Friday, November 06, 2009

Hunters and anglers rally for climate bill - they see first-hand the impact of human caused global warming

Written by Joseph Romm

A recent poll by the National Wildlife Federation, which counts more than 420,000 members across 42 states, found that 66 percent of hunters and anglers surveyed believed that global warming was already occurring.

A Gallup poll in March 2009 found that only 53 percent of the general population shared the same view.

People who spend a lot of their time outdoors are more likely to see the obvious — the climate is changing and invasive species like the bark beetle are ravaging the West. That’s a key point of this piece in the NYT blog, Green Inc:

More than 13,000 hunters and anglers from across the country joined a “virtual town hall” teleconference on Tuesday to hear a discussion of the impact of climate change on fish and wildlife populations, and to voice their support for federal action to limit carbon emissions.

The call was hosted by the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, American Hunters and Shooters, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

“It’s very important in my opinion that we do pass the climate change bill,” said Ted Roosevelt IV, a prominent conservationist and the great-grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, during the phone call.

The virtual meeting is part of a recent wave of climate activism by national hunting and fishing groups, whose conservative-leaning membership has expressed growing concern with the impacts of climate change on wildlife.

It’s great to see a broader group of the population starting to engage in what will be the central issue of our time. But then, for outdoorsmen and -women, the changes driven by human emissions are all-but-impossible to miss:

With their pastime bringing them close to the landscape, hunters and anglers are encountering changes in nature associated with the onset of climate change, from alteration in the seasons and the migratory patterns of animals, to increasingly intense wildfires across broad the West.

“We’re already seeing the effects from climate change,” said George Cooper, the president of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

John Warner, a former Republican senator from Virginia who co-sponsored an unsuccessful carbon cap-and-trade bill with Senator Joseph Lieberman in 2007, recounted his own personal encounter with the impacts of climate change during the call.

Mr. Warner, a lifelong hunter and fisherman, described working for the Forest Service in the Idaho panhandle in the 1940s, in “pristine forests” where streams teemed with fish.

When he returned to Idaho several years ago, he said, he found the same forests decimated by the invasion of the pine beetle, whose spread has been linked in part to rising temperatures in winter.

“It was one of the saddest trips of my life,” said Mr. Warner.

Responding to a question from a hunter in Michigan about the prospects for Republican support for climate change legislation recently introduced in the Senate, Mr. Warner said he was hopeful the bill would receive bipartisan support, which may be crucial to its passage.

“I think we’re going to see Republican participation,” he said. “It would be a tragic situation for a bill to move through strictly on a partisan basis.”

One goal of hunting and fishing groups is to secure dedicated funding for state wildlife agencies for “adaptive management” practices, which aim to reduce the impact of climate change on wildlife and wilderness areas.

The Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill contains provisions establishing a National Adaptation Council and National Climate Change Adaptation Program. Funding would come from a portion of proceeds from the sale of emission permits.

Chris Wood, the chief operating officer of Trout Unlimited, a sport fishing group with more than 140,000 members in 400 chapters across the country, said most members support the group’s lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill in support of climate legislation — though he has received a few angry letters.

“In a couple of cases it’s been vocal,” he said. “It’s been incidental to the support that we’ve been getting from the vast majority of members who are concerned about this.”

If we don’t act fast enough, human-caused climate change will wipe out the majority of species on land and sea, and turn a livable climate into “
Hell and High Water.

41 Opinion(s):

Doberman said...

Indeed. Forget Al Gore, forget the opposing views. Look for yourself and tell me what has changed in the past 100 years. Record heatwaves, record freezes, record droughts, record rain, record ice cap melting, record ocean algae, record coral reef calcification, record sea acidity, rising sea levels. Duh people. Do we need to SEE to believe? What has changed? WE humans changed the climate. For goodness sakes, the Maldivian government is looking for land to move its entire population already. The Pacific south sea islands are washing away into the sea. What changed in the past 100-200 years?

doob said...

Hi guys,

A very interresting link.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6

Enjoy

Islandshark said...

Yes, whatever your beliefs on climate change and whether natural phenomena also have an impact on temperatures, sea levels, etc, you have to admit that it doesn't seem very logical to reason that man's impact on the globe is negligible...

Doberman said...

650 say nay, maybe we could find 65 000 who will say aye if we tried. The oil companies are certainly trying their best to summon as many naysayers as they can. The evidence is there. Ask the Maldivians and the several south Pacific nations whose land is being eaten away. Let's not play Russian roulette with the planet.

