Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire If you are a Liberal POS Scientist What Would You Call It?

Well, there ya go. Got nothing else for ya.

There's a song.. "Fools Rush In"..

Great...another dilettante who thinks he understands the process and motivations. Carry on Lacan.

The motivation is obvious, the process flawed, the result a joke. Congratulations!

then swear off meds doosh

If I get off my happy pills I will not be able to tolerate idiots like you. Right now I find you funny, sober I might take you for a threat...

Huskyrunnr,

You really want to die on this hill defending global warming fake scientist?

Do you share their ethical values? hmmmm

I suspect AcesNeights has your number.......

I'm amazed at how ingorant many of the posters on this forum are. Here are some facts.

1. As anyone who has taken high school chemistry knows, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the hotter the earth gets. There is no doubt about cause and effect.

2. It's true that there are other causes of climate change. Volcanoes for one. And more CO2 causes more water to evaporate, causing more clouds that reflect sunlight. That's called "feedback." But is does not oounteract the warming. Also, the AVERAGE warming causes volatile weather, which may make it either hotter or colder in any specific region in the short term. Long term, a hotter atmosphere means more energy for volatile weather. The average temperature increases. Finally there are other "greenhouse gases" (gases that cause major heat absorption with only a little increase in their amount). Two are methane and water vapor.

3. Long term the increase in CO2 is caused by us. That's a fact. You are entitled to your opinions but not your own facts.

4. Sea levela sre in fact rising due to this, although slowly right now. They will rise faster.

5. No one can predict with perfect accuracy what will happen when. But 50 or 100 years from now, a lot of low-lying areas will be under water.

6. Human-caused warming is not totally bad. For instance, we know what causes ice ages--perturbations in the earth's orbit and the tilt of its axis. The next ice advance is due but has been delayed, probably due to our widespread adaption of agriculture over the last few thousands of years.

Now that's just what's going to happen. My opinion is that it's impossible for any reasonable person to disagree with the above.

However, that does not mean that the Paris Accords were the solution, in my opinion. I don't think humanity can possibly stop emitting CO2. Population control would solve the problem but that's impossible. The only alternative is to plan for rising seas and more violent weather. ;And don't plan a vacation in Glacier National Park in 2050. There won't be any glaciers there then.

PS: The existence of climate change has nothing to do with abortion, scientists getting grants, a few of them faking some data, etc.,and probably nothing to do with the sun as well. Scientists by and large are pretty competent. We didn't land Neil Armstrong on the moon in 1969 by a bunch of overage high school graduates from the boondocks railing about irrelevancies, after all.

I'm done, I don't typically try to come on here and change anyone's mind. I sure as hell don't get on here and spout about things I have no experience with. Your buddy Aces has my number as a scientist who is not worth a chit because he "knows scientists"? What's his h-index? How many Nobel laureates does he know? And I'm not talking about the peace prize kind.

Good luck to you hyenas trying to go up against the National Academy.

Climate change deniers are the worst! I have more respect for Bigfoot hunters and UFOlogists. Climate change deniers are up there with anti-vaxxers and evolution skeptics, but the difference is these dodos might actually contribute to the extinction of the human race. The ultimate Darwin award.

It is not that climate is changing, of course it is and man is probably adding to that change. The problem is with the scientist that have a liberal agenda and think our money can fix it.
It is simply a means of extortion.

Another clue is the climate has been changing for millions of years without mans help. Wake the phouc up, these people are marxist trying to steal productive peoples wealth.....

Apparently Goosey and huskrunnr are cool with that?

And there it is. Climate change occurs on a geological time scale, over hundreds of thousands of years.

People have been observing and keeping notes for less than 6 of those 1000s of millenia. Real records have been kept for about 400 years. And none of those records included atmospheric analysis. We can only make a rough guess as to what the CO2 content of the atmosphere was in 1236 AD.

Have you ever seen some idiot observe a buck for two minutes in June and attempt to tell you where THAT buck would be and what it would be doing in November when season opens?

That is about how long man has been observing weather patterns. For about two minutes out of the lifetime of a buck.

