Bowsite.com

Pretty sure that’s what the science has been saying all along…..

But if you can explain how it’s possible to increase the heat storage capacity of the atmosphere without accumulating heat, I’m sure there are a lot of people who would like to know how that works…

My favorite Fun Fact of the whole debate is that Trump was suing the Scottish government because his business wanted to build a wall to protect his golf course from rising sea levels….

The climate always has and always will change. It’d take an arrogant pompous ass to suggest science has the slightest idea of the impact man has had on it. If any at all.

That’s reality. But, reality and man made climate change has always thrown you a curve. No matter the links and links that’s been posted to discredit your ideas. You still lock on to the “science” of it. While totally ignoring the facts of it.

I'll shout it until I die, or until I drown under the rising tides. Man made catastrophic climate change is the greatest hoax of all time.

What's really funny is the bullshit that Youtube posts as the header to the video: "United Nations • Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas."

I'll shout it until I die, or until I drown under the rising tides. Man made catastrophic climate change is the greatest hoax of all time.

How come? Here's a hint; that changed during the Middle-Ages/Renaissance timeframe...

The earth's atmosphere is like 0.03 or 0.04% CO2. Now look up how much is naturally generated every year and how much is man generated? Could that be a problem? possibly, but doesn't seem probable.

I would be curious if there has been significant studies on deforestation impacts in Russia and South America.

We should have spent all the trillions adapting instead of pretending we can steer it.

It is about having more weight on one side on the spin and the difference will cause the normal axis to change.

Had to really take a hard look at this and the North/South axis have been going east at a rapid rate compared to human era. Once it goes pass the 45 degree the change in climate is. Fact or Fiction this is above my pay grade but makes sense.

My main beef is the USA has to pay for everything all the time it seems.China,India and Russia haven't changed a thing.They assume rightly we are fools.

I read an article that said if the USA disappeared today that in 100 years global temperature would decrease 0.1°

I think the Zero emissions is ridiculous- this will drive up the cost of goods and services exponentially. This is unreasonable when Mt Etna or a forest fire dumps more pollution into the atmosphere than an entire state will in Decades.

We know what happens when things get too expensive like a garbage bill- people revolt, folks just dump it in vacant lots or in sewers and waterways. Many years ago I would see people dumping old engine oil down a sewer drain- thankfully not anymore.

Carry on brothers LMAO.

I sincerely respect you for being an outlier on here and speaking up, but nearly every person I know that believes in man made climate change is doing so from an ignorant position. I am far from sophisticated on it, but academically can track the argument deeper than most and it frightens me the strength of the followers for any position that do so because "more people say go this way than say go the other way". That is a dangerous basis, IMO.

South Texas cowboy: "Well, down here we always called it Summer!"

How the heck would they know? Was the author there to measure it?? No one was. All postulation and extrapolation of models, ice core sampling, etc..

But wait they haven't yet explained the butterfly remains under miles of ice in Greenland....from ice cores.

Did we actually physicall measure the sun's temperature or circumference? Have you ever seen an atom? A black hole, quark, a dinosaur, gravity, evolution? Everything we know of the past isn't directly measurable today but the collective evidence gives use data to draw conclusions. Everything in the future is a prediction. You got a better idea of how we understand anything but the present?

"But wait they haven't yet explained the butterfly remains under miles of ice in Greenland....from ice cores."

Yes they have.

Theory and extrapolation (or interpolation) is not the same as non-biased real time data collection. especially when everything is politicized.

Do you really know that deer you are pursuing exists by reviewing DNR maps or bowhunting blogs, posts, etc. or did you put boots on the ground and actually see it?

Oh Bohr molecular theory is just that a theory, a very good one but a theory that is still being reviewed, as it should be. Just like everything in science.

Man has an effect on the climate. Man made "catastrophic" climate change is a hoax. Just how many times do they have to be wrong before you wake up. They have been saying the same thing 50 years, only 10 or 12 years to fix the problem, yet we are still doing just fine. After all, Obama told us in 2009, "this is the day the seas stop rising". That one election in 2008 fixed the entire problem. Obama said it, it has to be true.

