Tim Smith

Walleye taste great and fight like a wet sock (and as Gary said most of them are stocked so there's usually not a natural population to conserve). People who fish for walleye are usually after meat. I agree with Gary's assessment that the catch and release ethic is very strong in the north. In most places you will get chewed on hard if you creel a lot of bass (even in places like subdivision ponds that probably need a little harvest). I'll also second the good condition of most stream bass fisheries in the state and I also believe that catch and release is the main reason they are as good as they are. The numbers do cycle back and forth over time but in my opinion Gary even understates the quality of the fishery. I was stunned to find out what kind of smallmouth you can catch in systems with very little stocking right under the noses of 3 million plus people in the Chicago area.

Guilt doesn't lower emissions does it. I have actually worked with polluting industries and had a little success helping them reduce emmissions. In my experience the things that make the biggest difference in emissions are the big process-oriented shifts. Those shifts usually happen when they become cost-effective and make good business sense. So once you can buy an electric power boat that will still give you an adrenaline rush (or the economy crashes or gas taxes go nuts and you can't afford gas anymore) those problems go away. In the meantime, sure, it would help if you cut back on the power boating boating or found a car to use in your commute that gets better mileage. I could argue that I catch more fish out of a kayak than most people do out of their bass boats...but I'll spare you that for now. If you at least recognize the issue and you aren't rolling in paranoia you're way ahead of most. I also hear you about the developing nations. I work a lot in Belize. The coral reef that drives 1/3 of their economy is dying, mostly because of climate change that originated in developing nations. I don't spend much time telling them to cut back consumption down there because it would just be too freaking hypocritical (plus it's only 300,000 people so they barely matter in the carbon budget anyway). I do, however, spend a lot of time working to reduce coastal erosion and pointing out that they shouldn't be building where the sea level is going to rise over the next few decades.

Gary, that's quite a treatise. Pick a piece of it you think is especially useful to the debate and I'll be glad to address it. Looks like you've got solar activity and scientific consensus up to bat?

JD, you've approached this discussion with a mature attitude and you'll get no belittlment from me (disagreement yes, but you've handle yourself well so far...although that e-thug comment was a little thin skinned). Muddy, in contrast, jumped headfirst into the discussion with insults blazing and he's pretty much getting what he deserves. Just remember he called himself "stupid", not me. I don't really care how smart he is (and given the size of that bass he's holding in his profile pic he's probably pretty competant in some areas). I only respond to the content of posts. For instance, JD, since you had the good graces to admit you didn't know about the mercury in those lights, I respectfully retract the comment that nobody knew about those. The substance of that point stands, however. Most people do know those lights have mercury, and it wasn't clear why Muddy raised that in the first place. I admit I'm dumber than most but he needs to make himself clear so even I can understand him.

It's an important question, I'm glad you asked. Here a summary of recent trends from NOAA (2008). And here's the national assessment from 2000. The prediction from 2000 for future trends (p. 52) was:

JDC, you set a very good tone...respectful and focused and appealing for calm. Unfortunately, even though you've done a good job expressing your feelings on this issue, you haven't addressed the facts. Everyone is clear that the climate changes with or without human influences. However, when you discount the human role in the current warming trend is to set yourself against the concensus of the people who went into the field and obtained the data for the graph you posted. The people who spend their whole lives studying these facts may respect how you feel, but they would be doing you a great disservice not to tell you that you are badly confused about how to interpret that information. You as an individual may feel like that helpless skier. But the fact is that we as a group are building the hill you're going over right now. That is why dicussions like this are important. We have to get on the same page and address the real issue, or yes we will be helpless. Unfortunately, the happy truce you suggest doesn't do the whole job. For instance, if we both agree that we should use less oil, we've made no real progress if we then immediately switch to coal (as the coal companies in the intermountain west are currently promoting with a radio campaign). We've got to get serious about the science and find a way to work together.

No need to wait that long. Go look at the predictions for rainfall and temperature in Mid-America (more intense rains with less overall precipitation and higher average temperatures). Those trends have borne out. Then go ask the people at Opryland, or the campers at Albert's Pike, or the people living below that dam that collapsed in Iowa if they expected to deal with 13 inch rains this summer.

