Last Year At This Time, Global Warming(Climate Change) Was A Big Topic Here

[Chief Grey Bear]

Talk about reading comprehension problems.

[Tim Smith]

BTW, freedom of speech does not extend to a privately owned internet forums. You agree to follow the rules of the owner when you sign up.

Then I suggest you talk to the owner as I have many times to be sure you're following the spirit of the rules that HE sets down.

Falling into a lengthy off topic exchange WOULD be cause for banning the thread according to Phil's rules so I'm done here until someone has something to say about the topic. Baiting people into a shouting match won't fly.

[Phil Lilley]

My comment - this subject has been pounded again and again and as far as I can see no one has changed their mind or stance. If anyone has changed their mind because of these conversations, I'd like to know. Changing a stance because of these conversations is not impossible... if it's happened, it would motivate me to see these discussions in a different light. BUT as long as the discussion remains a discussion and not a yelling match, I see no harm.

May be I need to change the rules to say it's ok to discuss weather, catch and release and politics as long as it stays civil... ok, not politics. That's a lost cause!

[Al Agnew]

Emotions can run high when it comes to politics, but compared to some other sites that I've visited (briefly), we're all one big happy family here. And I think if we just remember that we ARE kinda like a family and treat each other like it, things will go just fine.

As far as changing minds, to me this often seems to be an evolutionary process. Some are so entrenched one way or the other that they never evolve, but others gradually soften their stance and begin to at least consider the good points of the other side. But mainly, I like to listen to viewpoints the opposite of mine, if for nothing else to help me sharpen my own arguments. We aren't going to change the world on one internet site, but maybe it helps us understand each other a little better, and that's a good thing, I think.

[LittleRedFisherman]

This has been a heated topic for a long time now, but i'd like to make an observation I've seen over the years on the farm growing cotton. Cotton maturity is determined by accumulated heat heat units derived from the averaging the days high and low temperature. Later planted cotton can be made to mature earlier due to more heat units. When my grandfather was raising cotton in the 40's, they'd plant so early that the was always battling potential frosts and even freezes to get the cotton in early enough to make the yield it needed, when May rolled around, you were really late for planting. Over they years that date has been pushed back, now we can plant at the end of May, and still have pretty much full yield potential, and it's been this way for the past 15 to 20 years now. Granted varieties have contributed some to that date, but there's evidence that show that we accumulate more heat units on average than we did back In the day. Not saying what's causing it, but something I believe is different. Ironically, many of our record high's for the summer months here in NE AR were set in 1901, a bunch of them! Of course 1980 has it fair share here as well, one day it hit 116.

[ozark trout fisher]

I know I've changed my mind about several topics (not this one) at least partially due to discussions on Ozark Anglers. Basically no one will come out in the middle of an argument and say "You know what, I actually think you're right" (pride wouldn't let most of us do that even if we really thought that.) But sometimes it does at least get you thinking about the opposite point of view in a way you've never considered before. And it will more than likely cause you to research whatever the discussion is about, beyond the opinions posted on here.

Just occasionally, at some point that will to a change in your point of view. I think that's the only reason why it's ever worth your time to post in these types of threads.

[Tim Smith]

My comment - this subject has been pounded again and again and as far as I can see no one has changed their mind or stance. If anyone has changed their mind because of these conversations, I'd like to know. Changing a stance because of these conversations is not impossible... if it's happened, it would motivate me to see these discussions in a different light. BUT as long as the discussion remains a discussion and not a yelling match, I see no harm.

May be I need to change the rules to say it's ok to discuss weather, catch and release and politics as long as it stays civil... ok, not politics. That's a lost cause!

As for myself, I have changed some of my perceptions of natural gas due to the discussion here, largely due to the points Wayne has made. It may not be a full solution, but it probably has more merit in the short term than most of the other options available to us.

I think it was also from responses of various people in these discussions I realized that once people finally look at the science and realize it's right, they still have to decide that cooperating to fix the problem is better than suffering the consequences of climate change. That's an important point and I still don't think I have an answer for the people who aren't willing to try...other than a bunch of stuff I learned in church.

[fishinwrench]

I've had my views changed (corrected) on several topics here over the years. It isn't rare by any means for me to fly off into the unknown on a subject....and then "be brought back down closer to earth" by someone on here.

The frustration always remains though, because even if one of us has a truly logical solution to 'whatever', nobody capable of actually doing anything about it ever hears/considers/acts on it.

[jeb]

My comment - this subject has been pounded again and again and as far as I can see no one has changed their mind or stance. If anyone has changed their mind because of these conversations, I'd like to know. Changing a stance because of these conversations is not impossible... if it's happened, it would motivate me to see these discussions in a different light.

Agreed. Your question is about this "this subject" and I've never seen anyone change their mind about it on the various internet forums I'm active on, including this one.

BUT as long as the discussion remains a discussion and not a yelling match, I see no harm.

May be I need to change the rules to say it's ok to discuss weather, catch and release and politics as long as it stays civil... ok, not politics. That's a lost cause!

I appreciate the clarification. And I agree you should probably change the verbiage of your rules about this. As I've said over and over, I'm just trying to respect you and your rules. I can argue GW with the best of them, but hate to do it given your currently stated rules.

[jdmidwest]

Agreed. Your question is about this "this subject" and I've never seen anyone change their mind about it on the various internet forums I'm active on, including this one.

I appreciate the clarification. And I agree you should probably change the verbiage of your rules about this. As I've said over and over, I'm just trying to respect you and your rules. I can argue GW with the best of them, but hate to do it given your currently stated rules.

I think the part that Phil does not tolerate is the direct attacks and name calling that usually becomes of these threads. Civil discussion of any topic is usually allowed.