A good quick read. Warning.
General Topic
Contributors to this thread:
soccern23ny 29-Nov-21
Jaquomo 29-Nov-21
txhunter58 29-Nov-21
Jaquomo 29-Nov-21
LINK 29-Nov-21
Jaquomo 29-Nov-21
[email protected] 29-Nov-21
Knifeman 29-Nov-21
Jaquomo 29-Nov-21
soccern23ny 29-Nov-21
Coyote 65 29-Nov-21
Jaquomo 29-Nov-21
drycreek 29-Nov-21
soccern23ny 29-Nov-21
txhunter58 29-Nov-21
Jaquomo 29-Nov-21
[email protected] 29-Nov-21
Z Barebow 30-Nov-21
Vonfoust 30-Nov-21
longsprings 30-Nov-21
elkmtngear 30-Nov-21
DiRTY MiKE 30-Nov-21
Jaquomo 30-Nov-21
Bowbender 30-Nov-21
pav 30-Nov-21
ND String Puller 30-Nov-21
TD 30-Nov-21
stealthycat 01-Dec-21
PECO 01-Dec-21
Jaquomo 01-Dec-21
HDE 01-Dec-21
Bowbender 01-Dec-21
Stix 01-Dec-21
Jaquomo 01-Dec-21
KSflatlander 01-Dec-21
[email protected] 01-Dec-21
KSflatlander 01-Dec-21
[email protected] 01-Dec-21
HDE 01-Dec-21
Hessticles 01-Dec-21
12yards 02-Dec-21
elkmtngear 02-Dec-21
bigswivle 02-Dec-21
Jaquomo 02-Dec-21
soccern23ny 02-Dec-21
Jaquomo 02-Dec-21
KSflatlander 02-Dec-21
bigswivle 02-Dec-21
Jaquomo 02-Dec-21
[email protected] 02-Dec-21
KSflatlander 02-Dec-21
Jaquomo 02-Dec-21
Scoot 02-Dec-21
KSflatlander 02-Dec-21
Bowbender 03-Dec-21
greg simon 03-Dec-21
DanaC 03-Dec-21
Scoot 03-Dec-21
KSflatlander 03-Dec-21
Jaquomo 03-Dec-21
Rocky D 03-Dec-21
Scoot 03-Dec-21
KSflatlander 03-Dec-21
Jaquomo 03-Dec-21
Bowbender 03-Dec-21
[email protected] 03-Dec-21
KSflatlander 03-Dec-21
Bowbender 03-Dec-21
KSflatlander 03-Dec-21
KSflatlander 03-Dec-21
TD 03-Dec-21
KSflatlander 03-Dec-21
HDE 03-Dec-21
12yards 03-Dec-21
[email protected] 03-Dec-21
HDE 03-Dec-21
bigswivle 03-Dec-21
KSflatlander 03-Dec-21
Jaquomo 03-Dec-21
KSflatlander 03-Dec-21
[email protected] 03-Dec-21
Huntskifishcook 03-Dec-21
KSflatlander 03-Dec-21
Jaquomo 04-Dec-21
soccern23ny 30-Dec-21
Jaquomo 30-Dec-21
soccern23ny 30-Dec-21
HDE 30-Dec-21
12yards 30-Dec-21
12yards 30-Dec-21
soccern23ny 30-Dec-21
Jaquomo 31-Dec-21
Hackbow 31-Dec-21
12yards 31-Dec-21
From: soccern23ny
29-Nov-21

soccern23ny's embedded Photo
soccern23ny's embedded Photo

soccern23ny's Link

From: Jaquomo
29-Nov-21

Jaquomo's embedded Photo
Jaquomo's embedded Photo

From: txhunter58
29-Nov-21
And this is related to bowhunting…..how???

From: Jaquomo
29-Nov-21
Because when we all die in 12 years, bowhunting may go away?

From: LINK
29-Nov-21
Because bucks move best right before and right after a climate change….Bring on some snow.

From: Jaquomo
29-Nov-21

Jaquomo's Link
Dueling links. Mine is from NASA.

29-Nov-21
On the plus side I won't die from CWD

From: Knifeman
29-Nov-21
dear soccern23ny, your wanted on the assclown thread

From: Jaquomo
29-Nov-21
He's doing a lot of reading this fall since nobody gave him permission to hunt following his letter writing campaign.

From: soccern23ny
29-Nov-21
@txhunter... you can't be serious right?

unless you make this comment on every non bow hunting post which is probably around 30% of posts. "climate" is indeed related to bowhunting at least indirectly, unlike most of the rubish that gets posted.

@Jaq... who's land are you trespassing on now? IDK what's worse, disrespecting legally taken game or knowingly trespassing on another man's land.

From: Coyote 65
29-Nov-21
I don't know about you, but I am not sticking around for another ice age. I hate the cold, so global warming is welcome in my neighborhood.

Terry

From: Jaquomo
29-Nov-21
Soccer mom, I'm presently camped on a ranch with locked gates and huge "No Trespassing" signs, and hunting on two other big ranches with similar signs. I have combinations and keys to all the locks. The ranchers gave them to me after I gained permission to hunt. I'm smart enough to know that driving in a driveway to knock on a door to ask permission face to face, like a man, is hugely different from "trespassing" here in the American West.

Edit: one of the ranch owners is a well known Colorado billionaire. I'm also smart enough to know that it isn't the billionaire ranch owners who give permission, but rather the ranch managers or foremen who live at the end of the fearsome roads marked with "No Trespassing" signs. The owner doesn't know or care, that I'm hunting. He has bigger fish to fry. No charge for that advice.

And I'm not @ anything, Nicky Nick Nick. I have a name, unlike you.

From: drycreek
29-Nov-21
Climate change can be understood in one brief statement. Climates change.