Podum, I get that you are offended. In response I can only say it was not my intent to offend you and I am very sorry that you feel that way. If you can point out a specific point where I stepped over the line I'd be glad to reconsider it. Unfortunately, based on what you're posting here it's pretty clear to me that you're wrong about some very basic points, and I am going to confront you on those. I'm going to have to trust that you have enough maturity to keep your emotions in check and stick to the facts because there are things much more important here than whether or not you like me. After all, I could be offended too. You are lecturing me here about science when your post is full of basic misunderstandings about science. First of all, 100% concensus is not a realistic expectation for almost any topic in science, especially in complex dynamic systems like climate. There are always stragglers in any crowd. We've had 20+ years and millions of man hours and hundreds of millions of dollars (perhaps billions by now) invested by the fossil fuel industry to uncover data refuting a human role in global warming. Yet that has not occurred. You can find individual scientists who's ideas have been disproven and who are still angry about that. But you can't find a coherent explanation for why the climate is warming except the human role. To imagine that an issue is still up for substantive debate because a handful of dissenters are still in love with the petrochemical teat is to misunderstand the whole process... ...which apparently you do in spades. For instance here it's clear that you think "Conclusions about data" aren't part of the scientific method. Without conclusions, data would sit forever in a pile on a deck and no one would ever benefit from it. You should have learned that in High School. Your statement there makes it seem you're not interested in purity of science, you're just looking for a way to cut science out of the process. It's the same falacy that says "Evolution is just a theory" (and therefore we don't have to take it seriously even as the evidence to support it is piling through the roof). Given that you apparently don't know what the scientific method is, I suppose I could also be offended that you apparently want to claim the mantle of Copernicus. Yet it was Copernicus who was persecuted by religion/political forces for using the scientific method...which you apparently haven't bothered to learn. But I'm not offended. I know you're still sorting through all this. People lash out when they're challenged. Good people eventually focus on the facts and do what's right. We are at the turning point where this is issue is transforming from a scientific debate into a moral one. The pain is coming. For some it is already here. Year by year, decade by decade it is going to get worse. We may not know yet how best to respond to this issue, but it is time to raise our game and address the real issues... ...which at this point is determing the exact size of the human effect, the implications for those effects, and the efficacy of the various fixes.

Guys, you're going to hang in here you're going to have to actually do some research or this is going to get ugly for you. If you're trying to suggest scientists think they never make mistakes that's just absurd. I got an email yesterday with a list of retractions over the past year, all in new cutting edge topics where mistakes are likely. Climate change is not cutting edge science. That trend has been discussed for decades and we're down to sorting out details and contingent events. If you're suggesting papers about ice ages in the 70s contradict the current climate trends that's even more abusurd. The next ice age is supposedly 10,000 years in the future. Global warming is an emerging problem over the next 1000 years. Since you hate science I guess its no surprise you hate government funded science. That over looks the fact that most basic research is funded by the government (because business won't take those risks and they can't make a buck off it). Government funded basic research is the foundation for most sustantial new technologies and scientific breakthroughs. Given that you're using Limbaugh talking points here, I guess that's your alternative for reliable information? Yikes. Limbaugh is the guy who said global warming wouldn't cause sea level rise because the water levels stay the same when ice melts in water...as if scientists didn't know that. Sea level rise comes from the melting of ice on land and the exansion of water due to heat. The man doesn't even know what he is saying. He just knows that "LIBerALSSSsss" are evil and anything an environmental scientist says is designed to enslave you and force you to eat tofu. What an awesome mentor. I don't even know what to do with your comments about light bulbs and carbon credits. Is your point that technology isn't perfect? EVERYONE knows there is mercury in those lights and personally, I'm hoping we find a better way to have low energy lights soon. How is any of that relevant? I'm also no big fan of carbon credits but its hard to know what you're even criticizing here. "Carbon credits" are a policy invention and don't have anything to do with science. I guess since you're lumping huge groups of people into one giant mass of "LIBerallLLLssss" you don't see that distinction. I also get that you're angry about GE having lots of money but I'm not sure why you expect from them. Should they be trying to lose money and make MORE pollution?? You gotta do better than this. Fire up Google and brew some coffee and raise your game. I'm getting bored.

