Trout Unlimited Unveils Position On Warming

[Danoinark]

Even Bush Jr is having second thoughts...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22424845/

[Trav]

Haha

I keep telling you guys that if we kill all the humans there will be no more arguments over who is right or wrong.

As far as oil is concerned, the earth can emmit for c02 all on its own with our help. A couple choice volcanoes like the one under yellowstone and all the damage that the human anthill has "footprinted" will be irrellevant.

[crappiefisherman]

Im worried about next year and the 7 year alcadias, 2001-2008

[Crippled Caddis]

While I have judiciously avoided responding to the current debate concerning 'global warming'I'd really like to point out that the entire public furor is predominately predicated on the arguments of sociologists and political scientists rather than the meteorlogical community, but I'm afraid that would ignite a firestorm of dissent. Further to the point is something I don't care to research in order to prove----a decade or more ago many of those currently riding the 'global warming' bandwagon for grants were the 'Chicken Littles' of a coming ice age. To have witnessed such an extreme switch of horses midstream leaves grave doubts in my (occasionally) logical thought processes. ;-) As a long-term but admittedly amatuer student of pre-history, geology, paleontology and archeology I am highly cognizant of the climate extremes, often unexplainably precipitous, that the Earh has endured as witnessed by the geological record, yet I entertain no shred of doubt that humanity is affecting current climate. To think otherwise would be extremely disingenuous. In point of fact it is my own carefully considered opinion that it is the human race that is the most serious pollutant on the planet---there's simply too many of us. But the record, such as it is---both historically and geologically, proves that the biosphere occasionally makes 'adjustments' by shrugging off excess humanity thru war, pestilance or climatological means. I highly suspect such an adjustment is both overdue and imminent. The lessons of history are clear only to those willing to stare reality in the face and that tool seems to be decreasingly underutilized by a society that is so irresponsible that truth takes a poor second place to wishful thinking by all extremes.

OF

[crappiefisherman]

So we can still fish with dynamite?

[Al Agnew]

While I have judiciously avoided responding to the current debate concerning 'global warming'I'd really like to point out that the entire public furor is predominately predicated on the arguments of sociologists and political scientists rather than the meteorlogical community, but I'm afraid that would ignite a firestorm of dissent. Further to the point is something I don't care to research in order to prove----a decade or more ago many of those currently riding the 'global warming' bandwagon for grants were the 'Chicken Littles' of a coming ice age. To have witnessed such an extreme switch of horses midstream leaves grave doubts in my (occasionally) logical thought processes. ;-) As a long-term but admittedly amatuer student of pre-history, geology, paleontology and archeology I am highly cognizant of the climate extremes, often unexplainably precipitous, that the Earh has endured as witnessed by the geological record, yet I entertain no shred of doubt that humanity is affecting current climate. To think otherwise would be extremely disingenuous. In point of fact it is my own carefully considered opinion that it is the human race that is the most serious pollutant on the planet---there's simply too many of us. But the record, such as it is---both historically and geologically, proves that the biosphere occasionally makes 'adjustments' by shrugging off excess humanity thru war, pestilance or climatological means. I highly suspect such an adjustment is both overdue and imminent. The lessons of history are clear only to those willing to stare reality in the face and that tool seems to be decreasingly underutilized by a society that is so irresponsible that truth takes a poor second place to wishful thinking by all extremes.

OF

I would agree with much of what you're saying. However, I'd like to point out that the theories on "the coming ice age" surfaced in the 1970s (considerably longer than a decade or so) and were never embraced by the majority of climatologists. The media made a bigger deal of it than the scientific community did. And the theory was pretty well scrapped in just a few years. So the difference between it and the present global warming concern is in the much greater number of scientists who agree with it, and the fact that the theory has been around for going on two decades now. Another difference is the abundant evidence that global warming is already happening. Thinning of Arctic ice and shrinking of the Arctic ice cap. Shrinkage of Antarctic ice. Melting of permafrost in Alaska and Canada. Greater movement of Greenland's ice due to greater precipitation (snow) on top of it, and lubrication from greater melting near the sea. Shrinkage of glaciers all over the world. Extension of the growing season in the mid-latitudes. Spread of tropical diseases like dengue and yellow fever outside their traditional areas.

And while scientists are often accused of jumping on the bandwagon to chase grant money, to see this as an indication that global warming doesn't have any validity, you'd have to believe that the vast majority of scientists on the "global warming side" are intellectually and professionally dishonest, while the much smaller number on the other side are lily white.

