAT HAVE SHOWN THAT THE INCREASED CO2 LEVELS MAY HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN A RESULT OF THE HIGHER TEMPERATURES (AS TESTED BY ICE CORE SAMPLES)

Agreed, corelation does not equal causation. I understand how co2 causes higher temps, but if what you say is true as well (that higher temps can cause higher

levels of co2) then we have quite a cycle there. It's pretty much which came, first the chicken or the egg? Either way, it seems we both agree that the co2 and temperatures have increased, thus giving us global warming.  

THERE IS MORE CONTROVERSY THAN YOU THINK. THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS/GEOLOGISTS/CLIMATOLOGISTS/METEOROLOGISTS THAT HAVE SIGNED A PETITION STATING THEY DO NOT BELIEVE GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE.

I haven't heard of this petition, but skeptisism is science, so good for us. Peer review is what brings consensus. There may be opposition, but is there a consensus that global warming is naturaly caused, because right now it's quite the opposite, despite any petitions.

A FEW DECADES AGO MANY SCIENTISTS WERE CONVINCED THE WORLD WAS COOLING AND THEY RAISED AN ALARM SAYING THE WORLD WOULD EXPERIENCE ANOTHER ICE AGE

And a few centuries ago they said it was flat.

WE DON'T, MANY PLACES ON THE EARTH ARE EXPERIENCING COOLING TEMPERATURES

You contradict your own first point. You say here that global warming doesn't exist.

--IF ANYTHING IS WARMING IT IS NOT AGREED THAT IT IS SOMETHING MAN MADE OR SOMETHING THAT ISN'T PART OF A NATURAL CYCLE

This is the second part of the sentence from above. It seems here you contradict the beginning of your own sentence (which contradicted one of your other "facts") by saying it does exist but we don't know what causes it.

SAYS WHO? WHO HAS EXCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT THIS IS A THREAT TO MANKIND? THIS HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND WE'RE STILL HERE...BUYING INTO THE DOOMSDAY CRISES IS EXACTLY WHAT THE GLOBAL WARMISTS WANT, THAT WAY THEY CAN MANIPULATE PEOPLE INTO FOLLOWING THEM OUT OF FEAR.

I said it is the biggest environmental crisis we will see in our time. It effects the entire planet. You obviously disagree. What environmental crisis is bigger then the WHOLE PLANET WARMING????  

BECAUSE IT ISN'T EXCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT ANYTHING WE DO CAN[ CHANGE IT OR THAT IT WON'T CHANGE ITSELF AS IT HAS IN THE PAST.

It hasn't been exclusivly proven  because we haven't done anything!!!  

WHY MAKE SACRIFICES TO CORRECT SOMETHING THAT WILL ULTIMATELY CORRECT ITSELF AS IT HAS IN THE PAST?

Great plan. Lets do nothing. It will just go away. Thats some dangerous thinking.

I agree that it isn't doomsday and that we do need a broader view of this. Clearly we don't see eye to eye, but I do appreciate a civil debate. I feel your thoughts are just rhetoric though, and have heard the exact same thing from other people. It's like you took them from a talking points memo. I honestly try to look at this with an open mind, and you clearly have a one sided opinion. Try not to take any of this personal as I really do respect your opinion, I just disagree.

By the way, the red was a nice touch.

[Dan:]

I wasn't contradicting myself, my main point was that there isn't explicit evidence to prove a) that the earth is even warming at all and if it is warming, if it is because of anything we have done or if it is part of a natural cycle. I guess I didn't clarify that very well.

I find it curious that you think my opinion was copied and pasted even though your argument is basically what any global warmist would say on an average day, you offer no specific facts though. I also take offense to your assumption that I have not looked at the issue with an "open mind" and that I am just following what I am told--how can you know how much I've researched and thought about this? How do you know you are the only one who is thinking about this without any bias? I would say it takes a lot more thinking to go against global warming than it does to go with it because of the media propagation of the pro-global warming stance. It is easier to just sit and watch the news tell you that global warming is our fault and we should abandon our evil ways than it is to actually research the counterpoint.

Here are some things I think you should read, you don't have to, but I think it would offer you some of the dual sided parts of the argument that you seem to think are so necessary but neglect to investigate.

1

2

3

5

6

7

Also, I suggest you search for the CBC Documentary on Global Warming, it's a video series that can be found on youtube.

Here is my stance: We can't even be sure if the earth is in fact warming. There is contradictory data that would suggest either option. If we accept that the earth is warming, we have to recognize how small the warming has been, a couple of degrees celsius over the course of more than a century. That means we are relying on data taken by hundred year old thermometers. Also, IF the earth is warming, we have to determine if it is doing so unnaturally. I do not believe it is. There is plenty of evidence to prove that the earth's temperature has naturally fluctuated in the past and the current fluctuation (if it is indeed fluctuating) is natural and will correct itself just like it did before. I think we are making a fuss about something that happens naturally and will naturally take care of itself as it has in the past. I don't think it is smart to trust "computer models" for things that they can't possibly anticipate or factor in.

[Fishin Phil]

Man you have some great sources. Two opinion pieces, a conservative news site(with pics of Al Gore in a priests robe?), a dead link, and a list of doctors(there were an awful lot of MDs). Here, you can sign it too(just say your a doctor ).

The one article I did find interesting is the cattle article. It just shows that there are non traditional source of co2 being released. The way it was written was kinda biased though. It was kinda presented as cows are destroying the Earth. It was supported by fact though, so thats cool. There are plenty of sources supporting both sides and I'm not questioning that.

