[EZM]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Lot of 'experts' on hunting and fishing have left this forum because of having their experience and knowledge constantly questioned and often proved wrong. Lots of supposed experts are not experts but are placed in positions of expertise because they are sponsored, granted, or support an agenda because of bias. If there were actual non refuted evidence pointing in one direction or the other we would all believe it. Conditional bias plays a huge roll in what we believe or don't believe when we only have anecdotal or incomplete evidence, theoretical 'evidence', rumour and heresay to base a conclusion on. It is all unproven theory without scientific proof on both sides and that's where we're at on man made/caused climate change. We only know it is currently warming which is consistent with the unpredictable yoyo climate the earth has been experienced for billions of years. With the lack of evidence the best odds and a billion year long track record of this same exact varying climate behavior would say what we are experiencing today is par for the course. It would be a total anomaly for us to have constant seasons and climate. Doesn't matter, in the long run, humans will eventually disappear or not, old mother earth will carry on and do what she does regardless of whether we are here or not.

I would agree that often times opinions are based largely on what information people are led to believe and/or conditioned to believe. Often times this "information" is a direct result of one special interests group or another agenda.

The troubling thing to me is that there is more money in saying "man made global warming is a farce" versus agreeing that "man made global warming" is a real issue to be concerned about.

The easiest way to present "your chosen perspective" is to publish trash articles like the Breitbart article which spawned this thread. That's easy, that's common, but it's also very easy to pick apart these poorly written articles which clearly confuse weather, with climate and use common and normal events to either underpin or dispute their chosen agendas.

It's a little harder to use data driven scientific studies to prove your point, but again, a special interest group can "pick and choose" what to present, inclusive of data points, periods, etc... to help guide us (as readers) on a path to manipulate us to "see it their way". This happens on both sides of this argument.

Strictly from a data perspective, and given the three or four main (and distinct) universally accepted methods of measurement, the data show what it shows and it coincides with complete and indisputable congruency with climate changes as they relate to known events like the ice age*** as one example.

***The ice age being an effect subsequent to a causation.

The only argument left really, and one which is nearly impossible to measure, is what measured contribution has man's activity had on climate change and/or the acceleration/deceleration of the same.

I do see how many climate scientists point toward man's activities as a potential contributing factor to global warming, simply because since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the advent of greenhouse gasses there has been an alarming increase in the acceleration of global temperatures.

On the flip side of the coin, there has also been several periods in history where rapid temperatures have been measured at a similar rate over a similar short period with similar increases/decreases in mean atmospheric temperature.

To complicate things further, and where the argument flips back over to the "man made global warming" camp, is that on many of these accelerated spikes, there was a global event (causation) supported by other scientific evidence, like the rapid cooling after the "big meteor that destroyed dinosaurs" OR "major volcanic eruptions" OR "the orbital change of the earth's axis as it relates to shifting pole and the geography impacted by the position of that place as it relates to the equator" etc... we can see these in the evidence of ashes in sediment, fossilized plant life, measured Co2 levels in ice, etc..

This, of course, leads these same scientist to suggest the advent of industrialization and the subsequent release of greenhouse gasses (and other pollution) is one of these easy to prove events.

For any one side to argue, with absolute authority at this point, and employ specific measurement, is simply irresponsible HOWEVER there is far more evidence to support that man's impact on climate change is present, potentially significant, and corresponds to evidence we do have and can measure/prove.

As a result - the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (and scientists in general) agree that man has had an impact on climate change.