Environmentalists

[Yankee]

There is a discussion on this topic under "Gun Control in Canada." To define the topic and keep it going, I'm starting a new thread here. There are various ways to phrase the question, I'll try wording it this way: Do you think environmental laws benefit hunters and fishermen?

[Yankee]

Sorry, my mistake, the other topic is "Gun Laws Work There?" not "Gun Laws in Canada."

[vetspet(ind)]

absolutely...so long as enviro wackos are not involved

[bigfish1965]

To answer your question, Yankee, it all depends. If it is legislation requiring municipalties to seperate storm and sanitary sewers or similar direct regulations , then obviously yes. If a person who fishes loses his/her job because of that, then no. Laws have to be created with the 'greater good' in mind.(i.e. Certainly some people have died because while following seat belt laws they became trapped, however, 99% of the time, seat belts save lives.)
Most fishers agree that the Great Lakes are cleaner now than in any point in our lifetime. This is a direct result of international legislation and the efforts of sportsmen groups.
Presently, legislation protecting cormorants as migratory birds has had a negative impact. The Migratory Bird Act was necessary to protect birds that travelled internationally during migration. Only through a clear universal regulation could this be effective. The loss of the Passenger Pigeon and the Great Auk necessitated those changes.
Anything that protects ecosystems as a whole benefit the fishery involved. A healthy food chain is important, as is clean water.Someone elses right to make a buck does not supercede my right to clean water and healthy wildlife.

[Yankee]

What is your definition of an "enviro wacko"?

[Yankee]

Vetspet, interestingly enough Lomborg's book was mentioned in a letter to the editor in today's Seattle newspaper. Apparently it's being taken up as a cause by conservatives all over the continent. Here's my take on it. First, I decline your invitation to another poster to personally check out the 3,000 footnotes. I'm not qualified to do that, and will rely on scientists with credentials in their fields. Second, Lomborg's field is statistics, not biology or physical science, and he uses statistics, not scientific observation, to debunk the conclusions of reputable scientists. This calls to mind the old adage, "Lies, d--mned lies, and statistics." Anybody can write a political tract and support it by manipulating statistics. Third, Lomborg's book is being sharply criticized by reputable scientists, which indicates either these scientists are lying to us or there's wrong with the book. For example, a climate scientist writes, “Bjorn Lomborg's chapter on global climate change ... makes use of selective inattention to inconvenient literature and overemphasis of work that supports his lopsided views. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports and other honest assessments don't have the luxury of using such tactics, given the hundreds of external reviewers and dozens of review editors.” (See, http://uk.cambridge.org/economics/lomborg/websites_j.htm) Here is my humble pinko liberal opinion: If I were a conservative wanting to debate environmental issues, I wouldn't jump on the Lomborg bandwagon yet. You may want to wait for the public's verdict on whether he's a fake, before hitching your credibility to his.

[Water Dog]

Very good post Bigfish!
Yankee, good morning to you!
I define (Wacko) as someone who uses enviromental issues, as a emotional cover for their anti-capitalism agenda.
I define (Wacko) as groups who promote violence and vandalism.
ALSO,anyone who sets fires or releases ferrets and then brags about it.
Earth Liberation Front is a good example.
WE DENOUNCE THESE NUTBALLS, NOT ENCOURAGE EM!

[Add to that]

People who scream for years about old growth forests and use junk science to shape the way we protect the forests and not allow small fires and partial clearing and smart logging by man, only to find out their feel good, save the trees mentality is directly responsible for the savage and uncontrollable fires of late. It seems by not allowing nature to do her thing, the forests are not managed properly and more damage and loss of life is caused by mans intervention. This is a wacko.
Someone who dipises the logging business so much they sabotage equipment, spike trees with the intent of injuring loggers, and burn down logging companys buildings, this is a whacko. And a plenty stupid one at that as more trees will be used to rebuild.
A whacko is someone who dispises the cattle industry so much the burn down a MacDonalds to protest the slaughter of cattle. Again, a plenty stupid one as this further polarizes the issue and more people will feel bad for the MacDonalds employess etc that for the cattle.
Pollution laws that merely sound good, based on junk science. When the EPA up and decides every business that discharges treated waste water into a body of water, must cut there levels of certain chemicals in half, with no reason behind it, this is the axct of a whacko.
When a reformulated gas that is far more hazardous to the environment and people is forced down the consumers throat, never mind the gas also causes a lees eficient burn in an engine and thereby causes more pollution, that is the act of a whacko.
Environmental whackos expect everyone to walk through national parks like Yellowstone as the evil cars are polluting the forests. Eventually they want to ban people from the national parks all together.
Whackoism is the feel good, save the fuzzy animal attitude that prevails against hunters as well. We are evil bad men that have to weild a gun to prove our manhood.
So, today as I eat my Turkey, you wackos can take your tofu turkey and stuff it.

[Ummmmm]

And the scientists you stand behind do not manipulate statistics? Ge real. The difference between a scientist lookinjg at research and data and taking a wild a#s guess, and you or I doing the same is, they get Govt funding to do it,and went to school and drank more than we did.

[Tom P]

I don't know if this has been said in previous posts. Lomborg took up his book with some of his students to "blast" the consevetive view point once and for all, but while doing his research found his facts as per said in the book. He is a self proclaimed far leftest. The one thing that is different he said he will not lie for the cause of environmentalism. He also stated he is not a "money guy" so the money from his book is not driving him like some would say. Plus how could he skew the facts when all he did is use research from known scientists. But not just the radical crowd we all know skew the facts and say they are the benchmark of environmentalism and all they say is fact. It seems to me the so called experts that are saying his facts are all wrong and skewd are the ones who are feeding the false claims and skewing the facts to their far left environmental agendas also. What about all the scienists that he referenced, they must also be coming out blasting his book too???( Remember what they say is wrong.) The far left enviro crowd has a MASSIVE network to spew and spew and spew their skewd hypotheses. Not all I might add, but enough for most of us to question all or most of what "they" say. It is a radical religion to them. We all now know how far radical veiws can take religious or "feeling base" ideals. Just look at the Mideast.

[River_eye]

I definately think so. We don't have much in the way of enviro wackos here, mostly hard working environmental minded people, including the mayor of our city.

Lakes and rivers are very susceptible to industrial pollution. I would like to feel comfortable eating walleye till I die without having to worry about toxic levels of mercury accumulating in my body.

[Yankee]

Rivereye, there's an advisory on eating walleye from Lake Roosevelt cuz of mercury in the Columbia R. from a smelter in B.C., what are the chances of Canadian gov't getting on their a$$ to clean it up? What are your laws up there?

[Yankee]

Tom P., how often do a professor’s colleagues at his own university set up a web site to warn people about him? If you want to rely on Lomborg, that’s your business, but don’t say nobody warned you.

