Northwest Fishing Reports

After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.

IT IS NOW OFFICIALLY REAL IN THE U.S.A....

EPA web site

fishaholictaz wrote:After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.

IT IS NOW OFFICIALLY REAL IN THE U.S.A....

EPA web site

I'd love to see the phony science behind that determination. Perhaps, considering that you exhale carbon dioxide every time you breath, you and your friends should Save the Earth, by killing yourselves.

Better convince the EPA to double check their data.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Check also information from http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscor ... 81217.html

I have a question for you Anglinarcher- Do you know the difference between citing the EPA website and citing geocraft.com? Other than using rhetoric to shutdown the scientific community, what do your sources offer? Are they peer reviewed? Do you understand that any .com is a questionable source? Perhaps you might benefit from the google-scholar search which offers the ability to search the internet for scholarly journals and peer reviewed information that is far more credible. I noticed that although the people who were cited on geocraft.com were certainly well educated and it would seem that their writings should be credible, their works were not peer reviewed.

I have another question for you- Do you understand the theories offered by the "phony science" you seem to be so opposed to? I have often found that the people I speak to who don't believe that climate change is real or caused by humans, haven't had the opportunity to learn the elemental science that is involved. I think that often we are sidetracked by arguments over how much ice melt here and how much snow falls there ect... instead of trying to understand how and why carbon acts as a greenhouse gas, and what this might mean for our world. I know that some people I talk to are discouraged by the failure of multiple models to predict what this change in our atmosphere might mean for us in the future... and I can empathize with that, but I have also found that there are facts about the chemistry of carbon that are not debatable that show it's capability to perform as a greenhouse gas. Recent studies show that different kinds of CO2 travel to different levels of the atmosphere and degrade at different rates. CO2 from respiration degrades before reaching the stratosphere causing acid rain at most, CO2 from burning coal however, takes more than 100 years to degrade and therefore has opportunity to travel to the outer layers of the atmosphere, where it has the potential to cause the most damage.

fishaholictaz wrote:I have a question for you Anglinarcher- Do you know the difference between citing the EPA website and citing geocraft.com? Other than using rhetoric to shutdown the scientific community, what do your sources offer? Are they peer reviewed? Do you understand that any .com is a questionable source? Perhaps you might benefit from the google-scholar search which offers the ability to search the internet for scholarly journals and peer reviewed information that is far more credible. I noticed that although the people who were cited on geocraft.com were certainly well educated and it would seem that their writings should be credible, their works were not peer reviewed.

Unfortuanetly, that's the whole point of the recent e-mail controversies and what it revealed. That numbers have been doctoreed, and opposing scientific views have been surpressed by preventing peer review.

I agree, .com sources are not reliable, but unfortunately now the scientists that we thought we could trust and believe are being shown to not be trustworthy. This is the consequence of their actions. Any science is going to have opposing points of view, but when scientists from the IPCC are talking about doctoring the numbers and surpressing dissenting viewpoints then their conclussions become suspect.

Meanwhile, lets not suggest suicidie as method to improve the global warming situation. It makes me cringe beause really, it's just inflamatory.

So, we have a T.V. personality/entertainer with a high school education asking the opinion of a person who has a degree in journalism, neither one have a degree in science.

Ft8LfE7AI2w

Now that the EPA has classified greenhouse gases as harmful the regulations will be passing soon. The whole global warming/Climate change thing is not important at this point the important thing is that we will finally monitoring and restricting these harmful gases. And there is a majority of the voting population to back the bills..

Marc Martyn wrote:So, we have a T.V. personality/entertainer with a high school education asking the opinion of a person who has a degree in journalism, neither one have a degree in science.

Ft8LfE7AI2w

and that has what to do with scientists fudging, falsifing, and obstructing? Either side has it's non-experts weighing in.

Mike, I have been looking for the actual emails, but can't find them, only commentary about them.... Have you seen them? The few that are included in the New York Times article ect... aren't really that damaging and I would really like to understand the issue better.

The major News Networks:ABC,CBS,and NBC have not covered "Climategate. New York times did have an article discussing some of the EMails.

Most of the information that I have seen is on the internet and Fox News.

Mike Carey wrote:
and that has what to do with scientists fudging, falsifing, and obstructing? Either side has it's non-experts weighing in.

And, this has yet to be proven. There is an investigation that is in progress now. Within a few weeks we will know the results. And after all is said and done, there will still be the ones that think that the investigation was a scam.

It is interesting that those that are cheering on the act of hacking into government owned computers are over looking the fact that this action is a crime. When someone hacks into a financial institutions computer system they are outraged.

