Trout Unlimited Unveils Position On Warming

[zander]

It was my experience in grad school the heads of departments and probably agencies too were better politicians and administrators than researchers.

[Al Agnew]

Didn't intend to argue the existence of global warming, but just CAN'T let some of this stuff go.

"Well over HALF of the world's leading CLIMATOLOGISTS"? I gotta call BS on that one. I guess "leading" might be a subjective term. But if you look at the views of ALL climatologists and those in RELATED scientific fields (economics, etc. is not "related") I think you'll find that only about 10% at most disagree substantially with the view that climate change is real, presently happening, and significantly caused by human activities.

Which brings me to another assertion I saw above, the mantra the "climate changes, always has, always will". True. But just because it happened in the past from "natural" causes, doesn't mean that it's happening THIS time from natural causes. Common sense would tell you that you can't put around 30% more carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere than was in it 150 years ago and not have SOME effect upon that atmosphere. Human activity has done that. That's over and above "background" CO2 sources, such as volcanic activity. We as humans are taking huge amounts of the CO2 which may have caused some former climate changes, but which was buried underground (coal and oil, the decayed and altered remains of plant life from some of those former warm periods), and bringing back out into the atmosphere by burning it. Not much burns my toast more than the assertion that us little insignificant humans can't have any effect on something as vast as the atmosphere...that's just ridiculous.

And just one time, check Snopes or other factual sources on the old, stupid "Al Gore said he created the internet" story. It ain't true.

Bottom line, in my opinion, is that nope, we can't perfectly assess how much global warming is occurring or will occur, nor can we perfectly judge how much of it is caused by human activity. But we DO know, without a shadow of a doubt, that greenhouse gases can cause climate change, we know we're putting a heck of a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and at best we've debarked on a grand climatic experiment and cannot predict the final outcome. And, as John McCain said in a recent speech...if we do all we can to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases and we're WRONG on the causes of climate change, we've STILL bequeathed a cleaner atmosphere to our children and reduced our dependence upon foreign oil. If we're RIGHT about the causes but we just keep on with business as usual, the consequences are pretty dire.

[Brian Sloss]

Al,

Could not agree more. The nobel Prize is not given out to "junk" science and if some one can point out a time when the nobel prize was given to what was later proved to be bad scientific work, I'd love to hear it. Mind you I said science, not a subjective field like politics.

[Al Agnew]

Let me expand upon my thoughts a bit...

Is there hype and junk science out there? You bet, on both sides. But most of it is MEDIA hype, not science. And the media hype comes from one side seizing upon the slightest questioning of the prevailing scientific view and saying, "See, scientists can't even agree that there is a problem." And the other side (mostly the mainstream media) covering the issue in 30 second sound bytes and NOT covering the real science behind it.

For instance, I don't know for sure, but I've been monitoring arguments like this on other web sites, and the "anti-global-warming" crowd, led by the talking heads on radio and cable TV, has come up with similar assertions as those made above that substantial numbers of climate researchers disagree with global warming. What they DON'T say is that they're counting ANY disagreement with ANY facet of the issue. For instance, one climate researcher might question the extent of global warming to be expected under the worst case scenarios. Another might question the percentages of global warming that is truly caused by human activity. A third might question which computer modeling is truly the most valid. A fourth might suggest (with good science behind it) that melting of glaciers on land might actually short-circuit the Gulf Stream and cause a mini ice age in northern Europe. What all but a few do NOT question is that the evidence points toward climate shifts happening, and human activity is a part of the cause. It really is true that the world's climate is incredibly complex and not completely predictable. But human activity IS putting more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and those greenhouse gases WILL have some effect.

The political opposition to acknowledging human induced climate change usually couches itself in saying that doing what is "necessary" to combat it would wreck our economy and give the world's developing countries (especially China and India) an economic advantage over us. In my opinion, the choice between economy and the environment is a false one. If this country can develop an atomic bomb almost from scratch in three or four years, and put a man on the moon a decade after watching helplessly as the first Russian satellite drifted by overhead, we can SURELY develop viable alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuels in the nest decade or so...IF we have the will (or if we can wrest control of our energy policy from the oil and coal companies). Doing so would result in winners and losers, but the overall economy would probably benefit from the new technologies.

More importantly, it would do what we KNOW (if we have guts enough to acknowledge it) needs to be done. There is a lot more at stake here than simply the world's climate (which sounds like a ridiculous statement, but apparently it IS still questionable that changes in the world's climate is enough of a reason). The economy of this nation, and the world, right now is substantially in the hands of despots and medieval religious idiots who happen to be sitting on top of the majority of the world's oil reserves. We are one supertanker sunk at a strategic place in the Strait of Hormuz away from economic crisis. Or one revolt among Wahhabist radicals in Saudi Arabia. We are looking at a continuing wrestling match with China for foreign oil reserves, and a clear disadvantage against Russia because they have a lot more domestic reserves than we do. We are looking at the choice of risking more and more environmental damage in a desperate quest to develop more domestic oil reserves, which have never been exploited before mainly because they are simply too expensive and difficult to get out of the ground, or else fighting future wars for foreign oil.

