Summit Treestands
Gorbal Hockey vs Science based Science
Community
Contributors to this thread:
slade 15-May-18
JTV 15-May-18
Will 15-May-18
JTV 15-May-18
JTV 15-May-18
JTV 15-May-18
JTV 15-May-18
JTV 15-May-18
JTV 15-May-18
Will 15-May-18
Tonybear61 15-May-18
elk yinzer 15-May-18
JTV 15-May-18
elk yinzer 15-May-18
MT in MO 15-May-18
elkmtngear 15-May-18
JTV 15-May-18
JTV 15-May-18
Trax 15-May-18
woodguy65 15-May-18
TD 16-May-18
K Cummings 16-May-18
Woods Walker 16-May-18
Will 16-May-18
MT in MO 16-May-18
JTV 16-May-18
Bowbender 16-May-18
Salagi 16-May-18
Amoebus 16-May-18
HDE 16-May-18
bigswivle 16-May-18
Bowbender 16-May-18
Woods Walker 16-May-18
IdyllwildArcher 16-May-18
Will 17-May-18
Spike Bull 17-May-18
HDE 17-May-18
woodguy65 17-May-18
MT in MO 17-May-18
Will 17-May-18
MT in MO 17-May-18
Spike Bull 17-May-18
TD 17-May-18
Woods Walker 17-May-18
Woods Walker 17-May-18
Mike in CT 18-May-18
Will 18-May-18
slade 20-May-18
From: slade
15-May-18

slade's Link
"" The situation is reminiscent in many ways of medieval religion. The priests of that time opposed translation of the written scriptures from Latin into the local languages. They believed that only people fully trained in the theology of the time were capable of interpreting the scriptures correctly. They believed it would be highly dangerous to allow non-trained people to have direct access to the word of God because the chances were high that they would get it wrong. They were not backward in applying their peculiarly nasty forms of denigration on those who thought otherwise about the matter.""

From: JTV
15-May-18
I'll answer the 4 questions about MMGW in one word.......... HOAX ...

From: Will
15-May-18
That question is an interesting one. That said, I see it professionally all the time. People become internet "experts" in 3 days of searching and think they understand an issue. The reality is that they are proudly speaking from Dunning and Kruger's first peak - the peak of Mt Stupid. It's an issue I have with "fingertip info". We can learn a lot of "facts" but have no greater contextual awareness to really classify those facts and organize them.

It's an interesting 4 questions and well written article. I do not think AGW is a hoax... and I do think it's more likely than not that "we" have an impact on the planet in many ways, one being changing temperature. But I also dont have enough specific knowledge to really understand the magnitude of change that could occur or the realistic time tables.

There is a ton of science out there that's been accrued. It's not all created to mislead, nor pushed as an agenda of deception.

From: JTV
15-May-18
get off it damn it.... anyone with common sense can see this is a a slight of hand ... IF there is any type of "climate change" it is because of nature and the earth and sun doing what it wants, not because of man.. it happened in the past, it will happen in the future and there isnt crap we humans can do about it ..... this "man made" crap is all for ultimate control of the populace ... the ultimate hatred of mankind

15-May-18
"I do not think AGW is a hoax... and I do think it's more likely than not that "we" have an impact on the planet in many ways"

I agree. I have found that the biggest deniers are the least educated and don't even have opinion based on fact. Mostly it seems like it is people with barely a 6th grade science education.

From: JTV
15-May-18
Least educated my ass .... there many out there with more education than any on here and they refuse to accept "settled" science .. and rightly they should

From: JTV
15-May-18

From: JTV
15-May-18

From: JTV
15-May-18

From: JTV
15-May-18

From: Will
15-May-18

Will's Link
Ok, There are some scientists. Are there scientists who have done research or reviewed research and believe as fervently it's real as those guys do it's fake? Yes. Are there more? Yes. Are they right? We can all look back in 50-100years and decide. If you dont believe it, fine. Happy to agree to disagree.

I'm suspecting only people that think it's real will watch this, but it's a neat video. The guy is not a climate scientist, he's a PhD in micro biology if I recall correctly. He's just amalgamating a bunch of info actual climate scientists have studied.

Maybe, it's wrong. There is always that chance. But hoax or global conspiracy - those ideas percolate enough hot air to speed up AGW ;)...