“Some years ago, well before many outside Denmark knew Bjorn Lomborg's name, a group of his fellow faculty members at the University of Aarhus took the unusual step of developing a website specifically to warn the scientific community and others about flaws in his work. Appalled by Lomborg's scientific pretensions and unfounded conclusions, these faculty members, including a former head of the Danish Academy of Sciences, actively disassociated themselves from him.” -- Lester R. Brown, Worldwatch Institute

[vetspet(ind)]

people who live in seatle and never give supporting references when they challenge me and i give about 50 or more showing you are wrong... i would think i could stimulate you to come up with some beef, but being an envirowhacko you only eat vegies...you have not come up with one single supporting reference, yet you loudly , repeatedly state you are right, i'm wrong...i continue to inundate you with refs and you continue to give rhetoric...you have now become deeply mired in the whacko world on enviromentalist fluff...no beef...you just keep telling me i'm wrong...i keep up the refs...you must have no pride...not one reference...yet you keep coming for more...not one reference...yet i keep giving more....yes..you qualify for envirowhacko of the thread award...i have enough self pride to back up my words...all you give is words with no backing..then you end-run the thread with refs to my religious beliefs..swagart...bible...etc..you used the words....then you hit my spelling....then porting...then yahoo #2...yankee got caught up in this thread...today he listed that the lake michigan beaches were closed down in the 60's by pollution...that was the most ridiculous claim so far on this thread...i was there...it was alewives that closed the beaches...true environmentalists came up with the solution...salmon...that was what the beach closings were all about in the 60's...i'm sure you can find a ref or two stating coliforms and a few scattered refs to other causes of beach closings, but anyone who was around then knows what the closings..bulk of...was all about...fish bones...stench...flies feeding on fish and me...etc...yankee gave a perfect example of how envirowhackos use an environmental crisis and blame the pollution which had nothing to do with that crisis...it was the st lawrence seaway and lake invaders with no predators....pure and simple...i would like to see him get out of this one....i'm sure i can get much support on the beach conditions and what was the true reason they were closed...give me a reply on this one...just once i'd like to hear you guys say you were wrong...won't happen....just as you (or yankee?) said i stated acid rain does not exist....that is absolutely false...i acknowledged it causes problems in finland,norway..and 4% of the eastern lakes with fish deaths and flora...and 8% problems in watercourses....and 1% out west...they are all saying i really goofed by saying acid rain does not exist in the lakes...read the original post...i stated acid rain did not cause one forest decline (major factor that is) in the usa...and in studies at up to ten times the acidity of acid rain...trees grew just as well, and sometimes better than the controls...yet 4-5 posts indicate i said otherwise...you guys never change...just like you say my references are wrong..ie my reference saying acid rain doesn't exist...i can just go back to the thread and show you what i really said...somehow you will ignore what i just said because it is so easy to see that i am correct...in the same way you ignore my repeated requests to show me the fluff in lomborgs book...not one single ref...yet you keep talking like there are 900:1 fluff refs...how can a logical guy like me debate with illogic?...not sure how my mind can fathom this one...sort of like talking to ants...i can tell them things but their ability to understand is limited to their species...maybe you enviro guys are aliens, you certainly are of a subspecies of us conservatives..a throwback to years gone by...steve heckler

[vetspet(ind)]

you quoted a newspaper article!!! that was what this whole subthread was about...chris stated lomborgs book used fluff newspaper articles...i showed him that i checked over 100 w/o a single newspaper article...now you quote a newspaper ...as if news papers are not biased...i don't believe this...your group has gone full circle to stating newspapers are fluff and now your one and only quote( excluding river eye's) is a newspaper!!!you decline because you cant find one fluff ...tell the truth..you guys quote national scientific as if it is a source of unbiased hard science...i rebut with references to national scientific articles stating evolution is hard science...anyone who has studied evolution knows it is anything but hard science...i gave many books to reference on this issue...so your only refs to date are a newspaper and vaguely to scientific american (you did not give a ref..just that it mentions lomborgs book in some negative way)...i have to go hunting for three days...will be back sunday to have more fun with you wackos...you really are fun because i could not ever take you serious...i really want to know about those beach closings in the 60's and what i said about acid rain does not exist...you have three days to look this up and maybe you can get me some really good stuff on lomborg...come on yankee...show us what those bureaucratic guys can dig up...hopefully not while working on govt time...steve heckler

[Water Dog]

www.techcentralstation.com
RE: Swedish
Maybe this will help you understand how anti-capitalism profs in Denmark/Sweden would do that.

[Dinky]

Good Point Yankee,it seems the USA cant do any right but all Canada has thier sh** together.

[Scott Richardson]

My political bias is definitely leftward leaning. That said, I don't think there is any doubt that environmental laws have benefited the outdoors. We used to thin the Illinois River was going to catch fire because it was so polluted. Ag-chemicals in runoff were causing a reduction in fish and in other species after the poisons, like DDTs, were introduced into the food chain. Now, we can catch trophy sauger and walleye, white bass, catfish and other species in the Illinois River as Bald eagles look on. That happened after passage of the Clean Water Act and banning of DDT. Those are just a couple of examples. In Illinois, we wouldn't have fishing other than catfish and carp were it not for environmental laws.

Have they gone too far in some cases? Probably so. But, when it comes to the environment, we need to err on the side of caution. For one thing, we depend on it for our survival. For another, we expect the earth to last for thousands of years, yet we often act like our generation is the last one. If we destroy all the pristine places, our descendants won't know what it's like to be able to spend a day in a boat alone without ever seeing another boat.

Global warming? It's a fact according to many prominent scientists. Even Bush's own administration admits it. Acid rain? It's a fact too. Number one cause of stress on wildlife is destruction of habitat, and usually it's irreversible.

Laws keep greedy men and women from taking more than their share, and that's a good thing, in my opinion. Our worry shouldn't be is whether enviromental laws help hunters and fishermen and others who enjoy the outdoors, our concen should be what happens if they are weakened to the point that they offer no protection at all.

I recently read posts on WC that argued that politics had nothing to do with the outdoors. I couldn't disagree more. It's all about politics.

Scott Richardson

[sevenmmm]

Very nice Scott, and I agree its all politics.

I wonder just how left you are leaning and I have questions.

How come the left wants to disarm hunters?

Why do they continually support those who are against hunting and trapping?

Why do they want to limit humans (read hunters) from entering National Forests?

If the left had control they would ban guns and hunting, wouldn't reason dictate their next action be against fishing?

What good is a pristine enviroment if we can not take part in it?

The left is not for sportsmen and women. They care little for the enviroment. The left is a socialist, Anti-American group not related to the Old Democratic Party of JFK.

[Yankee]

Vetspet, I hated veggies when I was a kid and I still hate 'em, and I hate tofu and quiche, too. Bring me a T-bone ... :D

[River_eye]

I don't know the political situation in BC, but the chances of them having money in the budget for an expensive cleanup operation is not likely. If a cleanup were to happen, it would have to be federally funded, and for that to happen very quickly, there would have to be a public outcry. Obviously there isn't one loud enough at the moment.

I'm not saying that Canada is the land of the environmentally friendly people, cause we aren't, we just have a lot of land and not many people, which makes it somwhat forgiveable, in most people's minds.

Here in Manitoba, we have a provincial government that is going both ways. Approving an already huge hog industry to get larger, without knowing truly what all that sh*t will do. And also supporting Canada's ratification of the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions, and add to it's very large existing hydroelectric industry.

I have faith that eventually, Canada will learn from mistakes happening down south in the US and in our own heavily populated areas and correct them before too much of our wilderness is spoiled. But that's just positive thinking.

[global warming?]

In my opinion you really have to take what most of these scientists are telling us. After all they rely on the liberals to fund their research so naturally they have to print what will fuel their fire (pun intended). Secondly, I don't know how in god's green earth they can come up with this global warming theory when the years they have been keeping records is such a minute fraction of earths existance. If you tried to make them use such a small time frame in any other research project they were doing they would call you nuts, and that it certainly couldn't state a trend from such a small portion of the total picture.

[BlackSilver]

The answer, of course, is dependent of what you mean by "environmental laws".

If you mean laws which prohibit release of toxic chemicals into the air and water, encourage conservation of fresh water and air, prevent draining wetlands, and other similar protection of the 'great outdoors', then the answer is that it benefits all citizens, not just hunters and fishermen.

Or were you just trolling?

Walk softly and carry a big fish.

Hans/MN
--
"Many go fishing all their lives without knowing that it is
not fish they are after." - H.D. Thoreau

[Yankee]

Yeah, I remember the alewives stinking up the beaches, what do you suppose killed them, swimming in Perrier water? So you don't mislead readers, you’ve been arguing with several people on this board and your comment is also addressed to them, and I'VE MADE NO REFERENCE TO YOUR RELIGION. If you directed that remark at me, you've confused me with someone else.

[Scott Richardson]

Wait, I'm leftist, I participate in consumptive sports, I encourage hunting and fishing and trapping through my outdoor writing and I know many who are left of center just like me. So, I guess Rick's "the right is for us and the left is against us" view of things is far more than a bit simplistic.

