SpinnerbaitShogun

You are all missing the point. The northern hemisphere is warming BUT IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF CO2!!! It is WATER VAPOR AND THE SUN. CO2 is dispersed evenly throughout the atmosphere, but only certain of the layers of the atmosphere show warming, and those layers are potent with water vapor. H20 is the most significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, over 300 times more potent than CO2. H20 makes up roughly 95% of the atmosphere, CO2 makes up roughly 5%, and the rest are trace gases. Of that 5% of CO2, man only produces 5%. Man only produces .28% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Because it is such an insignificant amount, this warming trend is NOT MANMADE. Why doesn't Al Gore's movie even once mention H20? How come the IPCC doesn't touch on it much? You can't have a serious global warming debate without the mention of the most significant greenhouse gas. This is intentional. Why don't they want you to know about this? Because their claim is fraudulent. Other planets such as Mars and Jupiter are showing signs of warming too. What is the common denominator? The sun. The sun is burning hotter than it ever has. I admit, the northern hemisphere is going through a warming trend, but the southern is cooling. Why are the so-called experts just blaming CO2, without the mention of the most potent greenhouse gas? You can't just pick a reason and cherry pick certain facts in attempt to justify a claim. That isn't science. The IPCC, Greenpeace, etc can tell you how many parts per billion CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and chloroflourocarbons are, but they have yet to determine H20's role. Give me a break. At least they do admit it is the most abundent greenhouse gas. They are suppressing information for a reason. They have an agenda. This is just like nazi-pseudo science.

Fishing Phil, I have been reading some of your comments, and I really can't side with you on this issue. From what I understand, you think that we should just do something about global warming in case it could cause global castrophe down the road, and if we turn out to be wrong then it's ok because we have a cleaner planet. Also, the reason why we aren't taking action is because of the money it would cost us. You seem like a very liberal guy, and this is the argument made by alot of democrats even Al Gore. I am also liberal, but do share some conservative views. So don't take this as some kind of liberal bashing. You can NEVER make an economic decision without knowing the facts. Bottom line. If we were to incorporate the changes it would require to attempt to cut CO2 emissions from the environment, then the economic effects would be severe. Think of all of the businesses that we would shut down, then the people that would be out of work, and the families that would become poor. So taking action will have a huge effect. Besides, it is impossible to change the balance of the CO2 in the air. Man only produces .28% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not even a percent, not even half of a percent. The ocean is the hemoglobin of our planet. It balances the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. If there is not enough, it boils it out. If there is too much, it absorbs it. Henry's Law. - Even if all signatories meet greenhouse gas emission targets, the effect on global temperature would be insignificant. - Fast growing, non-developed countries, such as China, India, South Korea and Indonesia, are exempt from emission reductions. According to the International Energy Agency, as much as 85 percent of the projected increase in CO2 emissions over the next 20 years will be produced in exempt countries. -Signatory countries, such as Canada and Japan, are not likely to meet Kyoto's emission cuts, and the European Union is on a path to exceed its commitments. The Bush Administration has been severely criticized for not signing the treaty even though economic forecasts show that compliance would hurt the U.S. economy. During the Clinton Administration the Energy Information Administration, the official forecasting arm of the Department of Energy, issued a report predicting that meeting Kyoto greenhouse gas limits would: - Increase gasoline prices by 52 percent and electricity prices by 86 percent. - Decrease gross domestic product (GDP) by 4.2 percent and reduce disposable income by 2.5 percent. Fishing Phil, instead of taking Al Gore's word on it, or mine, or anyone elses, I believe that you owe it to yourself to research the science behind global warming yourself and then come to your own conclusion. Al Gore's movie is a very persuasive piece of propaganda for those who do not know the science behind global warming. I know it is hard for democrats to take a hard look at global warming because it seems so important to protect the Earth. One of the things that liberal people do well when it comes to arguments made against the Bush Administration and conservative politics is they do their homework. But liberal people are being duped by this myth so badly, that they don't even check the facts before committing. How could Al Gore lie? How could some democrats have an agenda? Trust me, the only way you will ever find truth in this world is question everything you are told! Bush Administration is nothing but snakes, same can easily be said about the Clinton Administration including Gore. ******EVERYONE READ THIS***********Before you comment on global warming, take 2 hours and watch this movie. This is the best presentation on the internet of the science behind global warming. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHjczyA75jU After watching it, watch Al Gore's movie. Then make a decision and get back to me.

I also wanted to mention a few more things. The Southern Hemisphere is cooling and the Northern Hemisphere is warming. Also, global warming is a good thing. If you all can think back in history when the first Europeans settlers came to America, we were just coming out of what was called "The Little Ice Age". Food was scarce, disease was rampant, crop yields were terrible. The more CO2 in our atmosphere, the better. CO2 is an aerial fertilizer, which means that the more CO2 in our atmosphere, the better yields our plants and crops produce. By stripping CO2 from our atmosphere, if it were possible, would lead to a global famine. Also, the data used in Al Gore's movie actually proves that CO2 cannot be responsible for the warming trend. The charts illustrated that CO2 lags temperature and doesn't lead it. A dependent variable cannot not lead an independent variable. You cannot have boiling water first before the burner. The burner (independent variable) must be applied to the water (dependent variable). Please concentrate on what your city, state, country is doing to protect our water, air, and soil from harming contaminants that can have a disastrous effect on the health of us and the planet. And trust me, there is plenty of real issues to be concerned about, i.e., radiation from depleted uranium, mercury, etc.