Also, recycling is a great and noble concept but only about 6% of everything you send to the "recycling center" actually gets reused. The other 95% goes in a landfill. Another of humanities great hoaxes. It is always just about the money. How can we scam them out of more money?

One also needs to keep in mind that not all plastics are labeled (the number in the triangle, usually on the bottom of the plastic item) as recyclable. Of the plastic products that are labeled as recyclable the actual percent that are recycled ranges from 60-99%. (Our very own Salt Lake CIty, UT hits the 99% mark).

Evidently the "97% of scientists" citation isn't the only one that takes a valid number and miscasts it.....

I think your confusing the percent of total recycled plastic with the amount of plastic sent to recycle actually gets recycled. Or provide a credible source.

"Based on the available data, most plastics that get collected for recycling do get recycled. This is especially true of certain types of plastics that are universally recyclable, like water bottles. However, the vast majority of plastics don’t get collected for recycling and are thrown away instead. That is where the 5-9% statistics come from."

Ricky - if you would have checked then you would have seen the link I posted was the same fact check article on the 97% claim in an effort to be fair. That's why I said 90% because the credible data I've seen has ranged from 80-90% CONSENSUS of climate scientists agree the world temperature is rising and it's due to man-made greenhouse gases (mainly CO2 from burning fossil fuel) and average temp is rising. Scientific data from ice cores to fossils to eDNA indicate the earth was warmer in the past than it is now and that was due to volcanic activity and CO2 best science can tell. Try again Ricky. From your article:

"Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”

Maybe you should actually read what you post before you link it.

Tony- Greenland was once much warmer and was a forest (hence fossils for everything from cedar to butterflies to camels. Yes...under the current ice sheets.

"According to that very study that says 97%, only a very small percentage of scientists believed that man made changes would be catastrophic. That's the disgusting part of the 97% claim. They took a factual statistic and lied about it ever since. Man has an effect on the climate. Man made "catastrophic" climate change is a hoax."

Please post a credible link to back this up. Most climate science journals do not gauge whether the changes in climate are "catastrophic." They offer proof it is happening due to rise of CO2 caused by humans. Some articles offer possible effects of various temperature rises. Some of those predictions are observable today (in the present Tony).

i did read...it in its entirety.

i also didnt make any statements as to whether or not the 90% or 97% claim was accurate or not. i simply posted an article that explained how and where the figures originated...and whether or not the author of the piece felt they were accurate or taken in context.

maybe you should actually take notice of what people post...or dont post...before casting aspersions on them. you get so excited about refuting everything i post...you dont bother to actually digest it.

as to what i personally feel about the accuracy 90-97% of scientists claim...i suspect it is like most other statistics that are used to advance a particular narrative. parts are accurate...parts are inaccurate...and parts are deliberate misinterpretations of the facts.

Classic Ricky. A reply implying to make sure there are avenues to crawfish. BEG pretty well described you and embarrassed you.

"as to what i personally feel about the accuracy 90-97% of scientists claim...i suspect it is like most other statistics that are used to advance a particular narrative. parts are accurate...parts are inaccurate...and parts are deliberate misinterpretations of the facts."

I'm sure glad science isn't based on your feelings. Look at all those crawfishing avenues on that one. That's quite a skill Ricky. Maybe...maybe not LMAO.

There is a consensus of all climate scientists on earth that "climate change" is happening and it is caused by humans. Full stop. You have credibility data that says otherwise then please post.

9 out of 10 dentist's recommend brushing your teeth regularly. Nah, Ricky's going with the one.

What's next on the science denying list...fluoride in drinking water.

Has the climate changed over millions of years ? I'm sure it has.I survived the ice age of the 70s and the acid rain of the 80s.Everyone is corruptible at some point and it makes people dubious even of the true scientists.