From: Tonybear61
15-May-18
Least educated my heinie... I started my career collecting air samples on air stacks, water, bio samples at ground level before I switched careers into safety. Even at tech school level then I knew a hoax when I saw it. Now at a upper collegiate and 30 + years work in various capacities its still about proper data collection, correcting for confounders (just the ones you know about) and not developing bias. All of which doesn't exist with some of the global warming faithful. They are lying, many know it and they know it. The ice caps that were supposed to melt by 2009 are still here. Greenland has miles of ice, drill through the core and in the mud below it your find butterfly remenants. The sun controls heat in this solar system, not some puny being who thinks a good idea now to paint the roads white to provide some greenhouse gas , heat protection.

this "man made" crap is all for ultimate control of the populace ..e.g. carbon tax developed by a guy (I'll call him Al) who jets around the planet using fossil fuels, heats his four homes and pool extensively to sell this BS and make himself rich.

From: elk yinzer
15-May-18
You have to have your head up your ass to think we aren't causing climate change. The problem is there aren't economically viable solutions, and the alarmists thinking it is going to cause mass chaos and human extinction are as nuts as JTV.

15-May-18
exactly.

From: JTV
15-May-18
Remarkable how some who believe in the MMCC hoax are so damn gullible ....

From: elk yinzer
15-May-18
Richly ironic statement there bowsite cf king of the biased citation

15-May-18
one of the first life forms on earth (cyanobacteria) changed the climate of the planet completely. Google the great oxygenation catastrophe. If a lowly bacterium could do it why not humans?

From: MT in MO
15-May-18
There's a boatload more bacteria than humans? Just a guess...8^)

Did you know if you took all the ants in the world and weighed them, they would have the same weight as all the humans in the world?

Has nothing to do with global warming, but just another factoid that cannot be checked by anyone, but I did read it on a science site so it must be correct...right?...8^)

Personally, I do know for a fact that humans can have an impact on the environment. I also am sure that humans cause pollution and have been known to destroy entire habitats and bodies of water. I can see this, I can measure this.

What I cannot see or measure is mankind's impact on the climate. As noted above, a bacteria caused one of the largest climate changes known to man. So, what else could be causing the climate to change, assuming it is changing (whatever that means), besides a human influence?

Why are people so determined that it is mankind's fault (assuming a fault needs to be assigned) for climate change to be occurring now when all previous climate changes, and we know there have been many, were due to something else?

From: elkmtngear
15-May-18
I have yet to see a credible graph of the catastrophic "spike" that has supposedly occurred, when laid out over the course of the Earth's history. The last 100 years is a popcorn fart, in the grand scheme of climatic changes.

But, somehow (according to Al Gore, et al), "the Sky is falling", and we have to globally pour money into this "problem", to avoid devastation and catastrophe.

Yeah, when it gets to that level...call me a "denier"...I'm good with it!

From: JTV
15-May-18

From: JTV
15-May-18
I post these because these PHD scientists and experts can explain the global warming hysteria and hoax a lot better than I can ... I I dont want to type a book on this ...

From: Trax
15-May-18
When one side demands that the "debate be over" in science we know it's a hoax. The debate is never over in science. That man has influenced climate you can find some major agreement with in the scientific world. That man is cooking the planet you will find nearly zero agreement with in the scientific world. It is the presentation of the Chicken Little's that is a hoax. That is what is deeply flawed. One thing for sure, the Algorian models have been not just a little wrong now proven over time, they have been WAY off. Dr. Richard Lindzen has even testified before Congress that man in his opinion has influenced climate, but to a negligible amount. In no way can we change it, nor do we need to. We all want a cleaner planet and should strive for it, but only blind and dumb sheep will follow the Chicken Little's.

From: woodguy65
15-May-18
Volcanoes dwarf mans contribution to climate change and they've been around long before we started being "bad"...and yet here we are.

From: TD
16-May-18

TD's Link
We've got one pouring out thousands of metric TONS of sulfur dioxide into the air..... right now, every day. Dozens of volcanoes under the seas. Yet cattle farts will doom mankind...... IF we don't let them take complete control of the energy markets and it's use. THEN...... they will be able to control the climate....... which when extrapolated out is basically what they are saying, mankind can control the earth's climate.

I find it strange how trusting folks are when it's been proven many times the "scientists" have been caught lying about data or intentionally omitting very important data, such as an entire Medieval Warming Period a blink of an eye ago (with zero chance of any man made causes) or pretty much anything that doesn't help their "cause". That is what it has become. A "cause"..... a religion if you will. And they have been VERY disingenuous (to put it kindly) about their evidence as well as their conclusions, predictions that have not only been wrong.... but drastically wrong. Much of their work is not even held open to peer review. Not even debate, just questioning data and methods are met with scorn and threats to those in the field. The politics have far overtaken any hard proven undeniable science.

