Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Scientists: Fish Will Become 24% Smaller Due to Global Warming

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

October 01, 2012

Scientists: Fish Will Become 24% Smaller Due to Global Warming

By Chad Love

Are you catching ever-smaller fish? Don't blame your inherent lack of skill. Instead, just chalk it up to global climate change.

From this story on the BBC:

Fish species are expected to shrink in size by up to 24% because of global warming, say scientists. Researchers modelled the impact of rising temperatures on more than 600 species between 2001 and 2050. Warmer waters could decrease ocean oxygen levels and significantly reduce fish body weight. The scientists argue that failure to control greenhouse gas emissions will have a greater impact on marine ecosystems than previously thought.

According to the story, the researchers' computer models suggested that as ocean temperatures rise, so do fish body temperatures, but with rising body temperatures comes a corollary rise in metabolism rate and oxygen requirement, oxygen that just won't be there in a warming ocean. So the fish will run out of the oxygen needed for growth, which will result in smaller overall size.

Researchers also used computer models to predict fish movement in a warming climate. The prediction? No surprise: most fish populations will begin moving toward the earth's poles at a rate of 36 kilometers per decade. So, if you've ever dreamed of catching a tarpon in Alaska (and who hasn't, right?) just wait a while.

Thoughts?

Comments (28)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Steward wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

How many new fish records were set this summer?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

Another hocus-pocus scientific study. Probably using same computers and tactics the Global Warming Preachers are using. I will continue my fishing where I'm at and the Floridians will continue fishing for tarpon were they have been forever and forever into the future!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from achrisk wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

hahaha nothing like a couple of know-it-alls to completely discount something scientists say, on the basis that they are just some liberal communist socialist whackos that are involved in a global scheme to confuse the entire world about the environment. Who knows what is going to happen in the future, but they are making an educated guess based on what they do for a living. How many new records were set this summer? Did I miss the part that said "On October 1, 2012, all fish in the sea will shrink by 24%." Hacks

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from IowaGuy wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

Yep, those "scientists" with their math, fancy computers, comparing and exchanging knowledge with each other and years of book learning...what do they know? Science what good is it other than giving us stuff like penicillin, x-rays, digital cameras, weather radar, V8 engines, telegraphs, steam ships, the wheel?

I'll just put my head under the pillow, go back to sleep and dream the tooth fairy and santa claus will stop all this science nonsense.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

True science must be peer-reviewed. Last I heard, the computer programs behind the models are locked down and are not available for analysis. Yes, I'm a skeptic, and I will remain so. Not because I don't trust science or scientists, but because of my respect for the high ideals of the scientific process and for the complexity of the natural world.

On another note, noone has answered my question. How many records have been set this year for fish? I believe there have been a number of posts of fieldandstream.com about various giant fish (various species) that were caught this summer. Please bear in mind, that we are told that Global Warming has been occurring for decades.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from redfishunter wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

I know I've asked this before, but was the last Ice Age before or after the industrial revolution?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

Countless leading global warming scientist have detracted from the theory due to bad computer programming, bad information, misinformation, etc... Global warming in all probabilty is a conspiracy theory. There are as many scientist that are deniers as there are supporters in the global warming community, not to mention "Climategate". How was that for an "Inconvient Truth"? We can argue this until we are blue in the face, but I'm going on with my life without the doomsday apocolyptic global warming.

Redfishhunter, Warming started during the Ice age otherwise we would still be in a Ice Age which is prior to the Industrial Revolution which doesn't support Anthropogenic Global Warming.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

Dcast wrote: “Countless leading global warming scientist have detracted from the theory due to bad computer programming, bad information, misinformation, etc... Global warming in all probabilty is a conspiracy theory. There are as many scientist that are deniers as there are supporters in the global warming community ..."

While I’m sure Dcast’s heart is in the right place, I’m afraid none of the information in his quote is accurate.

