NC Angler Forums banner
61 - 80 of 83 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,312 Posts
Discussion Starter · #62 ·
I don't see Chipmunks here.........but I also don't ever see rats so no complaints. Besides, if we had lots of chipmunks we would have even more copperheads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,624 Posts
Looks like Greenpeace just read the writing on the wall and is trying to get ahead of the fallout

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
One guy who used to be pretty high up the chain in GreenPeace does not represent GreenPeace, especially since he left GreenPeace in 1986 - almost 30 years ago.

But let's look at what he says:
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years
and what NASA says:
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
See the little footnote marker? They support their statements with evidence.

Dr. Moore also mentions the 18 years with no warming. Technically there has been a little but it is very small, though statistics say we have enough samples for the margin of error to be even smaller. Anyway, it has just stayed at historically high levels and not raised much further for a little while. I have no clue why and it does illustrate that we can't predict what is happening with unerring accuracy. But this is surface temperature of the atmosphere. The climate has 5 components - atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere and biosphere. Land - lithosphere - is pretty static and life - biosphere - is affected by climate more than it affects climate, so we primarily track the first 3. The atmosphere's temperature has not been changing much in the last 18 years. The hydrosphere? Sea levels and temperature have continued to rise unabated. The cryosphere? The ice hasn't just continued to melt, it has accelerated melting.

A number of people want to conclude that there is nothing to this because one of the three primary components of climate we track hasn't worsened significantly in a while even though the other two have. I question the logic of that conclusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,312 Posts
Discussion Starter · #67 ·
Odd you bring up NASA without bringing up Dr. Hansen.


I'm old enough to remember back when Dr. Hanson at NASA told me I was going to freeze in the coming Ice Age and now the same Dr. Hanson is telling my kids they are going to burn up.

Dr. Hansen must take the average American for a box turtle upside down in the road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,624 Posts
Odd you bring up NASA without bringing up Dr. Hansen.


I'm old enough to remember back when Dr. Hanson at NASA told me I was going to freeze in the coming Ice Age and now the same Dr. Hanson is telling my kids they are going to burn up.

Dr. Hansen must take the average American for a box turtle upside down in the road.
When the consensus among scientists is this overwhelming, you rarely need to mention individuals. But once again you mention someone who is no longer with an organization as if they still represent it. Dr Hansen allowed new evidence and ongoing research to change his opinion. He has an open mind; if that is something to be ashamed of, I share in his humiliation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,624 Posts
Y'all need to read this.....the man speaks learned truth, with no bias. Pass it on....
It's an opinion piece; it's supposed to be biased. Bias is not a bad thing. It is just something to take into consideration. I think the piece is a little light on facts. It doesn't cite sources for a lot of claims. I respect Dr Moore's opinion, but don't agree with his conclusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
Odd you bring up NASA without bringing up Dr. Hansen.


I'm old enough to remember back when Dr. Hanson at NASA told me I was going to freeze in the coming Ice Age and now the same Dr. Hanson is telling my kids they are going to burn up.

Dr. Hansen must take the average American for a box turtle upside down in the road.
Anyone who relies on NASA (the National AERONAUTICS and SPACE Administration) for analysis of data on what is going on in and around the world should remember their primary mission: provide the ability to get men in space. Period, whether we need to or not. Secondarily, they fund the design and building of spacecraft to accumulate data on planetary and other objects in space. They don't even operate most of those, as it is not their responsibility to do so. Their primary staffs at their several Centers are made up of engineers of various types who are generally contractors from aerospace companies, or serious scientists from those same companies, Universities, or consultants. The majority of true NASA folks are bean counters, contract managers, public relations administrators, and political animals looking for their next promotions. True Agency scientists are few and far between, and if the job market is positive, they usually leave the reservation. I can count on one hand the number of sincere, qualified, and competent scientists that worked at NASA, and I spent a goodly portion of my professional career consulting with the Agency. The third, and maybe the actual highest priority in the Agency is to feed the bellybuttons, the Center and Headquarters man/womanpower. The more people they employ and the higher their budget, the more power allotted to NASA. It's the same at every government agency, so don't think I'm picking on them alone. Lastly, and very lastly, comes the Aeronautics part; barely funded, and often ignored until there's a plane wreck. Then, the "never waste a crisis" syndrome kicks in, and their budget goes up for a year or so. Bottom line is that the data generated by the truly great set of remote sensing satellites that NASA caused to exist is analyzed and reported by scientists in appropriate fields of study, in peer-reviewed publications or government-only contract reports, and if the reports are positive for NASA, in the PR-cleansed news and magazines. Don't believe anything you read, only a little of what they choose to show you, and none of the Scientific Opinions of a government agency bent on sucking up more of your tax money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,624 Posts
Right. NASA provides data. NOAA interprets it. So do several universities and other organizations. If you don't believe anything you read you can't make any decisions. Internet rants don't supercede data. Only other better data does. Got any?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
Right. NASA provides data. NOAA interprets it. So do several universities and other organizations. If you don't believe anything you read you can't make any decisions. Internet rants don't supercede data. Only other better data does. Got any?
Not only got some, but in my earlier life, I have been part of many research groups that generated some, while in the military, graduate school, in commercial businesses, as a private science consultant to NASA, NOAA, EPA, Homeland Security, and State and local governments, as a contractor serving as a unit Director within NASA's Earth Science Laboratory, as a Director of a major SEC University research unit focused on the practical use of a wide variety of environmental, natural resource renewal and Earth science data from a wide variety of sources, governmental and private, as well as from international sources. One of my favorite jobs was rebutting incorrect and misleading statements from zealots who either prepare the jejune Kool-Aid or who have consumed it. I don't deal in rants; I deal in analysis of valid and reliable data, from which facts are extracted. If you interpreted my earlier post otherwise, I suggest that you read it again. Your responses to several posts have left you open to criticism; perhaps you might also reread the posts to which you objected, and your own responses. I'm sure that our exchange is entertaining to our readers, but I'd rather spend my NCAngler time writing and reading about wildlife and the pleasure of providing fishing reports to my friends on this forum. Should you wish to continue in this vein, perhaps we should open a new thread and not disrupt the search for the wily chipmunk, for which I believe I was early in the search. Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
966 Posts
Chipmunks are another mystery to me. When I lived in Loudoun Co. VA we had them everywhere. When I came to NC for school I saw them on UNC campus but only on campus.