I for one am very happy that we have dedicated scientists doing research all over the world. I don't believe that thousands of scientists around the world got together and decided to falsify all there collected data that they compiled over decades. Conspiracy theories are so much fun to follow though, aren't they. :thumright

Another thing I am curious about is: If they hacked these files why is it they couldn't have altered them?

This topic definately has a lot to wrap one's brain around. Here's a basic overview from Wickpedia:

Wickpedia Hacking Article

Here is the list of all the e-mails:

Climate E-mails

As to couldn't the e-mails have been eidted, sure, except none of the scientists have made that claim. If the e-mails were falsified there would be conflicting versions all over the place, which we haven't seen come up.

Here is a site which has a summation of the more damaging e-mails:

Damaging E-mails article

Marc, I don't think people are overlooking the fact that it is a crime to hack a computer, it's just a secondary issue to the bigger issue discovered.

I don't think thousands of scientists are conspiring, but why this is concernign is because it's a very highly placed group of scienitists in the IPCC, not just a few random scientists.

Mike Carey wrote:This topic definately has a lot to wrap one's brain around. Here's a basic overview from Wickpedia:

Wickpedia Hacking Article

Here is the list of all the e-mails:

Climate E-mails

As to couldn't the e-mails have been eidted, sure, except none of the scientists have made that claim. If the e-mails were falsified there would be conflicting versions all over the place, which we haven't seen come up.

Here is a site which has a summation of the more damaging e-mails:

Damaging E-mails article

Marc, I don't think people are overlooking the fact that it is a crime to hack a computer, it's just a secondary issue to the bigger issue discovered.

I don't think thousands of scientists are conspiring, but why this is concernign is because it's a very highly placed group of scienitists in the IPCC, not just a few random scientists.

Mike I can tell you after looking up some things; The scientists in the e-mails are not main contributors to the EPA findings. The EPA findings are based on the damaging properties of Green House Gasses and the science was performed in the United States.

Marc Martyn wrote:It is interesting that those that are cheering on the act of hacking into government owned computers are over looking the fact that this action is a crime. When someone hacks into a financial institutions computer system they are outraged.

The revolution that created our country was illegal.


I still have yet to see any of the global warming scientists provide an explanation of the medievil warming period (which lasted several HUNDRED years), or the subsequent little ice age that came after it.

Meanwhile, last year we had how much snow and broke how many cold records?

Speaking of cold... the record lows for Tacoma on 6th through 8th of December were historically 25, 25, and 28. It was 9 when I drove to work this morning. Boy, global warming sure is warming up the winters a whole lot.

Now that the EPA has classified greenhouse gases as harmful the regulations will be passing soon. The whole global warming/Climate change thing is not important at this point the important thing is that we will finally monitoring and restricting these harmful gases. And there is a majority of the voting population to back the bills..

You don't see a major problem with this statement? The 'majority' of the voting public watches the news, and makes their decisions based on this - as someone else noted, NONE of the major networks, with the exception of Fox, has covered 'climategate'. They had time to cover stories about cute puppies and the menu at the White House dinner, but didn't even mention climategate. There is no question that the VOCAL majority is heavily influenced by what the news media tells them. The majority of the news media is liberally based, as are the proponents of the global warming theories. You don't see a plausable possibility - no, PROBABILITY, that their news coverage and information is biased and not giving the voting population the entire story?

The news media makes money from fear and anger. Global Warming falls under the fear category, and they like to make money.

So I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly - the majority of the scientific community accepts the fact that climate change is real, and that it at a minimum is being accelerated by man. These studies have been going on for what, the last few decades? But actually, it's all a hoax being perpetrated by a few scientists that have control over all of the independant studies going on all over the world dating back to at least 1996 (according to this email hack)? Right. Did you hear the one about how Obama wasn't born in the US?

Now that this whole, "global warming" thing has been debunked, if someone could just hack into the server where the emails are hiding on how to obtain world peace, that'd be great.

Drewp wrote:So I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly - the majority of the scientific community accepts the fact that climate change is real, and that it at a minimum is being accelerated by man. These studies have been going on for what, the last few decades? But actually, it's all a hoax being perpetrated by a few scientists that have control over all of the independant studies going on all over the world dating back to at least 1996 (according to this email hack)? Right. Did you hear the one about how Obama wasn't born in the US?

Now that this whole, "global warming" thing has been debunked, if someone could just hack into the server where the emails are hiding on how to obtain world peace, that'd be great.

No, it's not a hoax, it's a manipulation of popular interest.

Please explain to me why it was warm enough from AD 800 to AD 1300 to have wine vinyards in England and Viking Settlements in Greenland. Did our greenhouses gasses go back in time to do that?