No doubt, humans have overpopulated the Earth. And a major population correction is long overdue. It will come, and it will be ugly. Unless people can figure out how to reduce population before famine and disease do it for us.

China has figured it out. They control their population growth very well. India is coming along. North America and Europe actually have declining populations, except for increases due to immigration. But Africa, Africa thinks they can breed at will and export the excess to all the developed countries, or depend upon America and Europe to grow and ship the food to them.

Instead of carbon taxes, and demanding carbon sequestration, the folks who run the world would be better served sterilizing the women of third world nations after their first child. Let's see that on the table at the Paris Climate Talks.

Driving successful economic models out of existence, and moving third world populations out of their [bleep] and spreading them about successful first world economies will do nothing to curb population growth or impacts of human population pressure upon the environment.

The bottom line is, in a few hundred thousand years, or maybe a couple million, man will be extinct. The Earth will still be spinning around the sun. And whatever the dominent species on the planet might be at that time, they will have a damned difficult time identifying any remains of the once proud human population

Yes, this:

Iceland was, in the not too distant past, a thriving agrarian economy with ice free harbors year round. Do you have a corresponding CO2 spike for that time period?

Im thinking Northmam is too stupid to know that a 1000-900 years ago grapes were grown and wine made in Great Britain.

When Leif Erickson discovered Newfoundland they named it Vinland. North America was once covered by Redwood forests. Its too cold for that now and they are restricted to the warmer west coast with its warmer Pacific currents.

Dayom. I might be almost as smart as a dim o crap.

When crap like you respects the truth it will be a cold day in hell. Like Apache women you all go for the greatest theives and liars of the braves for the increased bounty they produced.

If you respected me i wouldnt be able to look myself in a mirror, so keep flattering me.

And how about the catastrophic rise in sea levels during that time?

I doubt that this will have any effect on the haters ("Climate change deniers are the worst!" "...these dodos might actually contribute to the extinction of the human race"), but there are a couple of points I would like to discuss with all of you.

I've been a meteorologist for nearly 40 years, and I have a Master's degree from one of the best schools in the nation. I don't understand everything about why climate changes, but I've followed the subject since scientists first told us that we going into a new ice age, long before Al Gore first presented the idea that we were going to melt the ice caps, put New York under 20 feet of water and turn the rest of the earth to toast.

Let's look at some facts without calling anyone names:

1. "As anyone who has taken high school chemistry knows, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the hotter the earth gets. There is no doubt about cause and effect."

The simple response to this statement is that it is misleading. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases do generally contribute to warmer temperatures, but there is no simple correlation between earth's temperature and C02 levels. If you look at graphs comparing historical temperatures and C02 levels over hundreds of thousands of years, you'll see there are times that temps rose long before C02 spiked, leading to the theory that warming temps released C02 stored in the earth's oceans AFTER the rising temps began. Even the current (meaning in the 1900s) increase in temperatures began well before modern industrialization contributed significantly to rising global C02.

2. There is no doubt that C02 is a greenhouse gas and, as physics dictates, contributes to warming. But there is a LOT of doubt about how much it contributes, and there are MANY unknowns about what the most important influences are in determining global temperature – variations in the strength and direction of ocean currents, ionization of the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays leading to increased cloudiness, and varying solar output are just three that deserve serious consideration.

3. As I mentioned before, "scientists" were calling for a new ice age not all that long ago, then when temps started rising they started in with “global warming”. When the warming stopped and every one of the computer-generated doomsday models failed (even though C02 continued to rise), they switched the term to "climate change". Since that change, every new weather event that resulted in negative impacts on any population anywhere on the earth has been followed by breathless new articles blaming it on climate change.

Please understand that this does not inspire confidence in many, many people who are naturally cautious of "experts" proclaiming their latest theory and who are willing to push through laws designed to force a nation to comply with what they think is best for them. People who are outraged by "deniers" should consider this to partially understand those who disagree with them.