If you want to learn more about climate change and its impact on hunters & anglers, you can visit www.conservationhawks.org. Global warming is the single largest threat we face. As sportsmen, we have to stand up and demand that our politicians address the problem while there's still time to do something about it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

Anytime you read "global warming" and "scientist" in the same sentence you know that a lie is being spun. Climate change is constant, and it will have some effect on fish populations, sizes, reproductive rates,etc, can it be predicted, probably not, too many unknown factors. What can be predicted is that left wing nut jobs will forever try to scare us away from the life-style that we love, all in the name of the "common good" which like common sense, is a rare commodity.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pray- hunt-work wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

At some point throughout every single day I listen to NOAA on the VHF radio on the lobster boat. Each day they give the weather forecast, as well as the predicted daily temperature, the record high/low for the current date in any given year. It's always pretty cool to hear something like 10/2/2012 is forecasted for a high of 66 degrees and a low of 56, while today in 1953 we had a record high of 91 and today in 2001 we had a record low of 28. Now I'm not qualified to do many things. Top on the list of my under-qualifications are preaching and reviewing scientific data so I end with this question. Are the computer models used or the people preaching Global warming qualified?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Todd, Go to my profile, then to comments section, then to page 8 where Chad Love's article titled "More ducks killed later in the season: Climate Change or Coincidence". There you will find my most recent posts corresponding with my comment above. I have posted many othes but are to far back to look but your more than welcome to continue searching in my profile. I've done the research as far as backing my claims and giving data from the horses mouth. There is another scientist I will try and find his website that is an I believe oceanographer(?) that studies ocean levels, and he calims and has proof of data sabotage. HE was studying an island I believe in Indonesia that was extremely small with a population of a few thousand and their only source of income was through global warming scientist. This guy had been studying the island for years and surveyed the entire island there was a single stand of trees on the island, and they had been completely removed including most of the root system. A few years later a group of scientist used this exact island and those exact trees to prove global warming and that the ocean had rose by 6" or something close to that. He was dumbfounded and went back to that location and was able to uncover some of the root system that had cleary been cut but a mechanical object and cover back over by sand. He brought this to the international climate research councel and they defended the group who was in contridiction to him. He had 100% evidence their papers were false but the international agency shunned him. He has since uncovered countless instances of this kind of misinformation and linked the money trail which is in the trillions. I don't think this is sole evidence that it is merely conspiracy theory, but there is plenty of other scientist that back this and I am on their side. I guess the only way to know for sure is to see in another couple hundred years, but then non of us can say "I told yo so"! I will continue with my beliefs until proven otherwise because subtle fluctuations climate in a minute of earths existance proves nothing.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

DCast,
It's an interesting look into human psychology that even with almost every major scientific organization in the world publically acknowledging anthropogenic climate change, insurance companies factoring it into thier risk assessments, and oil companies(!) factoring it into their long term business planning, you can continue to convince yourself that it's all one big hoax perpetrated by a bunch of environmentalists.

No offense, but I think your tinfoil hat is on a bit crooked.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Bob, That would be the Pot calling the Kettle black!

When you say "almost every scientific organization", are you refering to those that are funded by the UN? Just curious because I would agree with you, but then I would have you look at the UN's agenda! Saying so doesn't make it fact.

"insurance companies factoring it into thier risk assessments, and oil companies(!) factoring it into their long term business planning".

If this is proof then I'm a total idiot! Because I would have thought it had to do with regulations and a way for them and the government to make some extra money! Come on you really didn't mean to type that did you?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from redfishunter wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

He's not denying that climate change happens, Mr. Marshall. Climate change is a natural part of the earth's course, as your scientist have proven through fossil records. As he stated, the world has been warming ever since we came out of the last Ice Age. Do you not agree with this statement?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

DCast,
No, it's not proof, but it is very compelling evidence. What exactly is the connection between insurance company actuarial projections and increased regulation? How do oil companies stand to make huge profits by acknowledging anthropogenic climate change?

Double-points if you can avoid using the terms "New World Order" or "illuminati" in your explanation...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Redfish, I'm not denying climate change because it does and it goes both ways whether cooling or warming. "As he stated, the world has been warming ever since we came out of the last Ice Age. Do you not agree with this statement?". I'm not sure why I am even going to comment this with you but yeah I agree with his statement my 6 yr old daughter could have figured that genius statement out! If it hadn't started warming then we would still be in an Ice Age! My point is it is not man made and man has little effect on the earths temperature. The sun and earth itself has all to do with the climate not humans.