Unfortunately, Al, until you confront the politics you'll be stuck here forever. The same way Mr. Morris can still get away with saying that humans and dinosaurs lived together, the denial crowd will insist that your polar bears are just fine, and climatologists can't measure temperature, and 20 other kinds of nonsense that must be true because scientists are liars and "our side" has to be right. The climate debate splits along almost exactly the same lines. ...here's an experience for you. I once went to a conference on "Intelligent Design". Being a good Southern Christian and also a scientist, these kinds of issues have always been imporant to me. So when my dad, who was both a protein chemist and a church elder asked me if I wanted to go, I was glad to make the trip. We sat through the conference and listened to the talks. At the end of the day it was apparent that this group was simply repackaging a lot bad science into a molecular format. The basis of the "Intelligent Design" premise was that complex systems can't work if any one part of them is removed. From this they concluded that dynamic systems (like cells) had to be created all at once (by something intelligent, i.e. God). They used examples like the function of actin and myosin and the movement of flagella to say that if even one part of those protiens in those fibers wasn't formed in exactly the right way, then the whole system couldn't work. Therefore flagella (and implicity most other things) had to be created (implicity by God) all at once (without natural selection). This Intelligent Design/Dembske/Behe molecular biology shtick was pretty fancy on the surface. However there are many forms of primitive flagella and plenty of evidence that systems of protiens gradually shift from one function to another with slight modifications over time (i.e. they evolve). The whole dog and pony show of Intelligent Design was nothing more than molecular repackaging of the same old "there aren't any intermediate forms" rhetorical dodge (that argument basically demands that biologists produce every last biological form that ever lived over the entire history of evolution before accepting that any evolution has occurred at all). My dad was appalled. So we were sitting in the audience at the end of a talk by a Mr. Wells (I think it was Wells) when dad raised his hand. Several other people had already pointed out some of these problems in the theory, when dad asked "Do you believe it is morally repugant for humans to have descended from apes." Mr. Wells blinked a bit. And stared at him. And then said, "Yes." It was an honest answer, but it was not a scientific one. Whether Mr. Wells would admit it or not, his feelings on that topic were also the real reason that conference and the intelligent design theory ever existed at all. This group had built their science from their fear they were somehow connected to animals, and from a particular interpretation of the Bible that limited their ability to deal with those implications. That dynamic has barely changed over the last 150 years. The climate change debate is rapidly moving in the same direction. The denial argument is building backward from a distrust of science and a moral assertion that nobody should tell them what to do (if you can call that morality). Certainly oil companies will twist facts (I was talking to one oil man precently who put forward the idea that the Macando spill was probably good for fisheries in the Gulf...shameless). Their skepticism comes from their economic interets and none of that is especially surprising. What is vastly more concerning is how the churches, who are the only real effective moral arbiters in this country, are following suit. The climate change debates seem to be playing out along some of the same fault lines as the evolution debate. The same predjudices leveled against scientists are being leveled using the same kinds of rhetoic, often spoken by the same players to the same audiences. It is as if the possibility that we might act cooperatively to address the problem is some kind of insidious moral threat. There is still room for honest skepticsm about the particulars of climate change, and certainly the policy issues are entirely up for grabs. But this is not the level this issue is being debated in most public places. Scientists haven't found out everything about climate change, but they know a lot. They know global climatic temperatures are rising. They know we are liberating CO2 at an unprecidented rate from unprecidented sources. They know greenhouse gases can account for the kinds of increases we see. They know that no other driver has accounted for the rise. They know we are facing increasing levels of disruption if the current trends hold. Sure. We can hack through the details of the science for now, but we don't have 150+ years to wait for this thing to play out. For many of the deniers, the real issue is that they think mainstream science is out to get them. That's a moral/political issue that no amount of logic can cure.

...and yet here you are. I do like your metaphor since pig-headedness is the main reason online debates go bad. Suit yourself about sticking with the discussion or not. I would be glad to have a civil debate. To your credit, you've skipped past the data and gone straight to your bottom line. That saves lots of time. Unfortunately your bottom line is that you think thousands of scientists all over the world are lying to you. I find your position saddening, but at least you're upfront. Also to your credit you have clearly put your core stance on the table. Many others have been far less honest. Here is where your problems start. The technical points people usually raise here have already been answered long ago. Are you saying there are stations that don't meet monitoring protocols so the global temperature monitoring data isn't valid? There was indeed a survey of monitoring stations a few years ago. Of the thousands of global monitoring stations all over world, a few of them didn't meet standards, that's true. But global temperatures show exactly the same trends with and without data from the stations you're objecting to. Your asphalt stations make NO DIFFERENCE in the over all trend in rising temperatures. So what is your objection here, really? Are you trying to say you know better than climatologists how to measure climate? Are you trying to say that there is insufficient evidence that global temperatures are warming (including an average retreat of glaciers all over the globe, increases in global satellite temperature data, the retreat of the Arctic ice sheet, the changes Al mentioned, the progressively earlier ice-out on temperate lakes and on and on and on)? If that is your point, you are standing in agreement with 3% of climate scientists, and most of those are either funded by big oil or dribbling oatmeal down their shirts in nursing homes. Surely you're not going to take us down that road because that hog will get butchered quick. Your best bet here is to stick with the paranoia/conspiracy theory. You need to explain why 97% of climate scientists are lying to you and why the vast majority of scientists in other fields (scientists who COMPETE with climate scientists for funding) agree with 97% and not the 3%.

