Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!
Register

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Global Warming a Hoax, don't worry you will still pay for it.

thrashers.wheat said:
I had the same experience yesterday with fish rising early in the morning, although I was at a TCA in Hunterdon Co. Caught my first, that I can remember, wild rainbow at this particular TCA. Beautiful parr marks quite prevalent along it's 5-6" body. Just after a bald eagle flew overhead.
Click to expand...

Sure post a fishing report. That will screw everyone up
 
MACFLY said:
Now this is interesting you referenced research (he tries not to laugh) from Naomi oreskes as an example of objective study. I assume you know her background and she is anything it objective. Then you have the study from cook in which a good portion of the survey work done show's many of the respondents have no position on AGW. This is rationalized as normal. Is this the kind of open debate and study you believe has proved overwhelmingly that we are the cause of global warming.

Listen this is a hugely important topic for everyone. Something this important should be debated and discussed in the public eye and not programmed into our kids in public school. Oreskes is hardly objective
Click to expand...

come on mac, i know you're smarter than this. the reference is not mine, it's a quote from one of 3 articles that are included as rebuttal to the very specific OISM petition you cited. as far as cook...that was not a survey of scientist, but an accounting of published articles (the one, i believe, that led to the oversimplified pie chart):
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

i don't have time to evaluate and critique the position of the authors of the 0.7% that reject AGW; perhaps you can provide some input.
 
Last edited:
eddavidson9 said:
come on mac, i know you're smarter than this. the reference is not mine, it's a quote from one of 3 articles that are included as rebuttal to the very specific OISM petition you cited. as far as cook...that was not a survey of scientist, but an accounting of published articles (the one, i believe, that led to the oversimplified pie chart):
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

i don't have time to evaluate and critique the position of the authors of the 0.7% that reject AGW; perhaps you can provide some input.
Click to expand...


I am reading what you provided and questioning it. That's what smart people do. I worry less about the .7% percent and more about those who take no position only to have that horribly rationalized. Look I have no doubt there are a bunch of climate scientists who believe there is global warming and we are causing it. I am always going to question the objectivity of someone that makes such a claim. It's kind of important to understand the motivations on both sides. Naomi oreskes is an example just as there are examples of folks that are biased on the other side of the debate.

I also worry about the way folks who disagree with the IPCC are summarily dismissed. I would think it would be more logical to engage in a transparent debate to prove them wrong.

Finally the solutions being proposed to deal with the stated problem are simply not tenable for most countries to undertake and there is a whole body of science andd technical advances that could mitigate the need for yet it's not part of any solution. That's disconcerting to say the least.
 
F2837693A3B9439EB1C61C53A39716EC14920000-1.jpg
 
mob201 said:
Sigh. Okay, look. This thread has taken a weirdly personal and also exceptionally boring turn. I'm pretty sure that NEFF'ers don't give a flying fuck what I do for a living and are glazing over at this point.
Click to expand...


C'mon... it was all in fun... I was using smiley faces and everything. When you suggested I off myself by holding my breath, well... no more smiley faces.

mob201 said:
But I'll humor you. I have a Ph.D. from an ivy league university. I am involved in research, but I obviously consider it useful or I wouldn't do it. None of this has anything to do with my post accusing TN of failing to meet the James Bond standard of interesting lifestyle. My point was: who's more bored, the scientists doing research on other climate change scientists, or the boobs reading about their findings and discussing them online? Pretty basic.
Proud of one's work?" I am. I'm not however proud of the amount of time and effort I put into this (admittedly awesome) fly fishing forum. And that's why I'm not in any extraordinary rush to go into more detail about where I work and who I work with. I believe that's my prerogative.
Click to expand...

You basically said that TN had a boring life so who was he to pass judgement on others researching boring crap. But it wasn't the TEXT of what you wrote that was important to me but the subtext. Not the what, but the why. I picked up on it and posted. Lo and behold, in SOME way "not so obviously useful" research was important to you. I don't give a crap as to how one makes a living or what's interesting to them(but now kinda intrigued...). Good for you. But in some way, you seem to suspect you'd get jazzed about the subject here. You're happy to tell us you spent $200,000 or so on an education but keeping your work to yourself is your "prerogative". OK... but telling...;)

mob201 said:
Now that we've settled that, what precisely is your deal? Are you still burned about that chart thing? I hope not. Are you burned about something else I posted, some other time? If so, my sincerest apologies. I basically post questions and answers about fishing here. What do you do?
Click to expand...

Which chart thing? No apology from you needed. You seem to think of this as an attack of some sort... I think you're reading in to it a bit. So sorry you took it that way, but telling... ;)

What do I do? I basically post questions and answers not about fishing to amuse the owner here.

You have a good day.