Like I said in my last post, we have different opinions, but what is the harm of making changes? We've been doing it for years. There are emissions standards on all types of industry and our cars. You ever see Mexico City in a haze or LA in it's smoggy hayday? Yes, we can affect our air very easily. Stop pretending like we can't. I don't buy this whole let nature take care of it either. Thats a cop out. Nature didn't take care of the smog. It just stays there. Seriously whats the harm in making changes(I'll answer for you:$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).

Hey, I gotta run. If you respond I might not get to it till tomorrow.

[Dan:]

Watch the CBC documentary. And read the sources. They have cited facts and good points. Why discredit these sources as biased when you have yet to supply any of your own. Do you think yours will be any less biased than mine? Do you think the global warmists don't have bias? Of course they do. And the media propagates it.

Smog and temperature changes are different things. Sure we can affect our air, I'm not disputing that, what I am saying is that the temperature will fix itself. They are different issues. I'm not saying we shouldn't limit our air pollution, that's a different problem. I'm not saying we should let the earth clean the air, that's not what I am saying will fix itself. The thing that will fix itself is the temperature changes. If it is getting warm, the earth will cool, it's a cycle that happens naturally and therefore there really isn't much we can or should do to help it. It's not bad, it's natural, it'll fix itself as it has before--is what I'm saying. It's not a cop out, a cop out would suggest I'm talking an easy way out of a problem, my argument is that there is no problem.

And I don't think you understand what the changes would cost us. You put it simply: $$$$$. And that is true. But it's not just that simple. It's not like the restrictions would just make those greedy companies lose some profit. It's restrictions on businesses that would cost the economy BIG BUCKS. And that hit to the economy would equate to a big hit on people EVERYWHERE ON THE EARTH. It would be simple economics, if businesses have to pay more, people have to pay more, and lots of people CAN'T pay more. More people would be hungry, more wouldn't be able to go to school, it isn't just a dollar out of some CEOs's pockets, it's money out of everyone's pocket. And the cause for all that? Something that may be happening. Something we don't even know is real would cost everyone. That's not a good cost-benefit situation if you ask me. We need to be SURE this is happening before we "make changes." As of now, that is not the case.

Glenn, please let us know if we are crossing the line. I will gladly delete my posts if they go to far, just let me know. As of know I don't think we have crossed the line because we are keeping to debating the science, but if we have, I have no problem correcting it.

[Cravin]

My question is if we are causing global warming why are the other planet warming also, and why is it we have not seen the hottest weather patterns recorded. It is recorded that the earth goes through changes in climate. To me it sounds like it falls under the category with the "War of the Worlds" broadcast and "Chicken Little". I personally prefer the right wing Kool-Aid. It has less artificial ingredients! the last two Ice Ages went through a global warming period and we had nothing to do with it.They say the Sun goes through cycles, how can you not figure this into your equation.Many scientist are screaming this but yet some people refuse to hear it. Maybe it doesn't fit there agenda.

[Fish Man]

the reason so many scients jump on the "global warming bandwagon is because if they dont they are out of a job.for instance a scientist can go to the government or a maor corperation and say give me 2 million dollars to go test this theory, they then make a ton of easy money.also i believe this was already said but its a political scare tactic.a politicion can scare people into believeing he/her can solve a major "made up" problem and get votes to be in a office.again co2 is only a minute amount of the 'GREEN HOUSE GASES" most of witch is water vapor.if the global warmin was real(caused by us) then high up in the atm osspere the temperature would rise along witht he surface temperature but it isnt..lastely my science teacher recently told us how the sun goes through hoter and just normal hot phase.well....surprise surprise we are currently in the hotter phase of the sun....problem solved  

[Fish Man]

i will try to make this my last post in this tread but the bad thing about change isnt just money for us and all the other "developed' nations.the problem is the so called"third world" nations like those in Africa.some of these nations are places that until now were just starting to get a foothold in modern technology and making life safer and easier for themselves to live by getting out of "poverty".but by changing all this these people may be driving back into "poverty" once more by not being allowed to use their new technology an forced to do without ....again

[Fishin Phil]

Watch the CBC documentary. And read the sources. They have cited facts and good points. Why discredit these sources as biased when you have yet to supply any of your own. Do you think yours will be any less biased than mine? Do you think the global warmists don't have bias? Of course they do. And the media propagates it.

Honestly, it seems to me the sources are the problem. Both sides use the same data and look at it differently and the moderate middle ground gets trampled by both sides agendas. I'm just pointing out that it seems you are on board with one of those sides. I really feel I'm staying in the middle here and have this whole time.

my argument is that there is no problem.

Dude, I understand your point, but where we don't see eye to eye is the solution.

Your answer is there is no problem. What if there is? Then your answer is a pretty messed up solution, regardless of cost. If we made some changes and it is a natural thing at least we can say,"oops we messed up, but hey the enviroments cleaner so we got that going for us". I still don't see how you prefer to do nothing instead of having a little insurance. Especially knowing China and India are energy hungry. America needs to set a precident as these countries become industrialized, not lead us into a game of Russian roulette. We might not be able to control their energy usage, but how can we ask them to do things more proficiantly when we don't do them ourselves. If man made co2 emissions are a problem now, imagine them in 20 years when both those countries are full speed ahead.

And as far as the cost goes, I totally agree that it isn't a doomsday type of situation and the costs and changes can be spread out over time to reduce co2 emissions. This is a capitalist country(and I'm a business owner), so believe me, a market wil develop for clean anything. I think you'll enjoy this link. Nobody here wants our economy to collapse and it won't if we make changes starting now. You would get a collapse when we follow your carefree attitude and in 15-20 years we have to start making big compromises quickly.

Bottom line is, you seem like you know both sides of this argument, and at the end of the day you still want to do nothing.