This debate reminds of the smoking and asbestos denials that went on for decades until, yes, the truth couldn't be shielded any longer.

Look at it another way, the earth is South Africa pre-1994. People are saying if you have majority rule the country is going to fail. People warn, people are shown evidence to the north of South Africa, don't go forward they are told but people refuse to accept the worst will happen.

Well it did happen, South Africa did fail and now? How do we put Humpty Dumpty back together?
There are some things that cannot be undone. Earth/ South Africa/ Rhodesia and the blinking rest of Africa is proof.

h said...

Thanks for the link doob.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense... The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning."

Like i have said before, we should be caring for our earth for the right reasons, not for the wrong reasons.

We are impacting the earth, i don't doubt that. However, using our impact (however negligible it may be) for political, business and social control is evil and doesn't actually solve the real problem or answer any of the real questions.

My 2c.

doob said...

Hi Dobes,IS,

I post under the doob alias.

Could you please remove/not publish my previous post. I published the comment but did so using my g-mail account (francois) as the identity instead of my alias, I would prefer to remain anonymous.

My opinions regarding other aspects of our society are not what you would call "main stream".
So I'm sure you guys can appreciate the freedom of anonymity

Thanks

doob said...

Same here h,

My views on global warming/climate change do not extend to agreeing with the destruction of the environment. I'm all for green technologies and against polution, deforestation and any such activities that are harmful to the planet.

What I am trying to get across is that most of the global warming "evidence/hysteria" is based on bad science.

I see it in the same light as the global "we are all equal" mantra which is solely based on assumptions and bad/lack of science.

In response to the Maldives... wouldn't sea levels rise globally
if this was the case? Why just the south Pacific? A solid body of water would be equally drawn by gravity towards the centre of our planet. In other words (as seen when using a water level) the
water would rise/lower uniformly and naturally spread/level out in reaction to any rise or drop in any other region of that body.

Even when factoring in the gravitational pull of the moon (e.g. tides) the effects would still be global.

Anonymous said...

@ Doberman, you forgot to mention that we are experiencing record earthquakes, some of which created record tsunamis. Also a result of global warming? or perhaps easier access to news via satelite and internet?

Anonymous said...

@ Doberman-
I view the analogy about SA differently. Prior to the mid 70’s, SA and Rhodesia had a very strong relationship with the west. The UN decided to sell out SA for whatever reason (probably to promote socialism), and used apartheid as their propaganda tool to justify their actions. They signed a deal in which SA had to leave Angola and SWA, and SA didn’t have a say in the matter. At least the US had the decency to send Henry Kissinger over to tell Ian Smith and PW Botha that they were on their own. Now the same UN replaced the words ‘apartheid’ and ‘racist’ with ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change denialist’ to further their agenda (probably to promote the same agenda, namely socialism).

But you are right with “There are some things that cannot be undone”

FishEagle said...

@ Doob, Morano has no credibility. http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/07/swift-boat-smearer-marc-morano-global-warming-denie/

"What I am trying to get across is that most of the global warming "evidence/hysteria" is based on bad science." That may be your opinion, but it certainly is not the opinion of most scientists. The IPPC's conclusions have been "endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries." (Wikipedia)

"I see it in the same light as the global "we are all equal" mantra which is solely based on assumptions and bad/lack of science." There is no scientific argument that proves that we are all equal. That's purely POLITICS.

@h, "However, using our impact (however negligible it may be) for political, business and social control is evil and doesn't actually solve the real problem or answer any of the real questions.."

Using our impact for business reasons is NOT evil - that's CAPITALISM. Adapt or die, it's that simple. It's not about "control".

I wish you had some idea of what the human impact is on our natural environment. I can only shake my head when I see a comment like "however negligible it may be".

Anonymous said...

if you want to quote the number of scientists who are pro, let me quote the number of scientists who are contra:
"Signed to date by more than 31,000 qualified scientists in the US (including over 9,000 PhDs) who agree
"there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of ... [any] greenhouse gases ... will
... cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere or disruption of the Earth's climate."

source http://www.webcommentary.com/climate/climate.php
and that excludes all the scientists who remain silent in fear of being labelled 'denialist'

Islandshark said...

It could also scientifically prove that there are at least 31,000 arseholes in US...

FishEagle said...

@ Anon 2.10. Doob said,

"the global warming "evidence /hysteria" is based on bad science"

My point is this - who is Doob to contradict more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including ALL of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries?

The question is not who is pro or who is con. The question is whether it is bad science or not.