History or some "social" science?... I woulda included Psychology early on, but that went out the window...
 
mob201 said:
Sigh. Okay, look. This thread has taken a weirdly personal and also exceptionally boring turn. I'm pretty sure that NEFF'ers don't give a flying fuck what I do for a living and are glazing over at this point.
Click to expand...


C'mon... it was all in fun... I was using smiley faces and everything. When you suggested I off myself by holding my breath, well... no more smiley faces.

mob201 said:
But I'll humor you. I have a Ph.D. from an ivy league university. I am involved in research, but I obviously consider it useful or I wouldn't do it. None of this has anything to do with my post accusing TN of failing to meet the James Bond standard of interesting lifestyle. My point was: who's more bored, the scientists doing research on other climate change scientists, or the boobs reading about their findings and discussing them online? Pretty basic.
Proud of one's work?" I am. I'm not however proud of the amount of time and effort I put into this (admittedly awesome) fly fishing forum. And that's why I'm not in any extraordinary rush to go into more detail about where I work and who I work with. I believe that's my prerogative.
Click to expand...

You basically said that TN had a boring life so who was he to pass judgement on others researching boring crap. But it wasn't the TEXT of what you wrote that was important to me but the subtext. Not the what, but the why. I picked up on it and posted. Lo and behold, in SOME way "not so obviously useful" research was important to you. I don't give a crap as to how one makes a living or what's interesting to them(but now kinda intrigued...). Good for you. But in some way, you seem to suspect you'd get jazzed about the subject here. You're happy to tell us you spent $200,000 or so on an education but keeping your work to yourself is your "prerogative". OK... but telling...;)

mob201 said:
Now that we've settled that, what precisely is your deal? Are you still burned about that chart thing? I hope not. Are you burned about something else I posted, some other time? If so, my sincerest apologies. I basically post questions and answers about fishing here. What do you do?
Click to expand...

Which chart thing? No apology from you needed. You seem to think of this as an attack of some sort... I think you're reading in to it a bit. So sorry you took it that way, but telling... ;)

What do I do? I basically post questions and answers not about fishing to amuse the owner here.

You have a good day.

History or some "social" science?... I woulda included Psychology early on, but that went out the window...
 
Okay Future, one of these days we should go fishing and bury any remaining hatchets. (Fishing... ever heard of it? You should try it, you'll like it.:))

Only correction needed to your thoughtful post is the price of an ivy league Ph.D. Any program worth its salt will pay students to go, not the other way around. It's masters degrees and law and medical degrees that bury you with debt. Good Ph.D. programs seem to recognize that you're not exactly going to make millions upon graduating, so they offer free tuition and cover your cost of living while you're there. No way I would have taken on $200,000 in debt, especially given what I get paid.:crap:
 
I find it borring to spend time doing research on a topic where you will have absolutely no impact on the outcome, like climate change. Thankfully, there are still smart people performing research in areas like oncology. Although, if you want those government dollars, studying man made climate change basically guarentees you the bucks.

And I caught fish this weekend, on Iso drys and PT droppers.
 
mob201 said:
Okay Future, one of these days we should go fishing and bury any remaining hatchets. (Fishing... ever heard of it? You should try it, you'll like it.:))

Only correction needed to your thoughtful post is the price of an ivy league Ph.D. Any program worth its salt will pay students to go, not the other way around. It's masters degrees and law and medical degrees that bury you with debt. Good Ph.D. programs seem to recognize that you're not exactly going to make millions upon graduating, so they offer free tuition and cover your cost of living while you're there. No way I would have taken on $200,000 in debt, especially given what I get paid.:crap:
Click to expand...

Fishing? Huh... Maybe I'll give it a try.

That $200,000 figure included what I'm SURE was a FINE four year undergraduate education prior to your graduate endeavors. I mean it MUST have been given your acceptance into an Ivy league graduate program.

But, maybe you're 7 feet tall and got a basketball full ride scholarship... I imagine you'd get great distance on your casts with the reach you'd get with THAT height and wingspan... but it would make it tough to find waders, I suppose.
 
Uh-oh...


STOCKHOLM (AP) — Scientists working on a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.

Leaked documents obtained by The Associated Press show there are deep concerns among governments over how to address the issue ahead of next week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

More at:

Warming lull haunts authors of key climate report
 
"Appears" is a key word. It is interesting though, and I'm curious what tact IPCC will take and what they'll back it up with.

Also from the article:
"Many skeptics claim that the rise in global average temperatures stopped in the late 1990s and their argument has gained momentum among some media and politicians, even though the scientific evidence of climate change is piling up: the previous decade was the warmest on record and, so far, this decade is even warmer."
 
You wankers need to just watch this and then go fishing.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
And this one too...<br />
<br />
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CR
Global Warming column
Replies
5
Views
2K
NJFred
NJFred
Back
Top