Well your primary issue there was that you didn't make one... ...that and you've got a little testosterone issue.

No, muddy, the problem with your argument is that the clearing rate for CO2 is too slow to help us on the scale of contemporary human lives. Climate is a long term geologic process, but this isn't a long term geologic/evolutionary issue. This is a contemporary issue that is beginning to affect us now. The whole reason climate change is a popular debate is because of the effects and potential effects on HUMANS, on our KIDS and our GRANDKIDS.

Fully agreed and thank you, Chief. I'm pulling for you too.

Yeah I feel you on the transportation issue. Like you I've scaled down from a Silverado (and man I miss that truck). I'm also trying to walk the talk. I've got 22,000 mangrove propagules in the ground since 2007 (although the ridiculous amount of traveling I do probably offsets whatever good karma that might give me...I'm trying to fix that). We all have work to do. But just because somethings aren't known doesn't mean that the essentials aren't known. Saying that the current rise is outside normal fluctuations does not mean that the temperature rise itself is natural. It just means we've seen temperatures go up before. There are mangrove fossils in the ridge just west of Denver. The northern range of mangroves is now in Louisiana. Yes, of course, the planet has seen rising temperatures before. Of course there are still specific questions, especially about the local effects of climate change (for instance it's snowing like crazy in Buffalo New York this year...primarily because Lake Erie was hotter than it ever had been going into the winter and the lake effect has gone nuts). But as the article says... Even climate scientists like Pielke who think carbon isn't the most important cause of global warming still think we should reduce emissions. I'm glad you agree. EDIT: As a side point, most surveys are done with a mail in format and there is a body of statistical science that makes that a widely accepted and rigorous way to determine opinions in a group. The study in question was conducted for the Harris group through George Mason University and was as scientific as it gets.

As to Justin's point about coral reefs, here's a commentary on my own experience in Belize. It's a preachier tone than I would use in a forum post, but I was pretty pissed off after that dive. Dead coral at Laughing Bird Caye This year the Healthy Reefs Initiative Report Card showed that 70% of the coral on the Mesoamerican Reef was in poor condition or worse, in large part due to heat-related coral bleaching that happens every single year now. That's worse than last year and shockingly different from 20 years ago. There is a real chance the reef as we know it will be gone in 50 years. So while skepticism is important in science, when you make this assertion... ...the responsible step is to show what data leads you to your conclusion. And you are in fact on very thin ground among people who study these things. Al is right that vast majority of people who actually study this field (95%) are in full agreement that human causes for climate change are important and need to be addressed (check the other climate thread on this forum for the reference). In fact, the faith involved in this debate lies on the side of the deniers, and the flock that should be setting the ethical example here has been swallowed by the wolves... ...but wolf season begins right now. Let's do this. Lay what you find convincing about the denier's case (and assuming its the same as the umpteen billion other denier arguments I've seen elsewhere), let's walk through the gaps in the rhetoric and pin down what's important here (Al has already done quite a bit of that). If you want to use citations, let's do it. If you want to cut to the chase and talk about the global scientific conspiracy trying to enslave you and force you to eat tofu at gunpoint, let's do that... ...but it's time to work past this nonsense about no human role in climate change.

Here's a link to an article about the Harris poll asking scientists their opinions about climate change. Another recent poll from the Univeristy of Illinois at Chicago says essentially the same thing...but it was conducted by a geologist. Ness, how exactly would that mean it's more likely to be a lie? Doran and Zimmerman

That's probably a good place to start, Wayne. In the short term there is no political will to lower emissions (primarily due to a hellacious amount of misinformation but also because it involves real economic adjustments that most people don't want). The option we have left is to get ready for it, or to use one of Cold's buzz words, "adaptation". The World Wildlife Fund specifically calls for "no regrets" adaptation. Do the things you should be doing anyway (planting and conserving trees, preventing coastal erosion, reducing pollution, increasing energy security) until the pain from climate change is great enough for people to start taking it seriously and address the underlying causes (if you want to see the front edge of the "pain" google "Marshall Islands" and "climate change"). As for making billionaires, I'm not sure I see anything wrong with involving capitalism in climate change adaptation. Pretty much nothing happens in this world without a business behind it to drive it along. For instance, I have a Belizean friend who is making a living restoring mangrove forests. He's not a billionaire, but he does feed himself and his family on the profits, and I couldn't be happier that he does.