We are also looking at more and more environmental destruction from continuing to rely upon coal for most of our electricity needs. Right now, for instance, an area the size of one whole county has been destroyed by mountaintop removal mining in West Virginia alone, and the process is accelerating. Mercury in our water supplies, acid rain, torn-up landscapes, streams filled in and aquatic life destroyed by mine drainage, and economies of whole regions decimated because King Coal, the only game in town, is more and more efficient at getting the product out of the ground with fewer and fewer workers. Sure, there are "clean coal" technologies, but they are expensive and they only (partially) solve the pollution problems, not the landscape and economic problems.

Continuing to rely upon fossil fuels for more than 90% of our energy needs is a suicide pact. Even if it turned out NOT to be suicide by climate change, it'll still be economic suicide sooner or later.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now...sorry for the rant.

[Project Healing Waters]

Didn't intend to argue the existence of global warming, but just CAN'T let some of this stuff go.

"Well over HALF of the world's leading CLIMATOLOGISTS"? I gotta call BS on that one. I guess "leading" might be a subjective term. But if you look at the views of ALL climatologists and those in RELATED scientific fields (economics, etc. is not "related") I think you'll find that only about 10% at most disagree substantially with the view that climate change is real, presently happening, and significantly caused by human activities.

Which brings me to another assertion I saw above, the mantra the "climate changes, always has, always will". True. But just because it happened in the past from "natural" causes, doesn't mean that it's happening THIS time from natural causes. Common sense would tell you that you can't put around 30% more carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere than was in it 150 years ago and not have SOME effect upon that atmosphere. Human activity has done that. That's over and above "background" CO2 sources, such as volcanic activity. We as humans are taking huge amounts of the CO2 which may have caused some former climate changes, but which was buried underground (coal and oil, the decayed and altered remains of plant life from some of those former warm periods), and bringing back out into the atmosphere by burning it. Not much burns my toast more than the assertion that us little insignificant humans can't have any effect on something as vast as the atmosphere...that's just ridiculous.

And just one time, check Snopes or other factual sources on the old, stupid "Al Gore said he created the internet" story. It ain't true.

Bottom line, in my opinion, is that nope, we can't perfectly assess how much global warming is occurring or will occur, nor can we perfectly judge how much of it is caused by human activity. But we DO know, without a shadow of a doubt, that greenhouse gases can cause climate change, we know we're putting a heck of a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and at best we've debarked on a grand climatic experiment and cannot predict the final outcome. And, as John McCain said in a recent speech...if we do all we can to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases and we're WRONG on the causes of climate change, we've STILL bequeathed a cleaner atmosphere to our children and reduced our dependence upon foreign oil. If we're RIGHT about the causes but we just keep on with business as usual, the consequences are pretty dire.

Al, take a deep breath. We're actually not arguing opposing sides of this one.

On the subject of leading climatologists with advanced academic and professional credentials who work specifically in the field of climatology...do the research. I have. It's about 60-30 who are of the following opinion:

Climate is changing, always has been. We ARE having SOME impact on atmospheric warming, but we're not sure how much. CO2 is actually a non-pollutant, but a significant increase MIGHT cause changes...HOW negative we are not sure. The warming to date is within statistical norms universally accepted by geoclimatologists. The Earth has an amazing ability to adapt. We simply lack the long-term data to draw conclusions. Most of the predictive modeling is seriously flawed and NOT DONE BY CLIMATOLOGISTS...the folks who are actually in that business.

Furthermore, this is roughly what the latest UN study said.

What I am saying is: most of the dire predictions we have and are reading, seeing, hearing are NOT persuasively supported by the science. And that is a pretty well-established fact within the serious scientific community...who, by the way, lambast An Inconvenient Truth for it's "Chicken Little" assertions, but who readily agree it brought needed attention to the subject.

Agreed! Most of the hype is politically and media driven to further agendas that are NOT really about protecting the environment. Most of it does not come from respected scientists. A bit has, but some of them want to grab headlines (and thus grants) too.

[Project Healing Waters]

Al,

Could not agree more. The nobel Prize is not given out to "junk" science and if some one can point out a time when the nobel prize was given to what was later proved to be bad scientific work, I'd love to hear it. Mind you I said science, not a subjective field like politics.

Read this: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

And this is the list of signatories to the above open letter and their credentials: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

I can't reprint this stuff here because that would be a copyright violation. Otherwise I would. It's important stuff. Most of these guys are former or present SENIOR scientific staff with the International Panel on Climate Change for the United Nations. The title of the article is: "Don't fight, adapt."

It is far more of a national security and economic prosperity issue that we end our addiction to carbon-based combustible fuels as our primary source of energy and fabrics (in the grand sense...textiles, plastics, etc.) But we all know the environment will also benefit greatly. That is not in question.

