Climate Fraud - Again

[airbornedeerhunter]

Originally Posted by Dynamic

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The general consensus among people who are experts in and continually study climate change are pretty much certain that man has a part in how fast the climate is changing. I’m not expecting anyone will change there minds. Heck we could all post articles all night supporting our own personal views.

My own personal views are based on what the experts in their particular field seem to be saying. I got kids and maybe eventually grandkids and that also guides my personal views, we must at least try to be certain we are at least moving in the right direction.

Rewind to the 1970's, there are people who cited the same scientific articles to prop up their belief about global cooling- that is until the facts got in the way. 30 years later there were people who now believed in global warming who cited like minded articles, again actual facts shot them out of the water so they then turned to the impossible to refute term "climate change". Climate change is right up there with the sasquatch, yeti, ogo pogo and centaurs. A century from now the only thing that will look different outside is the cars on the road.

[Dynamic]

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

Rewind to the 1970's, there are people who cited the same scientific articles to prop up their belief about global cooling- that is until the facts got in the way. 30 years later there were people who now believed in global warming who cited like minded articles, again actual facts shot them out of the water so they then turned to the impossible to refute term "climate change". Climate change is right up there with the sasquatch, yeti, ogo pogo and centaurs. A century from now the only thing that will look different outside is the cars on the road.

I hope your right. I really do. I got a stack of national geographic magazines from the late 70’s up until the 90’s and I understand what your saying. But we should be st least listening.

[Flight01]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Deniers would do much better to stop fighting scientists and start actually attacking the crappy ideas and systems that public figures and politicians are trying to use to deal with it.

I will quote this as it makes sense from both sides. I believe we all need to do better in preserving the earth for the future generations. I have yet to see anything that makes me feel like we are making a difference. I will recycle , I will reduce, I will reuse... I do not however agree to pay taxes or tariffs or a levy that is only labeled as a fix but is so blatantly not doing anything for the climate. The government involvement this far does nothing for the environmentalist movment. Sure it gets funding by big government but the ideology is defeated but the corrupt uses of His new found income and power.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I believe everyone agrees the earth has been warming since the last ice age? You agree with that? Who do you think doesn't believe that?

Q1 - No, it's pretty clear that "everyone" here does not agree that the earth has been warming since the last ice age based on what they wrote in this thread. The simple reality is they are quite confused and contradict themselves without knowing it. It's painfully obvious and clear as day to those who understand, or have been educated in science or understand this subject. And since global warming is a condition inherent to climate change, as defined by science, the simple and clear answer is NO. You simply cannot believe in in a subsequent condition (warming) without accepting the precursory condition (climate change). It's also very clear that people who may have contributed don't understand that climate change, global warming and the weather are three completely distinct and very different things.

Q2- Scientific evidence is clear, climate change is proven. We also know we are in, and have been, in a warming cycle since the last ice age. The only question or point of contention is what, if any, has been man's contribution to this warming cycle - and that's far less conclusive. Most scientist believe that man has contributed to the acceleration of this natural cycle. It stands to reason that man had some impact in this area - but it's simply impossible to measure to what contribution this can (or cannot) be measured. I am in alignment with the above statement.

Q3 - I believe well respected guys on this forum are being mislead by rags like Breitbart. They have been fed grossly negligent information from articles like the one I mentioned and end up repeating absolute contradictions leading to their own opinions. Articles written by these publications who clearly do not employ or consult a credible scientist, simply have no clue WTF they are talking about AND have an agenda paid for by their lobby group supporters. No scientist would EVER use the terms as written in the aforementioned article.

Last point - Breitbart (and CNN for that matter) are rags on the opposite sides of the coin and both, as far as I'm concerned, are trash fake news hype.

I also have zero agenda here.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Jimvinny

That's completely ridiculous. They have no way of accounting for something they couldn't measure, and can only wildly guess at. To claim they have taken it into account basically invalidates anything else you have said.

Paleoclimatology is a discipline in its own right. Cliatic conditions can be inferred from a huge number of souces (ice cores, sediment, fossils etc).

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Can you just answer all the questions?

Start with one. Do you believe all warming is man made? If not what is the percentage natural versus man made?

The evidence we have suggests that we're on a warming cycle compounded by anthropogenic influences.