I have never seen one since college ever in NC except on campus and I bet I have spent ten thousand hours in the woods hunting and not seen one nor have I seen one around the house and I'm surrounded by 26 acres of hardwoods. I literally have my morning sit down looking out a four foot square picture window and have seen countless critters but nary a single chipmunk. My son does not ever know they exist!

I've seen more P & Y bucks & Bald Eagles in NC than I have chipmunks............no kidding!
Spotted my first NC chipmunk last Fall in Surry Co.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,624 Posts
I'm good; just responded to Nat's dad's direct question and it snow balled into a more through discussion. There absolutely are chipmunks in Raleigh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,537 Posts
I see chipmunks every day, they are a common rodent here in NC. Their small size and habit of burrowing through leaf litter makes them inconspicuous most times.
On the northern and southern copperheads we have, the southern is a paler snake, with the marking bands having a narrower middle section. The northern is more common in the mountains and foothills. In areas where the two subspecies range's meet, hybrids are not uncommon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,312 Posts
Discussion Starter · #77 ·
Anyone who relies on NASA (the National AERONAUTICS and SPACE Administration) for analysis of data on what is going on in and around the world should remember their primary mission: provide the ability to get men in space. Period, whether we need to or not. Secondarily, they fund the design and building of spacecraft to accumulate data on planetary and other objects in space. They don't even operate most of those, as it is not their responsibility to do so. Their primary staffs at their several Centers are made up of engineers of various types who are generally contractors from aerospace companies, or serious scientists from those same companies, Universities, or consultants. The majority of true NASA folks are bean counters, contract managers, public relations administrators, and political animals looking for their next promotions. True Agency scientists are few and far between, and if the job market is positive, they usually leave the reservation. I can count on one hand the number of sincere, qualified, and competent scientists that worked at NASA, and I spent a goodly portion of my professional career consulting with the Agency. The third, and maybe the actual highest priority in the Agency is to feed the bellybuttons, the Center and Headquarters man/womanpower. The more people they employ and the higher their budget, the more power allotted to NASA. It's the same at every government agency, so don't think I'm picking on them alone. Lastly, and very lastly, comes the Aeronautics part; barely funded, and often ignored until there's a plane wreck. Then, the "never waste a crisis" syndrome kicks in, and their budget goes up for a year or so. Bottom line is that the data generated by the truly great set of remote sensing satellites that NASA caused to exist is analyzed and reported by scientists in appropriate fields of study, in peer-reviewed publications or government-only contract reports, and if the reports are positive for NASA, in the PR-cleansed news and magazines. Don't believe anything you read, only a little of what they choose to show you, and none of the Scientific Opinions of a government agency bent on sucking up more of your tax money.

Clearly you have the required security clearance needed. PM me..........I"m five miles west of you and I got spots your sources got no sources on.

You do have some sort of diplomatic immunity that would fix stuff if we accidently ended up fishing the wrong pond?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
Clearly you have the required security clearance needed. PM me..........I"m five miles west of you and I got spots your sources got no sources on.

You do have some sort of diplomatic immunity that would fix stuff if we accidently ended up fishing the wrong pond?
No clearance needed for most of this, but I did have a 1-A-1 Flash Override Top Secret clearance during my Air Force years. No immunity from fishing the wrong pond. The term is "Terminated with extreme prejudice". You can only do it once.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,312 Posts
Discussion Starter · #79 ·
You might be the only person on this board that I can show my 40 pound plus stringer pics of largemouths from Camp Peary to and not have to kill. :D
 
61 - 80 of 83 Posts
Top