I can make an argument against the rightists this way;

They support industries that pollute the environment, ruin the forests and drill oil _ and spill it _ in the midst of some of the last remaining wild places on the planet. What good is it to have the right to bear arms and fish if all the animals and fish are gone? Take a look at the mess Texas, our conservative President's home state, is with regards to the environment and hunting as a sport reserved for the wealthy as a case in point.

But, of course, that argument, though it has a ring of truth in it, would also be simplistic. There are people good and bad for the environment, supportive and non-supportive of consumptive sports from across the political spectrum.

Pragmatists of both parties know hunters and fishermen and others who enjoy the outdoors are the biggest contributors to maintaining wildlife and fish. We do it through excise taxes we pay which were voluntarily accessed on us by our own hunting and fishing organizations many years ago.

It's our job as Americans to participate in the democratic process, to learn who is who, what side folks fall on with the important issues and vote our conscious accordingly. Despite my leanings, I vote for some wonderfully conservative supportors of the outdoors. I also vote for some very liberal politicians who are very supportive of hunting and fishing. Nothing is black and white. Being American is harder than that.

[Yankee]

What does this have to do with what we're discussing? I thought maybe you were going to direct me to a web site that says all Swedish academics are leftist idealogues. Socialism sucks, is that news? You don't have to go to Sweden to find that out, just look at Mexico. When you argue about environmental regulation in the USA, what you are talking about is a couple degrees left or right of dead center on a "regulated capitalism vs. laissez faire capitalism" scale. Even conservative Republicans support some kinds of conservation, regulation, and they sure believe in government subsidies to miners, ranchers, and irrigation farmers.

[Water Dog]

I just would like to add that the banning of ALL DDT use, kills untold millions every year from malaria.
Almost all DDT overuse was in farming, as in cotton etc.
Allowing people to live makes perfect sense to me; however DDT limited use is not an option even though years of research show it would be effective and safe.
Don't believe it? It's true!

Ham fisted environmental regs cost lives.
Remember the forest fires all summer?
Adults are now in charge and restrictions not allowing proper managment policy have been changed.

It is time to embrace some intelligent environmental regulations and defeat the fuzzy thinking/feel good protectionist crowd.

[Yankee]

>>And the scientists you stand behind do not manipulate statistics? Ge real. The difference between a scientist lookinjg at research and data and taking a wild a#s guess, and you or I doing the same is, they get Govt funding to do it,and went to school and drank more than we did.<<

If you think that accurately describes the scientific community, well, to each his own, eh? If all our scientists are charlatans, why doesn't Bush cut off their federal funding? The University of Washington's scientific quacks get over $1 billion a year from the federal gov't, I would guess U. of Wisconsin is up there in fed $$$ too.

[bigfish1965]

Maybe a clearer defintion of political positions is needed. I'm not sure if us 'liberals' in Canada are that much left anymore. There has been so much blurring of the lines and all the parties seemed to be meeting in the middle somewhere. We had the advantage/disadvantage of multi-party governments. People learned a good deal about the other sides outlooks.
It seems to be intrinsic in Canadians to try and be pro-active with the environment. Most of us have seen the collapse of the cod fishery, the death of lakes from acid rain, and a drought like no other that is possibly from global warming ( although as a Canadian we seem to LIKE global warming..a few extra weeks of summer can't be bad..lol.)
It seems to be a problem of whom to trust.Everyone seems to have an agenda. You can still find doctors that work for tobacco companies willing to testify that it is not addictive. You can find PHD types who work for PETA et al willing to claim the sentience of carp.
Most of us as kids went to the cottage or campground each summer. We remember beautiful skies, fresh water and lots of fish. It became a part of our culture and a part of what defines us as a people. It is often those remembrances that fuel our conservationism. We view fishing and hunting as sacred priviledges, not rights.
Any time that something becomes so entrenched into a way of life, it is easy for some to be somewhat overzealous. Many take their love of nature to extremes. As we all have learned, extremes in any form can never be beneficial.
Often, though, it is those extremists that raise the alarms to those of us sitting in the center. If not for the work of Greenpeace, how many of us would have realized how perilous the worlds whale population had become? Perhaps if we had listened to the 'enviro-whackos' the entire east coast fishery may not have been wiped out. Had we been more zealous in protecting thos resources we may have prevented its demise.
It is catastrophes like this, by greedy businesses that continue the calling for the left leaners.
When extremism gets bored, it gets stupid. Going after hunters and fishers as a way to help the environment is profoundly misguided. Indeed many hunting and fishing organizations single handedly restored and resurrected prime habitat and its internal natural life.
Hunters, when properly limited, help maintain a strong and vibrant population of their quarry. The lack of upper residing members of the food chain ( i.e. wolves) leave other species, like the deer, unchecked in their numbers and prone to disease.
All in all, we strike a political balance. I suggest that the left is needed. For if you cannot see the extreme left side of the road, and you cannot see the extreme right side, how on earth will you ever know when you are in the middle?

[Yankee]

It's my understanding they use ice cores from glaciers and Arctic/Antarctic ice caps millions of years old to reconstruct the earth's climatological history, similar to using tree rings to identify rainy and dry years during the tree's lifetime, but a climate scientist can explain this a lot better than I can. If you're interested, an article in Dec. 2002 Scientific American says new evidence suggests the West Antarctic ice sheets may not be shrinking as rapidly as scientists have thought. If you read stuff like this, I think you'll find that unlike ideologues with political agendas, scientists are open-minded and willing to re-examine their theories and change their conclusions based on new evidence. A lot of science is educated guessing and there aren't very many things on which we have the final answer. When you are debating environmental policy, the science is inexact and evolving, and there are good arguments on both sides so why would anyone resort to questionable sources to argue their point?

[Yankee]

When I was a kid growing up in north Milwaukee, near Hampton Avenue, a river running through our neighborhood did catch fire. When I was about 5, my family moved to Wauwatosa and I grew up a couple blocks from Hoyt Park. My brothers and I used to go there every day in the summer, and we'd catch perch and crayfish and turtles in the Menominee River running through the park. Within a few years, the fish and crayfish and turtles were gone and the river was totally dead because of municipal discharges upstream. It's been a while since I've been there and I don't know what shape it's in now.

[Yankee]

Rick, it's fair to say the lefties you describe use the Democratic Party as their political home base (they sure aren't Republicans!), but the vast majority of Democrats and Gore voters are moderates, not lefties. Attitudes vary depending on what part of the country you're in. Here, western tradition runs things, not liberal ideology. Washington State is heavily Democratic but a few years ago when the anti-gunners got handgun registration on the ballot over 70% of the voters said no. My "liberal" state has the least restrictive gun laws in the U.S., you can get a concealed handgun permit for the asking if you don't have a record, and we have a state law that prohibits cities from restricting guns. This has led to an interesting situation whereby you can be thrown in jail for carrying a knife in Seattle, but it's legal to carry a gun. So if you visit Seattle, leave your shiv at home and bring your .357! Even though our governor, both of our senators, 6 of our 9 congressmen, and our legislature are Democrats, around here, people don't talk about banning hunting or fishing, they talk about when does elk season open. Granted, Seattle has its statistical quota of lefties, fur-huggers, anti-hunters, etc. but what big city doesn't? Most people around here are too busy counting their Microsoft stock options to worry about stuff like that ...

[Yankee]

Do hogs fart? There goes the ozone ... B.C. is raping its forests, too.