Bob, quite funny, and for the heck of it "Illuminati" & "New World Order"!!!! I do tend to believe somewhat in the NWO though. Heck even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the NWO to start taking for during the UN meeting! He's a wacko but so are most of them in the UN but this is a topic for another day. I don't see it as being compelling evidence, it is typical business. Insurance for example can now charge more, because of plague and famine potentially increase with global warming which will cost them to deal with. Stupid? Yeah this whole argument is but for the sake of conversation I'll play the game. Oil companies are required to meet regulations beyond my knowledge, so they charge that to the end consumer, basic business.

Final thought and then I'm done here. The earth was believed to be flat until Aristotle came around. Finally to be proven 100% on Oct 24. 1946 at White Sands Missle Base.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from redfishunter wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

dcast, that last comment was directed at Bob.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

redfish,
Nobody is arguing that there isn't natural warming happening. The concern is that human activity has substantially accelerated the warming's rate.

By the way, I'm not Bob Marshall (we just share a first name.)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

A concept I would like people to consider is how scientific theory builds upon itself. If you consider the model of proofs and axioms in geometry, it is a good example. When scientists develop and agree upon a statement of fact about the world, it influences continuing research and the development of new theories. It is a growing, building, snowball process. The only problem is that if an earlier statement of fact or theory has a problem with it, then everything built upon it can be in error. Taken as a whole, complete and independent system, everything may make sense and appear to be accurate, but when the earlier or foundational proof is compared to new or different data and found wanting, then the entire system can be in error.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

DCast,
Insurance companies and oil companies can raise their rates anytime they want. They don't need the spector of global warming to justify it.

In fact, just the opposite should be true: the companies that deny global warming the longest should benefit the most (at least in the short term) because it puts them at a competitive advantage compared to those firms that feel they need to raise prices...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Dcast,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. That said, I’d like to offer an example of where you’re mistaken. You wrote that “There are as many scientist that are deniers as there are supporters in the global warming community ..."

As best as I can tell, you’re stating that half of the scientists working on climate change are skeptics, while the other half aren’t. That would put the numbers at 50/50, or something very close to that.

Yet recent surveys of climate scientists give us very different numbers, with 96% - 98% of climate scientists agreeing that humans are causing the planet to warm, and 2% - 4% not yet convinced. So you’re saying that half our scientists are skeptics, while I’m saying that no more than 3 or 4 in a hundred are skeptics.

Fair enough. Here’s the evidence. (These are published, peer-reviewed scientific papers, with author & year included.)

Oreskes and Peiser (2004) - “A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).”

Doran (2009) - 97.5% of climate scientists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes to the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Anderegg (2010) - “This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010).”

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Regarding my previous comment:

To the best of my knowledge, there are no studies contradicting these findings. With that in mind, it’s safe to say that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists - approximately 97% - agree that climate change is a serious problem, and that our greenhouse gas emissions are making it worse. If we want to hold on to our hunting & fishing, we need to stand up and tell our politicians to take climate change seriously.

Also, my apologies for not providing a link. The F&S comment filter keeps denying me access when I try to include it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from coachsjike wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

i'm afraid that climate change is for real. i don't ever remember growing up where our days had a 30-40 degree temp change, not in the northeast anyway. now we are getting days where its mid 70's during the day and low 40's at night. 80 degree days in october? something does not make sense. this past summer where over 60% of the country was in severe drought conditions. change is definitely coming just not sure how bad. worst part is that our government hides lots of info.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

regardless of views on man made climate change and all the scientific naysayers who want to bury their head in the sand....this study actually makes some sense. anyone who has had any basic science or even knows about fish knows that cold water holds more dissolved oxygen than warmwater. that is why trout are found in coldwater streams. also warming temps increasing an organisms metabolic rate increases their need for oxygen. this study may not even take into account runoff and nutrient loading which can increase the biological oxygen demand. its all basic science...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

This is the kind of silly headline that makes scientist look really foolish. This column said global warming was causing birds to get LARGER- only a few month ago! Most scientists think man is causing some degree of climate change and they may be right- who knows. Most scientists also thought we were going into an ice age back in the 1970s. What we do know is the earth is a 5 billion year old rock that has been gradually cooling for @ 4 billion years. We need to focus on long term futuristic energy solutions and not cripple our economy over alarmist nonsense- like this study.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bez wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Interesting that scientists almost never mention that long ago (before the industrial revolution) the earth was much warmer than it is today. Chinese claim to have even sailed North of Canada before they closed they tried to close their borders to foreigners. Maybe humans can impact global warming, but I suspect the forces of nature are more powerful than anything we can do to alter temperature. That said, I'm all for minimizing pollution, pro-conservation and open to suggestions. Encroachment (loss of habitat, etc.), poaching, and trash present far greater threats to wildlife than global warming.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

At one point, bacteria completely turned this planet's atmosphere upside down.

