Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Thoughts on Climate Change. Anyone Willing to Give Opinion?

Enrique:

A bunch of the answers here are right on. I say that from the viewpoint of 30 years as a meteorologist.

Hillary Clinton once said, "Never waste a good crisis". If you look closely at the money trail associated with global warming, you'll see a lot that will make you hesitant to subscribe to the warmer's viewpoint. There are just too many people who hope to profit from it.

There is no doubt that world temperatures have warmed recently (e.g. since the Industrial Revolution). There is no doubt that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have gone up recently. There is also good reason to believe that additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is responsible for some part of that.

The million dollar question is, how MUCH of the observed warming is due to carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere? In a strict technical sense, the answer is: a tiny fraction.

Why climate modelers promise spontaneous combustion of the earth in the next 100 years is because they assume a small increase due to CO2 will trigger other changes that will, when all added up, make a large change in temperature. The problem with that is that they have to make all sorts of assumptions that are little more than wild guesses, resulting in a variety of future temperature scenarios. If you look up the history of global warming forecasts, you'll see they are all over the place.

Meanwhile, several reputable scientists are putting out peer-reviewed research that identifies more than a couple of completely plausible reasons the world warmed up when it did.

Now you're stuck with the question: who do you believe and what do you do about it? Do you panic and spend billions (probably trillions) of dollars cutting down CO2 with the possible result of driving temperatures down a fraction of a degree over 100 years? Do you accept government control over nearly every facet of your life (after all, CO2 is produced by nearly everything you do and nearly everything that is manufactured) for the same fraction of a degree cooling?

Or do you publish the various theories and debate them publicly among scientists worldwide, narrowing the field down to the most likely couple and then do a cost-benefit analysis? Incredibly, it appears no one has thought of this.

Instead, we have carbon credits and a trading system modeled on Wall Street stockbrokers that stand to do multi-million dollar business for not accomplishing anything at all, just trading the credits. Al Gore is a big player in this part of the global warming action, and I seem to remember that Obama was on the board of directors when the whole scheme was initiated.

The EPA has been given the right to treat CO2 as a dangerous chemical, so government dominance over the individual has been extended.

One prominent scientist has publicly announced that any meteorologist who "denies" global warming should lose their job. Anyone thinking of Hitler yet?

Money, power, government control. What a soap opera!

The issue is way, way too big to come to grips with here. I'll just end with this: there is some science backing up the warmer's theories, but there are good scientific reasons to think they may not be right.

All in all, it just amazes me that no one trusts the weatherman to forecast tomorrow's weather, but millions of people think we can tell what is going to happen in the next 100 years!

Wether the weather is changed by man's actions is simply an irrelevant question.

As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest fuels out there, they will be burnt. Granola munchers on the campuses of US and European coastal cities will not convince 1.2 billion Chinese, 800,000 Indians (dot, not feather), and more than a billion other assorted Asians in developing countries to stop burning fuels. Once people can afford it, they will buy energy and make it turn on the lights, heat and cool their houses, their water and their food.

The elite liberal racists want to keep their comforts, and save the world by denying it to "those people". That's just not going to happen. "Those people" like warm houses and cars and refrigerators and electric lights and t.v.s and air travel, too. And they are going to get them from the cheapest available energy source.

What that will do to the climate/weather -- is what is going to happen.

I agree, Dutch. Minus the partisan sniping.

I had to write a research paper on 'global warming' for my first college English class 2 1/2 years ago. The professor was a liberal so I made arguments that global warming is existent. I believe that it is, but I believe that the liberals exaggerate it. The subject for my paper was ticks, and basically I argued that global warming is increasing their population as a whole.

Remember, for this type of assignment the professor has a lot of freedom in the grading. Manipulate their thinking.

Really? Where's the fun in that.....

I made essentially that argument at a Thanksgiving table, Dutch, several years ago and was branded a hater for it. But it's true. It's gettin' burned, all of it, and the consequences will be what they will be.

It's yet another way we are running the train off the tracks. We are DAMN good at that!

Enrique
When in the non science classes in college the most important thing is to talk to your professor and learn his / her biases and viewpoints.
Do yOur research and paper validating their belief system in order to receive a high grade. If you want to really learn enroll in a chemistry, bio, econ, foreogn language, engineering, comp sci or math based class.

And I consider climate change a non science based course of study like psych and sociology.

Well-put and honest answer with no alternative agenda

Sure.

It's all boolchit.

The end.

