Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The EPA Uses the Wrong Climate Models to Maintain the SCOTUS Endangerment Finding!

And please don't keep using that oft-refuted "97% of scientists agree" crap. That figure came from a single paper that agonizingly twisted facts and figures to present an almost completely imaginary conclusion. That number was a deliberate misrepresentation of an overview of 11,944 papers from peer-reviewed journals. More than sixty-six percent expressed NO OPINION on the matter; the 97% number refers ONLY to the minority who did, and even that is disputed. The authors of the overview emailed the papers’ 29,083 authors, ONLY 4% OF WHOM RESPONDED AT ALL. Many of the authors identified as endorsing the “consensus” later spoke out to say the overview had misrepresented their position. You should read the Forbes article that completely destroys that 97% contention.

What's that old saying, "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it"? Apparently the left have passed that lie around to each other often enough that it has become a mantra, regardless of a total lack of truth.

In reality (and I know you're probably not interested in this), CO2 has nearly no influence on worldwide temperatures. And as hard as it may be to believe, the earth actually has slightly higher chances of extended cold temperatures (read as: "mini ice age") than warmer.

Yet the left continue to hype "green" technology and global policing of energy use and production at trillions of dollars of cost, even though it's been consistently estimated that these policies will have almost no effect on global CO2 or climate.

The really smart question is, what are the economic and political results of these policies? Without question, the major effect of policies to reduce carbon emissions is higher energy costs and lower reliability of energy supplies, particularly electricity.

If we pursue left-leaning climate policies, the resulting higher energy costs and lower energy reliability (and surprisingly enough, damage to the environment from "green" energy sources) will spur more government control and unending calls for MORE SPENDING.

You know, there are somewhat believable people out there that speculate both of our world wars were provoked by people who stood to make enormous fortunes providing the equipment needed to wage war.

Perhaps this is the next scam designed to do the same thing without the millions of lives lost and wholesale destruction of infrastructure that would cripple their income-producing industries.

I just read, "affordable energy and personal freedom go largely hand-in-hand". I couldn't agree more.

Total control of energy use and energy production can only be maintained by a totalitarian world government, and the only ones to profit from that aren't you and me.

New York City is supposed to be underwater.Global warming isnt working.

Dammit people no facts please. You confuse 40 percent of the population when you use facts. Edk

Your 25 year conclusions are specious. A 25 year period of time is a nanosecond in the paleoclimate history. There are small variances within large trends
which can mask what really is happening. We gauge these debates on the average expectancy of a human life - which leads to erroneous conclusions.

Here in the high desert, the nighttime temps are normally about 30F lower than the daytime temps. You guys in the humid south know that the variation is more like 5 to 10 degrees there. Water vapor in the air is highly variable but it averages about 10 times more than CO2. Water vapor holds in much more heat that CO2 but it can't be controlled, therefore there's no money or power in politicizing it.

In a nutshell.

I am convinced that a large number of people are very content in having others in charge of their lives.

Hey Goosey, why don't you tell us all about some of the so called scientist and their dire predictions that have come to be. You know like Al Gore's prediction about the polar bears all dieing off, or how about that guy that had the hockey stick "earth temp" prediction, or how some predicted that ocean levels would rise several feet by now, and here in just 11.5 years, will we see the end of the earth, according to your hero AOC? And if you need more dire predictions that haven't come true, I'll find a few more for ya.

All these dire predictions and NONE have come true. NONE even close.

I didn't listen to the interview. So, what is the correct model that should be used?

The Russian model is the closest to what has actually occurred. Ed k

Bingo. A 25 or even 50 year trend is statistically insignificant on the glacial time scale. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Periods were just variations within the current Holocene Interglacial.

Over the last 400K years for which we have good data C02 increase has followed temperature increase by about 200 years, not the other way around. Anthropomorphic C02 is the not the primary driver in climate change. It is simply the only once governments can tax.

I personally am ready to be informed by FACTS, not fed manipulated estimates to further someone's agenda. The principles of scientific evaluation of the actual data to form the basis of adjusting the models to match the OBSERVED DATA must be the only way the climate models are developed. Currently, it's clear that the models are full of assumptions, possibly politically motivated, that drive the models to predict outcomes far from observed data which in scientific circles makes the models wrong by definition.