First of all, I would like to say hello to you guys. I am a newbie here, but have been reading your posts for years. I have decided to register and share some of my input. I also will be posting a couple personal bests photos from last years catches on here as well, one including a northern pike that won me a catch and release master angler award! Secondly, my post on global warming does not have any political bias on global warming. I tend to ride the fence on all issues until I have enough data to make a choice, and because I am human sometimes I do make mistakes with my interpretation, thus leaving me open to change of mind on the arrival of new data. My way of thinking is to question all that has been told to me and arrive at my own conclusion. Some of you have concerns about global warming and the effect that it could have on fisheries. Most of us have deep concerns about global warming, pollution to the environment, etc. That is because preservation of life, and the continuation of life is the primary goal of humanity. Science is our tool that we use to take in all kinds of worldly information from astronomies, biologies, psychologies, environment, etc, and to use that information to make ourselves healthier, live longer, protect the Earth, etc. If science tells us that sugar is harmful to us, then our conduct should reflect that. If you understand how scientists think, they are naturally skeptics. They are always challenging data, theories, and conclusions by testing them against the laws of physics and the laws of science. That is the realistic skepticism of science that is healthy and leads to truth and understanding. The global warming movements likes to push the lie that there is no debate in the scientific community on global warming, that all scientists agree acrossed the board. This is an absolute lie. The charts used by the IPCC and in Al Gore movements are deliberately fraudulent and fixed by cherring picking data to justify a claim. Most of the data illustrated by these charts are from proxies. For example, a proxy is acquiring temperature data by using ice cores, tree rings, etc instead of using a direct measurement with a thermometer. If you have seen the Al Gore movie, then you have seen the infamous hockey stick chart. This is the most discredited chart in the global warming claim. This chart is a combination of proxies and direct measurement. The curve in that chart is where the two different measurements meet. That should be an indicator that one of the measurements are inaccurate. Secondly, the mercury thermometer was invented in the early 1700's so why were they still using ice core samples and tree ring sample up to the 1970s instead of a direct measurement. The hockey stick chart shows increase in temperature in the 1970s when oil peaked in the United States, that is also where the proxies and direct measurements meet on the chart. Is it a CO2 increase or inaccurate data. You decide. CO2 is roughly 5% of the "greenhouse effect" gases in our atmosphere. The most potent gas is water vapor causing 95% of the greenhouse effect. The rest are just trace gases. Man produces 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is roughly .25%. Do you think that .25% can have a drastic effect on the Earth's climate? WHY DOESN'T AL GORE ONCE MENTION WATER VAPOR IN HIS MOVIE WHEN IT IS OVER 300 TIMES MORE POTENT THAN CO2 IN TERMS OF GREENHOUSE EFFECT? The IPCC doesn't touch on water vapor either. Forests, Oceans, natural pollutants like volcanoes and forest fire make up 95% of the CO2 in our atmosphere. The oceans are the hemoglobin of our Earth. If there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans absorb it. If there is not enough, the oceans boil it out. That is Henry's Law. The Kyoto protocol will require too much economic funding, and have a drastic effect on the economy when they will only have a slight unmeasurable effect on the CO2 in our atmosphere. CO2 is evenly distruted in our atmosphere. However, thermal charts used by Al Gore show pockets up temperature increases in the Northern Hemisphere. These pockets are located where precipitation is most prevalent and is another indicator of the real cause of warming. The regions shown in Al Gore's movie where the glaciers over antartica are "melting" are actually getting cooler. When these regions get cooler, there is less humidity in the air which results in less precipitation. Because the air is so dry there the glaciers are being EVAPORATED by a process called freeze-drying. If they were melting, the land exposed would not be bone dry but muddy. If those regions were to warm they would actually expand due to increase humidity and precipitation. The video of the glaciers collapsing into the ocean are also a natural process and it is caused by the warm water current coming in from the ocean. 30 years ago they were warning us about global cooling with predictions of wild storms, violent and unpredictable climate changes, etc. Same thing we are hearing now. You can't have it both ways. What is scary about this global warming movement is that they are using scare-tactics, cherry picked data, fraudulent data, and animations of stranded polar bears to make up our minds about political decisions down the road. This is thought-control propaganda which is not far off of what the nazis used to rally their troops. This is a distraction to real environmental problems such as pollution of our waters, air, soil from companies who police theirselves, and it is a distraction to the biggest contamination and pollution crime that is happening under our noses... depleted uranium. We are dumping our nuclear waste in someone elses backyard which is causing countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to be uninhabitable forever. The result of this contamination is already apparent from the skyrocketing of cancers and birth defects and malformations. Why waste our energy on a theory of what may or may not harm our Planet when we could be doing something about the things that ARE harming our planet and our health.