Medieval Warm Period

I personally think the SUN is responsible for global warming and cooling. See here:

Harvard Scientist interpretation


How about read this:

"It's chilly. There is the pesky fact that, contrary to the dire predictions of climate alarmists, there has been no measurable increase in world temperatures since 1998. Yet the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere has continued to rise. The computer models immortalized by Al Gore did not anticipate this]WHAT?! TEMPERATURES HAVE BEEN DECREASING SINCE 1998 EVEN THOUGH MORE CO2 IS BEING PRODUCED???[/b]

In fact, I recommend the entire article: Why People Don't Believe

and pay particular attention to:

"Bullying. Every time a scientist or policymaker slammed his hand on a desk and growled, "The science is settled!" he demonstrated how remote he was from the scientific method. In true science, nothing is ever settled."



There are so many reasons to question global warming. It's looking pretty obvious to me that we have little to no impact on it.

Perhaps the EPA should regulate the sun.

Now that the EPA has classified greenhouse gases as harmful the regulations will be passing soon. The whole global warming/Climate change thing is not important at this point the important thing is that we will finally monitoring and restricting these harmful gases. And there is a majority of the voting population to back the bills..

You don't see a major problem with this statement? The 'majority' of the voting public watches the news, and makes their decisions based on this - as someone else noted, NONE of the major networks, with the exception of Fox, has covered 'climategate'. They had time to cover stories about cute puppies and the menu at the White House dinner, but didn't even mention climategate. There is no question that the VOCAL majority is heavily influenced by what the news media tells them. The majority of the news media is liberally based, as are the proponents of the global warming theories. You don't see a plausible possibility - no, PROBABILITY, that their news coverage and information is biased and not giving the voting population the entire story?

The news media makes money from fear and anger. Global Warming falls under the fear category, and they like to make money.

First: the point of my comment was to say that since I do believe in Global Climate Change, I am excited to see the doors that will open for climate legislation because of the EPA ruling. Also, whether you believe in global climate change or not, it seems to me that it is common sense that it's a bad idea to disregard the clean air act (which has been in existence since before greenhouse gases hit the radar), we need to regulate the pollutants that are spewed into our environment.

Second: I have tried to read through the sources offered on climate gate and I really haven't found the smoking gun here. The emails seem biased yes. None of the emails I have seen however say that climate change isn't real, it seems to me that they are discussing inconsistent results... which means that they are doing science.

Third: I am not going to argue whose news station is better or more biased than whose. I am going to say that I usually skip the news, read the journal articles and think for myself. I agree that sometimes the journal articles are inconclusive at best, but I feel that by reviewing actual data and analysis, I am at very least a step closer to the source.


Finally, to answer your question - Yes, I do believe that it is probable that the news is misinforming us but only when they over exaggerate the level of disagreement on the subject of global warming.

You point out that news makes money on fear and anger. What about oil/coal/electric/ect.... companies and how much do they make pumping carbon into the atmosphere? I think it is conceivable that more people are making money off of making people believe global warming is a hoax than not. I also think it is conceivable to find ways to reverse that and make our economy stronger, while giving the environment a hand.

bionic_one wrote: No, it's not a hoax, it's a manipulation of popular interest.

Touche, my friend! :dwarf:

bionic_one wrote: Meanwhile, last year we had how much snow and broke how many cold records?

Speaking of cold... the record lows for Tacoma on 6th through 8th of December were historically 25, 25, and 28. It was 9 when I drove to work this morning. Boy, global warming sure is warming up the winters a whole lot.

Doesn't that cause you to stop and wonder is something is going on.........two years in a row? I seem to remember a long thread in this forum last summer how the west side of the state was experiencing a record heat wave. Remember? 101º-105º. Now you are experiencing record cold this year and had record snow and cold last year.

The weather patterns could be changing, hence the ongoing droughts in Texas and California.

Last years recordings for Tacoma:

http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/Displ ... normals=on

fishaholictaz wrote:

Mike Carey wrote:This topic definately has a lot to wrap one's brain around. Here's a basic overview from Wickpedia:

Wickpedia Hacking Article

Here is the list of all the e-mails:

Climate E-mails

As to couldn't the e-mails have been eidted, sure, except none of the scientists have made that claim. If the e-mails were falsified there would be conflicting versions all over the place, which we haven't seen come up.

Here is a site which has a summation of the more damaging e-mails:

Damaging E-mails article

Marc, I don't think people are overlooking the fact that it is a crime to hack a computer, it's just a secondary issue to the bigger issue discovered.

I don't think thousands of scientists are conspiring, but why this is concernign is because it's a very highly placed group of scienitists in the IPCC, not just a few random scientists.

Mike I can tell you after looking up some things]

I know, my bad for wandering off topic. The scientists in question are associated with IPCC which is associated with the United Nations, nothing to do with the EPA.