from sparta:
"im as conservative as they come, but i am also an environmental studies major about to graduate. and the comment above is the exact kind of comment that makes narrow-minded- neo-conservative-christian-righted whack jobs sound like the arrogant *** holes that they are. to deny anthropocentric acceleration of the warming of the earth's environment is as filled with denial as anything."
Maybe a bit more forensics in your educational career would have led you away from such silly ad hominem attacks and let you address the subject presented. Anthropocentirc acceleration.....wow.... I use to be "as conservative as they come" but am now more in the center with a decided green leaning. It is correct that to deny evidence of global warming is just not fact based BUT the causes for such are merely speculation by whichever side you happen to be on and none can be constured as scientific fact. This articles' particular claim to fame is:
"Through extensive computer modeling, the scientists determined that the deep mixing may not occur as frequently in the future because of global warming."
Another wow...."extensive computer modeling"....certainly that must be scientific fact...LOL.
from sparta:
"soooooooo, as you continue to think theres nothing wrong with the earth and the course it is taking, you remember your opinion now when gas is $10 a gallon, there are no more beaches to go surf fishing, lake tahoe is filled with algae and even more of our rivers are dried up."
We have gotten a tad off the subject of this particular article....why don't we discuss String Theory also. Not sure what ten dollar gas has to do with water clarity in Lake Tahoe...and if it was that expensive maybe we would all use our internal combustion engines far less and do less polluting of the atmosphere.
by Ragatron:
"well said, unfortunately it seems that the overwhelming majority of people would rather play dumb and just hope that all the smart people aren't right."
Another nice ad hominem attack....as those disagreeing are obviously not "smart people". I can give you guys with multiple Phd's who disagree with human's speeding up .... wait, anthropocentric acceleration....global warming....obviously they are not smart either.
from sparta:
"only if you knew what the sierra club has done for trout and salmon water throughout the country. along with trout unlimited, these organizations have preserved and protected many of the few remaining healthy fisheries in this country. so while these memebers of the sierra club and other organizations are fishing pristine waters that they worked hard to protect, you can enjoy yourself on the LA river."
Well sparta I hardly think anyone involved in this tangential discussion was responsible for channelizing the LA River, or the Santa Ana River, etc...and destroying entire races of oncorhynchus mykiss irideus (anadramous from, of course). That was a long time ago. BTW I am a member of TU....and grew up in SoCal but live in Alaska now....it looks a great deal more like Diety originally made it.
from txcurry:
"This kind of rhetoric is exactly the kind of response expected from a radical progressive. It is an attempt at discounting any other view than ones own by disparaging the messenger.
*There is evidence that the warming present for the last ten years is a result of solar activity. This activity creates solar winds which block cosmic radiation. Cosmic radiation is a large contributor to cloud formation. Clouds are the main factor in the regulation of surface temperatures.
This warming of the surface temps has increased the release of CO2 from the oceans. Oceans are less able to retain their CO2 when warm. Therefore, CO2 is a result and NOT the cause of global warming.
This is only one part of the equation.
I suggest you look at the research on the other side of this issue. Try Michael Coffman PHD.'s DVD "Global Warming or Global Governance?" to start. There is a lot of convincing evidence on the other side. To resort to epithets is not conducive to reasonable discussion on this issue."
You almost devolved to spartas' tactics with that RP remark....and the theory you quote is postulated by many other's.....I could give sparta some examples from Ohio St. research, etc..but it is really moot.
from spartafish:
"id you really just use a fiction writer to support your argument? c'mon, this is rediculous. i know "Fear" which is actually "State of Fear" (i guess you didnt read the cover), sites its sources and everything, but it does in regards to what its about: ecoterrorism. and i dont think anyone is ready to support or defend ecoterrorism."
You better go look up "ad hominem". And if no one was ready to support or defend ecoterrorism then why does it exists.......aliens?
from spartafish:
"This research confirms the relationship of solar activity and global warming? NO, it seems you have confirmed this. the article says many times that it SUGGESTS a relationship. nowhere does it claim that it confirms or proves anything."
