Drought?

[Jerry Rapp]

yep Ness, the drought is bad news. And in Russia, the floods are horrible.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/16/russia-floods-systems-idINL6E8IC70Y20120716

[Tim Smith]

you sure must have a hell of a talking point list Tim. You basically said scientists in Germany and the UK don't know anything. Germany is the world leader in green energy, and now they are basically saying they wasted a lot of taxpayer money. You are very solid in your beliefs, but I have never, nor ever will be, a chicken little worried about everything. I guess these greenhouse gases are what caused the glaciers to melt millions of years ago and create the great lakes, Lake Champlain, the candadien lakes, etc. Thankfully in this great country, we can agree to disagree, and then we can go out and fish together, and will even bait your hook! LOL!

Jerry, you seem to like that "chicken little" term. I gotta say I'm probably not going to spend much time on a lake with someone who's comfortable throwing terms like that around on the strength of a half baked analysis. You'd like to frame this as a friendly disagreement, but the kinds of things you're saying just aren't honest.

ONE German you cited has changed his mind and you're trying to say that represents the whole country. There's just no sensible way to respond to that and if someone in my boat tried to pull crud like that, I'd prefer they were on the shore...or back in town.

Go read the studies and look at the actual data.

[ness]

yep Ness, the drought is bad news. And in Russia, the floods are horrible.

http://in.reuters.co...E8IC70Y20120716

So, it's a push?

[eric1978]

and we are now entering a phase of global cooling, due to less solar activity.

When was the last time you went outside?

You apparently don't understand climate change, Jerry. It's not just hotter and dryer. It's more extreme versions of all types of weather.

[Jerry Rapp]

Tim, why did the Glaciers go away? By golly, it wasn't the end of world was it? Half Baked theories back at you also. Common sense says the cyclic climate changes have been going on forever. But you want to read 15 yrs of Al Gore rhetoric as gospel. Carry on, I will not address you directly anymore if you don't want to discuss this in a mature way.

[Tim Smith]

Tim, why did the Glaciers go away? By golly, it wasn't the end of world was it? Half Baked theories back at you also. Common sense says the cyclic climate changes have been going on forever. But you want to read 15 yrs of Al Gore rhetoric as gospel. Carry on, I will not address you directly anymore if you don't want to discuss this in a mature way.

Yes, Jerry, climate has cycled forever. The economy, however, has not been along for the ride on a cycle like this one. We've covered that and you haven't addressed that point.

We're 0.7 degrees into a 3 degree rise and the costs are already starting to mount up. The sky won't fall if we end up devoting 25% of our GDP to fixing damage from climate, but that's a serious problem that deserves a serious discussion.

If you'd like to write off decades of careful science behind as "Al Gore's rhetoric" then you're not interested in a real discussion and I'm not losing much if you walk away. A mature person doesn't settle for a dishonest exchange.

[Al Agnew]

Jerry, I'll use this analogy...hope you haven't read it before because I've used it before and I can't remember where, but I'll give it to you and then I'll shut up because I know I'm not going to change your mind.

The ambulance brings a guy into the emergency room. Doctors examine him and note that he has a bullet hole in his chest. They also note that he has a slow growing form of prostate cancer. Do the doctors automatically assume that the reason he's in such bad shape is the cancer, or do they treat the bullet hole?

Point is, just because climate has natural cycles doesn't automatically make this one natural, or at least wholly natural. Did the doctors assume that guy was dying of natural causes (cancer) or the bullet hole (man-made)? Even if the climate IS naturally warming, the science says that greenhouse gases can trap heat within the atmosphere, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (not the most potent, but a greenhouse gas nonetheless), and that human activity ALONE has raised the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by nearly 40% in the last 100 years, and climbing. The science also says that a warming climate can cause more extreme weather events. All that IS settled science. The only thing that isn't completely settled is how MUCH of an effect CO2 has on the climate. The scenarios range from cataclysmic to minor. The most likely is somewhere in between the two extremes, but the cataclysmic is just as likely as the minor to turn out to be right. There are also short term cycles, like El Ninos and La Ninas, which can either add to warming effects for a few years or mask them for a few years. So it's hard to take a 5 year or 10 year period and use it as evidence one way or another, but trends that go longer than that are better evidence. As for the oft repeated assertion that the climate hasn't warmed for the last X number of years, you can cherry pick data that shows that, but you can also cherry pick data that shows otherwise. What doesn't seem to be disputable is that the EFFECTS of climate change are showing up, especially in the Arctic and Antarctic, where most models show climate change should be most pronounced.

I'm no scientist. I WILL go on what the vast majority of scientists within the relevant fields (not physics or economics) say, until they start saying something different. It has actually amused me, in a sick sort of way, to see how the anti-climate change people have changed their tune over and over again as the research proved them wrong. First it was "It absolutely ain't happening." Then it was "Well, it might be happening but it's a natural thing." Then it was, "Wait a minute, some scientists are pointing to data that it really AIN'T happening, so I'll believe THEM." And then there was the subset that have always said, "Even if it's happening, it will be a GOOD thing." Meanwhile the science has pretty much stuck to the same tune the whole time.

You and I won't solve the problem, nor will we agree. But I promise I'll keep reading both sides, and I hope you will, too.

[drew03cmc]

Tim, why did the Glaciers go away? By golly, it wasn't the end of world was it? Half Baked theories back at you also. Common sense says the cyclic climate changes have been going on forever. But you want to read 15 yrs of Al Gore rhetoric as gospel. Carry on, I will not address you directly anymore if you don't want to discuss this in a mature way.

The glaciers melted over the course of thousands of years, due to a cyclic climactic shift. The cycle you speak of, has cycled much faster due to man's involvement and the creation of excessive greenhouse gases. This is what the science says, and you can choose to refute that or not, but that is what the facts say. If you wish to spin this to suit your viewpoint, be our guest, but the science says that the planet is warming up. This country has to figure out if we want to help the situation or hurt the situation.

[Smalliebigs]

Don't worry Jerry there are plenty out here who feel somewhat like you do but, choose not to argue this fruitlessly on a fishing forum. Jerry the future in this country will look something like this anyway

so lets go hit the Black River and catch some of the last of the 20 inchers in there while they last

[Outside Bend]

yep Ness, the drought is bad news. And in Russia, the floods are horrible.

http://in.reuters.co...E8IC70Y20120716

Russia's also been dealing with record-breaking drought over the past several years. Drought that caused them to halt grain exports, which in turn caused higher global food prices, which helped foment political instability in several nations. Let's not omit that.

The repercussions of climate change go far beyond polar bears and penguins.