Not a chance we could change it just one but.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Melting glaciers and a rash of record high temps is, uhh, fake. Or something.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from redfishunter wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

I know I've asked this before, but was the last Ice Age before or after the industrial revolution?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

How many new fish records were set this summer?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from IowaGuy wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

Yep, those "scientists" with their math, fancy computers, comparing and exchanging knowledge with each other and years of book learning...what do they know? Science what good is it other than giving us stuff like penicillin, x-rays, digital cameras, weather radar, V8 engines, telegraphs, steam ships, the wheel?

I'll just put my head under the pillow, go back to sleep and dream the tooth fairy and santa claus will stop all this science nonsense.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

Dcast wrote: “Countless leading global warming scientist have detracted from the theory due to bad computer programming, bad information, misinformation, etc... Global warming in all probabilty is a conspiracy theory. There are as many scientist that are deniers as there are supporters in the global warming community ..."

While I’m sure Dcast’s heart is in the right place, I’m afraid none of the information in his quote is accurate.

If you want to learn more about climate change and its impact on hunters & anglers, you can visit www.conservationhawks.org. Global warming is the single largest threat we face. As sportsmen, we have to stand up and demand that our politicians address the problem while there's still time to do something about it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

Anytime you read "global warming" and "scientist" in the same sentence you know that a lie is being spun. Climate change is constant, and it will have some effect on fish populations, sizes, reproductive rates,etc, can it be predicted, probably not, too many unknown factors. What can be predicted is that left wing nut jobs will forever try to scare us away from the life-style that we love, all in the name of the "common good" which like common sense, is a rare commodity.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

DCast,
No, it's not proof, but it is very compelling evidence. What exactly is the connection between insurance company actuarial projections and increased regulation? How do oil companies stand to make huge profits by acknowledging anthropogenic climate change?

Double-points if you can avoid using the terms "New World Order" or "illuminati" in your explanation...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

redfish,
Nobody is arguing that there isn't natural warming happening. The concern is that human activity has substantially accelerated the warming's rate.

By the way, I'm not Bob Marshall (we just share a first name.)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Dcast,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. That said, I’d like to offer an example of where you’re mistaken. You wrote that “There are as many scientist that are deniers as there are supporters in the global warming community ..."

As best as I can tell, you’re stating that half of the scientists working on climate change are skeptics, while the other half aren’t. That would put the numbers at 50/50, or something very close to that.

Yet recent surveys of climate scientists give us very different numbers, with 96% - 98% of climate scientists agreeing that humans are causing the planet to warm, and 2% - 4% not yet convinced. So you’re saying that half our scientists are skeptics, while I’m saying that no more than 3 or 4 in a hundred are skeptics.

Fair enough. Here’s the evidence. (These are published, peer-reviewed scientific papers, with author & year included.)

Oreskes and Peiser (2004) - “A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).”

Doran (2009) - 97.5% of climate scientists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes to the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Anderegg (2010) - “This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010).”

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Regarding my previous comment:

To the best of my knowledge, there are no studies contradicting these findings. With that in mind, it’s safe to say that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists - approximately 97% - agree that climate change is a serious problem, and that our greenhouse gas emissions are making it worse. If we want to hold on to our hunting & fishing, we need to stand up and tell our politicians to take climate change seriously.

