Climate Change Anyone?

That may be so. I expect the majority of us - outdoorsmen in particular, and humankind in general - agree that we ought to be good stewards for our world. The devil is in the details, as always, and folks like Miss Occasio-Cortez do more harm than good with their rhetoric. It is easy for those of us with a particular political bent to seize upon such remarks as stereotypical and then use them to dismiss the entire issue.

In the big picture, there is a worthwhile discussion to be had. The loud folks from both sides have made it nearly impossible.
 

George P

Well-known member
Selena, if you want to talk about sustainable food production, we can do that. But I know you don't. What you want, is to be right. Yet you don't provide any evidence on your stance other than anecdotal hearsay, and have ignored most of my questions, preferring to pivot instead to some generalized concept or other for which you still provide no evidence.

If you want to call me names, go ahead. Science is not a religion. The conclusions reached by an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are based on data and facts. And it seems that rather than try to understand the data or how the scientists arrived at their conclusions, you'd prefer to stick your head in the sand.
Actually, most of those "scientists" are being paid to back up the agenda of the NWO folks. Amazing how the left MSM silences real scientists who actually have degrees in these fields and have done the research.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Actually, most of those "scientists" are being paid to back up the agenda of the NWO folks.
Sure they are George. And so am I. Oh, and the world is really flat. But sshh! don't tell anyone. We're still trying to keep that one under wraps, even though people seem to have noticed there's no curve when they look out their window.
 

George P

Well-known member
You are free to blindly follow those who would control every minute of your life. I'll choose a different path. There have been enough legitimate scientists debunking the fakes. The Earth regulates itself quite nicely and regularly. Explain how paying a huge fee to Al Gore reverses climate change?
Perhaps you remember every decade going back 50 years where some catastrophic prediction about ozone, climate, polar ice caps, pollution yadda, yadda, yadda said the world was going to end if we didn't stop and make our country into some third world nation...........
 

WrongHanded

Active member
You are free to blindly follow those who would control every minute of your life. I'll choose a different path. There have been enough legitimate scientists debunking the fakes. The Earth regulates itself quite nicely and regularly. Explain how paying a huge fee to Al Gore reverses climate change?
Perhaps you remember every decade going back 50 years where some catastrophic prediction about ozone, climate, polar ice caps, pollution yadda, yadda, yadda said the world was going to end if we didn't stop and make our country into some third world nation...........
Do you have a list of those "legitimate" scientists, and the "fakes" they debunked? I'd like to see that list.

I'm looking at the data George. Or is that "fake" too? If so, where's all the "real" data? Are you going to tell me some entity out there is so powerful that no one else can successfully publish independent studies?

As I've said before in this thread, I don't care about predictions from the past or where they originated. I care about the data I can see, and the direction the climate has gone in (and therefore the trend we are on).
 

Selena

Member
As I've said before in this thread, I don't care about predictions from the past or where they originated. I care about the data I can see, and the direction the climate has gone in (and therefore the trend we are on).
And thus we have the "climate conscious" mindset. The destination is irrelevant only the direction... Kind of like that old couple that Fastball sang about... Where were they going without even knowing the way.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
And thus we have the "climate conscious" mindset. The destination is irrelevant only the direction... Kind of like that old couple that Fastball sang about... Where were they going without even knowing the way.
Nothing puts me in my place like a pop-culture reference. What's your point exactly? The destination should be a climate that can sustain all the life currently inhabiting the planet. The direction over the last 140 years is not that of a sustainable destination.

That is a good song though.
 

ZeeM

New member
In the whole debate over CO2, people are forgetting one undeniable fact. Burning fossil fuel releases toxic gases. That's bad for people and bad for the environment.
 
We are about a decade from turning petrochemicals from the primary fuel source to primarily an industrial feed stock.
This is not the time to freak out about global warming... unless you're a global warming freak or a globalist.
-And yes, "climate scientists" have been changing the past weather records to make the past seem cooler in order to make the present seem warmer. All that you have to do is compare archived NASA weather stats to the current "corrected" ones... .
 

WrongHanded

Active member
We are about a decade from turning petrochemicals from the primary fuel source to primarily an industrial feed stock.
This is not the time to freak out about global warming... unless you're a global warming freak or a globalist.
-And yes, "climate scientists" have been changing the past weather records to make the past seem cooler in order to make the present seem warmer. All that you have to do is compare archived NASA weather stats to the current "corrected" ones... .
NASA is one of the organizations saying climate change is happening and is manmade. Their data is some of what I've been looking at. So where is this "inflated" historical data at exactly? Who's pushing this false data? I seriously doubt all temperature data online is somehow "changed".
 

Selena

Member
Nothing puts me in my place like a pop-culture reference. What's your point exactly? The destination should be a climate that can sustain all the life currently inhabiting the planet. The direction over the last 140 years is not that of a sustainable destination.

That is a good song though.