[Yankee]

I'm not trolling. This argument started under "Gun Laws Work There?" (which now has over 200 posts, many of which have nothing to do with gun laws or Canada), and I moved it over here to its own thread. The discussion has been quite specific, in particular focusing on a book by Bjorn Lonborg called "The Skeptical Environmentalist," which many conservatives are embracing and many environmentalists are condemning as quack science. (You probably are going to hear people talking about this book in the days ahead. You can get it from Amazon.com for about twenty bucks. It has 3,000 footnotes, some allegedly unattributed and/or inaccurate.) You've pretty well stated what I meant when I said "environmental laws." I believe hunters and fishermen benefit from regulations that prevent/clean up pollution, and weakening those regulations is bad for sportsmen. Of course I expect some people to disagree. For example, if environmental regulations shut down the mill where a guy works, he won't like that. I wouldn't either, and don't wish this on anybody. Finally, to properly introduce you to this thread, I'm a liberal pinko Seattle lawyer according to Vestpet, who is foolishly defending Lomborg's book.

[River_eye]

So whose fault is that? And what in gods name can Canada do about it? As far as economics are concerned, Canada is following the US lead, and pollution and exploititive resource consumption are part of the deal. If the US has any complaints of Canada as a nation, pollution is certainly not one of them. You are more likely to hear of them complaining about Canada's lax pot smoking laws.

As far as pollution and resource utilization are concerned, Canada fits right in with the US moral template, so you have absolutely no grounds for complaint on that issue.

[PTC]

Svenmmmmmmmmm,

I am part of the left. I know the left, and the left I know has no interest in disarming hunters, or really to any great extent anything else you mentioned.

Well, Ok, maybe you are right. We do think it is a little silly to hunt deer with a fully automatic AK.

Oh and I guess we do need to limit people's use of Federal land. For expample, let's keep a few places like the BWCA pristine. And, limit areas for ATV's.

[Fasteddie]

Waterdog, would you please stop trying to beat us over the head with your hyper capitalism drivel.

[Yankee]

I think I'd also include open pit mines, cyanide heap leaching gold mines, stream dredging for gold, overgrazing, overcutting in the list of uses of federal lands that I would limit or regulate.

[Yankee]

Surely you realize I was joking about hog farts ...

[Yankee]

Eddie, here is a response to Vetspet I posted on the other thread ("Gun Laws Work There?"):

Vetspet, the complaints about Lomborg's book aren't so much that his sources are "fluff," it's really about selective use of data and misinterpretation, although he does make blatant errors in citing to sources. For example, in discussing deforestation, he turns a source's figure of 7.5 million square kilometers of forest land loss into 7.5 percent of forest land lost, which severely distorts what the source actually said. Errors like this mislead readers and are inexcusable, but the real indictment of the book is not so much "fluff" information as it is "fluff" analysis or just plain inaccurate or misleading conclusions drawn from accurate data. For example, he implies the oceans' ability to produce seafood is limitless by pointing out that fisheries production has doubled since 1970. The figure is accurate, but what it really means is commercial fishing fleets are larger and more efficient and catch more fish compared to 30 years ago, but this does NOT mean the oceans are producing more fish. The truth is, most of the 17 major oceanic fisheries are overexploited and several have collapsed. Lomborg's book is entirely based on market economics. Under this model, rationality argues for expanding fishing fleets as long as production and profits are increasing. However, the biology-based model used by fisheries scientists argues strongly for reducing the existing fishing fleet by half to avoid total collapse of the resource base. Lomborg's book is wrong and misleading because his belief that market-based economics provides the answer for all problems is wrong. Clearly, you can wipe out a fishery, drain an aquifer, deforest a continent, cause extinction of species, etc. by ignoring the effect of market-driven activities on the resource base. This is like trying to play golf with a baseball bat, the analogy may be imperfect, but the point is Lomborg's assessment of the world's environment is wrong because he used the wrong tools to analyze the data (ignoring the additional issue of intellectual dishonesty by ignoring data that refutes his politically motivated predetermined conclusions). I believe this book will be a short-lived fad item, will not be read in the future, and the people now using it to justify their political positions are going to look silly--so use at your own risk.

[River_eye]

I didn't think of it as a joke because it's pretty much true.

[Yankee]

Holy sh ... I mean, holy hog fart ... !

[fasteddie]

yankee, you know vetspet considers himself a champion debater. Actually he knows little about debating and is just an arguer. He also has some strange ideas about women's rights and evolution that would make most theologians cringe. He moans about showing references and tries to list as "proof" Statements by Lombard if Lombard references or claims to reference what he said. Chris tried to show him how that isn't excepted by scientists unless you analyze was was said AND the reference. Something that generally is/can only be done by scientist working in the field, or grad students with academic projects and time to do so. Thay has been done and they consider Lombards work to be specious at best. So when Vetspet starts telling you he is going to show you "facts" and starts thumping his Lombard bible at you,....well,.. I don't take him seriously on this or many things.

[SUPERTROLLER]

Very well said! I wish you had put your name to this entry so we could give proper credit where it is due. I agree with you 100%.

[SUPERTROLLER]

If you knew anything about the life cycle of Alewives, you would realize that they die off every year. It is thought that most die due to the warmer waters they are inhabiting to spawn in and also the rigors of the spawning process. They are not dieing from the water being polluted and not able to sustain life!

[SUPERTROLLER]

We've experienced "global warming" since the last Ice Age. If it wasn't getting warmer, we'd still be under miles of glacier in North America. What caused the dust bowl years early in the last century? This occurred before the accumulation of Carbon dioxide to todays levels. Why is it that whenever they talk about global warming you only here the gloom and doom predictions? Aren't there ever going to be some good things that occur? If it's warmer, wouldn't we expect more evaporation to occur and thus more rain to fall somewhere? You only hear about massive droughts and starvation. Wouldn't the longer growing seasons in Canada allow them to grow more or better or different crops? How about Oranges from the areas in Michigan that now supply apples? I think the real point to be made is this. They are basing this assumption of "catastrophic" global warming on temperature readings that have been collected over such a short span of time that we don't really know how much Man has contributed to the warming trend and how much would normally happen even without the additional gases we are adding to the skys. EVERYTHING they predict is pure speculation and most of the numbers they quoted back in the 80's and 90's have not come close to happening.

I believe we live on a planet that runs in cycles of warmer and colder, wetter and dryer and mostly affected by our sun. Earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions also affect our climate by changing the weather patterns.

[PTC]

Ouch, I fell out of my chair on that one. If it weren't so scary I'd still be on the floor with that last rib tickler. Betting you are investing in Polar properties and waiting to cash in.

Hey here's an idea... I've seen Star Trek and it looks like with good food replicator and a holodeck you can have anything you want. Forget farming in the polar regions. Gimme a holodeck and a food replicator.

[vetspet(ind)]

boy..you said in one paragraph what i've been trying to say in 20+ posts...well said tom P...the refs i see are all peer reviewed as far as i'm able to determine...i mentioned lomborg was a tree hugger...self proclaimed in his preface...he started out on the enviro side...is not an economist so much as he is a statistical analysist and should be well equipped to deal with the myriad of figures that must be deciphered...when he did...he found his side (environmentalist) was wrong...thats all he did...show us they were wrong...and he's open enough to admit he was wrong...yankee is still maintaining the alewives died from pollution...he did not even mention that the alewives were the cause of beach closings in his first post...just that the beaches closed due to pollution...he probably did not even realize the alewives were the reason...now he wants to continue this silly stance to indicate the alewives died due to water/orair pollution...then why did the perch and other fish do ok?? it was never pollution that caused the alewives to die...the beach closings were due to alewife deaths in massive numbers...period...these guys do not know how to admit when they are wrong..which is why they are so angry with lomborg..they see him as a benedict arnold...they can't defend their statements about lomborgs book with hard facts so all they do is end-run the topic with references to my religious backround or my spelling...steve