FishEagle said...

@ Islandshark, LOL

FishEagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Global warming is based on bad science. We'll end up with a carbon police and we'll end up with some people that will benefit at the expense of others.

We all pollute, but some people will get rich and other will have to pay.

It is a scam.

There are many forms of pollution and carbon dioxide is been singled out at the expense of all others, because their is money to be made.

The higher the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere the more benefit it has to plants.

Carbon dioxide is like steroids to plants, yet the elitists want us to belief that it is solely responsible for the ailing planet.

hahahaha

It is a scam.
It is a money making con.

The facts are that we are impacting the environment, but sly, smart people have hi-jacked the cause for personal gain.

Anonymous said...

The global carbon tax police to be created, is a baby step in the creation of a world police state.

Anonymous said...

Worth a look
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI

FishEagle said...

Anon 3.43, you need to find out what the difference between politics and science is before you continue with this discussion.

Anonymous said...

The difference between politics and science has been blurred for the past 100 years, or so, when science does not agree with politics it is simply ignored or invented.

Like egalitarianism etc.

It is a money making scam.

Doberman said...

Hi doob, ""In response to the Maldives... wouldn't sea levels rise globally if this was the case? Why just the south Pacific? A solid body of water would be equally drawn by gravity towards the centre of our planet. In other words (as seen when using a water level) the water would rise/lower uniformly and naturally spread/level out in reaction to any rise or drop in any other region of that body."

Most countries and I can speak for Australia for instance are experiencing massive coastal erosion, so much so new ordinances are being enacted to stop people building close to the sea. Properties that have stood for ages are suddenly being washed away. The same is happening in the US. Lighthouses that have stood for centuries are being moved inland. Google it.

The islands in the south Pacific and places like Maldives are often coral islands and/or low lying sand islands and in any event small of course so erosion to them would not leave much ground to live on. That's why they are feeling it more. Again, these islands are disintegrating literally, the ground from beneath them, islands that stood for millions of years. Why?

I agree that some special interests are trying to corner the market but it's on both sides. The oil suppliers vs the new green movement, both have little to do with our best interests at heart.

It's up to us to get involved and stop denying that something is happening, more likely man-made, and we must guide what path and what individuals gain out of the changes that, like it or lump it, are coming. For what it's worth schemes like carbon taxing/ c(r)ap and trade, are rubbish. It's a tax, that's all.

We need to wean people off fossil fuels now without hurting jobs and raising taxes. Punishing the consumer for using something that is as basic and necessary as a car is not the answer. We do need to look at green tech, nuclear technology and renewables without all the other stupid tax schemes liberals/left seems so fond of. That's what I mean about getting involved.

Anonymous said...

I rather believe this guy who studied the Maldives for 35 years than a bunch of Johnny-come-lately alarmists:

www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

The problem I have with the IPCC and their tame scientists is that they don't hold any real credibility, just too many politicians and extremists in the mix to sell themselves as an entity to be taken serious. For crying out loud, if the ex-leader of Greenpeace Dr Moore denounce them then you know the wackos are running the show now:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070221/20070221_06.html

Doberman said...

Let me say that it is refreshing that people can have a civilised debate on a topic without resorting to insults and attacks. Thank you all. We can agree to disagree but hear out the other side as you would want yourself to be heard.

Anonymous said...

Dobes @ 6:38

Yes and no about the past 100 years. Globalization and internet information only really happened in the last 20-40 years or so, so we don't really have any idea what it was in the centuries forgoing that. So we are comparing what we see in the news and on the net to what?

As for islands sinking, could it just not be the natural earth cycle of the tectonic plates moving which are perceived the wrong way? I profess I am no expert on this, but I am pretty sure if someone did research it a bit further they will find that all these disappearing islands reside on the sinking plates close to a convergent boundary.

Similarly new islands are created, or existing experience sea levels dropping: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13234

Anonymous said...

I remember growing up El Nino was blamed for everything... What happened to that? Has that now just fazed out or is there no money to make out of beating that one to death?

Doberman said...

Anon 3:01, El Nino is still around and will always be a factor but it is not man-made and no one is saying it is. We are talking about man-made causes. The debate is whether 6.5 billion beings burning fossil fuels causes climate change.

Anonymous said...

The destruction of the rain forests in the Amazon Delta, the detonation of an atomic bomb under the seabed by the stoopid French scientists. Maybe they must look for the reasons amongst scientists (especially the ones with PhD's, they seem to be be the stoopidest ones of them all), the politicians and least of all the developers and economists. Money is all that counts to them.