Also, my apologies for not providing a link. The F&S comment filter keeps denying me access when I try to include it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

regardless of views on man made climate change and all the scientific naysayers who want to bury their head in the sand....this study actually makes some sense. anyone who has had any basic science or even knows about fish knows that cold water holds more dissolved oxygen than warmwater. that is why trout are found in coldwater streams. also warming temps increasing an organisms metabolic rate increases their need for oxygen. this study may not even take into account runoff and nutrient loading which can increase the biological oxygen demand. its all basic science...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bez wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Interesting that scientists almost never mention that long ago (before the industrial revolution) the earth was much warmer than it is today. Chinese claim to have even sailed North of Canada before they closed they tried to close their borders to foreigners. Maybe humans can impact global warming, but I suspect the forces of nature are more powerful than anything we can do to alter temperature. That said, I'm all for minimizing pollution, pro-conservation and open to suggestions. Encroachment (loss of habitat, etc.), poaching, and trash present far greater threats to wildlife than global warming.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

Another hocus-pocus scientific study. Probably using same computers and tactics the Global Warming Preachers are using. I will continue my fishing where I'm at and the Floridians will continue fishing for tarpon were they have been forever and forever into the future!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from achrisk wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

hahaha nothing like a couple of know-it-alls to completely discount something scientists say, on the basis that they are just some liberal communist socialist whackos that are involved in a global scheme to confuse the entire world about the environment. Who knows what is going to happen in the future, but they are making an educated guess based on what they do for a living. How many new records were set this summer? Did I miss the part that said "On October 1, 2012, all fish in the sea will shrink by 24%." Hacks

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

True science must be peer-reviewed. Last I heard, the computer programs behind the models are locked down and are not available for analysis. Yes, I'm a skeptic, and I will remain so. Not because I don't trust science or scientists, but because of my respect for the high ideals of the scientific process and for the complexity of the natural world.

On another note, noone has answered my question. How many records have been set this year for fish? I believe there have been a number of posts of fieldandstream.com about various giant fish (various species) that were caught this summer. Please bear in mind, that we are told that Global Warming has been occurring for decades.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pray- hunt-work wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

At some point throughout every single day I listen to NOAA on the VHF radio on the lobster boat. Each day they give the weather forecast, as well as the predicted daily temperature, the record high/low for the current date in any given year. It's always pretty cool to hear something like 10/2/2012 is forecasted for a high of 66 degrees and a low of 56, while today in 1953 we had a record high of 91 and today in 2001 we had a record low of 28. Now I'm not qualified to do many things. Top on the list of my under-qualifications are preaching and reviewing scientific data so I end with this question. Are the computer models used or the people preaching Global warming qualified?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Todd, Go to my profile, then to comments section, then to page 8 where Chad Love's article titled "More ducks killed later in the season: Climate Change or Coincidence". There you will find my most recent posts corresponding with my comment above. I have posted many othes but are to far back to look but your more than welcome to continue searching in my profile. I've done the research as far as backing my claims and giving data from the horses mouth. There is another scientist I will try and find his website that is an I believe oceanographer(?) that studies ocean levels, and he calims and has proof of data sabotage. HE was studying an island I believe in Indonesia that was extremely small with a population of a few thousand and their only source of income was through global warming scientist. This guy had been studying the island for years and surveyed the entire island there was a single stand of trees on the island, and they had been completely removed including most of the root system. A few years later a group of scientist used this exact island and those exact trees to prove global warming and that the ocean had rose by 6" or something close to that. He was dumbfounded and went back to that location and was able to uncover some of the root system that had cleary been cut but a mechanical object and cover back over by sand. He brought this to the international climate research councel and they defended the group who was in contridiction to him. He had 100% evidence their papers were false but the international agency shunned him. He has since uncovered countless instances of this kind of misinformation and linked the money trail which is in the trillions. I don't think this is sole evidence that it is merely conspiracy theory, but there is plenty of other scientist that back this and I am on their side. I guess the only way to know for sure is to see in another couple hundred years, but then non of us can say "I told yo so"! I will continue with my beliefs until proven otherwise because subtle fluctuations climate in a minute of earths existance proves nothing.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

DCast,
It's an interesting look into human psychology that even with almost every major scientific organization in the world publically acknowledging anthropogenic climate change, insurance companies factoring it into thier risk assessments, and oil companies(!) factoring it into their long term business planning, you can continue to convince yourself that it's all one big hoax perpetrated by a bunch of environmentalists.

No offense, but I think your tinfoil hat is on a bit crooked.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Bob, That would be the Pot calling the Kettle black!