Science..... Academia mostly..... is in a period of censorship on a great many subjects and levels where once it prided itself on open and honest and free discussion. Now you are shouted down rather than having to prove and defend everyone's positions.

It is so complex.... there are so many holes in their positions, models and studies..... I can understand the frustration. Why not just come out and say it that they really don't have a definitive handle on any of this rather than be proven wrong (or even dishonest) on a near daily basis? And tell those who are demanding their political solution (and the power that goes with it) to go sit down and shut up. But it seems those are the very people driving the "science".

From: K Cummings
16-May-18
I thought the analogy made in the video JTV posted (Climate Scientists Laugh At Global Warming Hysteria) was quite interesting.

The global warming debate is like a court case where only the prosecution is funded.

That’s something that even non scientists like me can understand.

KPC

From: Woods Walker
16-May-18
Climate change "science" is based on computer models, which are as accurate/inaccurate as the people that create the model. They can make a computer model that would show beyond all reason of doubt that in a week you will grow a third arm. I don't know about you, but I'd wait a bit before I go buy new clothes.

The climate's been changing for over 4 billion years, LONG before we even existed. Warming and cooling cycles have been going on since recorded history and before if you study geology. It will continue to change long after we're gone. Should we keep our "house" clean? Absolutely. But to say that we are causing hurricanes and tornadoes is pure gibberish designed by politicians to have more control over us and to take even more of our money.

16-May-18
"The climate's been changing for over 4 billion years, LONG before we even existed. Warming and cooling cycles have been going on since recorded history and before if you study geology. It will continue to change long after we're gone. Should we keep our "house" clean? Absolutely"

That's pretty much what I'm saying....I am personally trying to be low impact everywhere possible. It isn't good what is happening to the planet. You can't hardly find the top of a mountain anymore that doesn't have a beer can on it. I will be floating an Ozark river starting Friday morning fishing for trout and smallmouth. This is a river with no outfitters and no human traffic to speak of, especially this early in the year......but I will bet that I come to the end of the 14 miles on Sunday with an extra trash bag full of stuff I didn't bring.

From: Will
16-May-18
Climate change is also based on hard evidence collected via analysis of things like the earth's geology and glaciers among other things. Not just modeling.

There are rare scenario's in research where things are "perfect". The reality is that they are proven "more likely than not"... The degree to which may be noted via statistical power, but beyond that, 100% proof is rare. Once some research is done, it's value is impacted by replication. The more studies which repeat that question and find the same outcome, the better. It's hard to say that a lot of climate change questions have been asked, and answered repeatedly, without acknowledging that a lot of that info suggests we play a role, and there will be an impact of some sort. Questions beyond that - what do we do about it, etc... Who knows?

When scientists use hyperbole to describe something like climate change having a human influence and potentially significant impacts, like saying "there is no debate", they are trying to broadly note that there is a lot of evidence in one direction. That's it.

Is there evidence in a neutral direction or "no change" direction. Sure. Why is that evidence from the scientific community 100% perfect, infallible and beyond reproach while evidence suggesting the rate of change lately (so to speak) is not just bogus, but poor science and a giant conspiracy designed to alter the geopolitics of the world (I embellish).

It's just curious to me. whenever I talk about this subject with folks who disagree - fine, there is some evidence pointing another way, and if people believe that that evidence is better, cool, we can agree to disagree, go hunting and enjoy roasting some venison over a camp fire and have a great time - but it's always curious to me, that there is zero wiggle room. Zero acceptance that if research on one side of an issue is smothered in bogus work and outcomes... then the research with similar claims on the opposite side of an issue, is going to be just as bogus.

From: MT in MO
16-May-18
I am completely onboard with regard to cleaning up after ourselves and striving to be as 'clean' as we can. I remember the stories about Lake Erie catching fire due to the pollution. I remember 3 Mile Island. Acid rain, the garbage dump in the middle of the Pacific (my brother has actually seen that in person and had to change course to make sure his sail boat didn't get fouled up in it).

These are the things that people can understand and see. These are the things that most reasonable and responsible people are willing to address and try to find solutions for.

When the Climate Change alarmists keep going off about stuff that no one can really see or feel, things that people just have to take 'their' word for, and these things are accompanied by blind panic, plans to alter the world economies and the way people live their lives and other doomsday scenarios, many reasonable people don't respond to that.