From: soccern23ny
29-Nov-21
@Jaq... I love how you feel the need to constantly defend your mainlyness/man card, are you compensating for something???? Again, as stated before I believe little to nothing of what you say, you have no honor in my book. Being a self admitted trespasser, worse... one who justifies it and see's it as a badge of honor.

Also where is that random graph even from? got a link? The book is also mainly about CO2 and it's known effects.

From: txhunter58
29-Nov-21
Soccern. Very serious. Go peddle your non hunting doom and gloom elsewhere. We want to discuss bowhunting on here. Sure, there are a handful of you that want to come on here and argue even though you never change anyone’s mind. Again, not wanted by the majority on here.

Remember, there are places like facepuke to argue about stuff unrelated to hunting.

From: Jaquomo
29-Nov-21
The graph is from the Vostok Ice Cores. You can look it up. Plenty of data on that. Mann used a little sliver of it to demonstrate his phony "hockey stick" graph.

Edit: I started my trespassing career at a young age when I walked right up to houses with impunity to trick or treat. Got a real taste for that trespassing crime, and can't seem to quit it. It's an addiction. I suppose.

29-Nov-21
We aren't going to alter the climate with higher taxes and less freedom. But, climate change is a great issue to accomplish the 2 big goals of the people that push it...which are higher taxes and less freedom.

Is the climate changing? Yes. Trying to steer it into some arbitrary idea of what the "right" climate is, is a waste of time and money. Preparing and adapting to it changing is a much better use of resources.

From: Z Barebow
30-Nov-21
Climate changing? Yup. It has always changed over time.

I know, let’s take (punish) boat loads of money from the producers of this world.

What is the temperature supposed to be?

30-Nov-21
Soccermom, Where I live there was 2 miles of ice on my land 10,000 yrs ago. That’s not that long ago for an ice sheet 2 miles deep to move out and melt.

When I was a kid in the 60-70s, your type of peddlers were selling the coming Ice age.

In the 70s it was, if we didn’t all change we would be dead by the 1990s from a global ice age.

From: Vonfoust
30-Nov-21
Doesn't matter. We are all dying from Covid and the planet will be saved.

From: longsprings
30-Nov-21
Think about this Maybe the antis Sprinkled the CWD prions in The ground so our prey gets sick and we get it from consumption.

Thats almist as crazy as saying Climate change will cancell hunting and us Ok back to reality and bowhunting!!!!

From: elkmtngear
30-Nov-21
Aww, how cute!

Bowsite has a new resident troll !

30-Nov-21
Yes, what is this perfect temperature?

From: Jaquomo
30-Nov-21
"CO2 and its known effects"

Yep, according to NASA in the link I provided, CO2 is making the earth greener, which improves wildlife habitat and crop production worldwide, and the increasing plant life serves as a carbon sink. What's not to like? I love CO2! I try to contribute some every day, to save the planet.

30-Nov-21
ElkMtn, It may seem like it’s a waste of time for us to respond to an obvious Troll. And or misinfo campaign.

I think it’s important to remember. Not everyone reading these posts will respond or jump in. But they are still reading it. I think there may still be people swayed by the overwhelming media push. It doesn’t mean they lack intelligence. They may not have the time or motivation to dig into the subject. So take the pablum they are served up. So as boring and redundant as it is. Perhaps we few, that appear to be arguing with a brick wall may push someone lurking on this post to go do their own research.

From: Bowbender
30-Nov-21
If climate change was truly an existential threat as the shysters would have us think, then why not set an example and do all the conferences via Zoom or other tele-conference software. No, then they couldn't fly their private jets to locations on the Med, tool around on yachts, dining like kings and queens whilst deciding how the commoners need to change their lifestyle. Or angry little Greta Thunberg, lecturing adults, while flying all over the world. Spending Christmas in Switzerland, and then by her own admission, traveling some more because she likes to see new places and meet new people.

No, Elmer Fudd. No. How many significant climate change events, some with catastrophic consequences, took place before man ever crawled out of the primordial ooze?

From: pav
30-Nov-21
If you want the monkey to go away...DON'T FEED THE MONKEY!

30-Nov-21
Reducing Co2 is so critical...that we must send Captain Kirk and other millionaires to space for 15 minutes. SMH

From: TD
30-Nov-21
Elkmtngear.... not new. I'm guessing our old house boat captain scampering around nervously..... an unhealthy fixation with bowhunters and is from CO like his name is nick nick and not Paul. Born from BS and BS is about all he's got. But justify the lies.... for the cause... it's how they sleep at night.

Now I understand the true "warning" part....

From: stealthycat
01-Dec-21
article the other day talked about how global warming started before 1900

in other words, before humans and the industrial revolution

in other words, humans don't create climate change, it just happens like the mini ice age in Europe in the 1450-1600 range

sure, we're polluting the planet, sure, we can do better, but this earth warms/cools and has since the dawn of time - that's science facts

From: PECO
01-Dec-21
The alarmist know the climate changes on it's own. They are saying we are making it change at a much faster rate than it changes naturally.

From: Jaquomo
01-Dec-21
^^^ Yep. The problem is that they are basing this on a very tiny sliver of data across the entire time continuum, have already been caught red-handed modifying and cherry-picking data points to support their claims, and then extrapolate that data into predictive models that have been proven wrong over and over.

As quoted in the NASA link I posted above, "While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models,” said co-author Josep Canadell of the Oceans and Atmosphere Division in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Canberra, Australia. "

01-Dec-21
Yes, they build and use models that get them the continuance of their grant. An easy scientific test would be to measure how many grants are given to scientists that don’t support the theory. They buy the results they need

From: HDE
01-Dec-21
Just how does anyone even know what the temperature was 400,000 years ago? They don't. Someone created a model based on current observation (over the past 200 years or so since temperature was measured and records kept) and pretends it applies over the so-called ages. And, someone was given a PhD for it. Go MIT!!!

