Half scenic steelhead fishing video and half anthropogenic global warming argument, Chrome walks the line between fishing and hyperbole.
Friends head to a northwest river to try their hands at a bit of steelhead fishing. It's a beautifully filmed video, with plenty of inspiring land and riverscapes. The water is green, cold and fast, and the surrounding land is populated by soaring pines nestled into rocky shorelines. It's a shame that they had to include a manmade global warming message into it.
The first eight minutes of the video are mostly about the fish and the fishing. A few hints here and there are dropped that global warming, or climate change, might be the deeper message. But who would argue with an agenda that wants cleaner water, less pollution, and more fish? These are things we can all agree on.
But then Dylan Tomine, Patagonia Ambassador, says, "Because of interaction with the increased carbon in the atmosphere that we've created, mostly from burning fossil fuels, the pH of the ocean is changing to a more acidic state."
"And that's bad for salmon and steelhead, it's bad for the base of the food chain, it's bad for pretty much anything, except jellyfish," adds Todd Tanner of Conservation Hawks.
Well, maybe. But without getting into all of the positives of fossil fuels, let's just say that our CO2 production and increased carbon output is miniscule. It is also incorrect to imply that CO2 is necessarily a bad thing (it is a vital atmospheric gas) or that the earth is incapable of adequately addressing any suggested increase. The correlation between CO2 and global warming has yet to be proven.
"It really is a responsibility that we have to try and make it possible that our kids and their kids will have some of the opportunities we've had," says Tomine. "You know, I don't my kids to think that I was the last generation that let it slip away. So, I gotta do something."
This is the second place I cringe. The old "it's for the children" and "if we don't act immediately it will be too late" reasoning. I'm all for acting to preserve or enhance our environment, but I am not in favor of implementing policies that are doubtful at best, and unnecessarily punitive and costly as well.
The science is most definitely not settled on the issue of anthropogenic climate change. The ranks of those scientists who dispute the political narrative that humans are causing climate change is growing all the time, to the point where they may well outnumber those scientists still clinging to the political narrative.
"Politicians, if they're not pushing for lessening our carbon footprint they're doing it because their constituents aren't screaming and yelling at them to do it. We are the problem," states Tom Rosenbauer of Orvis.
The public sees climate change as a largely unimportant issue, and justifiably sees it as something that humans have little control over anyway. There will be no screaming or yelling to compel politicians to lessen our carbon footprint. And according to at least one commentator on the issue, we should rather be looking to at the very least maintain our fossil fuel reliance until such time as we can begin to substitute viable alternative energy sources.
"The science on climate change is really clear. And anglers have to get involved. The clock is ticking on this one," say another participant in the video.
No, no the science is absolutely not clear on the issue. The science is not settled, and there are a ton of reasons to seriously question the validity of the popular anthropogenic global warming narrative.
Computer models that have proven themselves to be inaccurate and just plain wrong at virtually every turn, are reason enough to be skeptical. The scandals about manipulated data that have been in the news larely should also give reason to seriously question the motives and agenda of the anthropogenic global warming side.
Tomine concludes, "It's really critical for people , especially those of us, if we're fishermen or hunters and we really care about the natural world, to vote for politicians that are interested in making the kind of change that's required."
Again with the "if we don't act now there will be dire consequences" plea. I am a hunter and a fisherman, and I do care very much about our natural world. Yet I refuse to buy what is being sold here: a politically driven narrative based on dubious science, computer models and questionable conclusions.
Again, I'm in complete agreement with wanting clean water, more steelhead and a greener planet. I just don't think we have to be sold a bill of goods in order to pursue or achieve it.
I don't doubt the sincerity of these anglers in pushing the global warming agenda. But sincerity is an overrated virtue. I prefer facts when it comes to making policy on environmental issues.
Like what you see here? You can read more great articles by David Smith at his facebook page, Stumpjack Outdoors.