[vetspet(ind)]

funny...the back cover has two professors who give him great accolades...professor Lars Kristoferson, sect general, World Wildlife Fund, Sweden.....Nils Petter Gleditsch, editor Journal of Peace Research and research Professor...Oslo sweeden....then there is Professor Jack Hirshleifer, dept of economics....Univ of california LA....professor lewis Wolpert...dept of anatomy and biology...univ.college London...i can get you many more in the preface...i got the book!!...you guys need to research what you are saying...not just repeat things you have heard...you are starting to look bad...i have a few helpers now and you are reallllllly in trouble and the muck is getting deeper than deep that you are in..you still have not given a single reference!!.....steve heckler...maybe you will revert back to my spelling, my religion, or come up with another end run....what are your official causes for the closing of beaches?...come on i want an answer...this one will determine just where you are on the environmental issues...did the alewives die from some sort of pollution?....come on yankee...or chris...or ed....did they die from pollution?? as you stated...this is a perfect example of you guys saying something and then somebody can prove you are wrong and you refuse to stick with your statement or admit you were wrong...LETS HERE IT ON THIS , PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ENVIRO WRONGNESS...you gotta come thru on this one...what caused the alewife die offs....steve heckler

[vetspet(ind)]

any body with a memory can remember that in the 80's there were several very cold yrs and the enviro guys got everyone all excited that we were returning to the ice ages due to pollution, i believe, blocking the suns radiant heat...i may be incorrect as to the actual reason they thought we were going to the ice age but the gist was our pollution somehow was doing this..they based their dire predictions on a few yrs of cooler temperatures....very typical for their mindsets...i can research this if needed , but i am sure many people here are old enough to remember this..steve heckler

[vetspet(ind)]

yankee...loud and clear this time...lomborg is not a questionable source...only by the left wing crowd...and again...scientific american thinks evolution is hard science....so they are not unbiased...i can debate on this issue equally well, if not better as i have taken the time to read 12-15 scientific (not biblical-based) textbooks on the falacy of evolution...yet scientific american never prints the huge documented evidences against evolution....biased?...you bet...they only print what their readers want, and ignore the rest...they do it with evolution...they do it with the environmental issues...steve heckler...

[vetspet(ind)]

scotts reply was a very good one and i agree with 90%of it...we need environmental controls...gary indiana is a prime example...lake erie another....that has never been the point of this thread...your mention of acid rain and global warming is more debatable....yes, acid rain is real..never said it wasn't..just over-hyped by the enviro crowd...like yankee said...the beaches were closed in our areas in the 60's...but he blamed pollution...that was so typical of their line of arguments....they don't use facts....i will study the ref that yankee gave,,message 39 ...i never said there were not any wrong references...as a matter of fact i have found a few...but there are almost 3,000 references and nearly all of them seem very much on the money ...then he says i have to be qualified to determine if porting is being done...so many of the references are easy to understand w/o having to have a degree in stats to interpret..the ref he gives, which i will try to study is one that i could miss easily and he gives a good reference, but i can give 50 good ones that are right on for any he may find as poorly referenced...he or chris said that the ratio of bad to good are 900:1...that is hogwash....all i am concerned with is that the enviro crowd be open-minded to the concept that these are all emotionally charged issues and that the so called leaders of each side have agendas....we should be able to decipher which is right or wrong w/o having qualifications in most cases...otherwise why read anything?? yes, probably all textbooks on issues like the environment are going to have inaccuracies, but one has to weigh the relative amount of truth and information a book gives...lomborgs book has tons of good stuff that the enviro crowd does not want known, so they attack his credentials...steve heckler

[vetspet(ind)]

some good points bigfish...the problem is that parties like the democrats here in usa get their majorities by appealing to a vast number of fringe groups...then when the get into power they have to pay up...they start backing laws against firearms...pro-abortion...a kid can't get an aspirin at most schools, yet is able to get an abortion w/o parental knowledge in many states...this was not by the efforts of republican party politicians....they have the peta people....the movement to pay reparations to african americans who's distant relatives were slaves....doesn't anyone see that there were distant relatives of mine who died freeing those slaves?...where is the common sense with these radical movements?...so most conservatives migrate to the republican party as the least harmful to our way of thinking on many issues....but you did give good points...putting demos in there would be a disaster on so many fronts that the enviro issues become second fiddle...steve...and nearly all the enviro wackos would be democrats...and i am against guys like yankee who say beaches closed due to pollution...that just is 100% false...steve

[vetspet(ind)]

well, now that you mention the bwca...it is one of the nicest places i have ever spent time in...want to do a solo one month canoe trip there when i retire....no place like the bwca...hit their internet site weekly...used to live up there in the 70's and 80's....the area has problems with mercury in fish...my old boss in virginia mn told me in the 80's that this is their best kept secret...i still remember my clients who would come to tears...literally...when they would speak of their one and only asset..a lake cabin...that the govt came in and confiscated the cabin...and according to them paid them a miseable amount of money for and then torched the cabin...don't know exactly how i feel about this except it seemed wrong at the time and still does...these people would literally bring in the wood over ice in winter so as to build in summer...the farthest thing in their mind was to ruin nature...they loved their cabins and the woods....there was all kinds of forests and other lakes at the time that did not have any cabins and were pristine....i would not, on the other hand, want to see a cabin on crooked lake.....still don't know how i feel on this but never felt it (confiscation), was done right...some sort of compromise may have been better

[vetspet(ind)]

yankee...thats the problem with you enviros....we can never tell when you are joking because so much of what you say , you mean it, and its a joke....like alewives dying from pollution....now i suppose that was meant to be a joke??....i don't think so....but it was fun poking holes in that premise...and i don't have any special credentials or degrees to tell you that you were wrong on that one....

[vetspet(ind)]

yankee...unless i am not qualified to look up your ref...and maybe i'm doing something wrong...see i can admit that i may be wrong...your ref right here says things about lomborg and refers to a past ref of yours...ref #39....and in reponse to message #36...these are not your posts...they are to i think eyefish...when did you make this ref? and what # is it...i need to know so i can research it...

[Water Dog]

Steve, from 1940-around 1978, the climate cooled. This was when the whole world was engulfed in war and internal combustion engine production all over the world exploded. Many predicted a coming ice age and darn, somehow man was causing it. Remember the winter of 1977 and the blizzard of 1978?
To conclude that surface global temps are on an upward trend, would not the air from one to five miles up also increase?
So far NO measurements collected by satellites or weather ballons support proof of a warming trend at this time.

[Fasteddie]

I was around in the 80's. Yes there were a few scientists that were working in solar radiation that talked about how much man made dust was being put up in the air and how much it was reducing the total amount of solar heating the earth gets. Based on those calculations (on 1980's computers that in TOTAL, were not 1000th as powerful as the one you are probably typing at now) Would decrease the earth's temperature about 1/2 degree. The popular press ran with stories that THEN talked about how other scientists explained how complex 1 or 2 degrees can make on the world (IE. there is only about less than two degrees of mean average after a number of years can create ocean current changes and the avalanch of that effects that can create GREAT climatic changes. (Whats a few degrees right?) Most scientists agree that there is only a few degrees of mean ave temps from the ice age to what we have now. At that SAME time, most scientists in the 80s were well aware of the possibility of global warming. It so happens that the same amount of particulate matter we contribute to, and the amount of heat trapping gases we put into the atmosphere, comes pretty close to canceling each other out by nearly all computer models today. So a GREAT tightrope eh? I guess thats what Lomborg means abouut the "balance of Nature " in his silly little book. Some here have talked about volcanoes doing more. I am very aware of volcanos adding greatly to the dust of the earth. I think it was back in 1813 a large one call Tambora blew off and made the "year without a summer" in which made it very hard to survive in the US and much more so in Europe/Asia. In those days they were able to store food in their agrarian societies and with grains,put up foods killing off animals, game etc. Do you know how much food is in reserve in the US right now? Weeks? What if we have two years of bad circumstances? OK so we can't control volcanos, but what happens when you live close to the line. In some cases 1+1= can effectively equal 3. It so happens that without the addition of more volcanos the earth can "GENERALLY" (but not always) clean out the air in a year or two. Since there might be great devastation socio-economically. Its doubtful we will be adding much patriculate matter ourselves, so that then we will deal with the greenhouse gases. In other words huge rocking and rolling of temps. I know waterdog et al his names will be screaming that I am saying the sky is falling.All I am pointing out is a few scenarios that HAVE happened in near history. Volcanlogists have said this is overdue somewhere in the world. Anyway,I did a search and I don't find any credible scientist that said we were going into an ice age. However if you look you can find SOME scientist SOMEWHERE who will say just about anything. Thats a far cry from scientific concensus. Scientist can CERTAINLY be brought! I attended a talk by Edward Teller (remember HIM?) He emphatically made the statement at the time that no nuclear plants should be built on the face of the earth that they were too dangerous. ONE MONTH later I read that he has accepted a position for a pro nuclear power consortium that paid him a six figure retainer to be their spokesman. (a lot of money at the time) In one month this nuclear expert "found religion" and now trumpeted the great value and wonders of nuclear power. I don't care that he had a stand on something, My problem was with the fact that scientists can be purchased. Lomborg, although not a scientist in this field, sells books and speaking engagements.