Just as the research in this article (remember the original topic?) is based on "computer modeling"....hardly "confirms or proves anything." Again....this is still all theory and not fact.
from spartafish:
"and again, your "evidence" isnt anything. this is a summary of someones research. peer reviewed article? havent seen it."
Okay....just for the exercise...try Robert Essenhigh at Ohio State.....he graduated from Cambridge twice and Sheffield once....pretty prestigious, if one is impressed by that sort of thing. His published articles in major scientific journals in his field all require peer review and he firmly believes the theory of the previous mentioned article. Maybe he's stupid too. Big dummy.
from spartafish:
"explain to me why every single UN scientist claims an anthropocentric acceleration of global climate change. what do these UN scientist have to gain from encouraging alternative fuel sources, recycling and abatement? nothing."
Ohmigosh....most anyone with UN would do anything to stick it to the United States and as these claims invariable do as we are largest, industrialized, fossil fuel, coal burning polluters in the world. Their anti-American rhetoric gets old fast....again off the subject.
Which finally brings back to the actual topic of this waylaid thread....how about the clarity of Lake Tahoe? What is so totally insincere in this study is their comment on the decreasing clarity since 1968: "The lake's clarity also has diminished over the years. While visitors to the lake could see down an average depth of 102.4 feet in 1968, by 2006 visibility extended to an average depth of just 67.7 feet, a decline of about one foot per year." It's beyond comprehension that they were so inept as to leave out the water clarity figure for 2007 except intentionally. Because last year the water clarity INCREASED to 73+ feet...an increase of 5 feet in 1 year! But not consistent with their hypothesis so they "conveniently" left it out. Laughable.
This is from the article also:
"At stake is the lake's fragile ecosystem, with scientists expecting that climate change will affect the chemistry of the lake by preventing its many layers of water from mixing, depleting the bottom levels of oxygen. Some types of fish will need to move to shallower waters in the 1,644-foot-deep lake, where they will be threatened by non-native and, in many cases, aggressive fish such as the largemouth bass that has already appeared along the Tahoe Keys.
"The biggest immediate impact from that is if this happens over the course of decades, we may lose a lot of the valuable trout and cold water fish habitat,"
Few fish exist below 100 feet.....then the statement about invasive largemouth....followed by "we may lose ... valuable trout..." All of the current trout in Lake Tahoe are NON-NATIVE species. The only native trout to Tahoe was the Lahontan Cutthroat which was eradicated in Tahoe (and Pyramid) Lake in 1939. There is a remnant population of mountain whitefish and the remaining 5 native species are minnows and chubs.....not highly revered by most people. So this article truly smacks of intentional insincerity and I'm not sure if they list any peer review?
I can list you pages of information from The Lake Tahoe Enviornmental Education Coalition (BTW based from a cooperative effort of the University of Nevada and the University of California systems) indicating the loss of clarity has been known for decades and has, by them, been attributed to human pollution from all the building (which, coincidentally, has mushroomed in recent decades as the clarity has decreased) along the shores and primarily phosphate pollution. Yes, as humans we suck and don't do what we should to protect the enviornment. Not ONCE do they mention global warming....perhaps they are just uninformed....of course, that wouldn't speak well of anyone matriculating there (sorry, spartafish....I couldn't resist).
Sorry to go on this diatribe but it just snowed 4 inches yesterday through today and it's torquing me off. But actually reading both sides of the issue with eyes open helps in understanding it. Personally....I believe we may be accelerating global warming.....long term effects...no one knows....short term we are seeing a few. But then again, it could be a natural cycle in the earth's progression. Do we need to do stuff to stop our polluting? Yes, WAY MORE than we have, especially in the US...but then I'm getting old.
Good night,
Dr. Brian D. Wight.....always fun to put that "Dr" at the front.......lol
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by tpfishnfool