When you say "almost every scientific organization", are you refering to those that are funded by the UN? Just curious because I would agree with you, but then I would have you look at the UN's agenda! Saying so doesn't make it fact.

"insurance companies factoring it into thier risk assessments, and oil companies(!) factoring it into their long term business planning".

If this is proof then I'm a total idiot! Because I would have thought it had to do with regulations and a way for them and the government to make some extra money! Come on you really didn't mean to type that did you?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from redfishunter wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

He's not denying that climate change happens, Mr. Marshall. Climate change is a natural part of the earth's course, as your scientist have proven through fossil records. As he stated, the world has been warming ever since we came out of the last Ice Age. Do you not agree with this statement?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Redfish, I'm not denying climate change because it does and it goes both ways whether cooling or warming. "As he stated, the world has been warming ever since we came out of the last Ice Age. Do you not agree with this statement?". I'm not sure why I am even going to comment this with you but yeah I agree with his statement my 6 yr old daughter could have figured that genius statement out! If it hadn't started warming then we would still be in an Ice Age! My point is it is not man made and man has little effect on the earths temperature. The sun and earth itself has all to do with the climate not humans.

Bob, quite funny, and for the heck of it "Illuminati" & "New World Order"!!!! I do tend to believe somewhat in the NWO though. Heck even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the NWO to start taking for during the UN meeting! He's a wacko but so are most of them in the UN but this is a topic for another day. I don't see it as being compelling evidence, it is typical business. Insurance for example can now charge more, because of plague and famine potentially increase with global warming which will cost them to deal with. Stupid? Yeah this whole argument is but for the sake of conversation I'll play the game. Oil companies are required to meet regulations beyond my knowledge, so they charge that to the end consumer, basic business.

Final thought and then I'm done here. The earth was believed to be flat until Aristotle came around. Finally to be proven 100% on Oct 24. 1946 at White Sands Missle Base.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from redfishunter wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

dcast, that last comment was directed at Bob.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

A concept I would like people to consider is how scientific theory builds upon itself. If you consider the model of proofs and axioms in geometry, it is a good example. When scientists develop and agree upon a statement of fact about the world, it influences continuing research and the development of new theories. It is a growing, building, snowball process. The only problem is that if an earlier statement of fact or theory has a problem with it, then everything built upon it can be in error. Taken as a whole, complete and independent system, everything may make sense and appear to be accurate, but when the earlier or foundational proof is compared to new or different data and found wanting, then the entire system can be in error.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

DCast,
Insurance companies and oil companies can raise their rates anytime they want. They don't need the spector of global warming to justify it.

In fact, just the opposite should be true: the companies that deny global warming the longest should benefit the most (at least in the short term) because it puts them at a competitive advantage compared to those firms that feel they need to raise prices...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coachsjike wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

i'm afraid that climate change is for real. i don't ever remember growing up where our days had a 30-40 degree temp change, not in the northeast anyway. now we are getting days where its mid 70's during the day and low 40's at night. 80 degree days in october? something does not make sense. this past summer where over 60% of the country was in severe drought conditions. change is definitely coming just not sure how bad. worst part is that our government hides lots of info.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

At one point, bacteria completely turned this planet's atmosphere upside down.

Not a chance we could change it just one but.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

Countless leading global warming scientist have detracted from the theory due to bad computer programming, bad information, misinformation, etc... Global warming in all probabilty is a conspiracy theory. There are as many scientist that are deniers as there are supporters in the global warming community, not to mention "Climategate". How was that for an "Inconvient Truth"? We can argue this until we are blue in the face, but I'm going on with my life without the doomsday apocolyptic global warming.

Redfishhunter, Warming started during the Ice age otherwise we would still be in a Ice Age which is prior to the Industrial Revolution which doesn't support Anthropogenic Global Warming.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

This is the kind of silly headline that makes scientist look really foolish. This column said global warming was causing birds to get LARGER- only a few month ago! Most scientists think man is causing some degree of climate change and they may be right- who knows. Most scientists also thought we were going into an ice age back in the 1970s. What we do know is the earth is a 5 billion year old rock that has been gradually cooling for @ 4 billion years. We need to focus on long term futuristic energy solutions and not cripple our economy over alarmist nonsense- like this study.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Melting glaciers and a rash of record high temps is, uhh, fake. Or something.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs