Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Anthropogenic Climate Change, Or Not

Even that constant "consensus" claim is complete BS. That "97% of scientists" number they keep bandying about is a total lie. It came about this way: About a decade ago, at a climate conference, almost half the people there said that they thought humans affect climate. At another conference five years later, fewer of them still thought that. How many fewer? About 97% OF THE ORIGINAL LESS THAN HALF.

So it isn't 97% of all climate scientists at all. It's well under half of climatologists who think humans affect climate. And even that is only an opinion, not fact.

Louder! LOUDER!

You aren't convincing yourselves. YELL LOUDER and maybe you will finally start to believe yourself...

Not that that will change the facts.

You mean the fact that not a single climate catastrophe prediction over the past four decades has been right?

Or the fact that every rise in global temperature readings over that same period came from "adjusted" instrument readings? And not once were the numbers ever adjusted down?

Those facts?

Hey Leroy, can you or goosey tell us what the high and low temps(instrument read of course) for any day during the month of July, 1776? How about any month during that year? How about high and low temps for any day from 1800 to 2.5 billion years BP?

Could you enlighten us on the ice extant(sq. miles measured) on either pole for any month before 1964?

Could you compare the CO2 levels now vs those from 200 million years ago...the difference in animal and plant life?

Climate change exists. It always has and it always will. The question is whether or not human activity and, in this case, activity related to technology, contributes to the direction of climate change. In all likelyhood, it does not.
One can not be quite so certain with regards to the effects of human activity in general. Human population is growing exponentially and this population has a direct effect on the ecology of specific areas. There can be little doubt that human meddling in ecologies can have a far reaching effect. When people are burning vast tracts of forest to make room for themselves, that affects more than teir little area. When an African tribe overgrazes an area to the point that it turns into desert, that affects more than that little area.
So, when I fire up the old D-4 to plow the driveway (something which will have to happen today if the snow stops falling), I might be contributing some carbon as the exhaust blows black but I'm not actually affecting the global envirment as much as Jose Silva does when he lights a bunch of Brazilian forest on fire.
The thing is, humans do things which are detrimental to the global environment all the time even when they KNOW the effect is detrimental and make excuses for it. Then, rather than address any real issue, politicians come up with stupid crap like carbon credits and their followers gather round them, bleating joyfully, then go right ahead and do whatever stupid thing it is they do, whether it be overgrazing, overbreeding, or building and heating the big house, and pat themselves on the back for supporting a big lie.
The effects of human activity are real enough but they are seldom immediate or quickly catastrophic. Instead, they are insidious and gradual and, by the time they are evident, momentum makes change difficult. In addition, any corrective action, providing cause and effect can be determined, will be equally gradual.
Of one thing I am certain; it is unlikely little Greta Thunberg (sp?) has a freakin' clue. The one positive thing she can do the help the global environment is, she should not reproduce. In fact, we would probably be better off if her parents had embraced birth control as the cornerstone of their relationship. GD

Kind of like the ozone hole. It was only discovered in '82. There's no way of knowing if it existed at any time in history before that or how big it might have been. NASA talks about it 'recovering' when it's shrinking, but recovering to what? It's not a recovery if it used to be LARGER than what it is now.

Not unreasonable to allow that dumping all that fossil carbon into the air is gonna have SOME effect on climate in the short term.

Which is a long way from presuming anthropogenic global warming to be a fact.

If we can't trust the .govs, who can we trust?

It goes back even further. Sixty years ago, in my elementary school Weekly Reader, climate scientists were predicting a new ice age. That scared me to death, now, not so much.

What scares me now is the very predictable people who are promoting it, and their redistributionist solutions.


Greta Thunberg is a prime example of leftist child abuse, no different than ISIS fighters hiding amongst the kids.

Kind of a poor analogy to climate change.

We kjow what caused the ozone depletion. CFCs caused it. When we stopped making CFCs, the ozone hole recovered.

Prezactly. The lab science tells us there will be effects of CO2, methane and other gases on the atmosphere. The applied scientists and their models have not been able to quantify those effects.

Yes, they have predictions, no, those predictions have not been consistently correct. The system is still too complex to model. That's not to say there is no effect of human activity, but it's also not to say the effect of human activity is significant compared to other variables in the system.

Once you accept that human activity is just one variable, the whole "scientific consensus" thing is a house of cards.

Actually, it's a GREAT analogy. Science found a problem, Science figured out what caused it. Politics and .gov fixed it. Pretty damn simple actually.

It is an interesting problem solving model to follow.

Climate change is real. Been going on since life evolved on our planet.

Anthropomorphic climate change is nothing but social engineering writ large. Politicians trying to use government muscle to take your money and give it to others.

Most of the commentariat poses the question incorrectly. A better, and unusual formulation of the question is this: Is the amount of change that we currently see large enough that it can be distinguished from random variation?

The rule of interpretation is that it is futile to seek an identifiable cause for some change, if the change can easily be explained by normal random variation.

Or, if you prefer: Once we account for changes in the sun's activity, eccentricity in Earth's orbit, and such, is the variation that is left over enough to be distinguishable from normal random variation? I've never seen anything that satisfies me that it is.

There was a time that I was doing a lot of digging and historical analysis of temperature data, since I don't trust other people's analysis very much. But now, I can't even do that since the data is being systematically distorted to suit an agenda.

I wonder if the Australian Fires or Taal Volcano erupts are incorporated in the man-made emissions issue?

The fires alone have freed up 400 megatons from the earth to the atmosphere and the volcano has sent steam and ash up to 55,000 feet.

The fires alone will account for 3/4 of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions for 2019 and the fire season has a couple months to go.

There, fixed it for you

Excellent...can I borrow this?