So put a social label like "denier" on anyone who is skeptical and let the mob's voices force them into silence.

KSF - don’t bother fact checking my 97%. I made it up. :)

Last I seen there was a scientific consensus that water vapor/rain is more acidic and the effects have been measurable. Are you saying acidification of precipitation isn't happening? That our efforts to reduce NOx and SOx is unfounded?

WTF- so your logic is that before the 15th century (before modern scientific methods) humans thought the world was flat is proof that your cherry picked science issue is wrong. There are people today that still think the world is flat. You can probably find a "scientist" that says that today. That's not logic but illogic.

TRnCO- Al Gore is not a scientific consensus.

Land shark- Daily record highs are not climate.

If anyone has a better idea than the modern scientific method then I'm sure the world's scientific community is all ears.

When I sell them the spots the questions revolve around whether they can shoot certain scenes to make the story. The story is what sells. Nature programming is NOT I repeat is NOT a photographer going out on site and simply capturing nature and sharing it with you. The story is made well in advance of ever landing in the area.

classic ksflatlander. make easily disproven statements about others...then accuse them of crawfishing when they prove him wrong.

ssdd...

unlike you...i have the ability to look at a given article or report and determine what might be true...what might be partisan hackery...and what might be just plain lies.

the 90-97% of all scientists claim appears to contain all three.

SO are we to believe that Al Gore just picked numbers and statistics out of thin air, without talking to some of the "97%" of the scientists, that he made it all up without any input from all these scientists?

Neither is 150 data points in a 4,500,000,000 data point set.

No. I'm saying that I don't take anything Al Gore or any single person or scientist says as fact. I encourage everyone to look at the data themselves or summaries of the data from multiple credible sources. Look at what the consensus is or isn't.

"KSF - what you fail to grasp is that whatever scientific methods are in play at the time (whether that’s 15th century or NOW) are considered ‘modern’ in the moment. It’s pure arrogance to deny that in another 1000 years, people will laugh at things we believe to be true right now. Some of us just take longer than others to see thru the bs …"

Oh, I'm well aware of historical science and the evolution there of. So with that logic we should not believe any science at all because humanity will know more in the future. There are scientific abject truths and scientific consensus. We should just stop all scientific advances. Now that's some seriously dangerous logic.

"WhattheFOC. I agree. It wasn't but 4yrs ago that if you mentioned the origins of Covid coming from a lab you were called a right wing tinfoil hat wearing science denier. Censored on social media and probably losing your job."

The origin of Covid remains undetermined and there is not a consensus. Saying that it came from a lab is false unless you have credible proof. Please post if you do.

BTW I sure wish either KSrancher or KSflatflander would get a new handle

Again 90+% of scientists say that you should take the Covid Vaccine, that it is safe and effective, I can’t find a single credible news source that says it isn’t and that you never needed it…

Our ideas of credible when it comes to climate change and covid would be different. Something that I would post wouldn't change your mind and anything you post wouldn't change my mind.

I also agree no one here is changing their opinions-we just state our opinions.Thats why when the same guys start calling each other names and go back and forth like its a mancrush or something I dont read the tit for tat especially the long cut and pastes and links.Ive been in some dustups but try not to unless someone attacks me personally or starts name calling.Ive never posted anything I wouldnt say face to face to anyone.

I grew up the son of an Iowa cattle vet mostly cow/calf but some feedlot I dont know how anyone stays in the cattle business and my best friend has a huge feedlot.I probably would have spent my career there had it not been for the farm crisis/savings and load disaster in the 80s.

try this one...

"Classic Ricky. A reply implying to make sure there are avenues to crawfish."

i implied nothing.

i simply posted a link to an article that explained where the 97% of scientist thing originated.

however...as long as youre going to go down the "implying" road...lets try this one.

"Maybe you should actually read what you post before you link it."

as i said before...not only did i read every word of it...i didnt imply anything either way...period.

i sure appreciate the free rent...however the view from your head is rather miserable.

