RE: [Paddlewise] Winter in a time of Climate Change

Yes it is strange how some scientific issues become politicized except it
ignores the fact that one of the main proponents of GW is not a scientist,
but a politician. His movie, with it's acknowledged hyperbole is shown in
high schools as fact. The scientific community holding the opposite view
hasn't had the opportunity to provide their contrary evidence to the amount
that GW has received.

Most of us aren't scientists, so I don't have a problem with people who
accept the views of the scientist that differ with mine, but your post shows
one of the problems with the issue. Your post allowing for GW got posted and
as far as I can tell, mine opposed didn't!!  At least I haven't received it.
Only one side is getting heard because people like Gore say the issue is
settled-a first for any science!!!

It is another argument to say whether there is no consequence to trying to
limit the amout of CO2 if it turns out not to be a contributor to GW. We're
talking about spending trillion and trillions of dollars that could be
better spent if CO2 is just a harmless gas that we all expel!

In my view, CO2 is the newest spotted owl, a false excuse for the
environmental folks to impose their will on society. Only time will tell

Mark

-----Original Message-----

Unfortunately, for some reason the "climate change" issue has become
politicized with sides chosen up and weapons drawn. The political fight has
no bearing on whether or not man actually has made climate change worse. If
we have and don't change anything then we face some serious problems. If we
haven't and do change then nothing bad happens.

The debate has been exacerbated because there is no "proof" that humans have
had any part in climate change. People with a background in science
understand that there is precious little "proof" in anything scientific.
This, combined with the egos involved, often make non-scientists think that
the "eggheads" really have no idea what they are talking about. But as
Kruger mentions, most people with a background in science have come around
to the idea that, at the very least, humans are not helping. And if the data
are correct, we are a significant factor.

Do humans have some negative role to play in climate change? That seems
obvious. It's like the question, "Does smoking kill you?" Some think it does
and others think it doesn't. But no one thinks it's good for you.

The natural cycles of climate change are the background noise in the debate.
No one can deny that the earth has gone through many of these and perhaps
we're going through a natural one now. But chemically speaking the junk we
are putting into the environment cannot be doing anything but exacerbating
the problem. So far all of the physical evidence (ice cores, etc.) indicate
that this is an extremely serious situation. If your boat is sinking arguing
about whose fault it is doesn't make a lot of sense. Pick something up and
start bailing.

As for driving thousands of miles to kayak... there is no doubt that this is
not free from a significant carbon footprint. But it's not as significant as
driving a motorhome thousands of miles for a vacation piloting a 4wheel
Polaris around on the sand dunes. Driving to kayak - even in a kayak that is
fiberglass - is still less of an imprint than driving to Disneyland.

It's good that people are thinking about this issue. No one is without
imperfection but one can hope most can at least discern that there is a
problem.


Craig Jungers
Moses Lake, WA
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************