Anonymous said...

@Doberman, you said: “El Nino is still around and will always be a factor but it is not man-made and no one is saying it is. We are talking about man-made causes.”
It has been determined that coral bleaching is a result of el nino or la nina activity. The Al Gore camp seek to blur the line and will have you believe that it is a result of global warming due to CO2, ie revenue. You should know when politicians and other influential authorities throw their weight behind a cause, money flows. Gore’s annual propa… ermmm… advertising budget is $300 mill! (and growing…). I am sure the likes of Lord Monckton have a budget too, but that is not the yardstick by which I measure their arguments, unless the truth gets twisted for corrupt purposes. But what is important to me is the truth of the substance, and Al’s claims can be dismantled and consistently proven wrong, and real facts presented.

Doberman, I challenge you to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs&feature=related
then you will understand why Gore will never rise to Monckton’s challenge.
It will also answer many other questions you aired above.

Anonymous said...

@FishEagle, you said... " The question is not who is pro or who is con. The question is whether it is bad science or not”.
That’s exactly my point. So why are you arguing that more than 40 scientific societies and academies can’t be wrong? My counter argument is that there are more than 31,000 qualified scientists who disagree. Maybe you should re-evaluate the validity of the thought train you were fed from the one side (Al Gore’s school) and listen to the other.

I have tried to bring you arguments of the other side backed by scientific facts, but you responded with: “. Thanks for the link but I don't have time…”
Let me try again; have a look at the facts THEN dismiss (or accept) them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs&feature=related

Anonymous said...

i understand your frustration with someone questioning your ideas and producing facts that are unpalatable to you. But not posting my comments is proof to me that i hit the nail on the head and that you are answerless. ;o)

FishEagle said...

@Anon 9.01. Your point that it is bad science has not come across at all! You need to provide the scientific counter arguments with SCIENTIFIC references to prove that. And please, once and for all, NO MORE YOUTUBE REFERENCES to prove your 'facts."

@Anon 11.17. If your comments were not posted it was either a slip up or your points were off topic. Believe me, your intellect is not as threatening as you seem to believe. I wouldn't know because I don't moderate them.

Anonymous said...

@FishEagle, for some reason you have an allergy to anonymous posters to display url’s. You have ridiculed and discounted youtube for the medium, and not certain content based upon its substance.
Related to your thread “"Very warm 2008 makes this the hottest decade in recorded history by far" I posted the link to a Glenn Beck video, which you obviously disregarded. However, Doberman didn’t, and he/she saw enough value it to start a new thread “Glenn Beck Debate on Global Warming”, on which you complemented him/her on a great post.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want the credit for it. The mere point I’m making is that you are rejecting and disregarding important information that is related in uncovering Al Gore’s fraudulent deception on the basis of WHO is presenting the evidence. You initially claimed that you wanted to “uncover the truth” and to “put the pieces of the puzzle together”, but later admitted that your mind is made up, and that Al Gore is your hero, come hell or high water. High water it won’t be, hell perhaps.
You keep on saying: “You need to provide the scientific counter arguments with SCIENTIFIC references to prove that”.
And so I did. I repeatedly posted a Youtube link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs&feature=related

that debunks Al Gore’s misleading, factually incorrect and fraudulent fear tactic that has been manufactured for political purposes, and it illustrates factually how the climate behaves based upon RECENT scientific research and discoveries. It contains scientific evidence that is compelling and that can’t be ignored. This video can cover more ground than we could type up in a 6-month blog debate. But you keep on insisting: “And please, once and for all, NO MORE YOUTUBE REFERENCES to prove your 'facts."
You have admitted that you are relying on your ‘gut-feel’ to believe Gore, and your mind is made up. Everything anyone says, regardless of content, is ignored. By your own admission! That says it all! Ask yourself why Gore chooses to not take advantage of Monckton’s challenge to
1) defend and promote his GW cause on international TV
2) disprove the counter-arguments
3) gain more recognition
4) make heaps of money
5) take the money and donate it to “non-profit” organisations (Acorn?)

in a nutshell, what you are saying is: “stop confusing me with the facts, I’ve already made up my mind”

FishEagle said...

Anon, 10.54, I have a problem when a specific topic is discussed and then someone comes along and gives me a 'fact' which turns out to be a 9 part youtube video. He/she's too lazy to discuss the actual topic at hand and adds nothing to the discussion.