From: JTV
16-May-18
Heck, the "weatherman" cant even predict the wind correctly 7-10 days out so I can plan where I'll sit during deer season, and yet I'm suppose to believe these other "predictors" .... nah, I'm way wiser than that ...

From: Bowbender
16-May-18
So we have a data set of 4 billion points, each point being a year. And we are to assume that the sample set of the last 200 points is proof positive of AGW? If a process engineer or manufacturing engineer came to me with that as proof that our mfg process needs changed NOW, we would be having a conversation.

From: Salagi
16-May-18

Salagi's Link

If I've embedded it correctly, here is a pretty good video I show the kids when we talk about climate change.

There is no doubt in my mind that at least in my neck of the woods, the winters are warmer than when I was a kid which were warmer than when my father was a kid. However, I have my doubts about the cause being primarily man made.

16-May-18

Straight —» Arrow's Link
Interesting article on that very subject just last week Salagi. Very long cycles......

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/05/07/milankovitch-cycles-deep-time/

From: Amoebus
16-May-18
Bowbender - why do you think there is only 200 years worth of data?

From: HDE
16-May-18
"Heck, the "weatherman" cant even predict the wind correctly 7-10 days out..."

I can. All I have to do is plan to drop the boat in the water and if you really want an accurate prediction, I'll plan to use the pontoon. ;^)

From: bigswivle
16-May-18
It's amazing how my house is always 72degrees. Miracle of nature I tell ya!!!

From: Bowbender
16-May-18
"Bowbender - why do you think there is only 200 years worth of data?"

I don't. But it seems the other 3,999,999,800 years don't matter to the AGW cultists.

From: Woods Walker
16-May-18

Woods Walker's embedded Photo
All Said And Done, THIS Is What It Comes Down To
Woods Walker's embedded Photo
All Said And Done, THIS Is What It Comes Down To

16-May-18
Is there a case to be made that the debate doesn't really matter because fossil fuels are a finite and limited resource and as conservatives, doesn't it make sense to conserve some for future generations instead of burn them all up in 100 years? Everything we burn goes into the atmosphere that we, our children, and wildlife breath.

That's enough case for me that we should be pursuing renewable sources of energy and pushing for things like better fuel efficiency in our cars. It drives me nuts to hear about guys purposefully burning tires on Earth Day and reveling in their gas-guzzlers, just to spite the other side. And a lot the people who do these types of things are supposedly Christians... If Jesus were in front of you, what would he think about your burning tires to spite your liberal neighbors?

I want fossil fuels to be available for my grandchildren and their children for their entire lives and beyond. I also want them to have clean air and water.

It's also a national security issue. We should be pushing for technology and lowering our fossil fuel use for so many other reasons than carbon emissions, that it's almost a smoke screen, yet, fought tooth and nail by so many just because carbon emissions are the cause celebre of the left.

From: Will
17-May-18
Well said Idyllwildarcher. I'd add as well, that as hunters, and outdoors people, we literally, are the most economically powerful single conservation "group" in the US. Our heritage created the idea of conservation. WE need clean air and waters to do what we love and want those things for future generations.

At worst, if Climate Change believers are wrong, we help create a cleaner environment which is good for outdoors folks like all of us.

17-May-18
Agree with Trax, TD, and Salagi, am9ng others.

I remember being very interested in the articles about Jim Hanson and the coming ice age. It was mid-1970s in Time and Newsweek magazines and i was studying geomorphology in college at the time.

That is the same Jim Hanson who, about a decade later, then claimed we were going to boil over!

All of the chicken little's many disaster claims over the following decades have ALL proven to be false.

That should be our first clue. NONE of their disasters have materialized.

AGW is a flat out a hoax. Do we have some small effect? Most likely, but no one can prove what it is or how large/small it is. Some do guess and call that factual data.

Global warming is a complete unknown because it changes via lots of little ups and downs that look important today but may not mean much over the long term and, underline this, we have so little data that we dont even know where we are in the long term cycle! That is correct, we dont know if we are in a little cooling period on a generally warming earth or in a warming period on a generally cooling earth.

Climate change is a fact or I would be sitting under a glacier a few miles thick right now.

All in all, the single largest factor by many many times is the sun. Solar flares are HUGE factors and the chicken littles do their absolute best to keep any info about them hidden while promoting their power and money grabbing scheme.

From: HDE
17-May-18
And today on Foxnews.com, the introduction of the Mastodon (aka Wooly Mammoth) will put a stop to climate change.

From: woodguy65
17-May-18
"At worst, if Climate Change believers are wrong, we help create a cleaner environment which is good for outdoors folks like all of us."