I agree that humanity, due to sheer numbers and to irresponsible technology, is the greatest "pollutant" on the planet. We are the ultimate invasive species, and even without global warming, we are on the verge of single-handedly causing the greatest mass extinction of species since the last big asteroid strike. Nature has ways of limiting the numbers of her creatures, but we've been able to circumvent her so far through technology. Whether that will remain so is an open question. Whether we can get smart enough with our technology to not only save ourselves but also preserve enough of natural systems to matter, is another open question. In the whole scheme of things, earth abides, and won't miss us if we go. But on human terms as well as the terms of the species we currently share the planet with, natural "corrections" wouldn't be any fun at all.

[Phil Lilley]

Saw a piece on 60 minutes tonight about the incredible increase of US fires the last 7 years. I wonder if it's the same in other parts of the world and if the fires themselves contribute to warming or could it damage the atmosphere?

Wondering... by a complete novice.

[Trav]

One of these days we have to let Crappie fish with dynamite.

That way I can get to play out my theory to kill all the humans. Haha

Al and I agree totally that humanity is the ultimate invasive species. But that does lay down the ultimate question. Since it is obvious that the human race is not a natural species, where did it come from?

In theory one can prove that humans evolved on planet earth. One would also reason that the basic human DNA must have mutated into what we are today. But, where did that DNA originate from?

There are theories, but no proof. The closest thing science has for any kind of hypothisis would be a timeline. That being pretty close to when the big asteroid exterminated the dinosaurs. Is it possible the human DNA washed ashore and mutated after hitching a ride on that very rock?

hmmmmmmmm

In my eyes the humans have it coming. Wether its global warming, the next ice age, climate cycles, or anything else that none of us here can do a single thing about.

So if we are so helpless to change an inevitable breakdown/shift of the planets conditions why is it being discussed like oneday Batman and his "partner" Robin will just see us crying on the news and come save the day?

When do humans just stop and accept the reality that they dont belong??

I will tell you why. Because the human race is subconciously programmed by genetics to survive in an envirenment where it doesnt belong. Bringing me back to the real question here. Where did the most "invasive" species get its DNA and how did it end up here on this planet? I doubt it was a divine invention. I wouldnt rule out extra-terrestrial intervention.

It really is, currently, an unexplainable question.

[zander]

This has little to do with global warming but since you asked.... DNA is a small molecular step from RNA (ribonucleic acid). RNA tends to be rather short-lived. It is single stranded as opposed to the double helix structure of DNA. Consequently it is more prone to degradation since it inherently less stable. But with sufficient condentraitons of nucleotides and inorganic catalysts, it can form short sequences naturally. Early life forms used RNA for the storage of genetic information and some still do such as some types of virus. But since it (RNA) does degrade so rapidly DNA has also been selected for as a better template for storage. It still lends itself to mutation (mutants are good a small percentage of the time) through the transcription process (albeit less so than RNA) but is better at surviving a variety of conditions. I used to work for the USDA and did genetic analysis across aphid populations. Specifically I looked at single nucleotide polymorphisms (single base pair differences) in the carboxylase 2 gene. This gene is found in the mitochrondrial DNA of all organisms. The level of conservatism for this gene was so great that I used the same exact molecular primers testing for the presence of the same gene in a bacterium later when I worked as a lab manager for Oklahoma State University's Dept of Plant Pathology. The more you know about this type of stuff, the easier to see how life became what it is today, and how creative the Creator really is. We had a lot of really neat tools in the lab, but they are nothing compared to the toolbox God has made. ANd now, this nerd will get down off the soap box.

[Trav]

Haha

Thank you Lilley

Not exactly the answer, to the question that has no answer, but your knowledge is to be commended. I think I saw something on that on TLC but it didnt totally sink in.

Although you did supervene with the "Creator" theory. I am more convinced that the human species are an invasive lifeform and not a designed mechanism.

Although, out of respect for your faith, I will just allow you to have trump on the subject. I have this debate down to an art and it always ends the same. Haha Nobody wins

I was banned from soap boxes years ago, good thing theres the internet. huh?

Keep catching those trout, I am compiling some photos for the calender. give me a week or so, I want to take my cam up to a spot for an areial view. Means climbing a 60 foot cliff so this old guy wants to make a pretty day out of it.