So here's the million dollar question. Why did everything, according to conventional academia, take so long to take place or complete? Why did it take hundreds of thousands of years for ice ages to cycle back and forth, for ice sheets to advance and retract? Why did it take 60 or so million years for mammals to become the dominate critters running around but it only took 4 million years for man to fully develop from "Lucy" to what we are now?

Answer: It's all a bunch of literary hogwash and the smartest people in the room are actually the dumbest people around. They can't explain it because it didn't happen the way their fairy-tale make believe world says it did...

From: Bowbender
01-Dec-21
"Yep. The problem is that they are basing this on a very tiny sliver of data across the entire time continuum, .."

Exactly! The are taking ~200 data points out of a 4,000,000,000 data point system.

From: Stix
01-Dec-21
Climate change is real, but it's cyclical. Scientific data supports that.

From: Jaquomo
01-Dec-21
My late friend who was a world class climatologist before his death, had all of his team's grant money yanked, and their studies were not included in the IPCC documents because they "didn't meet standards" (IPCC's words). Meaning, they didn't reach the preapproved outcome. He advised his graduate students that for them to continue to receive grants they would either need to tow the AGW line, or find a different direction to pursue their research. He was very sad and frustrated when he told me this.

From: KSflatlander
01-Dec-21

KSflatlander's Link
“ Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”

From NASA website. There is a scientific consensus on human caused climate change. The totality is overwhelming. What you believe is not going to change that.

Thinking there will be a net positive due to human accelerated warming is frankly naïve. But for once I’m glad I don’t own beach front property.

01-Dec-21
Thinking that beachfront property will be dangerous, lost or lose value due to man made climate change in any of our lifetimes is probably over reacting by a really large margin.

Many of the ardent alarmists shaping policy are happily buying and living on beachfront property.

From: KSflatlander
01-Dec-21
It’s called sarcasm

01-Dec-21
If there wasn't countless people who do and don't know better crying wolf about oceans while influencing laws and policy, it would be a funnier.

From: HDE
01-Dec-21
"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities"

Because they are looking through a very limited and narrow lens...

From: Hessticles
01-Dec-21
Glad I'm wearing my tinfoil cap while reading this haha

01-Dec-21
Hessticals, here’s a tinfoil topic for ya. I just wish the friggin Feds would spend this climate change energy on Cyber warfare. The real threat to humanity.

It’s real life terminator. Computer war fare will be the end of civilization. Electric, Gas, water, sewer, banking, communication. All run by programs that can be destroyed from Malware attacks.

That is not up for debate or some scientific theory. It will happen

From: 12yards
02-Dec-21
It is human caused, no question. It is caused by humans adjusting temperature data.

From: elkmtngear
02-Dec-21
"Climate Change" has become a multi-billion dollar industry. So, it's effortless to find articles supporting it.

Monetizing anything (like Covid), makes the actual truth harder and harder to find.

From: bigswivle
02-Dec-21
Thinking there will be a net positive due to human accelerated warming is frankly naïve. But for once I’m glad I don’t own beach front property.

Well Florida used to be under water, I assume it probably will b again one day. The more the glaciers thaw out the more people/artifacts they find under them. I assume the glaciers weren’t there at one time. Mother Nature is gonna do what ever the hell she wants, nothing anyone can do about it.

From: Jaquomo
02-Dec-21
For some interesting reading, Google Dr. Ross McKitrick. He is a widely published economics professor and statistical analyst who specializes in the IPCC reports.

From: soccern23ny
02-Dec-21
"Mother Nature is gonna do what ever the hell she wants, nothing anyone can do about it."

Except we can and are affecting what she will and can do,lol. That's the whole point. Mother nature certainly does what she does. But much of it is largely predictable

From: Jaquomo
02-Dec-21

Jaquomo's embedded Photo
Jaquomo's embedded Photo
Haha! Yep, it sure is! And the models once predicted a dramatic increase in hurricanes because of AGW, but they have remained constant over the past 150 years.

"A new statistical analysis of historical records and satellite data suggests that there aren’t actually more Atlantic hurricanes now than there were roughly 150 years ago, researchers report July 13 in Nature Communications."

From: KSflatlander
02-Dec-21

KSflatlander's Link
I think you forgot to say “but hurricane strength is increasing.”

From: bigswivle
02-Dec-21
“ But much of it is largely predictable”

I just spit my beer up, Mother Nature is predictable? Lmao, put the lefty down bud

From: Jaquomo
02-Dec-21
KS, I also read that article, and if you get past the headline paragraph, it says this: "More surprisingly — even to Vecchi, he says — the data also seem to show no significant increase in hurricane intensity over that time. That’s despite “scientific consistency between theories and models indicating that the typical intensity of hurricanes is more likely to increase as the planet warms,” Vecchi says"

Theories and models.....

02-Dec-21
I have something in common with the people in high places on the left who push climate change relentlessly. We know its not about the climate

From: KSflatlander
02-Dec-21
Jaq- I did read the article. Did you?

“ Regardless of whether there are more of these storms, there’s no question that modern hurricanes have become more deadly in many ways, Vecchi says. There’s evidence that global warming has already been increasing the amount of rain from some storms, such as Hurricane Harvey in 2017, which led to widespread, devastating flooding (SN: 9/28/18). And, Vecchi says, “sea level will rise over the coming century … so [increasing] storm surge is one big hazard from hurricanes.””

I will give it to you that the data is not absolute. But the totality of the data indicates that human production of green house gases are increasing average world temperatures. We have to make decisions with the data we have. What do you propose? Wait 100 years for more data? That ship will have sailed away on the winds of data paralysis.

There’s a lot of debate about how Mother Nature will react (like hurricanes) but we both know she’s not that nice.