No at worse you take away jobs, stifle economic growth, slow the economy and make the cost of housing, cars, household products dramatically increase for low income and middle class people!

From: MT in MO
17-May-18
woodguy65 is correct. That's the problem with these folks who just want to do something because it might help...they don't know what it might help or how it might help, but in their minds, because they are doing whatever it is for the betterment of the environment it is ok, even if it has zero effect on the environment and does nothing but cause grief and expense...Kind of like passing just one more gun law to fight 'gun crime'...

From: Will
17-May-18
Is the reverse also ultimately true Woodguy65 and MT in MO? Maybe not for me or for you, or our kids... but ultimately, the reverse seems just as true.

What if, as new tech/ideas/industry evolved which created a cleaner environment, people embraced growing into new fields and took on jobs in those emerging markets?

Say CC/AGW is not real and those of us who believe are sheeple... But we now have a lingering sector of fossil fuel driven energy jobs and we have a growing and evolving sector of jobs helping create independence from that market? Seems a sensible long term approach that could help our grandkids and their grandkids.

Is the only way to sustain a solid economy to suspect CC/AGW is BS, and to block any effort to work towards more environmentally friendly energy production methods?

From: MT in MO
17-May-18
No one is arguing that we should not try to live clean. What I am arguing against are gov't sponsored mandates to do something/anything just so those who believe in man made climate change can feel good.

17-May-18
And the rest of us can be raped to pay for it.

From: TD
17-May-18
Oh....... and "carbon taxes" don't forget about the taxes..... money and power. Energy is money. The leftist push for near all of this is about the "old money" (power) they resent and they (the new money) want it.

Look at the Obama administration and the blatant attempt to bankrupt coal and oil and at the same time pay out to his buddies and prop them up. Literally picking the winners and losers. That didn't work out very well for them... or us. Those he picked took the fed money and ran..... "Energy costs must necessarily skyrocket...." that was a large part of the foundation of his plan to "fundamentally change America".

From: Woods Walker
17-May-18
The man caused climate change dogma is the new communism, no more, no less. It's just a damn shame that they've high jacked a perfectly good cause to promote their BS.

From: Woods Walker
17-May-18

Woods Walker's embedded Photo
Woods Walker's embedded Photo

From: Mike in CT
18-May-18
Will,

I understand the point you're trying to make and in theory (on the upside of clean, renewable energy), I agree that's the best course for the long term. I strongly suspect no one here would argue against that; what's being argued against, and justifiably so, is the current proposed new paradigm in which despite being propped up by subsidies the alternatives are simply not economically viable and worse, as alluded to above are job-killing, economy stifling proposals that only serve the pretense of moving towards meaningful, positive change.

What's needed is an all-inclusive strategy, one that continues to make use of current energy sources while maintaining cost-effectiveness and making sound investments in workable alternatives with only upside and no negative impact to jobs, the economy, etc.

Wind & solar have a place but they are not, nor will they ever be the panacea some ascribe them to be. I'm happy to see more money is being funneled into nuclear fusion, a much more viable option for the long term in my opinion.

Lastly, I'd avoid any conflating of CC and AGW; the two are in fact two very different concepts. Climate change is real and has and will always continue to occur. AGW on the other hand is a theory about man-made climate change; looking at the "evidence" on both sides I remain convinced that the greater weight of science-based claims favor the "deniers".

Denying a flawed theorem does not make one a nay-sayer nor does it follow you can ascribe their motivation to being in the pocket of Big Oil; for many in that camp their position has been arrived at by doing what all participants in this argument should be doing; challenging the science until it is undeniably proven to be valid.

Thanks for adding to the discussion.

From: Will
18-May-18
Mike, Love your points. Especially this one: "What's needed is an all-inclusive strategy, one that continues to make use of current energy sources while maintaining cost-effectiveness and making sound investments in workable alternatives with only upside and no negative impact to jobs, the economy, etc."

Couldn't agree more!

I do believe the evidence suggests we are impacting the rate of change in the climate... whether there really is anything we can do to alter course, or if the rate really is going to be as impact-full as some do or do not believe... Ultimately I dont think anyone can be certain there.

Ultimately, the question becomes at what point is the science considered valid... And given the politicized nature of this discussion on a global level... Can that ever really occur?

Thanks for the interesting ideas!

From: slade
20-May-18
So Much Winning! Earth Has Cooled Half a Degree Since Trump Election (VIDEO)

  • Sitka Gear