Not sure what all your points are here, Cold. Both Pielkes have essentially the same position on climate change. Pielke Jr. does talk about science policy and he has several academically-oriented books on the topic (not sure how publishing a book makes you less credible? Perhaps you could explain that.). Also not sure what your point is about "buzz words". The climate is changing and it is getting warmer...in Mid-America, other things have been predicted such as more extreme precipitation events but a reduction in average precipitation...which has in fact occurred. We're coming to the close of what will probably be the warmest year on record globally, and the end of the warmest decade on record. If you want to defend the idea that the average temperature on the planet isn't increasing, we should probably skip straight to the part about how the entire scientific establishment (including the American Fisheries Society) is lying to you. We could then weigh the probability that government vegetarians are going to force you to stop fishing and hunting at the point of a gun (direct quote from AM radio heard earlier this month) and enslave the planet into worshipping Satan. All those ideas are pretty much on the same footing.

Thanks, Ness. Good to be here. I believe that was a Harris poll, which is generally considered to be as fair as it gets. You can google it and check if you like. Maybe I'll take a break in a minute and do it myself. I believe that poll also had a break down of skeptics and assenters across scientific fields. Climate scientsts had the highest level of acceptance. Petroleum geologists had the lowest. The majority of every field agreed the climate was warming and except for the field associated with the fossil fuel industry, most also agreed there was an important human role. EDIT: I double checked cold's point about insurance and I think I gave the appropriate response. Yes, risk is spread across insurance holders and the fact that most people AREN'T in trouble is what makes it work. I might have phrased the Katrina point differently but the point is the same. Katrina almost sank several insurance companies active in Louisiana (with a broad risk base as you point out), and it was just one storm. If the number of very large storms continues to increase there won't be any insurance available in those high risk areas because no one can make a profit with that frequency of storms. Either that, or buildings will have to evolve considerably (at much greater cost to the builders) to handle the stress.

...and since you asked here's an interview with Mr. Pielke (it's Roger not Brian Pielke, apologies for that...I've read his work but not recently). Roger Pielke brought to you by the Nazis at NPR. I don't agree with him on all his points (i.e. he says you can't attribute a specific weather disaster to climate change, which is technically true but practically false since the total number of extreme weather events is directly linked to climate change) but he cuts through a lot of the political BS and still comes down on the side of taking action on climate, including CO2 emmisions. Unless you resort to the people who are outright lying, he's about as credible a "skeptic" as you'll find on the topic...and he's saying we need to cut CO2 emissions.

I'd be glad to discuss your points. What you posted here isn't a point. What you posted here is what you do when you know your points are in trouble.

Not quite. The half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is over 100 years, not 8 hours. We're still tearing out the forests that take it out of the atmosphere and pouring in more from fossil fuels all the time. Based on the rate we're adding it to the atmosphere now (with no let up in sight) there's going to be a lot of GWI over the rest of our lifetimes.

You can do the google searches on Pielke. He's a climatologist and his points are pretty well known. On the climate change spectrum he falls more conservative than most...but yes he does see a human role in global warming as do 95% of climate scientists (and the American Fisheries Society agrees with them). As for the insurance issue, you're missing the point. For instance, Katrina virtually bankrupted the Louisiana insurance industry. As those kinds of problems become more and more frequent, our capacity to handle them erodes away. It's already hard to get home insurance in some places in the Caribbean. We're not far from the point it won't be possible to get insurance at all in places like that.

Brian Pielke (EDIT: excuse me, that's Roger Pielke, not Brian Pielke) at the University of Colorado answers your question by estimating that greenhouse effect is responsible for about 25% of temperature variability on the planet. But really, that doesn't answer your real quesion at all. 25% of the control over global temperature variability is plenty enough to do us real harm. If 25% of people have diabetes, why ignore it because 35% of people are going to die from cancer, especially when you've already got an infection in your foot? The chances the Yellowstone caldera will blow up enough to affect the climate in 100 years is small. The chances the planet will warm tremendously over that time frame because of greenhouse gases is very, very high. Will the effects be major? One good way to quantify "major" is by the impacts on human societies. In a study based on predicted changes,in the Caribbean Basin, they expect to be spending 5% of their GDP cleaning up from climate effects by 2025. That number will be 21% by 2100. 45% of the resorts in the Caribbean will be underwater within 100 years. In the Albert Pike campground (where I often vacationed as a child) that 13 inch rain that killed all those people this summer took a pretty heavy toll too. In Belize where I work, almost all of the coastal communities are already losing their beaches and there are already neighborhoods in standing water. Sea level rise is projected to be 0.5 to 1.2 meters over the next 100 years, yet people from the US are still building vacation homes less than 0.5 meter above the high tide mark. The adaptive approach simply anticipates and side-steps emerging problems like that... ...but as long as people who think scientists are out to get them are driving the conversation, there are going to be a lot of nice vacation houses underwater in the years ahead.