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

[ozark trout fisher]

It is naive to think politics don't play a major role in this. There is a lot of evidence that this is largely an international power play, especially at the U.N. level. And the vast majority of research money here in the States to keep the gravy train rolling for the army of scientists and their facilities comes from tax dollars, so politics are hugely important there. Like it or not, it literally pays to be on the side of AGW/CC in most of these fields. And those paycheck are mostly signed by Uncle Sam. That makes politics intrinsic to these discussions.

Look, it relates to politics of course. But you could literally say that about any of our conservation topics. After all, the state government funds the MDC (or the AGFC for those in Arkansas.) Everything they do comes at the taxpayers' expense. So by this measure, any topic relating to how either of these agencies manage our resources is political. Almost every discussion on here that isn't purely about fishing tactics/places could be construed that way, everything from fishing regulation issues to habitat improvement on your favorite river/lake.

Nearly every important topic in this world relates to politics in one way or another. To eliminate any discussion as peripherally related to politics as climate change would in my opinion, be to eliminate nearly all non-fishing talk on here. Conservation issues would be off limits. We wouldn't be able to discuss a dam that was being planned on our favorite smallmouth stream, because the process involved in putting it in, or stopping it, would be political, perhaps even divided along party lines. In fact, we could talk about our favorite fishing spots, and our favorite tactics and that would be about it. And everyone would lose interest pretty quickly.

[Al Agnew]

What never ceases to amaze me is all the conspiracy theories linked to this issue. "An international power play"? So all those scientists from all over the world are in on it, huh? "Just chasing the funding"? Please tell me why the U.S. government or state governments or whoever funds it automatically has a vested interest in "proving" global warming, instead of "disproving" it. Any scientific endeavor requires funding and usually grants, but why would the grantor automatically want to prove global warming, instead of funding the research no matter where it leads...unless the grantor is an industry that actually stands to benefit from DISPROVING it?

I'm sure I've pointed out this before, but to believe it's all a hoax or a conspiracy, you have to believe that the 90 some odd percent of scientists in relevant fields who endorse it are all dishonest, incompetent, or have hidden agendas, while the less than 5% who question it are all honest, competent, and totally independent. Not only does science not work that way, human nature doesn't work that way. There are bound to be about the same percentage of dishonest crooks on both sides of the issue, which means that the vast majority of honest, competent scientists still endorse it.

So really, the politics should only come in when you consider what to do about it. Which, because of politics, looks to be not much. So I really, really hope that it turns out to be a false alarm, because we're gonna keep burning fossil fuels, keep clearing rain forests, and keep paving over more and more land until it's far too late to avoid some of the worst effects of it.

[Justin Spencer]

Perhaps the Creator had this in mind all along. Take a look at Isaiah 24. I will admit that after growing up in the church I haven't been in years, but I can't imagine the Almighty would be too excited about how we have treated all that He gave us. Maybe the amish have it right.

[Tim Smith]

it is not political, just common sense. Here is a 1975 Newsweek article back when pollution, smog, CO2 was much worse.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/1975-tornado-outbreaks-blamed-on-global-cooling/

Wrong. You've lumped CO2 and particulate matter and a dozen other things into one category.

It is naive to think politics don't play a major role in this. There is a lot of evidence that this is largely an international power play, especially at the U.N. level. And the vast majority of research money here in the States to keep the gravy train rolling for the army of scientists and their facilities comes from tax dollars, so politics are hugely important there. Like it or not, it literally pays to be on the side of AGW/CC in most of these fields. And those paycheck are mostly signed by Uncle Sam. That makes politics intrinsic to these discussions.

Wrong. Again. The "gravy train" is still about the amount of money it has always been. The funding for sciences has not increased since AGW became a major issue. The scientific community has chosen to study this as an issue because it is an important issue. The politics followed after.

Losing the trout in the Rocky Mountains should not be a political issue.

Rampant massive beetle killed forests and wildfires should not be a political issue.

Increasing numbers of intense storms should not be a political issue.

Sea level rise should not be a political issue.

They should, however, be studied because those things are all happening and we have to deal with them now.

If they weren't important, scientists would put that money into something else like wasting public resources on frivolous things like cures for cancer, new methods to control pollution, new sources of energy, improved educational systems and other schemes to enslave America.

[jeb]

Look at my statement. I said there should be nothing political about it, it is obvious that there is. It is sad to me that our nation and even the world can't come together to try and stop the damage that we are causing the planet.

That is simply your opinion. My opinion is that there is no hard evidence that man has anything to do with "climate change". Your "sky is falling" outlook is not shared by a large segment of the population.

[jeb]

What never ceases to amaze me is all the conspiracy theories linked to this issue. "An international power play"? So all those scientists from all over the world are in on it, huh?

That's your statement, not mine. The scientist are simply chasing a paycheck, by and large.

[jeb]

The politics followed after.

What does it matter when the politics came? The point is, obvioiusly, it is impossible to seperate the politics from the GW discussion.

[Jerry Rapp]

That's your statement, not mine. The scientist are simply chasing a paycheck, by and large.

bingo, been there, seen it.

[ozark trout fisher]

What does it matter when the politics came? The point is, obvioiusly, it is impossible to seperate the politics from the GW discussion.

I said it in an earlier post, but will reiterate.....every topic of any importance in this world (and especially anything that has to do with conservation) cannot be seperated from politics. But this is an environmental issue. No more inherently political than whether someone is going to put a dam in on your favorite stream, or whether the length limit on bass should be raised from 12 to 15 inches. They are all inherently scientific matters, but the methods of actually being able to do anything about them do involve politics. Doesn't mean they don't pertain to us, and it doesn't mean that all discussion about them should be silenced. This topic has been 100% civil, has it not? I'm not a moderator but it's hard to see what harm it's caused.

[Chief Grey Bear]

It is naive to think politics don't play a major role in this. There is a lot of evidence that this is largely an international power play, especially at the U.N. level.

What never ceases to amaze me is all the conspiracy theories linked to this issue. "An international power play"? So all those scientists from all over the world are in on it, huh?

That's your statement, not mine. The scientist are simply chasing a paycheck, by and large.

Sounded like yours