Climate always has, and always will change. Whether or not carbon levels have anything to do with it is not proven, after much treasure and time spent in trying to prove it so. In any case, IF carbon levels DO drive climate change, the miniscule amount provided by the activities of man are almost insignificant. What IS significant is that the people that produce carbon are also wealthy. Because of that, carbon levels can be used to extract money from those people. Political influence can be manipulated using carbon levels as "justification" for penalties, whether monetary or otherwise. So - what we are left with is that factually, the influence of carbon on temperature rise is NOT supported by the available data. We are inundated with false evidence (repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes truth) to the point where public consensus (without a factual base) trumps science. Grants and other monies available to scientists are coming from the very people who stand to gain from carbon driving temperature levels. The scientists are "cherry picking" facts that on their face, SEEM to support anthropogenic global warming, in order to obtain that treasure. That's what I think.

People are full of themselves. For humans to think that they have any more than a very temporary impact on this planet is hugely presumptuous. In 10,000 you won't even know the place. We barely crawled out of the stone age 100 years ago. 100 years ago most of mankind was still "choppin wood" to get warm and cook supper. Much of the world still is. 100 years in the History of mankind is not even a hiccup. In the History of the Earth, not even a heartbeat. High end estimates are that we can burn up all the hydrocarbons (petroleum) on this planet in 500 years. Still a smidgen and hardly worth the effort at changing the climate of the planet we live on.

We could do our worst and still the Earth would win in the end, and surely it will. With us or without us.

Alan

As I recall some years back , The Data indicated about a 0.7 F Degree increase over the last 100 Years . Past History shows extended Periods of Increase , and extended Periods of Decrease . Some Studies by Lane Nicolas and Osborne indicate that the Suns activity offers a very good explanation of the recent 100 year Increase . I believe the Lane mathematical Model accounts for over 90% of that Increase . Do some Research on this and present your own opinion . Oh , there were significant Periods of Temperature Decreases too : Look into the Maunder Minimum ( about 1700 ) , and the Dalton Minimum ( about 1800 ). These were substantiated by Carbon 14 Data as I recall . For fun , I used to find my Professors special field of activity and point of view , and take the opposite side . And only a few times did it hurt my Grades !

Precisely. This is the "ethics" part--if you were to concede that global warming is happening, is manmade, and is caused by burning fossil fuels, what should you or I do about it? Ethics is all about doing the right thing, after all.

Given Dutch's observations, the answer is "nothing." Since fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source we have, using them raises our standard of living. If we were to curtail our use of them here in the US, they'll still be burned, the only difference will be that we'll have a lower standard of living because we'll be using more expensive sources and/or using less cheap, abundant energy.

And the Chinese will buy it, burn it, and prosper.

So, since curtailing our use of fossil fuels won't have the desired effect, it's hard to make the case that it's "doing the right thing" ethically, regardless of whether or not you accept that the climate is warming appreciably due to CO2 from fossil fuels.

There is a small island "nation" in the South Pacific .. the name illudes me now..
some 1000 souls that will need to move soon, as their atoll disapears. They will argue the fact with you.
Warming or cooling, it is climate change.

It will be 70+ degrees in Ohio all week.
Not like any March I can remember..?

I need to get spring pre-emergent on the lawn. quickly!

LOL. Got a link to your favorite kool aid drinker? Typical Jeff O logic - I believe cause it fits my mindset.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon and we can do nearly nothing about it, one way or the other.. Period.

Simple, it has always occurred in cycles as the planet moves in an elliptical orbit around the sun not a steady distance. That and the earths core heats & cools due to sub mantle pressures and venting. Man has NOTHING to do with it and it will continue long after we are gone.

Climate change is a geological fact of life. A basic college course will show you millions of years of changes. From ice to water, from tropical to desert, it all changes. Some of these cataclysmic changes killed off large population groups of animals and plants. To think that man can control the forces on Earth and in the universe is idiotic.

Climate models are extremely limited in their parameters and cannot account for variables that are very hard to measure much less factor in, eg. cloud cover and water vapor.

The sun is the energy source for much of what Earth has to offer. Witness the Maudner Minimums and its affect.

I ask you this. Why is it that the man made kool aid drinkers all have the same political persuasion? Why is every solution result in a higher cost, less convenience and a step back in lifestyle? No, this is a pseudo-religion based on political ideologies. This is behavioral modification because a group of people do not like modern lifestyles.

Anthropogenic global warming is a trojan horse made to grow government , raise taxes and control your life. I vigorously claim - bullcrap!