From: Jaquomo
02-Dec-21
They have become more deadly because there are significantly more people, with much more property, living on coastal areas where hurricanes strike. That's a no-brainer. If the climate continues to move in this direction as opposed to the rapid cooling during the Medieval Warm Period and other warmings, we will adapt as we always have to climate change. The models don't show near-term cooling but the models are often way incorrect. Paul Erlich predicted worldwide famine by the late 70s, and we had to act NOW!

I'm not an AGW denier. Just a skeptic of the process which is flawed by accused data cherry picking, continuous recalibration, and outright fraudulent results being published (Climategate 1 and 2 demonstrated that..) and so often concludes that we are ALL GOING TO DIE in 12 years, or by year 2000, or whenever, so we have to immediately, RIGHT NOW, change our entire way of living, give up every freedom and dollar we have to the almighty omniscient government who half the country absolutely does not trust, because if we don't, WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!

I'm also all for clean energy. Clean, non-PC nuclear energy should be the biggest tool in our arsenal. Instead it is rejected by the green Left that runs this narrative.

The whole agenda seems to be a little about reducing CO2 (well, except for a few huge countries) and more about wealth redistribution on a global scale. The day I see the Left politicians and celebrities take it seriously and alter their lifestyle to lower their carbon footprint, as they demand the rest of us do, (none of this nonsense about buying the right to generate carbon through "credits") is the day I will put a solar panel on my hat and a wind turbine on the front of my ebike. :-)

From: Scoot
02-Dec-21
"But much of it is largely predictable"

Nice to have a village idiot. Couple candidates in here actually...

From: KSflatlander
02-Dec-21
Skepticism is good but a wise man will be skeptical while he is preparing.

About 40% of the world’s population live on the coast. That’s a lot of adapting to do. Better get to it now don’t you think?

I’m with you on nuclear power. I further would like to see residential power decentralized in the future. Power production in the home with renewables or nuclear.

“I will put a solar panel on my hat and a wind turbine on the front of my ebike. :-)”

Now that funny right there ;)

Good points and good discussion.

Scoot- do have anything to add besides a drive by ad hominem gibberish.

03-Dec-21
I think the planet shrugs off mans impact like a gnat. Like it has volcanoes, earthquakes, wildfires for millions of years. But if these liberal zealots want to feel better why not do something with real impact. We pipe gas and oil all over the world. Why not capture excess rain in reservoirs all over the east and pipe it west.

Rain could even be captured in the Amazon and piped north. The poor countries could sell their best renewable resource.

Why not Infrastructure that has an impact.

I know it sounds crazy. But oil was shipped on rail until the oil Barron’s got tired of paying railroad tycoons the transport fees. So they built their own pipeline system.

From: Bowbender
03-Dec-21
"The day I see the Left politicians and celebrities take it seriously and alter their lifestyle to lower their carbon footprint, as they demand the rest of us do, (none of this nonsense about buying the right to generate carbon through "credits")"

Game, Set, ...........Match.

From: greg simon
03-Dec-21
Come on now! Those “important” people need their private jets, walled compounds, armed security teams, downtown penthouses, $1500 dinners, $1000 haircuts, $5000 suits, and GIANT offshore bank accounts so they can “help” all of us dumbasses who make it possible to have all those things! That’s the truth too! Just ask them, they’ll tell you!

From: DanaC
03-Dec-21
KS, I can't help wonder if hurricanes are becoming more deadly because more damfools are building too close to the water. Idiots with houses ten feet above sea level, or built on flood plains get short sympathy. (And I say that as someone who lives in a building that got beaver-dam flooded twice - but the rent is cheap ;-) )

From: Scoot
03-Dec-21
"Scoot- do have anything to add besides a drive by ad hominem gibberish."

KS, if you'd like to compare how much I've added to the site vs. you, I'm more than happy to do so.

From: KSflatlander
03-Dec-21
Where do you want to compare? On the playground by the swing set after school?

From: Jaquomo
03-Dec-21

Jaquomo's Link
This is the most balanced MSM article I've ever read on hurricanes, climate change, and increased damage due to increased coastal development encouraged by federal policies. It's from NBC, believe it or not.

"Scientists disagree on why waters are warming. They know climate change is a factor — but they say it’s not the biggest driver and disagree on what else may be behind it.

Some argue it’s because of a 25- to 30-year natural global cycle that acts like a giant conveyor belt, carrying different levels of salt and temperature around the globe, including into the part of the tropical Atlantic off Africa where the worst hurricanes form, Colorado State University hurricane researcher Phil Klotzbach said.

When the water in the northern Atlantic is extra warm, the water in those tropical hurricane breeding grounds is unusually hot, and the hurricane season is abnormally active, Klotzbach said. Such a busy period started in 1995 and might end soon as northern Atlantic waters shift to a cooler regime, he said."

From: Rocky D
03-Dec-21
“ The whole agenda seems to be a little about reducing CO2 (well, except for a few huge countries) and more about wealth redistribution on a global scale”

Agree, it’s a damned power grab using whatever vehicle that will get them there.

From: Scoot
03-Dec-21
KS, excellent response, particularly considering you accused me of "drive by ad hominem gibberish". I have no metric to offer as to how to operationalize contribution. But if a gibberometer did exist, you'd measure extremely high on it!

From: KSflatlander
03-Dec-21
Scoot- My wife may agree with you.

Jaq- I agree it is impossible to point at one weather event and say it was accentuated by an increase in global temps. Anytime anyone does that I’m immediately suspicious of their motives and/or knowledge. You must look at the largest dataset you can over time and we will never have a complete dataset in an adequate timeframe. Nevertheless, we as a society must make decisions. We can’t do nothing due to data paralysis. I say plan for the worst and hope for the best. I’ll add that we must factor in peoples livelihoods, other economic impacts, and grid stability along with the potential environmental and ecological impacts.

From: Jaquomo
03-Dec-21
Ryan, I do agree. The danger is in government overreach where political agendas drive decisions.

From: Bowbender
03-Dec-21
"You must look at the largest dataset you can over time and we will never have a complete dataset in an adequate timeframe. Nevertheless, we as a society must make decisions. We can’t do nothing due to data paralysis."

Whoa...wait a minute. We have a roughly 4,000,000,000 year data set and we "need to do something" based on 200 data points (or years). Even though the last 3,999,999,800 data points show significant climate change events.

So, lets make significant changes to our economy, manufacturing, life in general, that will only affect only the "commoners", not the anointed elite, based on inconclusive and minimal data (.000005% of total data set). All to "do something"?

Curious? What changes in lifestyle are YOU willing to accept?

03-Dec-21
My take is that freedom is the answer. Freedom is what spurs innovation and innovation is what drives improvements.

We've come a long way from how we treated the environment since the beginning of the industrial age. Much of that was due to people taking risks and acting in there own self interest to create better ways of doing things.

Stifling that with over regulating is a mistake.

We need a strong economy and a secure country so that people are motivated to work hard, make investments, invent, take risks and reap the rewards if they succeed.

It can be balanced with regulation but we are swinging too far that way.

From: KSflatlander
03-Dec-21
"Whoa...wait a minute. We have a roughly 4,000,000,000 year data set and we "need to do something" based on 200 data points (or years). Even though the last 3,999,999,800 data points show significant climate change events."

You are conflating historical qualitative data with modern empirical data. Yes, we generally understand what the climate on earth may have been thousands or millions of years ago based on historical evidence. Some historical events have greatly affected the earth's climate (e.g., volcanos, asteroids). Need I remind you that some of these climate shifts resulted in the largest extinction events on earth. The current major climate influencers are green house gases...it's not volcanoes or dust in the air from an asteroid impact. We know for a fact that greenhouse gases (like CO2) trap sun heat in our atmosphere. That is not debatable...we know this. We believe based on historical data and modern data that CO2 in our atmosphere is rising relatively rapidly. Logically the response would be an average rise in global temperatures. There is some discussion about how much humans are influencing the rise greenhouse gases. Scientist don't all agree but the consensus is that man-made green house gases are the major culprit (based on the totality of all scientific data). Lot's of debate about how much the average earth temperature will rise and in what timeframe. But to think there will not be an affect to our climate is not debatable. Exactly what those effects might be is difficult to predict but we some idea of what they could be. We should prepare for the worst case scenarios IMO. Or we can do as you elude to and just bury our heads because of data paralysis and hope for the best. Or just tell ourselves that its not happening or saying "how bad could it be?" Picture yourself on a train track. I can't see the train; therefore, it won't hit me. Or it may just go around me and I will be fine. No, if you just stand there and do nothing eventually the train will hit you.

Most of the "lifestyle" changes for "commoners" like me will be in the form of $$. I'm already paying more $$ for energy and I'm ok with that if the cause in $$ increase is more energy efficient production. In the long run, renewables and nuclear will be cheaper over time than a finite non-renewable resource like coal or oil. That is an absolute fact (renewable vs non-renewable). Personally, I work from home 50% of the time and it saves energy, built an energy efficient home which cost more (2x6 walls, more efficient HVAC, and non-asphalt roofing that is more energy efficient). Paying for more energy efficient vehicles and willing to pay more for higher fuel standards. I plan to install solar panels and battery energy storage system at my home.

Is this what you mean by "lifestyle?" If no, please provide examples minus any hyperbole. Meaning if you have an example then please back it up with some credible source for real expected lifestyle changes for commoners. Maybe your talking about less leisure travel...sure then ok. It is for leisure. But those things are not the largest contributors to the rising greenhouse gas issue. It is burning of fossil fuels related to transportation, electricity production, and industry. If we are going to have an effect on rising greenhouse gases then we can't slow it down significantly enough without finding solutions to these major contributors. If the bucket is leaking and you want to stop it you plug the 4 inch hole (fossil fuel combustion for electricity) first before you plug the pin hole (air transportation for leisure).

From: Bowbender
03-Dec-21
"You are conflating historical qualitative data with modern empirical data. Yes, we generally understand what the climate on earth may have been thousands or millions of years ago based on historical evidence. Some historical events have greatly affected the earth's climate (e.g., volcanos, asteroids). Need I remind you that some of these climate shifts resulted in the largest extinction events on earth."

Not conflating anything. Those climate shifts, largest extinctions, that was long before man was on the scene. But this one, is man made. The rest of your paragraph is filled with "not sure", "scientists don't all agree"... But the train is coming. It's been coming. In the form of an ice age in the 70's, to global warming in the early 2000's, to 2021 and rebranded to climate change. Cuz the shysters couldn't sell the other two.

No hyperbole in lifestyle changes.... Some of us can't work from home. As senior Automation Engineer, I need to be on site for build, condition, and comissioning mfg lines. And my job is no different than millions of others. So the $$ increase you are so willing to pay has hit some people pretty hard already. Wife is a nurse. Kinda hard to do that job remote.

"If we are going to have an effect on rising greenhouse gases then we can't slow it down significantly enough without finding solutions to these major contributors."

Again, this climate change event is man-made. It has to be. When by your own post "Need I remind you that some of these climate shifts resulted in the largest extinction events on earth."... was long before homosapiens ever discovered fire.

Do we need to conserve and look for more energy efficient methods? Absolutely. But not by the lefts political agenda, which has nothing to do with the environment.

From: KSflatlander
03-Dec-21
"My take is that freedom is the answer. Freedom is what spurs innovation and innovation is what drives improvements."

I disagree somewhat. It's competition, innovation, supply/demand that drive improvements. But maybe you are saying "Freedom" when you mean capitalism.

"We've come a long way from how we treated the environment since the beginning of the industrial age. Much of that was due to people taking risks and acting in there own self interest to create better ways of doing things."

This completely false. Pollution was on the rise until the passage of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Endangered Species Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, ect. in 1960-70s. In addition, to the creation of agencies that implemented and enforced these laws. Finally, with an increase in environmental education in our schools. We did not see major positive shifts in the amount of pollution until these laws were passed and enforced. I'll add relating to the OP, we have never regulated the release of CO2 in the United States...the single biggest contributing factor to climate change.

"Stifling that with over regulating is a mistake."

Completely agree but we likely disagree on which regulations are stifling due to a difference in values.

"We need a strong economy and a secure country so that people are motivated to work hard, make investments, invent, take risks and reap the rewards if they succeed."

Agreed. However, the U.S. is living proof that environmental protection, capitalism, and a strong economy are not mutually exclusive. We became the worlds #1 economy by a long shot with all of the laws listed above. That is the epitome of American Exceptionalism. Sure China surpassed us recently and they do not have, or enforce, the environmental laws we do...and they have much worse pollution than us.

"It can be balanced with regulation but we are swinging too far that way."

Agreed it can be balanced. But we disagree that overall it has swung way too far. In some cases of course. And you don't keep balance by gutting the laws mentioned above, slashing funding to enforcement agencies, cutting government funding to research and development, or putting an oil lobbyist (Trump administration) in charge of enforcement. You also don't keep balance by not partnering with industry, streamlining, or putting an environmental wacko in charge of enforcement...like AOC.

From: KSflatlander
03-Dec-21
Bowbender- I don't get your logic. Because an asteroid hit the earth millions of years ago (before humans) and drastically changed the climate, and wiped out most of life on earth we shouldn't worry about the effects of rise in temperature from greenhouse gases. Because climate changed then and it is now so we shouldn't do anything about it (adapt). Because you think its natural? Help me understand what you mean.

I get your point about lifestyle changes. I also get that and increase in the cost of energy will affect some more than others. But we have ways to fix that and make it more equitable. This is where I think democracy, capitalism, and innovation will let us find solutions. For example, my wife did a doctors visit over video conference just yesterday. She produced 10 (maybe 100) fold less CO2 via video conference on her iPhone vs driving to the doctors office. That is progress. 15 years ago renewable energy could not compete in the open market. Now, it is competing head to head with coal, oil, and natural gas and kicking fossil fuels butt in long term. Why do you think companies are standing in line waiting to buy wind and solar electrons...because they sign long-term contracts where the fuel price do not change. They know fossil fuel costs will go up and unpredictably at that. And they market it and say, "Hey, look at me...I'm green and care about the environment." They would never do that without a financial return.

From: TD
03-Dec-21
Interesting that some think we can manipulate or change the climate of the entire planet. Science? Science does not silence competing ideas. Dissenting studies or opinions. Nor does it sweep things under the rug like "scientists" who are caught intentionally LYING and either omitting or even physically changing data and studies. There are peer reviewed studies of solar activity that are literally not allowed at these meetings. That is not "science", that is political propaganda.

What is on the wish list? Snow in FL? But then that would be "climate change" as the language changes in correlation with the movement of goalposts. Language changes such as the "hurricanes are worse!" story. Oh, you mean they are bigger with stronger winds etc.... ? No. They are "more deadly" or "more distructive" as it has been pointed out, more development in historically bad areas with higher densities being the issue. But the disingenuous story is pushed instead. Maybe we need hormone blockers for the planet? These people feed on fear and delusion.

US has drastically reduced our "pollution" beyond any Global Agreement standards.... the only one to do so I believe, and WITHOUT any Global Agreements. But reality and results don't matter because bottom line the Globalists want our money. The oh so ethical Globalists like a UN busted for pedophilia and child trafficking. Iran sitting on the Human Rights Commission. Chinese building more coal power plants with literal slave labor. And a house plant presidency open to the highest bidder, China, Russia, Ukraine, and dozens of other global chitholes who want a chunk of that American pie for their own.

Skrew these despots. We need to do what we do best. Take care of America, American interests, self reliance, independence. America First.

You'd have to be intentionally blind not to see this isn't about any "climate".... it is ALL about control, power and money. There is money in purposely redirecting and crashing American energy and the corresponding economy. High energy costs and disrupted economic production sink all boats. Helps only the crabs who feed off what is left of the host.

I heard the administration's Official Liar snarkily chide people complaining about "not getting their treadmill for Christmas".... these people are so clueless. Yes, you will survive without your treadmill. But it's not about consumers being upset about treadmills.... these evil people know the people that sell them, and ship them, and all the employees involved in that economic engine may not survive it. And it appears that is the real goal.

And they, like every damn one of this people pushing this anti-American agenda..... Don't. Care. Gotta crack a few eggs to enslave a country..... for you're own good of course...

From: KSflatlander
03-Dec-21
I think TD hit every one of the buzz words. Congrats. Do you have a manifesto published somewhere online? Maybe a link to it could save some electrons.

From: HDE
03-Dec-21
"You are conflating historical qualitative data..."

*quantitative data.

From: 12yards
03-Dec-21
"......we have never regulated the release of CO2 in the United States...the single biggest contributing factor to climate change."

What would the temps be if we had not emitted a single molecule of CO2? This is only the theory (that CO2 is the primary reason for warming). And then, if we start cooling at some point, when do we say, nope, CO2 wasn't that big of a deal? Sorry, our bad! Sorry to all the poor people on the planet that are far poorer than they were before (or maybe they're all dead from poverty, good, we have too many people on earth anyways right?).

My point is, alarmism is dangerous, and typically based on worst case scenario models that aren't even close to matching what is happening. Even the most conservative models are over estimating warming. Transition MUST go at a pace where no one is left behind, and no one has unreliable energy. This is far slower than the alarmists demand. A lot of people will die if we rush this thing.

03-Dec-21
I figured the purple haired chicks can solve it someday

From: HDE
03-Dec-21
"Because an asteroid hit the earth millions of years ago (before humans)..." ~ KSFlat.

Prove it. You do realize the asteroid could be the one millions of years old and not the earth.

"15 years ago renewable energy could not compete in the open market. Now, it is competing head to head with coal, oil, and natural gas and kicking fossil fuels butt in long term." ~ KSFlat

Simply not true. A well that produces natural gas that has already achieved its payout is making a profit with minimal investment. Suppressed NG prices over the past 8 years have more than made NG generation very economic. Trillions of cubic feet in storage, not unproduced but produced already and stored, can very well bury so-called renewables in shame.

You do realize that all renewables require extraction processes to even make it possible, don't you? Only a damn fool doesn't see the wisdom in a balanced energy portfolio...

From: bigswivle
03-Dec-21
Scientists crack me up man

“Looking at the make up of this rock, it rained here on July 27, 2013(BC)

From: KSflatlander
03-Dec-21

KSflatlander's Link
“Simply not true. A well that produces natural gas that has already achieved its payout is making a profit with minimal investment. Suppressed NG prices over the past 8 years have more than made NG generation very economic. Trillions of cubic feet in storage, not unproduced but produced already and stored, can very well bury so-called renewables in shame.“

It is true. Way to move to goal post. I said competing on the market. Did I say anything about storage? Renewables invest/profit margins vs return iis pretty healthy and they don’t have to pay anything for fuel. See link. Did I say anything at all the natural gas was not currently economical?

This is one of those “democracy” be “democratic republic” gotch moments. Turbines and wiring contain metal. As if there is an environmental cost for all energy production. Pound for pound renewables have a much smaller waste/pollution stream than fossil fuels. You can look that one up yourself.

12 yards- that is possible but not probable. Run your scenario in the inverse. What if the models under predict the temperature rise? Then what? That’s why I said to plan for the worst and added that personal and economical impacts must be considered. You can’t just turn the tap on fossil fuels. What about the people working in those industries directly or indirectly. Regardless, renewables will never replace fossil fuels until they figure out storage…but they are working on it.

From: Jaquomo
03-Dec-21
"What about the people working in those industries directly or indirectly?"

Herman Munster already said they could get good paying jobs assembling solar panels!

From: KSflatlander
03-Dec-21
Lol. We all know it just ain’t that simple. I think maybe some of the policy makers forget they are talking about good hard working Americans. They deserve more and better.

03-Dec-21
I'm not sure we "all" know that (along with a lot of other stuff) or we would make better decisions at the polls.

03-Dec-21
One of the biggest problems I see is that the majority of the climate change solutions will only exacerbate the problem. The largest solar "farm" in New England is about to or has already started to be built in central MA. The company is clear cutting 90 acres of woods and taking over somewhere near 300 acres of farmland. That is land that will be turned into an ecological wasteland and will never sequester an ounce of carbon. We come up with all these outrageously expensive "solutions" that will not move the needle forward one bit and we build the "solutions" on top of the mechanism that has been designed to cycle the carbon we so fear, soil. It's no wonder our carbon is increasing. We have decimated farmlands around the world, driving the soil organic matter to near 0%. It's likely not fair to call is soil anymore, its dirt, dust, without an IV drip of synthetic fertilizers it will grow nothing. The problem can be fixed by increasing the organic matter of our soils and allowing it to do what it is designed to do. Unfortunately, our society seems to dislike natural systems.

From: KSflatlander
03-Dec-21
“They putting these plants in everywhere EIS study free! Why?“

Because NEPA is only required for federal actions or a federal nexus. Many of the solar projects are build on private land with private money. NEPA is not required but they all do environmental studies. For solar projects on federal land they all have NEPA analysis as there is a federal nexus. As usual, you’re talking out you a$& or just flat making stuff up. Mindlessly.

“Where they fail is the production of these things creates more Hazmat, 10 fold more than conventional types.”

Again you are talking out the wrong end.

“As with most men you let wallet run yer mind. So when Trump busted your clean Water wallet you cried like like girl who dropped her ice cream on hot pavement.”

Lol. I actually doubled my staff and clients in the 4 years of Trump. How could that be? Because Trump created uncertainty in environmental policy and companies ignored his policy changes and instead complied with previous policies definitions by the courts. They knew Trumps policies and executive orders would either be reversed by the courts or Trump would be gone in 4 years. I preferred the later.

“Get ready your about have a reason to cry again.“

Who is it doing all the whining and crying? Cyber ninjas, cyber ninjas. Stop the Steal. I’m shocked you didn’t stick “woke” in your post 10 times. See Shawn, your not much on thinking for yourself as you have always took orders. You know this about yourself. You’re just poor soul without a leader or target objective. But you found it again in a con man.

No matter how much you resist change you can’t stop it. You’re a mindless relic. One of those people who just love to hate. A guy who embraced the negative. A follower who traded loyalty to his country for a demagogue . An insurrectionist.

You can’t stop it. The good in people will always prevail over the lowest common denominators like you. Just like you can’t stop being canceled on here by your fellow bowhunters.

From: Jaquomo
04-Dec-21

Jaquomo's Link
Climate change affects everyone. But apparently it affects wealthy Democratic communities far more than lower income Republican communities. This from the hard-left New York Times, which took a brief break from being the house organ for the DNC to do some actual unbiased reporting.

From: soccern23ny
30-Dec-21
Whelp....

the man who wrote the book and who has spent a lifetime studying climate and meteorology is currently helping forecast an unprecedented winter grass fire on the front range as tens of thousands evacuate their homes and attempt to flee to safety.

But surely this isn't climate related. But if it is, surely it's just normal climate changes. But if it isn't, surely it doesn't have anything to do with man's impact. But if it does, surely it will be a good thing overall "cause warmer is better". But if it isn't better, surely......

I don't know where you guys are gonna move the goal posts after that last step...? That's where we are. We are in between "nothing to do with man's impact" and " warmer will be better".

I just don't know what to say. Crops can wither, water will run dry, fires keep ravaging, ever increasing natural disaster after disaster, and the only thing that changes is how the goal posts get moved to justify doing nothing.

*sigh*

(fact... Since june 1st 2021, Phoenix has received more rain than the denver area has)

From: Jaquomo
30-Dec-21
Gosh, we NEVER have high winds on the Front Range ahead of storm fronts! This is a totally new phenomenon, right? And a tree falls on a power line, knocks it down, and starts a fire, and of course the Karens on the Left will declare it "Climate Change".

Hate to break this to you, Soccermom, but the Front Range used to burn like this on a regular basis before people moved in and built subdivisions. Massive grass fires. Forest fires, too. Droughts, floods, you name it. So yeah, you could say the destruction caused by this fire is due to "man's impact". If humans hadn't built that power line to feed the subdivisions, THERE WOULD BE NO FIRE. Read that again carefully.

At my house about 50 miles NW of that fire, we have 18" of snow on the ground, another 10" coming tomorrow. And 14" of ice on our lakes. (Ice fishing is great!) Sometimes its windy, sometimes not. Just another normal winter. I guess Climate Change hasn't found us yet.

Shaking my effing head....

From: soccern23ny
30-Dec-21
@jaq, more useless anecdotal evidence from you.... "it's snowing where I am, must be no global warming". Also I believe they just set a wind record today.

no, it's not that we never get high winds... more like we never are this dry for this long into this late in the year on an ever increasing basis.

you are almost past the "not mans fault" step. And just about onto the "wamer is gonna be better" step.

From: HDE
30-Dec-21
An isolated and abnormal phenomenon hardly qualifies for anything to explain a changing climate...

From: 12yards
30-Dec-21
It's gonna be -22 here tomorrow. No global warming here in central MN. -27 Saturday night. Oh I forgot. Extreme cold is warming too.

From: 12yards
30-Dec-21
Oh, and how is that ice free arctic doing? Most ice in 18 years. Crickets about that from alarmists.

From: soccern23ny
30-Dec-21
"Oh, and how is that ice free arctic doing? Most ice in 18 years. Crickets about that from alarmists."

Literally lying more than a snake

@12 yards.... http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"The November 2021 monthly average extent was 9.77 million square kilometers (3.77 million square miles), which ranked tenth lowest in the satellite record. The 2021 extent was 930,000 square kilometers (359,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average.

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/arctic-report-card-climate-change-transforming-arctic-into-dramatically-different-state

"The October-December 2020 period was the warmest Arctic autumn on record dating back to 1900. The average surface air temperature over the Arctic this past year (October 2020-September 2021) was the 7th warmest on record. The Arctic continues to warm more than twice as fast as the rest of the globe."

Do you lie in every aspect of your life or just most parts of it?

From: Jaquomo
31-Dec-21
The arctic has been ice free many times in the past.

From Nature Magazine: "The ice broke during the interglacials: summers during the last interglacial, about 125,000 years ago, may have been completely ice free. ... It wasn't until about 5,500 years ago that thick, old ice became prevalent throughout the Arctic Ocean"

"5.3 million years ago, there were dense spruce and pine forests in the far northern Arctic. Greenland had 30 percent less ice than today, and global seas were about 60 feet higher.

4 million years ago, there was about as much ice in the winter as currently exists in the summer, and summers were probably ice-free."

Youre the expert, so answer the question: What is the ideal earth temperature?

31-Dec-21
Soccer, You may want to read some thicker books.

I say CO2 is good, I’ll sell you some CO2 units if it calms you.

The main trigger to our breathing is not that we are low in oxygen - instead, it is that we are high in carbon dioxide. We are carbon-based creatures. Our foods have carbon molecules in them. We break these carbon molecules apart, extract the energy that holds these molecules together, and use that energy to run our daily metabolism. As part of the process, our cells marry single atoms of carbon to two atoms of oxygen to make carbon dioxide - which we breathe out of our mouths as a waste product. We absolutely have to get rid of this carbon dioxide, so carbon dioxide is the main trigger to keep us breathing. (By the way, low oxygen levels are also a reason to breathe - but a much weaker trigger than the high carbon dioxide levels in your blood.)

So you see I just proved that high levels of CO2 is not only good, it’s mandatory for you too breath. Your welcome I’m waiting for my 500 million dollar grant.

Since your name isn’t posted. I’m not sure if your in Colorado or not. But if you are. How do you explain me finding sea fossils in your state.

I have found perfect Nautilus fossils at 6000 ft on the front range. Did the mountains come up through the ocean or did ocean levels fall? I don’t see that in your leaflet “BOOK”

From: Hackbow
31-Dec-21
This has been a fun read. Interesting that both apologists for evolved ooze-being caused climate change put stock in the opinions of those most in line to receive benefit from manipulated data. Also interesting, the same two fervently support and defend the same freedom-taking, profit-making subset of individuals in the current nasty flu debacle.

Odd that the default thought process of many is to immediately subjugate themselves (whilst also DEMANDING that everyone else agree to the same subjugation) to a 'higher authority' made up entirely of similar evolved ooze-beings when some scary monster pokes it head out from under their figurative beds.

Not terribly surprising, though, when one considers that Tweedledum believes proper handling of weapons includes aiming at unknown live targets and Tweedledee convinces himself chromosomes have little to do with the progression of a species.

Talk about a set of data points from which to derive a conclusion.

From: 12yards
31-Dec-21
Not lying, Check current ice levels. It is the end of Dec. now, not November.

  • Sitka Gear