:-) Earning votes is a funny concept.

Are there scientists paid to give specific opinions? Yes.
Are these limited to dupes of BIG EVIL OIL? No.
Do kind, altruistic, peace loving, environmental scientists make money off of this debate? Yes.

I am almost done with my Ph.D. in an "environmental" field. I believe that mankind is making the problem worse, not better. Honestly, I am not sure where "better" falls at this point. I also know that with the current funding climate, it is nearly impossible to get funding from "standard" sources if you do not show how your project helps establish the proof of man-made global climate change. The question "Why if it isn't real are there so many studies showing that man is causing global warming?" is easily answered by, if you want to get grants and keep your job your proposals for funding must show that you believe man is the single agent responsible for global climate change. Is that a universal truth? No. Some scientists are so highly regarded that they can get funding despite what they say or believe.

I am not attempting to change anyone's opinion in this venue. It's impossible to discuss fact in what is basically a venue for reactionaries. The very essence of forums on the internet is that solid, thought provoking discussion only lasts until the first troll rolls out of the woodwork and totally highjacks the thread. What I am trying to suggest is that nothing about global climate change is clear cut. Just watch all the material, read all the viewpoints, and think critically for yourself. Don't be a sheeple.

Was anyone else struck by the phrase "... generations of economic apartheid"? Talk about a charged statement.

:-P

In reply to this comment by twiddles:
I did mention one specific problem, namely species extinction. At least one species (golden toad) is considered a casualty of a warming planet. Would it have happened anyway? Perhaps. Whether CO₂ released by man is the main cause is certainly in question, but it is known that CO₂ does cause a warming effect, so what is wrong with talking about ways of reducing our output of this gas? This would be in addition to not instead of debate on how to reduce our dependence on a limited resource or eliminating toxins released into the environment. It's too bad about your video. There are a lot of very different opinions here and most people are not shy about debating their position. I hope you won't be either.


Twiddles, never fear that I will be shy. :-D In any case, since I only get one video at a time right now I went ahead and put a new one up that I think better illustrates my personal views. Check it out in the unsifted (http://www.videosift.com/video/Another-good-days-fishing) and let me know what you think.

About the CO2, you again start from the assumption that CO2 causes global warming and state it as a fact "but it is known that CO2 does cause a warming effect." CO2 is correlated with warming, but is not proven to be causitive. The John Stossel video actually points out that CO2 level rises and dips historically tend to lag behind rises and dips in temperature rather than the reverse. Correlated does not necessarily mean causitive. I am not questioning your personal convictions here. I am simply pointing out that your calls to action inherently assume that CO2 causes global warming. For those who do not agree with your assumptions, your call to action falls upon deaf ears. I advocate addressing problems where we use undeniable facts (as in the video mentioned above, global populations of fish are dwindling and adults are getting smaller at maturity) with realistic solutions (Marine Protected Areas to allow safe havens for breeding fish).

As to species extinction, I think that is an issue which needs discussing. Personally, I haven't seen any species that its extinction has been linked to climate change but I have seen reports of hundreds which have been directly caused by mankind. I just did a quick search on the golden toad and while I found suggestions that its extinction might have been due to global climate change, I also found other suggestions that seem just as plausible. It does seem that other than climate change, some of the other most likely possibilities are clearly anthropogenic. Does man have a role in the disappearance of the golden toad? Most likely. Are we steadily poisoning our groundwater with industrial chemicals? Absolutely. I say fix the one we know for sure we are causing and is a problem first.

And because I only get one video at a time and I don't want this to become too contentious... *discard

I'll try and add something with a bit more humor.

Twiddles, I simply ask that you list specific problems so that we may deal with them. Let me say in advance that "Man-made / released CO2 is making the planet hotter" is not a specific problem to which there is conclusive evidence. That is too much in debate at this point in time. I could not support any program meant to eliminate what is at this time a non-problem. If however, you were to say "Development of alternative energy sources will reduce our dependance on a limited resource" I can absolutely support that. Or I could enthusiastically support this statement: "Release of un-treated sewage is causing the introduction of synthetic estrogens into our water and food supply."

In a nutshell, simply saying "If you don't accept the truth of global climate change and that man is causing it you are part of the problem" presumes facts not in evidence. On the other hand, identifying a specific problem (ie: the hormone example above) to which there is conclusive evidence and a measurable impact that can be alleviated through a change in mankinds actions changes the argument. Instead of arguing "Is this true?", we can then argue "How do we fix this?"

Twiddles, interesting comments. I am interested in knowing what alarms to which we should be paying attention. I don't think I have my head in the sand, but I am missing your point somewhat so maybe I do. Science indicates man may or may not be causing global climate change. Science indicates that climate change may be bad for some areas but may be good for others. Your statement that people should have a serious debate on minimizing danger presumes that everyone agrees with you that: 1) There is a danger and 2) Mankind is responsible for / capable of stopping it.

BTW, I think it's important to state that I think mankind does have a role in changing the climate of the planet. I don't believe that we are the sole agent responsible, but I think we are a factor. I do however see a bit of silliness in people who insist that there "is no debate" or "there is an overwhelming consensus" or "most scientists agree". I feel we should react to real, identifiable problems (see my comments above) and allow the debate over mans role in global client change to continue. At this point, I think we need to allow the scientific process to continue until there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to support one view or the other. And saying "most scientists agree" is a joke at best. Remember, at one time most scientists (or philosophers if you prefer) agreed that the earth was the center of the universe.

Gorgon, your comment makes my point. The idea that man has caused global warming is still not "scientifically" proven. Will it ever be? I won't speculate. Perhaps we should focus on issues which we know man causes (ie: synthetic hormones released into our water supplies) and which have direct impacts on our food supply.

Dag, personally I agree with you. The problems I see lie in the toxins, not in the CO2. I support anything that stops the steady poisoning of the planet. That being said, I wonder if we are doing more harm than good supporting "refutable" data such as that behind global warming rather than advocating reductions in mercury, PCBs, pesticides, etc. Science irrefutably supports the harm these are doing and instead we focus our energies arguing about a very, very refutable "problem". Toxins in our food supply have a much more immediate and devastating impact than potential CO2 problems... why can't we focus on this instead?

Dystopian... We can argue the merits of the peer-review process ad nauseum but I don't think that will accomplish anything. Instead I think it is germane to focus on replicated, irrefutable experiments. The trick is to focus on those and ignore "pop" science on EITHER side of the debate.

I love that commercial. +1

See comment #2.

Your comment adds absolutely nothing to the debate either. Science 101:

1) Identify a perceived problem
2) Research the issue
3) Form a hypothesis
4) Test the hypothesis
5) Examine results
6) Formulate a conclusion
7) Report results
Repeat until hypothesis is judged an accepted fact

Where would you say we are at in this process?

No, I didn't make this one. I know this guy however along with some of the other gigging guides around here. Normally I walk-in since I don't have regular access to a fan-boat. Plus, it's a lot more interesting with... ahem... adult beverages and the game wardens frown on operating a fan boat while drinking them.

+1 for the funny.

I've been gigging here in Port Aransas for 4 years now and it is some of the most fun you'll ever have. My wife even enjoys it, though she just finds fish and calls me over to actually stick them.

Edit: And I just noticed, they migrate out to sea to *spawn*... Silly mis-speak.