Saturday. Shoutout / Birds and Beasts

5 comments / Posted on / by

Photo by Matt Copeland

Photo by Matt Copeland

Think you understand the debate over climate change?

There’s a lot of hot headed opinions flying around about climate change. One thing is becoming very clear. If you hunt or fish, the issue effects you more than most. Fortunately there are some sportsmen and sporting organizations who are getting behind the idea of doing something positive.

My friend Matt Copeland, of Stalking the Seam, is one of them. His award winning essay, “The Birds and The Beasts” puts the issue into a perspective that is unique and heart warming, as well as pertinent to sportsmen.

Even if you care nothing about the issue, this is worth a read. This Wyoming Sportsman’s story of lessons learned the hard way will resonate with everyone.

Check out “The Birds And The Beasts.”

Louis Cahill
Gink & Gasoline
www.ginkandgasoline.com
hookups@ginkandgasoline.com
 
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter!
 

Follow Gink & Gasoline on Facebook:

5 thoughts on “Saturday. Shoutout / Birds and Beasts

  1. There is no debate about climate change. There are industry funded “news” shows which might have you think there is a debate so they can continue to profit like nothing is going on.

  2. Thanks for sharing this, Louis. Matt’s piece really gets to the heart of things. He’s a hell of a writer, and just as importantly, he has a huge heart.

    If we – and by we, I mean sportsmen – are going to have any chance at all of coming out the other side of this particular tunnel, or giving our kids and grandkids a shot at a decent future, we’re going to have to move the needle on climate change.

    Keep up the good work!

  3. Unfortunately this issue has become way too politicized. With way too much money at stack on BOTH sides.

    The scientific research into the causes and long term effects are very much still in progress and will be for many years to come.

    Within science, any time a group claims an issue is settled and deploys such opposition marginalization tactics as are seen in the climate debate; one should become highly suspect of what is actually going on.

    The Scientific Method is built on the very idea of debate amount scientists who test a hypothesis then publish their findings and methods which other scientists will review and possibly come to other conclusions based on more information.

    By minimizing other voices the climate change industrial complex is short circuiting the Scientific Method. With out that organized way of solving problems we are just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks…

    If the climate change theories are strong enough to act on, then the supporters should be welcoming debate rather than marginalizing. In the end it only makes the theory stronger.

    No doubt I agree we have to do better when it comes to the environment. And I believe we are just as if not more guilty as outdoors enthusiasts. Next time you are preparing for a trip take a look at your gear. How much is synthetic? Made over seas? Do you own anything locally made from recycled and/or renewable materials? What can you do to cut down on your foot print?

    • Dan,

      Scientists have known that greenhouse gasses could have an impact on atmospheric temperatures since Joseph Fourier’s initial work in the 1820s, almost two hundred years ago.

      In the 1950s, American scientists started warning that greenhouse gasses could become a threat. Over the last 60 years, scientists the world over have spent a huge amount of time studying climate change. By the late 1980s, a broad scientific consensus was forming that our fossil fuel emissions were changing the chemical composition of our atmosphere and warming the planet.

      The reason that so many scientific organizations – for example, NASA, NOAA and the NAS – consider climate change to be “settled science” is because they’ve been studying it for so long, and with such intensity. They have all the information they need. Our scientists are as sure that our fossil fuel emissions are warming the planet as they are that smoking causes cancer. It is, in fact, settled science.

      If you want to confirm what I’ve just written, I suggest you visit the American Institute of Physics webpage I’ve linked below. It offers a detailed history of climate change science.
      http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

      If you’d like to learn more about what our scientists are saying about climate change right now, here are links to three different climate summaries that have come out in the last 6 months. All three come from respected scientific organizations:
      http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/
      http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
      http://nca2014.globalchange.gov

      In summary, our scientists are warning us about a huge problem we face, and the only contradictory information is coming from denier groups funded by the fossil fuel industry. If that sounds a lot like what happened with tobacco and cancer a while back, there’s a reason. Some of the same people who tried to dispute the link between smoking and cancer are now working to dispute the link between greenhouse gasses and our changing climate.

      So we have a decision to make, and very little time to make it. If our scientists are right, we have to take immediate steps to avoid a catastrophic threat. If we don’t listen, we will put everything we care about – including our fishing, and our kids & grandkids – at risk. This is the biggest single issue we face in America right now, and it’s up to us to decide whether we will side with the overwhelming majority (97%) of the scientific experts, or with Big Oil and Big Coal, who are doing everything they can to keep their huge profits rolling in.

      I’d suggest you listen to the scientists, rather than the fossil fuel shills – but that’s your call.

  4. Todd is absolutely on track. And scientists do revise their findings, using the scientific method, when new research requires it. The problem, from the scientific research papers I’ve been reading, is that newer research shows the effects from climate change are speeding up — giving us less time to act against the damage that is being done. One projection that should concern us all is that trout habitat may disappear in the Lower 48 states by mid-century, except in isolated mountain areas. I want my grandson to inherit my fly rods. I hope he will be able to use them for trout.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>