Hysterical Gw Alarmist Policy Goals?

[Tim Smith]

Here are the goals of the current administration regarding natural resources and the warming of the climate (from the latest American Fisheries Society web feed):

* Conserve habitat to support healthy fish, wildlife, and plant populations and ecosystem functions;

* Manage species and habitats to protect ecosystem functions and provide sustainable commercial, subsistence, recreational and cultural use;

* Enhance capacity for effective management;

* Support adaptive management through integrated observation and monitoring and use of decision support tools;

* Increase knowledge and information on impacts and responses of fish, wildlife, and plants;

* Increase awareness and motivate action to safeguard fish, wildlife,and plants; and

* Reduce non-climate stressors to help fish, wildlife, plants, and ecosystems adapt.

In other words, keep the same goals you've had all along, but focus some of your resources (overall less resources than you've had in the past) into adapting to patterns of rising temperatures and changing precipitation (that are already well underway).

Maybe someone a lot smarter than me can help us find the parts of this that are alarmist hysteria..

[Wayne SW/MO]

There are a lot of different opinions on global warming Tim, but what kills any discussion is that there apparently can only be one of two views 180 degrees apart. I have never understood why one can't accept global warming, but question that the amount man plays in it? We know there was an ice age, and a little ice age and we know that both waned long before man discovered crude oil. From that and the periods before them we know the earth is unstable when it comes to temperature, but we must accept that, even though scientist are constantly upgrading our knowledge about the planet before modern man, the information on past climates and their length between changes is rock solid.

[Tim Smith]

I think we can agree that all the real questions left really boil down to "how much", Wayne. Mainstream climatology, however, is quite convinced that greenhouse gases are having a major effect. The temperature rise in the last 100 years is vastly faster than any other in the last 10,000. That happened during a time the large scale patterns say the planet should be cooling.

Thank goodness the argument about whether or not there is actually a rise in temperatures has settled to the far margins of the debate. Fish stocks are already being affected, and that's just going to get worse. BASS, TU and other fishing conservation groups conceded this point years ago. The leaderships of quite a few other organizations are still afraid (and I don't mean unconvinced, I mean AFRAID) to move on the adaptation agenda without more support from their members. I'd really like to see thinking people like you acknowledge that it's time to deal with these temperature changes and brace for what's to come.

[Wayne SW/MO]

One of the things that is most irritating is the approach, IMO, to cutting man made emissions. The bulk of it is in expensive commercial endeavors that help the bottom line more than the environment. It is also creating poverty as fast as North Korea can.

The biggest is the so called renewable energy, unfortunately it's weather and time dependent and can never stand alone. The best fuel today is NG which is easy to obtain and use. If we were replacing NG plants with nuclear plants we would actually see a gain. It would also make battery operated vehicles feasible because instead of burning coal to power a so called clean car, we would be burning nothing and creating no pollutants to recharge them.

[jeb]

Jeez, you guys just have zero respect for Lilley. He just shoveled dirt on the face of the last thread on this yesterday, and you just can't let it go. Nice.

[Tim Smith]

Jeez, you guys just have zero respect for Lilley. He just shoveled dirt on the face of the last thread on this yesterday, and you just can't let it go. Nice.

Nice try, Jeb.

I've talked to Phil about this multiple times. It's his forum and if he changes his positions I'll gladly stand down. In the meantime, any disrespect here is your disrespect for free speech..

You're not planning to cause him trouble because someone talked about something you didn't like on his forum. Are you?

[Quillback]

I guess the pinned topic on this forum stating that there should not be any topics started concerning GW doesn't apply to certain individuals.

[jeb]

Nice try, Jeb.

I've talked to Phil about this multiple times. It's his forum and if he changes his positions I'll gladly stand down. In the meantime, any disrespect here is your disrespect for free speech..

Change his position? Your thread runs directly contrary to his stated position here. He stated it again by closing the other thread. You're the one causing trouble by not only disrespecting it, but starting up again after he just killed it off. The body was not even cold yet, for crying out loud.

Free speech does not apply to internet forums. You can say pretty much whatever you want on the street corner, but when you come into Phil's house, you should at least try to respect his stated position and rules. I don't mind AGW discussions at all. I mind insulting our host.

[Mitch f]

I never minded the dialog, even if it gets a little harsh.

As I've said before, the argument about scientists hasn't gotten us anywhere...the majority of scientists agree its happening. As a country, the safe bet is to CYA and stop denying humans are having an effect. Too much risk. Although this very moment I believe the out of control spending should be addressed first.

[woodman]

Like what I was illuding to on the other post....it is what the mainstream Govt.-Science-Media ..is NOT talking about...is where the truth can be found....now in this day & age more than ever.....ITS THE METHANE.... I have great respect for whistle blowers in the science field........http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

We can't leave out the ocean wildlife....Jeremy Jackson talks about How We Wrecked the Ocean .. at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

2 ex military whistler blowers talk about chemtrails....

W.A.N. Radio 01-03-2013 hr2 with Kristen Meghan