[Brian Sloss]

ANY carbon pollution of the atmosphere is negative, but HOW negative we are not sure. The Earth has an amazing ability to adapt. We simply lack the long-term data to draw conclusions.

Then why should we gamble our grandkids and great grand kids environment on the hope that the earth will adapt. We at least can all agree that carbon pollution at the levels they are now are bad, then we should be able to agree that something needs to be done. For the sake of future generations. Also, how great would it to be energy independent, given the lack of stability in the mid-east. Developing these new technologies will create jobs as well.

I simply just don't believe that global warming is a hoax and besides there are numerous reasons to work towards carbonless energy sources.

[Project Healing Waters]

ANY carbon pollution of the atmosphere is negative, but HOW negative we are not sure. The Earth has an amazing ability to adapt. We simply lack the long-term data to draw conclusions.

Then why should we gamble our grandkids and great grand kids environment on the hope that the earth will adapt. We at least can all agree that carbon pollution at the levels they are now are bad, then we should be able to agree that something needs to be done. For the sake of future generations. Also, how great would it to be energy independent, given the lack of stability in the mid-east. Developing these new technologies will create jobs as well.

I simply just don't believe that global warming is a hoax and besides there are numerous reasons to work towards carbonless energy sources.

Just read the whole letter and take a look at who wrote it.

You quoted my post before I edited it, btw. The letter made me think of what I wanted to correct when I read it again this morning. CO2 occurs naturally and is beneficial...not a pollutant. So CO2 emissions are not necessarily harmful. Extremely high levels DO cause CHANGES...that is a given of science.

Everything else you said? I'm right there with you. I see no problem in reducing them and I'm sure we can figure out how to make more money from doing it. We always do.

Bottom line: I don't like hype and hysterics mixed with science. I have a very bad reaction to it. And I would have no problem with someone winning a Nobel Prize for telling the truth about it. But when someone produces the equivalent of Fahrenheit 911 for cutting consumption of carbon fuels, they shouldn't get a Nobel Prize for it. THAT was politics. Let's just deal with the facts and our BEST educated guesses and have rational conversations about real solutions. And...back to the subject...I have no problem with TU issuing this statement/addressing the issue. And their mission is preserving NATURAL COLD WATER FISHERIES in North America. So they wouldn't be happy with warmer streams providing less habitat for trout and more for smallies. But the smallmouth guys probably would. Frankly, it would RESTORE some of what was lost to development in the 20th century.

[Brian Sloss]

The first paragraph alone makes wonder when they simply say that climate change can't be stopped so we should try to become resiliant through wealth building. But we can alter the level at which we affect it to a degree and I can't believe that is a bad thing. As for the signatures, there were degrees that I would have to think would apply to climate studies and some that do not apply at all. Social sciences and economics do jump out. Also, no one has answered when the nobel prize was given out something where the science was proven to be "junk".

[Project Healing Waters]

The ICCP of the UN is an interdisciplinary group of scientists who advise the UN on policy issues regarding climate change. Climate impacts directly on geographical sciences such as natural history, climatology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, etc. Physicists are necessary to deal with some of the number crunching and astronomical phenomenon along with satellite measurements and such.

The fact that you don't understand all of that tells me you are under-informed on this subject. Perhaps reading past the first paragraph would be in order. In the end, the letter basically says: Do NOT put all of our eggs in the "prevention" basket because that is not going to work. First of all, we don't know if carbon emissions are a "crisis" level issue or not. Secondly,...no matter what we do...there will be cataclysmic weather shifts that catastrophically impact humanity...someday. So we should be taking a significant portion of these resources and dedicating them to adaptation and mitigation instead of purely prevention of something that might not be the trigger.

The problem they are addressing is the fact that these guys do the SCIENCE, but they are not allowed to write the reports for the ICCP that steer policy. And these scientists feel that THEIR EXPERT WORK has been flagrantly misrepresented by the folks who do write those reports: politicians and bureaucrats...many of whom have national and/or corporate interests driving their agendas.

Here's my issue...just an example...

Ethanol. Driven to popularity by "Global Warming" and the War on Terror. Ethanol production seriously depletes ground water...SPRINGS...and doesn't seriously reduce carbon emissions. It CAN substantially put a dent in our foreign oil consumption. But it will dry up our springs and creeks and...thus...rivers. This is all KNOWN scientific fact. So they sell us "green" flex fuel in the form of ethanol while destroying our fisheries and water supplies...and drive up the cost of food.

So choose your poison: do you want to risk the 4 degree rise in temperature and at least HAVE water? Or do you want to turn the whole darn mid-section of the US into a desert within a decade or two of ethanol production at the levels these yahoos want and not really solve the Islamic extremist or carbon emissions problems?

We were originally talking about the impact of all of this on FISHERIES to begin with. Personally, I'll take the balmy weather and water thank you very much. I'll plant a freaking palm tree for crying out loud. But I choose not to live in the desert for a reason.