Models seem to vary somewhat as to how much to equate with human causes, though they tend to agree that the majority of warming in the 20th/21st century is human influenced. I'm not at all qualified to compare the models to each other, so I can't really give you any clear number.

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

There are no climatologists that have spent there life researching this. The science is about 3 years old now. I’m exaggerating of course but the fact remains. Is there actually a branch of science that is climatology yet? Otherwise they are botonists making guesses about a science they are uneducated on. Just like me.

The second paragraph would be 100% correct if you changed the word “Deniers”, to “all Canadians”.

It's a branch of atmospheric science and it's been its own thing since the mid 20th century, so plenty of time to have spent a whole career at it.

And that's fair, but I think a lot of the problem is that governments think they need to be seen to be doing something and they're only getting ideas from one side.

I think you'd sway a lot of middle of the road voters with a plan to let the private sector take the lead.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Paleoclimatology is a discipline in its own right. Cliatic conditions can be inferred from a huge number of souces (ice cores, sediment, fossils etc).



The evidence we have suggests that we're on a warming cycle compounded by anthropogenic influences.

Models seem to vary somewhat as to how much to equate with human causes, though they tend to agree that the majority of warming in the 20th/21st century is human influenced. I'm not at all qualified to compare the models to each other, so I can't really give you any clear number.



It's a branch of atmospheric science and it's been its own thing since the mid 20th century, so plenty of time to have spent a whole career at it.

And that's fair, but I think a lot of the problem is that governments think they need to be seen to be doing something and they're only getting ideas from one side.

I think you'd sway a lot of middle of the road voters with a plan to let the private sector take the lead.

You answered the question.

You can't find scientific proof as to what percentage of warming is man made.

The best you can do is refer to computer models...which I mentioned is not science. It is guessing that can only be proved or disproved over time. And so far all have been disproved over time.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Dynamic

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The general consensus among people who are experts in and continually study climate change are pretty much certain that man has a part in how fast the climate is changing. I’m not expecting anyone will change there minds. Heck we could all post articles all night supporting our own personal views.

My own personal views are based on what the experts in their particular field seem to be saying. I got kids and maybe eventually grandkids and that also guides my personal views, we must at least try to be certain we are at least moving in the right direction.

Think about this.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/...t-question-it/

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by EZM

Q1 - No, it's pretty clear that "everyone" here does not agree that the earth has been warming since the last ice age based on what they wrote in this thread. The simple reality is they are quite confused and contradict themselves without knowing it. It's painfully obvious and clear as day to those who understand, or have been educated in science or understand this subject. And since global warming is a condition inherent to climate change, as defined by science, the simple and clear answer is NO. You simply cannot believe in in a subsequent condition (warming) without accepting the precursory condition (climate change). It's also very clear that people who may have contributed don't understand that climate change, global warming and the weather are three completely distinct and very different things.

Q2- Scientific evidence is clear, climate change is proven. We also know we are in, and have been, in a warming cycle since the last ice age. The only question or point of contention is what, if any, has been man's contribution to this warming cycle - and that's far less conclusive. Most scientist believe that man has contributed to the acceleration of this natural cycle. It stands to reason that man had some impact in this area - but it's simply impossible to measure to what contribution this can (or cannot) be measured. I am in alignment with the above statement.

Q3 - I believe well respected guys on this forum are being mislead by rags like Breitbart. They have been fed grossly negligent information from articles like the one I mentioned and end up repeating absolute contradictions leading to their own opinions. Articles written by these publications who clearly do not employ or consult a credible scientist, simply have no clue WTF they are talking about AND have an agenda paid for by their lobby group supporters. No scientist would EVER use the terms as written in the aforementioned article.

Last point - Breitbart (and CNN for that matter) are rags on the opposite sides of the coin and both, as far as I'm concerned, are trash fake news hype.

I also have zero agenda here.

FWIW I agree with pretty much everything you have stated here. I most certainly believe in climate change, only a dolt would say there is no such thing.

What I do not believe in is the amount of hype around AGW. There is no solid consensus on anything in that field.

[ReconWilly]

This video looks like man made climate change!

It is presented in broken English and you may have to pause and read a little but it is an intriguing watch!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=4s&v=08wTvNrIDxs

[58thecat]

Climate change, I will tell ya about climate change, went to bed last night -12 woke up -30 now that's climate change....last week was walking around in +25 so yup the climate is a changing...

