:icon_rollQuote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
find where i said that and i'll buy you a coke at the next home football game.
Printable View
:icon_rollQuote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
find where i said that and i'll buy you a coke at the next home football game.
Sorry to misquote you on exact wording. However, I dont think I was off by much.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
i think i said somethink like the excessive regulation required by kyoto would be a huge blow to the economy. that's not even close to what you said. i'm all for alternative energy. if you fuel cars with ethanol distilled with steam from nuclear and coal, you will come out way ahead of $70 per barrel oil. but this doesn't require any subsidies or regulation by the government. if oil stays this high, the market will produce the alternatives (but only if the government stays out of it).Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
:thumbsup: Assuming you mean that the government will only assure a free market and stay out of it from there, you are dead on accurate with that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
yes, thanks for clarifying. government intervention should only take place when market freedom is threatened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
Global warming is problem, needs fixing, sportsmen say
Sent May 15, 2006
rmjj
By Rob Moritz
Arkansas News Bureau
LITTLE ROCK — A majority of Arkansas hunters and fishermen believe that global warming is an urgent problem in need of immediate action to stop, an environmental group’s survey release Monday showed.
Arkansas sportsmen also said they have seen evidence of global warming in the state, including warmer and shorter winters, hotter summers, prolonged droughts and a decline of wetlands and migratory birds in the winter, including ducks.
A majority of those polled said the United States should move toward renewable forms of energy, such as solar and wind power, rather than the current fossil burning fuels, which they believe are contributing to global warming.
“Hunters and anglers feel we have a moral responsibility to confront global warming to protect our children,” said David Carruth, president of the Arkansas Wildlife Federation.
An avid hunter and fisherman, Carruth said the results of the poll show that global warming is a major concern among the people who spend the most time in the woods and needs to be addressed before it kills off habitat and wildlife.
The poll found that 77 percent of the state’s hunters and anglers agree that global warming is occurring.
The survey was conducted by Mark Damian Duda, executive director of Responsive Management, a Virginia-based survey research firm. The firm telephoned 308 Arkansas hunters and fishermen in March and April. The respondents were chosen from the list of people in the state who have hunting and fishing licenses. The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 5.6 percent.
Carruth, a Republican, said the poll was nonpartisan.
The survey also found that 84 percent of the hunters and fishermen agree with President Bush’s statement that the United States is addicted to oil, but 85 percent said the administration and Congress are not doing enough to break the addiction.
Overall, 72 percent of those polled said the nation is on the wrong track in meeting its energy needs.
Eighty percent said people should conserve and that more fuel efficient vehicles and renewable sources of energy should be developed rather than drilling for more oil and gas within the country.
“We are reaching a tipping point ... where the vital constituency of hunters and anglers is adding its voice to those who recognize global warming is occurring, that it poses serious threats and that action must be taken to address it,” Carruth said.
About 630,000 Arkansans make hunting and fishing a nearly $1 billion industry in the state. Hunting and fishing also account for about 20,000 jobs in Arkansas.
Duda said the poll found that about 73 percent of the hunters and fishermen consider themselves moderate or conservative in politics. Nearly 60 percent of those who participated in the poll said they voted for President Bush over U.S. Sen. John Kerry two years ago.
Randy Thurman, executive director the Arkansas Environmental Federation, said his organization is working with industries in the state to address the global warming problem, and the race to develop ethanol and other biodiesel fuels for cars is a good example of work that is being done.
The federation represents industries in Arkansas and helps them deal with environmental issues and legislation.
“We are doing what we can to educate our membership on issues related to global warming,” said Thurman.
The federation and the state Department of Economic Development recently held a training conference on global greenhouse emissions, he said.
Thurman said the poll results did not surprise him because he has seen similar results in other state in recent years.
“Global warming is forcing industries to consider how they do business,” he said. “Whether you agree with the science or not, the perception is out, so industry is trying to address it.”
Similar polls of hunters and anglers have been done in five other states, including Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and South Carolina. Those poll results are to be released later this week, Duda said.
A national poll of hunters and fishermen is to be released May 23.
-----
On the Web: www.targetwarning.org/arkansas
In the morning I will fill up my full size V-8 truck and burn more fuel. I think global warming is the biggest crock of crap there is. I say lets tap Alaska and get gas down to $2 a gallon so I can buy one of the last Hummer 1's!!!!
The earth puts out more gases than man kind ever will.Stay Strong!LOL
well, i was skeptical until now, but aub has me convinced. if arkansas hunters and fishermen say its a problem, then it must be real.
:icon_roll
here's an insightful article by a fellow who might know a little bit more about climate change than a bunch of good ole boys from arkansas:
Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/images...nd_dingbat.gif
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/041206globe.jpgIf the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/images...nd_dingbat.gif
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
So, extreme tree hugging is big money?
here's a link to a more detailed and slightly technical explanation of the current state of climate science by mr. lindzen, which i (being the nerd that i am) found very interesting.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
Fortune magazine and The Pentagon have both addressed this issue and are taking it seriously. But hey, we all know how radicall those guys are!
"T"
True
i think the problem here is that anyone who dissents is considered "radical." anyone who is the least bit skeptical is instantly labeled an industry stooge. silencing one side of a debate is not a good way to find the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by T