4. Now I'm sure this is going to provoke a heated response, but there really is no such thing as a "climate change denier". Anyone completing the slightest study of climate understands that climate is constantly changing. Even relatively recently, we went through the Medieval Warm Period, followed by the Little Ice Age which only ended near 1800 A.D. What is really at issue is whether we are experiencing anthropogenic (human caused) warming, or if this is just an upswing in a natural cycle. Regardless of what is published by any agency, no one really knows which of these two scenarios is actually occurring.

It is a fact that historically, ice ages occur roughly every 11,000 years. We are overdue for the next one, and in all practicality there is just as good a chance that temperatures will decrease in the future as opposed to increasing. As a side note, my personal opinion is that if we are doing something to push this event farther into the future, that is a GOOD thing!

5. Most people do not understand that long-range computer climate models give the answer that the programmer desires. I have talked to long-range climate modelers who confide in me that the only way they can make their model work is to force temperature change by assigning several different values to the impact C02 has on temperature and seeing which ones give them the outcomes they are looking for. And the amount of influence C02 has on temps is subject to huge controversy in the scientific world.

Modelers also know that global cloudiness and the influence of water vapor are far more important than the minuscule contribution of C02 to warming – but there is no practical way to incorporate that data into a computer model. The amount of data necessary and keeping track of constantly changing amounts of water vapor over multiple layers of the atmosphere would defeat the fastest supercomputer – even if we had the technology to measure it.

In addition, no model of the atmosphere is able to account for all of the physical processes that influence it (think of the “butterfly effect”). In fact, no model of the atmosphere is even able to correctly depict a starting point showing the current conditions of the atmosphere and the earth’s surface for the calculations to begin working on – we simply do not have the data.

6. Many proponents of “climate change” like to point to the IPCC as an authority on climate change. They are certainly free to believe or disbelieve anyone and any group they choose, but I would like to caution them about this attitude of belief in the IPCC. It is a highly political organization, and published results can vary widely from the recommendations of members of the committee assigned to a specific subject. There are mountains of published information on this subject, and I would advise anyone who likes to quote the IPCC conclusions to look into it. Michael Mann’s discredited and manipulative “hockey stick” temperature data was only the tip of the iceberg.

7. Finally, as a last piece of advice and caution, I would admonish everyone to “follow the money” when it comes to supporting the current idea that changing climate is caused by human activities. Scientists seeking grants gravitate to where the money is, businesses seeking bigger profits support the public’s current hot button, celebrities seeking attention champion the latest cause, politicians seeking power jump on the latest catastrophe like fleas on a hound (Hillary Clinton is famous for saying, “You should never waste a good crisis”), and individuals who want to make BIG money push anything that will make them a buck.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is a perfect example. It is a way for companies to trade carbon futures to comply with C02 emissions requirements. One company with a modern plant that has a very low carbon footprint that falls below emissions guidelines can sell/trade their excess allowed carbon emissions to older, dirtier plants that can’t meet current regulations. Please note that this doesn’t decrease pollution in the slightest, since both plants are allowed to continue with business as usual – but it does mean that the brokers working for the CCX get a percentage of the value of every trade and every sale, just like stockbrokers on Wall Street. Nothing positive is achieved and no product is created, but the design keeps a LOT of money changing hands while siphoning off a piece of every sale. Who is profiting from this scheme? (Hint: one of them is Al Gore) These are the big money people who want the climate change “crisis” to keep going on and on.


That’s it. In conclusion, there are many, many unknowns about our climate, but half-truths, “the sky is falling” attitudes and selfish interests keep the subject muddied to the point that neither side can claim to have the whole truth or the uncontested answers that we all need.

So to those who choose to be outraged on both sides of the issue, I say “Cool your jets!” Let’s keep exposing self-interest, digging to get the real data instead of politically-influenced press releases and keep a very critical eye on everything we read, especially on an opinionated forum like this.

Its not so complicated if you are paid by the left.

That was a good post czech1022. Thanks.

Excellent treatise czech1022!

By far the best post regarding one of our usual whizzing contest threads!
Thanks for posting this data. It's great to hear from someone who is in the loop, so to speak.
Something natural catastrophe has been gonna kill us ever since I was a kid.
7mm

I appreciate the thoughtful responses.