[River_eye]

Global warming, no matter what is causing it will cause problems in Canada. The boreal forest, where most of you guys come up here to fish walleyes would be hit the hardest. Global warming increases evaporation, which decreases runoff, which decreases the amount of organic carbon in the lakes. Studies have shown that disolved organic carbon is what filters out UV-B rays, and keeps lake organisms safe.

Also, more extreme weather patterns are expected in Canada as a whole, which will not be good for crops.

You can be skeptical about human's impact on the planet, but no matter what, warming of the planet isn't a good thing.

[Yankee]

Regardless of what killed alewives, so. Lake Michigan was polluted in the 1960's.

[Yankee]

You want a reference? OK, here's 224 pages of them ... http://www.ecocouncil.dk/download/sceptical.pdf

[Yankee]

To each his own, Vetspet. If you want to hitch your wagon to Lomborg's star, be my guess. As for Scientific American, sure they're biased, and sure you can criticize them, and they've got it coming. Same is true of environmental orgs and some scientists who went around doomsaying to fatten their contributions and get research grants ... but the fact they're guilty as sin doesn't make Lomborg right, and doesn't make the responsible scientists wrong.

[Yankee]

The Economist is biased, too. So is NBC News, Time Magazine, fishing magazines, all media is slanted ... not easy to decide who to believe. Why should I believe Lomborg when so many reputable scientists say his book is quackery? He wrote it in 18 months with help from a few graduate students, about a subject outside his field, and he has all the answers? And people who have been doing field work and publishing professional papers all their careers are wrong? Vetspet, next time you have a toothache, are you going to go to a barber because your dentist doesn't know anything about teeth, and your barber does?

[Yankee]

Vetspet, I'm having a little trouble following this post, #39 is my post but #36 is fasteddie, can you clarify what you are asking me?

[Yankee]

Yes, they did say that, and yes, there's b.s. out there, and some of it is put out by environmentalists and also by some academics and scientists who ought to know better, but that doesn't change the fact Lomborg's book is b.s.

[Yankee]

Well, for once we agree on something vetspet, the Democratic Party does attract more than it's share of wackos although let's be fair the GOP gets its own brand of crazies. The fringe elements are there but do NOT run the Democratic Party, which actually has moved a long way toward the center in recent years on issues like free trade, welfare reform, etc. The average person voting for Democrats does NOT support PETA or the other nuts you describe, a lot of us are against gun control, some of us are against abortion ... but we find the conservative Republican agenda too hard to swallow. This is a fishing board, not a political board, so I decline to go any further on the subject of Dems vs Repubs ... my whole point is tearing up the environmental laws at industry's behest will lead to habitat degradation and hurt our hunting and fishing, and as a sportsman that's against my interests and I don't support it. You are focusing on macro-environmental issues but my whole deal here is don't screw up the lakes I fish in. The merits of nuclear power is beyond the scope of my purpose and presence on this board ...

[Yankee]

I think I'd agree with you on this one, too, vetspet. The gov't can get heavy handed at times.

[Yankee]

As I've said elsewhere, the problem with Lomborg's book is not data accuracy but methodology. He uses market-based economic theory to debunk scientific observations. In other words, the football team with the most points loses, because we're using golf scoring rules today. I say baloney, whether acid rain kills fish is for the chemists and limnologists to determine, market theory has nothing to say about it.

[Yankee]

Scientists disagree among themselves on global warming and admit they don't know. The only thing certain is that Lomborg doesn't know more than they know.

[sevenmmm]

Yeah...I'm simple.

Never did get any of that mind bending leftist propaganda from those liberal professors.

Leftists and liberals are supported by the anti-gun lobby. They are supproted by PETA. They believe in the centrist idea. Its ever restrictive laws and higher taxes for the citizens and larger government to enforce this. The enviroment to them is just an issue.

Lets compare those crazies on the left who vote Democrat, with those on the right who vote Republican. The worst of the left believe there are to many people using to many resources. Just what ideas do they have to correct this belief? Read Al Gore's book, "Earth in the Balance" for a real crazy far out leftist view of the USA.

On the Republican side? Please help me, I want to know a Republican who opposes a safe and clean enviroment.

And about Texas. I have been there many times and most of the state is beautiful. From the hardwood tracts on the east, to the scrub country of the south, and the desert of the southwest. There is a great diversity of geography and the critters who inhabit them.

The problem with Texas is the innercity inhabitants who care less about the enviroment as witnessed by the garbage strewn about. And they are mostly Democrats there!

[Water Dog]

I agree that the data is inconclusive at this time.
No one can proof anything one way or the other and anyone who claims otherwise is just guessing.

But prudent thought requires we look at our future energy requirements and emissions in a new light.

Reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas intensity is the goal of the Bush Administration by seeking an 18 percent reduction in GHG intensity (emissions per dollar of GDP) over the next decade compared to the current baseline trend forecast of a 14 percent reduction.

This approach will allow continued U.S. economic growth while encouraging a slowing in the growth rate of CO2 emissions.
Something the Kyoto Protocol would not do with it's high energy taxes or (tradable permits).
Dog

[SUPERTROLLER]

What type of pollutants are you saying were present? You're making a generalized statement and suggesting the lake was unfit to support aquatic life. This is just not true. If you're saying the Lake is cleaner now due to better regulations for acceptable discharges, I will agree with that. The Salmon were released into the Great Lakes to eat the over-abundance of Alewives and hopefully stop these massive die-offs. They still die, just not in the numbers that they used to.

[SUPERTROLLER]

I noticed you didn't answer any of the questions I asked or dispute anything I said. If you wish to debate a point or two, I welcome a civil discussion. Instead of taking a cheap shot and belittling my posts, why don't you add something constructive? Why does it always seem to involve a disproportionate share of guest users as the ones that seem to be the more arguementative people on these topics?

[SUPERTROLLER]

After it evaporates, where does it go? It's got to fall somewhere. If it falls in greater volumes, more of it will run off since only so much can soak in at a time. It could be that you'll have more carbon in your lakes and this will keep them from becoming too warm and you'll still have great fishing.