Since you only care about direction you have idea none what the end point will be. Appreciating the journey is all very zen but - if you will forgive another "pop reference" the road to damnation is paved with good intentions.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Since you only care about direction you have idea none what the end point will be. Appreciating the journey is all very zen but - if you will forgive another "pop reference" the road to damnation is paved with good intentions.
That's a false narrative, and you know it. I understand you don't have any facts or evidence on your side, but attacking me won't get you anywhere.

When looking at a graph of global average temperatures, it's obvious that the temperature has been increasing since the late 1800s. A graph showing manmade fossil fuel based carbon emissions shows the same thing. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is measurable in parts per million. Historical (based on paleo data from multiple sources) we should be at around 280ppm at our current stage of the Milankovitch Cycles. We're actually at around 412ppm. The difference is measurable as being created by fossil fuel burning due to the type of carbon molecules. Science proves the excess is us. Science also proves carbon dioxide blocks radiant heat more effectively than other common gases in the atmosphere. 9 or the 10 hottest years in record have occurred since 2005. The planet is getting warmer. We're seeing the effects of that in the form of natural disasters. I don't know how much more obvious it can be.

But if you really want to know what I think the destination will look like, should humankind continue on our current trajectory, it would be this. Drought, famine, destruction, wars over resources, and ultimately the extinction of many of earth's species of flora and fauna (possibly including humans). I don't think that's in the near future, but I do think it could get to that point eventually if we don't make some changes.

What I see in the near future is more rise in sea levels (did you know glacial ice shelves are breaking loose? Even in the Antarctic). I see more droughts, floods, wildfires due to arid conditions, reduced crop yields, tropical storms and hurricanes. It's all fine to ignore what's happening somewhere else. But when your life starts getting negatively affected, you might feel differently.

I'm sure this is all falling in deaf ears when it comes to you. So how about another witty pop culture reference before you go back to sticking your head in the sand.
 

Selena

Member
What I see in the near future is more rise in sea levels (did you know glacial ice shelves are breaking loose? Even in the Antarctic). I see more droughts, floods, wildfires due to arid conditions, reduced crop yields, tropical storms and hurricanes. It's all fine to ignore what's happening somewhere else. But when your life starts getting negatively affected, you might feel differently.

I'm sure this is all falling in deaf ears when it comes to you. So how about another witty pop culture reference before you go back to sticking your head in the sand.
At least... that is what the models that you claim you don't care about show. The models predicted a devastating drought for the Midwest the year we were pumping out drain tile. I deal in realities not faith based fantasy such as global warming scenarios. When you find a model at actually proves your theories you will have a case. Until then... Bless your heart.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
At least... that is what the models that you claim you don't care about show. The models predicted a devastating drought for the Midwest the year we were pumping out drain tile. I deal in realities not faith based fantasy such as global warming scenarios. When you find a model at actually proves your theories you will have a case. Until then... Bless your heart.
Selena, I never said I don't care about models. I said I don't care about apocalyptic claims made by unidentified (in this thread) sources from past decades. Please don't twist what I say. It's rude and petty, at the very least.

I've already been through my understanding of how difficult modeling is. It's up thread, if you'd care to read it which I'm sure you don't. It amazes me how people such as yourself, who would rather ignore the data and deny climate science than accept some responsibility, are quite happy to put thoroughly unrealistic demands on "them" about what you wish to have predicted and how accurately. And I think you do it so that you can then say "Well if you can do that, then it's not real!" And happily continue to ignore reality. Kinda like that song you quoted. The Way, by Fastball.

Ironic that you would bring up a song about people abandoning their responsibilities and future generations to live in the good times which they foolishly believe will last forever, and ignore the future they believe will never come. Maybe you should read the lyrics again.

No need for you to "bless my heart" so condescendingly. The Force is strong in you. And by Force, I mean the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Provide some evidence or stop wasting my time.
 

Selena

Member
Selena, I never said I don't care about models. I said I don't care about apocalyptic claims made by unidentified (in this thread) sources from past decades. Please don't twist what I say. It's rude and petty, at the very least.

{snip}

No need for you to "bless my heart" so condescendingly. The Force is strong in you. And by Force, I mean the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Provide some evidence or stop wasting my time.

You are the one making the claims, not I. You are the one making apocalyptic claims and TEOTWAWKI... Yet you claim it's up to me to prove you wrong? So yes, it is necessary to bless your heart... To keep from saying rude comments and delving into the logical fallacies you employ.

As for my quals to comment, overestimated or not... What I've seen of the question since I was a child has been wealth redistribution as the answer. I've seen panic over everything from hiccups to bovine flatulence. And I've seen a lot of models that have failed miserably. But still there are the hens screaming the sky is falling coming up with "solutions" that don't make it past the long term.
 