If there are 32 climate models used by various countries and 31 of them predicted wildly different results than the observed data, that very much disturbs me as public policy affecting billions of people are based on these faulty models. I'm not saying that the climate isn't warmer than 200 years ago; it is, however, 200 years ago we were in an acknowledged 'mini ice age' according to the scientific data.

I don't say that we ignore necessary pollution controls or excessive emissions, however, we have to decide what is necessary and what is excessive scientifically, not to further one's agenda. I say we task the scientific community to a real scientific evaluation of the actual data (not assumption biased, tweaked data), come up with scientifically fact supported conclusions, perform a rigorous peer review of the conclusions, and only after the entire scientific community has done a rigorous review, publish the result to the world. Then the policy makers and heads of industry will have the real, trusted data with which to make legitimate policy and business decisions.

This politicizing of scientific data to further one's agenda is wrong at it's very core, whatever side of the debate one is on.

Over the last 400K years for which we have good data C02 increase has followed temperature increase by about 200 years, not the other way around.

Not sure how they collected data from 400K years ago but, assuming they did and it is accurate, that is still only a blip of time in relation to the age of the earth. Certainly not enough time on which to base generalizations such as the earth is warming or cooling.

Is climate change real? I think the climate is constantly changing, warming and cooling. Is man responsible? Possibly to some extent but not nearly as responsible as natural forces like severe storms, earthquakes, volcanoes and such. I do think man is responsible for a large amount of the pollution of our natural resources and that is a larger problem than global climate change. The United States and other first world industrialized nations have reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to controlling pollution. Third world industrialized nations like China, Russia, Vietnam, Korea, India and Pakistan are the bigger culprits that need to be addressed. Until that happens I am not concerned how much emissions my lawn mower generates.

It's weird how scientists can all agree humans are causing global warming, but among the general public (eg, dopes) opinion closely correlates with one's political party.

It's clearly not about the science as far as the public is concerned. It's just about what they happen to agree with.

In this case, the Democrat position supports the scientists, and Republicans cherry-pick and turn a blind eye:




NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT OF SCIENTISTS

If you want an additional glimpse of just how messed up the whole climate change racket is, get a copy of Mark Steyn's book titled "A Disgrace To The Profession". It goes through the details of all of the machinations, data massaging, and data manipulation necessary to generate the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph. And Al Gore rode it all the way to the bank...

Red line is relatively flat and stable while the blue line obviously continues to drink the blue Kool-Aid... Nothing we didn't already know...

It is a made up story to remove money from conservative pockets. If real sornos would pay to stop it.

There has been 5 or so ice ages for the planet. The last one was about 11,000 years or so ago. I covered most of Canada and about the entire northern half of the US. When it melted, it created the Great Lakes.

What caused these ice ages to retreat/melt - were the cavemen riding around in SUV’s?

The effect of propaganda on y'all is sad. I sit in meetings with EPA climate change banner wavers. I'm not sure they 100% believe in it themselves. That's not the point. The point is to have a battle flag to rally people around to move forward with an environmental preservation agenda. If you talk facts, figures and sense your audience loses interest. If you create a bogeyman, they'll fight for you and foot the bill.

The bogeyman, of course, is used by their opponents to also rally an opposing force. That'd be the deniers. The interesting part is many of deniers are outdoorsmen. We outdoorsman generally care more about the environment than so-called environmentalists who simply wear it as fashion to advance a pathetic career in bureaucracy.

We're all on the same side. The things you would do to address climate change are the same things you should do to preserve the environment; even if climate change as described by proponents does not exist.

Why is this a problem? Only if EPA goes unchecked in harassing people for lack of anything left to do. That's not a climate change isse. That's an overgrown government funded by an overtaxed citizenry, the which is grown by the duopoly. This of course comes back to an electorate too distracted fighting one another over nonsense like climate change to vote against and defund the real problem; big government.

You're fighting yourselves.