Hysterical Gw Alarmist Policy Goals?

[Justin Spencer]

Jeb,

Look at what is generating the interest on this forum right now, it is discussions like this. I know we hate people making money on solar and wind energy, but let Phil pay his bills on this site by having an increase in traffic and posts. If it annoys you this much to have a conversation about a concern of many people, then don't click on it.

[jeb]

Jeb,

Look at what is generating the interest on this forum right now, it is discussions like this. I know we hate people making money on solar and wind energy, but let Phil pay his bills on this site by having an increase in traffic and posts. If it annoys you this much to have a conversation about a concern of many people, then don't click on it.

If that's the way Phil felt, he'd take down the pinned thread. And he would not close threads about it that did not get personal.

[Tim Smith]

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.

Guys, you're making yourselves ridiculous. Look at the list of GW posts on the conservation forum. Some are Xed. Some go on for weeks with Phil's explicit blessing.

Phil has his back covered with that pinned notice at the top (because some people clearly can't handle the issue and have to wander into name calling and slander), but he's not against free speech or open discussion....like some people clearly are.

The original question here was...what's so alarmist about the policy goals posted above. The fact that we're in this discussion instead clearly means that no one can answer that and they're out of excuses.

Logic is inexorable.

[Quillback]

Guys, you're making yourselves ridiculous. Look at the list of GW posts on the conservation forum. Some are Xed. Some go on for weeks with Phil's explicit blessing.

Phil has his back covered with that pinned notice at the top (because some people clearly can't handle the issue and have to wander into name calling and slander), but he's not against free speech or open discussion....like some people clearly are.

The original question here was...what's so alarmist about the policy goals posted above. The fact that we're in this discussion instead clearly means that no one can answer that and they're out of excuses.

Logic is inexorable.

Sorry Tim, you started this thread with a provocative and political statement, and if Phil let's it slide I'm fine with it. But it's not worth answering your questions because you have preconceived notions that are set in concrete it's useless to discuss anything with you, your mind is set. why bother. I'd say inflexibility is inexorable. The policy goals are fine by me BTW, basically it looks like the current administration has conceded GW can't be stopped, so now they're proposing that we set up policies to "manage" the impact on wildlife. Sounds like the current administration has thrown in the towel. If I was hysterical about the GW issue, I'd be contacting the current administration and demand action instead of posting meaningless drivel on this board.

[Tim Smith]

Sorry Tim, you started this thread with a provocative and political statement, and if Phil let's it slide I'm fine with it. But it's not worth answering your questions because you have preconceived notions that are set in concrete it's useless to discuss anything with you, your mind is set. why bother. I'd say inflexibility is inexorable. The policy goals are fine by me BTW, basically it looks like the current administration has conceded GW can't be stopped, so now they're proposing that we set up policies to "manage" the impact on wildlife. Sounds like the current administration has thrown in the towel. If I was hysterical about the GW issue, I'd be contacting the current administration and demand action instead of posting meaningless drivel on this board.

Conservation runs on policy and if there's going to be a conservation forum at all, these kinds of things will be in it. I'm aware that some people don't like a strongly held argument. I'm counting on the fact that others have enough self confidence not to take a debate personally.

I'm also aware that good fishing conservation groups have run and hid from this issue like frightened little girls because they have to pander to members who think they can't be a good ol' boy club and take climate science seriously. It's not the administration that needs a phone call. It's every day people who vote and send know-nothings into elected office.

As for the personal notes, I've pretty much done more than my part for this issue and I'll keep doing it. It's not like the solutions to this problem are easy or easy to arrive at. Contrary to what you say, I've learned a lot from people like Wayne on the other side of this issue.

Sorry you're offended. There was a time that would have bothered me.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I don't see the controversy. Tim posted a statement about how the goals of the administration are not a big change, but a redirect of some resources to address changes caused by global warming. I'm a big time skeptic of mans effect on global warming, but not on global warming, it is a fact that can't be ignored.

I guess it just down to "Don't look Ethel!"

[Outside Bend]

I don't see the controversy. Tim posted a statement about how the goals of the administration are not a big change, but a redirect of some resources to address changes caused by global warming. I'm a big time skeptic of mans effect on global warming, but not on global warming, it is a fact that can't be ignored.

I guess it just down to "Don't look Ethel!"

And even if we can't agree on why the climate's warming, I think most folks would agree our modern society is based on a fairly stable, predictable, global climate regime. That those regimes are being perturbed could spell trouble for a lot of different areas around the world- not just for wildlife and ecosystems, but the humans which depend on their services. Regardless of whether you believe humans play a role in climate change or not, it's important to devise strategies ahead of time which limit the damage.

[jeb]

The fact that we're in this discussion instead clearly means that no one can answer that and they're out of excuses.

Logic is inexorable.

This statement is purely inflammatory. You're only looking to start a fight saying things like this. What are you, like 13 years old?

[podum]

My thought too, Jeb. The original post was an invite to argue.

[Tim Smith]

This statement is purely inflammatory. You're only looking to start a fight saying things like this. What are you, like 13 years old?

Jeb. You're still off topic.

Saying that concerns about global warming are "alarmism" isn't fair to the science, policy and thinking around this issue.

Why not take responsibility for what you've said and defend the point instead of trying to censor the debate.

And yes, of course it's a debate. You can chose to get upset about it if you want, but you're the only one doing it here.