Last edited:

Magnum

Well-known member
You are the one making the claims, not I. You are the one making apocalyptic claims and TEOTWAWKI... Yet you claim it's up to me to prove you wrong? So yes, it is necessary to bless your heart... To keep from saying rude comments and delving into the logical fallacies you employ.
That's why I stopped responding to this thread, simple logic that can be applied to anything is not being observed , there's an emotional element that is clouding judgment. Forget models, graphs, opinions and everything that's presented as proof for either side of this conversation and look at hard facts that can't be denied or debated. Something clear and easy like : when were temperature records set in your particular area? - this info was quickly dismissed as ignorant but it's about the hardest and most unarguable data we have- don't care what numbers some one wants to claim, look at real data.
Screenshot_20201018-062730.png

- that's from the .gov site. If we were talking about something real here every year would be a new record , hotter or colder or something. Every year harsher conditions. Every year more extreme . not the case here. Don't speculate about this or that, examine real data that can be proven , not some individuals emotional response to "we're all gonna die! " .

-that's the last I'll say on this , not trying to be rude or insulting just presenting facts that can't be twisted to meet an acceptable result. Can't dance around reality no matter how many studies or charts are presented. Facts don't care about charts or opinions .

I'm out, enjoy debating with someone who has emotional ties to a premise that was developed to push a narrative ;)
 
Last edited:

WrongHanded

Active member
You are the one making the claims, not I. You are the one making apocalyptic claims and TEOTWAWKI... Yet you claim it's up to me to prove you wrong? So yes, it is necessary to bless your heart... To keep from saying rude comments and delving into the logical fallacies you employ.

As for my quals to comment, overestimated or not... What I've seen of the question since I was a child has been wealth redistribution as the answer. I've seen panic over everything from hiccups to bovine flatulence. And I've seen a lot of models that have failed miserably. But still there are the hens screaming the sky is falling coming up with "solutions" that don't make it past the long term.
I have provided evidence that the climate is warming and has been doing since the beginning of the industrial revolution. I have provided evidence that our planet has departed the most recent 100,000 year glacial/inter-glacial cycle. I have provided evidence that manmade carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have a "finger print" which makes them identifiable from carbon dioxide created naturally. I have provided evidence that CO2 emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolutions have increased in a similar trend to average global temperatures. I have provided evidence that at this point in the glacial/inter-glacial cycles, and the Milankovitch Cycles (one is caused by the other) we should have a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but that we actually have much more, and the excess can be quantified through the molecular "finger print" as being the result of human fossil fuel use.

I keep saying the same things, and you keep ignoring what I'm saying. So let's just cut to the chase here. Do you believe the data, or not? Because if you don't believe the data is legitimate, then the conclusions drawn from it, and any predictions that could be made from it, are simply irrelevant.

Do you believe the data?
 

WrongHanded

Active member
That's why I stopped responding to this thread, simple logic that can be applied to anything is not being observed , there's an emotional element that is clouding judgment. Forget models, graphs, opinions and everything that's presented as proof for either side of this conversation and look at hard facts that can't be denied or debated. Something clear and easy like : when were temperature records set in your particular area? - this info was quickly dismissed as ignorant but it's about the hardest and most unarguable data we have- don't care what numbers some one wants to claim, look at real data.
View attachment 732
- that's from the .gov site. If we were talking about something real here every year would be a new record , hotter or colder or something. Every year harsher conditions. Every year more extreme . not the case here. Don't speculate about this or that, examine real data that can be proven , not some individuals emotional response to "we're all gonna die! " .

-that's the last I'll say on this , not trying to be rude or insulting just presenting facts that can't be twisted to meet an acceptable result. Can't dance around reality no matter how many studies or charts are presented. Facts don't care about charts or opinions .

I'm out, enjoy debating with someone who has emotional ties to a premise that was developed to push a narrative ;)
Magnum, if you really believe that every city in every country in the world would need to see higher temperatures every year for global warming to be true, you don't understand global climate at all.

The medieval warm period you were so certain of early in this thread, wasn't present in all regions of the globe. By looking at something "clear and easy" like you're local temperature records, all you are proving is that Chicago is not directly correlating with the global average temperatures. Which is like judging how profitable the McDonald's Company is, by looking at record high and low profit years for only the McDonald's closest to your house.

Or to put it another way, do you measure how good of a shooter you are based on the tightest single group you got in any one year? Or do you take all your shooting for each year into account?

"Simple logic that can be applied to anything is not being observed." This is absolutely correct. And if you were to talk to any meteorologist they would tell you that when it comes to determining how warm or cold a year was in the US, Chicago temperatures are only a small piece of that puzzle.

In point of that fact, do you realize meteorologist are predicting this year's winter (taking into account that we have a La Nina event present) that some areas will be colder than average, whilst others will be about average, and some will be warmer than average? Take a look at NOAA's predictions for the US this winter and you'll see that there's nothing uniform about warmer or cooler climate across the continental US is a single season.

 

Selena

Member
Magnum, if you really believe that every city in every country in the world would need to see higher temperatures every year for global warming to be true, you don't understand global climate at all.

{snip}


Wow, NOAA is showing drought in the desert regions... Smoking gun right there... Drought in Indiana... We call it a dry year and they usually come in threes if my grandfather is to be believed. As for Chicago... perhaps they have just placated the spirit of global warming and have been spared the effects??? Glory be to Algore and the sacred hockey stick...
 
Top