[vetspet(ind)]

yankee...you stated the Pollution was the cause of the beach closings.....the fact that there was pollution...which i ageed is true...had nothing whatsoever to do with the beach closings...much the same as the fact that there is and always has been a hole in the ozone layer....you enviro guys just got the burr up your.... and were told the hole was getting larger due to our air conditioner freon and spray cans....same exact analogy...except that in the beach closings you are totally wrong...your solution would have been off the mark unless you did the enviromental solution that was prudently done...introduce salmon...you are still stuck on the pollution being the cause...so if you focussed on that the alewives would still be closing the beaches...this is exactly the example of how a few vocal enviro guys who know not what they are saying would /could redirect the efforts to fix the problem...the duponts used this technique to put the scare into america about the ozone/freon connection....anyone who has studied this problem ...and i have not gotten to that chap in lomborg yet so i'm sure i'll get some good ammo on this case...knows the freon had little or no effect on the ozone layer...the duponts were in a good position to benefit from this eco-disaster in the making if they could just convince your crowd to carry the banner....it worked...we all had to pay for an inferior product that does not last as long as the original...and it was mostly eco-hype...by the way...i can not find those two references you purportedly found in lomborg saying that the world fisheries can double their productivity....on the contrary i found the section on fishery and he stated very plainly that the world production of 100 million tons of fish exceeds the 90 million tons which the oceans can sustain...and gives the cause as over fishing!! which is exactly what you said he did not do...ie...if the man states right in the text, that world production is 100 million tons and world capacity is 90...and the excess is from overfishing...how do you claim he is stating that the world production could be 200 million tons...chapter 9 page 108....read it yourself...this is the chapter on "will we have enough food"...he states that humanity depends upon fish for only 1% of it's calories, and 6% of its proteins from fish...with references....he previously showed that the agricultural world is keeping up very well with protein and caloric needs....and that fish represent a small percent of those worldwide needs.....here is a quote that goes 180 degrees opposite what you stated...that he "implies the oceans ability to produce seafood is limitless"....and that he implies that the solution be to expand fishing fleets as long as production and profits are going up"...these came from your post#39..read it to be sure i'm not inventing this...now i will give you lomborgs quotes from the "skeptical environmentalist"...."the global fish catch has in the 1990's has NOT increased as much as earlier"...p.106...last full paragraph....now catch this yankee.."THIS IS PRIMARILY BECAUSE THE WORLD'S FISHING FLEETS HAVE A GENERAL TENDENCY TO OVER-FISH PARTICULAR STOCKS"....he goes on to explain how the ocean is essentially a "free for all" for any country to catch as many fish as they please outside of individual country boundaries...another quote..."if all fishermen were to refrain from fishing, they would make no money,but if all fishermen were to fish up the entire ocean, they would make no money either, because the oceans would be empty....it is possible to show that there is an optimal level of fishing in between these two extremes."this is a far cry from what you state he is saying in his book on fish...like i've told you before (like 100 times?)...you gotta read the book...not give quotes that i can rip apart by giving you page and chapter directly from the book in front of me...why would he say the fisheries need to double production where right here he stated they have exceeded production by 10 million tons and does not give one point that i can find stating what you say he states...could it be that some enviro-geek you know told you this and that you really never read the text?? i think so....another quote you will LOVE..."WHEN A STATE OR AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION CANNOT SECURE AN OPTIMAL EXPLOITATION, WE ARE LEFT WITH EVERYONE BATTLING AGAINST EVERYONE ELSE.hERE FISHERMEN WILL OVER-INVEST IN EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT SO THAT THEY CAN OVERFISH THE OCEANS FASTEST AND MOST EFFICIENTLY...THE ONLY LIMIT ITO THE INVESTMENT IS WHEN THE SEA BECOMES SO EMPTY THAT FURTHER FISHERY IS NO LONGER PROFITABLE" p 107...last paragraph....and another one p.108 second paragraph..."we CANNOT significantly expand our production of fish catch beyond the 100 million tons"...and gives a great enviro-solution...fish farms to make up the 10 million ton difference....how again can you state he says "the oceans' ability to produce fish is limitless"...this is a quote directly from your post....when he clearly states on p 107 that we have exceeded the 100 million tons already no mention of increasing our fishing fleets...quite the contrary...he says its bad economics to increase the fleets hehehe...come on give this one a whirl...you keep digging deeper holes...lets see now...the alewives died due to pollution..we show you how utterly silly and totally unfounded that statement was...now you totally misquote lomborg...now you state his solution is to increase, expand the fishing fleets....this is 100% opposite what he says on page 108....how can you be so wrong?...do you have any pride in the facts you keep presenting...buy a book....rent the book...but dont keep misquoting from the book you have obviously never read...i have the book and am prepared...this is really fun...you serious enviro guys better get this guy off this thread as i'm really having fun debunking him and it reflects on all of you...steve heckler

[vetspet(ind)]

next to "email this topic to a friend" there is a botton "printer friendly topic"...hit this and go to #39...your response to eddie

[vetspet(ind)]

oops...my first mistake!!....printer friendly copy

[vetspet(ind)]

i remember the dire warnings well...

[Harmon]

You mention Scientific American as biased because they talked about evolution? What is your idea about animals, including humans on earth. Just appeared here via mothership? I don't think all the other scientists that think his book is worthless think that way because he is a Benedict Arnold. From what I read and the few I know ,they think that because he is and has been in the past mercenary he deserves no respect. If you don't think scientists can be brought, notice that the tobacco industry had a number of real scientists that said smoking was OK. I have an ad around here that have statements (1940's) that have Doctors, (I realise not really scientists but many people respond to their influence) That implies that smoking is good for you. Drug companies have scientists that sign off their responsibility all the time concerning the safety of drugs. Remember chloroamphenicol? Great example is David Wertman and his wife two top biochemists from MIT that were championing certain nutrients as great health benefits and decried government regulations to control such things and by the pharmaceutical companies taking these over since they have little or no neg factors and certainly much less than 1000's of OTC products sold. But wait,..on MIT time they learned new methods to manufacture them. If they were over the counter their patents would be worth very little. So next time there were congessional hearing on OTC nutrients, guess who demanded that most should be by prescription. After they found out that perhaps MIT really owns these rights they have drifted back to the other side again. Can you find a couple of scientists on Lomborgs side? I would absolutely bet the house on it. I would also bet they had some connection to benefit from their stance. Have you read about Lomborgs other ideas about the world? Interesting that you think so much of him as his answers to fixing the world is left of Karl Marx. Is it just you WANT so hard to believe all his so called data? I'm sorry , I know a few scientists that I greatly respect. They are in solid tenured positions and can say what they want about anything (certainly to me anyway ) and have nothing to gain anything in having no respect for Lomborg. They have the expertise to check his statements. I know some of them pretty well, a few are even fishermen and are not raging liberals or raging anything politically. In fact I don't know many others that are so apolitical. At least in these guys they get paid on way or another. I have to believe them! As someone mentioned you are saying you will provide FACTS by listing Lomborgs references. Those do not make them in ANYWAY, facts. The point as I read the past posts started out as proper science methology. Lombards book has gotten overwelming criticism of just that by the vast majority of the scientific community.They have the time and background to critique this book. Just THAT is enough for me. Do environmental scientists make mistakes? Of course! Do Sportsmens groups make mistakes? Of course they do. Are they both trying? yep, Do we alway agree on when to do things and how much? Of course not. But neither would have gotten far without the help of the other. If you think the Sportsmens groups cleaned up lakes and streams by just contacting their politicians and if you think that Lombard wrote an important book you are being very naive. Since you constantly use the term enviromentalist wackos or similar and you don't seem to care about proper scientific methodology, does that make you an Antiscience wacko?

[vetspet(ind)]

eddie...you again miss the point...we humans create infinitismal amounts of toxins and dust verses volcanos...we are a drop in the bucket...not that we cannot locally devastate our waterways as lake erie in the 50's....gary air in the 60's....but to revamp our air conditioners because of a hypothesis that freon was escaping into the stratosphere (or where ever it was said to be going)...do you realize freon is heavier than air?...i am pretty sure on this fact but may be wrong as i think i read it in another anti-enviro-wacko book i read several yrs ago...i got to studying several books then and am a bit fuzzy on the exact figures...but can research it again after reading my new bible (lomborg) as you guys like to refer to it...

[Water Dog]

A study in the August 28 issue of Goephysical Research Letters has found a serious error in global circulation computer models when it comes to predicting temps in the polar regions.
Using laser rader and weather balloon measurements confirmed computer climate predictions off by as much as 40 degrees. The actual temps were much colder than expected.

[PTC]

Supertroller,

I am sure you are a heck of a guy. We have the common ground that is a love for fishing, and I think a respect for the enviroment. I really do not mean to make fun of your posts. Honestly I figured it was a joke.