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Climate change, I will tell ya about climate change, went to bed last night -12 woke up -30 now that's climate change....last week was walking around in +25 so yup the climate is a changing...

Leonardo Dicaprio...Is this you?

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Dynamic

I find it weird that we will listen to experts on subjects such as hunting, fishing, or anything that you find interesting. We listen and accept the word from the experts because we acknowledge that they know more about the subject than we do. But when the general consensus from leading climate scientists ( a.k.a. Experts ) so many people just have their heads in the sand.

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.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Leonardo Dicaprio...Is this you?

Shhhhh gotta keep my high level of credibility

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

You answered the question.

You can't find scientific proof as to what percentage of warming is man made.

The best you can do is refer to computer models...which I mentioned is not science. It is guessing that can only be proved or disproved over time. And so far all have been disproved over time.

First off, I agree that it is difficult and problematic for any science to measure, let alone equate and validate what impact man has made to the acceleration of global warming and/or climate change.

But, I am genuinely curious, since you seem to be on the track to try and corner everyone into saying what percentage of climate change and/or global warming is contributed to human activity - so I'd offer my own opinion on the matter and would ask for your position as well in exchange.

I believe, and would suggest, that there is likely "some" impact to the environment attributed to human activity - to keep things very simple - we know that, I'm going to use the term "pollution" here for simplicity, like green house gasses, do impact solar radiation. We also know solar radiation warms the atmosphere. To what extent it can be measured accurately without a controlled baseline is conjecture.

Are you suggesting that human activity has had no impact in climate change and/or global warming?

[ChickakooKookoo]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Think about this.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/...t-question-it/

First thing the link says "From Breitbart"... Sorry, won't read it.

[drhu22]

Originally Posted by drhu22

http://www.ucalgary.ca/envirophys/gwposter
Argue with her...
alnorman@ucalgary.ca

Did anyone see fit to talk to someone educated on the subject?

[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.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by EZM

Q1 - No, it's pretty clear that "everyone" here does not agree that the earth has been warming since the last ice age based on what they wrote in this thread.

It may just be people are speaking from a standpoint of dangerous man made global warming versus the natural ongoing climate change processes.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by ChickakooKookoo

First thing the link says "From Breitbart"... Sorry, won't read it.

Let me help.

During 2017, 485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

These 485 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability, as clearly shown in the first 150 graphs (from 2017) on this list.

N(3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).



In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:

A(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.

RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1�� uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”

A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.

A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough“, which means that “the time for debate has ended“.

A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.

To reiterate, the 485 papers compiled in 2017 support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions. The papers do not do more than that. Expectations that these papers should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are deemed unreasonable in this context.

Below are the two links to the list of 485 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.

Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)


(Parts 1 and 2 are on the same page).

Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change

Solar Influence On Climate (121)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (44)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (13)
Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (9)
Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (6)
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (15)

Part 2. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling


Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (28)
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (12)
Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (8)
Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (14)
Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (7)
Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (18)
Decreases In Extreme, Unstable Weather With Warming (3)
Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially (5)
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (4)
No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (3)
Natural CO2, Methane Sources Out-Emit Human Source (4)
Increasing Snow Cover Since The 1950s (3)
Miscellaneous (7)

Scientists: We Don’t Understand (3)

Part 3. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction

Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (38)
No Net Warming During 20th (21st) Century (12)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (60)
Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (7)
A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (33)
Antarctic Ice Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas (4)
Recent Cooling In The North Atlantic, Southern Ocean (10)

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by EZM

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.

I don't see it that way.

I see the main issue is some don't understand science must be tested to be science versus just guessing and many just take the word of the media.

The media is a business to sell stories. Scary stories make more money than fluff pieces. Keeping everyone on edge keeps the audience captivated to your product.

The media is a huge component. Certain socialist segments see it as a money grab. Certain socialist parties see it as a way to scare away from a capitalist party.

It is very interesting because so many feel so strongly there is no chance dangerous man made global warming is not happening because all scientist say otherwise...and it ain't true.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I don't see it that way.

I see the main issue is some don't understand science must be tested to be science versus just guessing and many just take the word of the media.

Either climate models are flawed and, therefore, testable or they're untestable and therefore cannot be proven to be flawed.