Along those very lines, I have the same question for you, regarding Glenn Beck's video. What are the significance of the graphs? Can you even explain them, since you claim that "important information that is related in uncovering Al Gore’s fraudulent deception" is contained in this video. Or is it just another one of those 'facts' that nobody seems to grasp but because it is on Youtube it's got to mean something (we just don't know what)?

I've already explained that Al Gore's a hero in my mind not because of his understanding of the issues at hand but because he managed to deliver a very important message from the scientists to the world - that we may probably be facing a global warming/climate change crisis. It's already been done, finished, completed - and he's the hero for doing it. But you make the mistake of thinking that's why I believe global warming/climate change is real. It's not. The science is convincing me as they are finding out more about it.

Ron. said...

The fact that the climate is changing is ancillary to the fact that it is being conveniently used by the elite to promote a controlling cap & trade system which will further enrich the elites while further impoverishing the average person. Therefore their is indeed a "global warming" [ or is that global cooling.] scam going on. Furthermore: the carbon-dioxide emissions are causing no where near the problems that the sun is as it is the sun which is the driving factor of climate change [ via its heating up of the oceans which releases the gas ] not carbon-dioxide which in fact is essential to all carbon based life forms. The academic / media generated hysteria concerning this topic is aimed entirely at getting a carbon tax imposed & to further restrict individual freedom. Not too unlike the past academic & media hysteria against South Africa 20 years ago aimed at installing a controlled oppressive regime which was worse than its predecessor. The "solutions" to this generated crisis will definitely be worse than the problem that's for sure. Furthermore: there is not a damned thing humans can do to reverse this trend as it is largely driven by natural factors [ like the sun & its sunspots ] of which humans have no control.

Ron. said...

I just noticed that Anon Nov 7 12:20 made a similar analogy to Apartheid era South Africa. This is an astute observation because it is the same tactics all over again aimed at a achieving a similar goal.

Ron. said...

Remember that human caused carbon-dioxide is a drop in the bucket compared to the sun & sunspot activity because the sun has ALSO changed in the past 100 years & its impact upon the Earth is far greater [ in fact the greatest ] than any of the other culprits. Looks like the controlled propaganda of the elites & their media has paid off as a lot of folks have been fooled by it. Tune them out & research the topic.

FishEagle said...

@ Ron, I've been making the point in the climate change discussions so far that we need to base our opinions on the scientific literature that's available.

I've given the scientific reference that discusses the significant correlation between the earth's temperature and CO2 under the comments for the post - Glenn Beck Debate on Global Warming.

http://iluvsa.blogspot.com/2009/11/glenn-beck-debate-on-global-warming.html

In this paper it also states that the temperature is not significantly correlated to sun activity.

Anonymous said...

@ FE, you said: “I've been making the point in the climate change discussions so far that we need to base our opinions on the scientific literature that's available”.
As we have discussed before, there are 2 schools of scientists. The ones who agree that GW is a result of human activity, and those that don’t. it is pointless quoting a random scientist against another random scientist, because it will turn into a he-said-she-said….
The interesting thing is that almost all 'scientists' who promote human generated GW, are affiliated to the IPCC, which is backed by the UN. They most certainly have a political agenda and are known to manipulate science to promote it. But the majority of scientists are leaving or have left because they refuse to manipulate the science for the UN and Gore’s propaganda machine.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html
http://www.nogw.com/download2/%5E8_scientists_challenge_gw.pdf

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7

http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2007/11/ipcc-dissent-by-roger-helmer-mep.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/facts-debunk-global-warming-alarmism/story-e6frg746-1111118607086

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-facts-to-warm-to/story-e6frg7ko-1111115855185

This one is very revealing in that some of the ex-IPCC scientists tell how their input was distorted for political purposes.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/ipcccont.html
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/Misreprestn_Views/IPCC/SeitzWSJAllegations.htm
professor Paul Reiter resigned from the IPCC because his reports were fraudulently manipulated. Even though he resigned, the IPCC wouldn’t remove his name from the papers until he threatened legal action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reiter
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0ea8dc23-ad1a-440f-a8dd-1e3ff42df34f


FE, had you bothered to view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs&feature=related
You could have heard the evidence first hand, and heaps more. Oh, and your ‘evidence’ that the sun has no part in GW is also debunked in some of the links above.
Happy reading!

FishEagle said...

Anon 7.50. Much appreciated. I think I will do a couple of posts on these articles in future.

Anonymous said...

no problem FE. btw, here is the reference you couldn;t find
http://masterresource.org/?p=4307

FishEagle said...

Thanks Anon