Please tell me it was....

[psilvers]

I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but it seems to have become a debate about global warming.

Despite just having browsed the thread, let me answer the question about environmentalists loud and clear:

HUNTERS AND FISHERMEN WERE THE FIRST ENVIRONMENTALISTS!!!

To see what fishermen can do when they get organized, take a look at what the Hudson River Fishermen's Assoc. did on the Hudson River in NY. You can read about some of their exploits in "The Riverkeepers" by John Cronin and Bobby Kennedy Jr. The local library may have it. You can also do a search on the web for "Hudson River Fisherman's Assoc." or "Riverkeeper".

Just my $.02

Pete

[vetspet(ind)]

first of all we veterinarians were heavy users of chloramphenicol (cap) in the 70's and 80's...not much used anymore since the cipro line of floxacillins hit the market...there was a day when this antibiotic saved many a life...very little side effects...very broad spectrum...cheap....a really good antibiotic...the pharmaceutical industry discovered a very small percent of individuals developed a serious blood condition called aplastic anemia....not a good guy...i still knew many pharmacists when in minn. who used cap when nothing else worked...they never had a problem with side effects and it always worked for them when the other products failed...due to the potential anemia they saved it for when nothing else worked...not sure just how many people became ill on this drug...i would guess it was a very small percent but i'm not sure...i am sure it saved many a dog/cat life when nothing else worked...we had an alternative drug...gentamiacin..which was also a good drug but had a much higher problem when the patient had kidney problems....enough about antibiotics...read my posts about the enviro hype on the only two refs given so far disputing lomborg...one ref about lomborg advocating increasing the fishing fleets to double the take...that ref is so outlandish....i quoted from page 106-108....Lomborg advocates if we have to increase our fish harvest to create fish farms and says we have only harvested 90 million tons of fish worldwide where the demand is 100million tons...he then states plainly that it would not be economically sound to increase the fleet to attain the 100million tons...never does he mention striving for 200 million tons by increasing the fleet..he on the contrary ...recommends not even trying to meet the 100 million mark as this would cause depletion of the resources...ie he recommends environmental conservation in regards to the fish industry...never advocating raping the oceans....you forget , he is a tree hugger and likes the environment...i know this hurts people with pre-conceived ideas that anyone who decries "foul" when discussing environmental wacko science....but its the facts maam...just the facts......you guys gotta get it thru your skulls that we are not anti enviro guys...we just want honesty when reporting environmental crises.....steve heckler..if i did not address all your issues here i will con't but have to drive my daughter back to college and they are all yelling at me so my concentration is low right now...i have four daughters and a wife....so the reference to me being of sexist bias does not hold water...at least with me...steve

[Yankee]

Chicago dumped untreated sewage into the Illinois River, which drains into L. Michigan, in other words the so. end of the lake was an outhouse. We "enviro-guys" believe regulating pollution and making the ratepayer and consumer pay a little more for the service or product is preferable to letting cities and factories use our public waterways as a sewer. After all, that's where we fish. Of course, this isn't your problem, if you own a private fishing lake ...

[Yankee]

Pete, the main issue in this thread is whether Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmental" is crap, and global warming is only one of several debating points being worked over here. We're also arguing about air and water pollution, acid rain, and other issues. We disagree on whether Lomborg's conclusions are scientifically unsound; and global warming, et. al, are being thrown into the pot as illustrations of alleged errors in his book.

[Yankee]

My typo; should read "The Skeptical Environmentalist." You can buy it from Amazon.com for about 20 bucks. There's a free 224-page rebuttal of Lomborg's book (in pdf format) that you can download from http://www.ecocouncil.dk/download/sceptical.pdf

[Yankee]

You're going to make me buy Lomborg's book, aren't you? Do you know how many worm harnesses I can buy for 20 bucks? Meanwhile, you can easily read my source for the discussion about commercial overfishing yourself. If I misquoted or misinterpreted, have at me. If the rebuttal is all wet, have at the biologist who wrote it. See "Sceptical Questions and Sustainable Answers," p. 125 et seq., a free download (in pdf) at http://www.ecocouncil.dk/download/sceptical.pdf

[Tennessee Jed]

Do you hunt much? Do you look at many state regs for firearm requirements for deer hunting? Do you know what licenses are required to possess a fully automatic weapon? Do you have the overriding judgement that determines what is "silly", and what is not?

Want to know what I suspect? You either don't hunt much, or you don't read the regs, or you don't know anything about Class III weapons ownership. And since I suspect you of all these things, you would never rate the position of judge on them, in my book.

"Fully automatic AK-47" is typical buzzword drivel from the left. You think that it sounds so convincing to repetitively use such terms to justify a gun control agenda, under the guise of being pro-hunting.

[River_eye]

If the climate warms, the air warms, and can therefore hold more water. We have the same amount of moisture overall, just more of it is stored in the atmosphere instead of on the earth. More will probably fall somwhere, but not here. There will be a greater difference between the wet and dry parts of the continent. This is what I understand from what my professors have told me.

[River_eye]

I don't understand why you figure that the kyoto protocol cannot allow increased economic growth while decreasing emissions at the same time.

The Kyoto protocol doesn't specify anything about tradable permits, although it is a popular way to reduce emissions.

You're telling me that although the US won't ratify the kyoto protocol, they are reducing ghg emmisions anyways? Sounds funny.

[Water Dog]

You ask a good question Eric. The problem is a recent analysis by the well-respected climate policy modelers at DRI-WEFA, an econometric forecasting firm with offices around the globe, concludes that complying with Kyoto will REDUCE German GDP by 2.8 percentin 2010 and cut employment by 1 million jobs.
Other countrys will suffer greater downturns.

Why is that fact important?

Because a major commitment to a long-term research and development programs for alternative energy sources is required and flat or stagnent economys can not generate the funds required.

This alternative approach needs MASSIVE funding for solar, wind energy, biomass, nuclear fission/fusion,and sequestering carbon from existing fossil fuels.

Kyoto exemps the developing countrys by allowing them to increase global cocentrations of CO2 unabated while at the same time crushing the economys of the only countrys who can fund the massive research and development required for clean energy.

Acheiving these advances will require both government and private sector commitments not seen since WWII.
Can't do it if we are broke Eric.

There is even talk of efficiency improvments in hydrogen production, super-conducting global electric grids, and geo-engineering holding great promise.

The reason the Bush administration is willing to take this approach is very simple but costly.
It is required to maintain the current U.S. global economy and position in the world.

[SUPERTROLLER]

My understanding of the Kyoto Protocol was that they intended to roll back the U.S. alloted amount of emissions to 1990's levels. This would actually be a cut in our allowed discharge. What I think he is saying is that we now are pushing a policy of controlled growth where our emissions will be greater but growing at a slower rate.

[SUPERTROLLER]

Actually Yankee, I'm a Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator and my job is to make sure that untreated sewage doesn't make it to Lake Michigan. I have hands on experience running a water Treatment Plant that uses water from Lake Michigan for it's drinking water source. Lake Michigan is a huge lake and it's buffering capacity cannot be estimated by a few sewer overflows. You are making a broad generalization again regarding the Soutern end of the Lake being an outhouse. It just isn't true. Was it as clean as it could have been? No. That's why we passed the Clean Water Act and upgraded our waste handling facilities. We are doing a much better job now and cleaning water to much higher standards every year. The regulations always get tighter, not looser as some people would have you believe. When they rework a limitation, they try to make it attainable. Sometimes the politicians put out numbers that sound good but are not able to be met with todays technology. The numbers we end up with are still less than what the previous allowable limits were.

[sevenmmm]

I agree.

These enviro-types are making such outlandish claims. This is why they have lost the Presidency. The Senate. And The Congress.

Maybe if we passed a law that no one can have a toilet? Maybe an outhouse on every corner instead? Or we can go back to the dark ages where the major cities had troughs if front of their houses.

PEU!