You can't have it both ways.

Honestly, I find your outright rejection of modelling strange. Is it just climate models or do you reject the use of models in other disciplines too?

Are hydrological models worthless? Population models?

The media is a business to sell stories. Scary stories make more money than fluff pieces. Keeping everyone on edge keeps the audience captivated to your product.

The media is a huge component. Certain socialist segments see it as a money grab. Certain socialist parties see it as a way to scare away from a capitalist party.

It is very interesting because so many feel so strongly there is no chance dangerous man made global warming is not happening because all scientist say otherwise...and it ain't true.

There are very few scientists that outright reject man made climate change. Even your list of 485 papers is mostly made of papers that accept the concept but find flaws in specific models. That's hardly condemning evidence.

[Fisherpeak]

During the Jurrasic period CO2 levels were 5 to 7 times higher than they are now. Put that in your environment pipe and smoke it.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Either climate models are flawed and, therefore, testable or they're untestable and therefore cannot be proven to be flawed.

You can't have it both ways.

Honestly, I find your outright rejection of modelling strange. Is it just climate models or do you reject the use of models in other disciplines too?

Are hydrological models worthless? Population models?



.

From my understanding it is the fact that there seems to be a result before there is a process.

[Twisted Canuck]

So just for clarity, is this considered a 'political thread', and if so does it pertain to us as outdoorsmen? Don't want to cross any new lines...

[hal53]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

So just for clarity, is this considered a 'political thread', and if so does it pertain to us as outdoorsmen? Don't want to cross any new lines...

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

So just for clarity, is this considered a 'political thread', and if so does it pertain to us as outdoorsmen? Don't want to cross any new lines...

No it is not political.

It is relevant considering hunting opportunities could change in regards to warming, or cooling, or

[glen moa]

Why are we spending money on it when it’s not affecting us?

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Newview01

No it is not political.

It is relevant considering hunting opportunities could change in regards to warming, or cooling, or

Freaking huge meteorites hitting earth would sure stir things up eh....poor large lizards...and skinny jean people who can't live of the land

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by EZM

First off, I agree that it is difficult and problematic for any science to measure, let alone equate and validate what impact man has made to the acceleration of global warming and/or climate change.

But, I am genuinely curious, since you seem to be on the track to try and corner everyone into saying what percentage of climate change and/or global warming is contributed to human activity - so I'd offer my own opinion on the matter and would ask for your position as well in exchange.

I believe, and would suggest, that there is likely "some" impact to the environment attributed to human activity - to keep things very simple - we know that, I'm going to use the term "pollution" here for simplicity, like green house gasses, do impact solar radiation. We also know solar radiation warms the atmosphere. To what extent it can be measured accurately without a controlled baseline is conjecture.

Are you suggesting that human activity has had no impact in climate change and/or global warming?

I believe there is a chance man has impacted climate. I would certainly say not 100% and not 1%.

This is a divisive topic in the global warming circles as they need to admit natural processes since they have been happening for far longer than people have been on the Earth.

The answer you get from them is it enough and while not qualifiable the risk of doing is nothing is killing our grandchildren.

Since models are constantly failing and knowledge is still being gained and where is effort best spent by Canadians?

My answer is accepting climate rises and falls so what can we mitigate? I would say drought and flood resistant crops. Home heating and energy efficiencies. Recycling programs. Targeting waste packaging. Target residual energy.

We are less than 2% of carbon output yet feel we should remove billions from our economy all the while China is building 1000 more coal plants. Europe is switching back. Ontario is crushed by the weight of power bills.

I trained in science. Not working in the field for a while and still keep my critical thinking hat on.

The studies flooding the news are like tabloid stories. Really meaningless science as you can’t prove it. Very convenient for the researchers. Add global warming to your abstract and conclusions and get funding.

So to pin me down...right now I would say 10% and or less therefore not worth killing ourselves or joining the fanatical 10% chaining themselves to pipelines.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

So just for clarity, is this considered a 'political thread', and if so does it pertain to us as outdoorsmen? Don't want to cross any new lines...

The cost heating and gas will impact many sportsmen’s hunting and fishing budgets.

It will be an excuse to shut down rivers to fishing and close areas to hunting.

This is the biggest excuse for forced change with the least say by user groups.