At some point they’ll need to start talking about all the queer and Trans monkeys and lions to keep the cash flow going.

Sure...but I'm not going to listen to the KSFlat partisan political science;

Like the scientists that install climate sensors in a parking lot Like hypocrite John Kerry science who flys around in his plane with one trip spewing more Carbon than I use in my entire lifetime Like the scientists that rarely address Massive forest fires...or the current Mt Etna eruption. Like the scientists beholden to the government for grants- tell the truth and your funding gets cut off...or even worse like the NIH Grants- Threaten to blow the whistle on Fauchi then suddenly get a $6m grant while dropping the whistleblower complaint.

The partisan politics and corruption in the Climate science is pretty disgusting...so many hacks make a living by producing the EIR's- $$$ in their pocket....yep, the sky is falling- show me the money. I wouldn't be surprised if KS Flat makes a living from this.

Oh, but what about “averages”? Well, I’m glad you asked. By the measured GHCNd station data, June 1933 was the hottest on record in the U.S. Of the top 10, eight occurred before 1955, and only two have been in the last 70-years:

Top 10 hottest Junes on record in the U.S. by measured GHCNd station data:

1) 1933 2) 1934 3) 1911 4) 2021 5) 1951 6) 1921 7) 1931 8) 2016 9) 1918 10) 1936"

You have to show a mainstream link to a scientific news article that doesn’t agree with the climate alarmism or ole flatty won’t listen!

I’m not even sure why the scientists and flatlander say there is 90-97% consensus? Their is 100% consensus on man made climate change, their is zero dissent, dissent isn’t allowed. Try a google search on it.

Thank goodness most of your BELIEFS matter not to science.

Ricky- did I say 97%? And I posted the Forbes article before you did. LMAO.

There was another article I read yesterday In Zerohedge that the cost of Covid was around $18 Trillion that cost. China knew what was happening and they intentionally released it upon the rest of the world that would cause an economic collapse and be a main factor to take Trump out of his next term.

If Trump regains the POTUS office I believe he will bring retribution against China's actions, which I fully should have been done earlier.

"Overall, we rate ZeroHedge an extreme right-biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left."

"On 02/15/2022, U.S. intelligence officials accused Zero Hedge of amplifying Kremlin propaganda targeting Ukrainians and taking direction from Russian spies. Zero Hedge denies the claim."

"ZeroHedge’s content has been classified as “alt-right” and has been criticized for presenting conspiracy theories."

But something tells me you don't really care about the source of information you consume.

Ok I'm out on this conspiracy theory mush brain stuff. Enjoy brothers.

The only thing "proven" here is that everybody has way too much time on their hands and wastes it in front of a screen. The deer opener can't get here quick enough!

Same, KS. If I recall, Mike felt strongly the virus wasn’t engineered. That said, even if the virus wasn’t engineered, the pandemic still could have been the result of a lab leak. Curious Mike’s take on both those topics.

typical ksflatlander narcissism.

contrary to what you might think...not every post here is about you...in response to you...or having anything to do with you. i never looked at your link...simply because it was specifically directed to another poster.

believe it or not...other people know how to use google also.

again...thanks for the free rent. lol

Flat earth was a scientific consensus. Earth being at the center of the universe was a scientific consensus. Even Galileo changed his theory on the sun being the center to avoid persecution by the Catholic church. I can go on for a long time on the error of scientific consensus.

My position is exactly the same as it was 4 years ago on all Covid-related issues/topics. This is based on the evidence which I spent a helluva lot of time poring over as well as firsthand, real-world experiences.

The biggest factor in pointing to a naturally evolved virus is the behavior of SARS-CoV-2 since the onset of the pandemic; it has behaved exactly in the manner expected of RNA respiratory viruses; the trajectory has been a steady progression towards highly transmissible, less pathogenic strains.

Regarding the vaccines, some during this pandemic seemed to forget some of the basics of vaccination; there is no such thing as a zero side-effects vaccine and this includes some of the most commonly used vaccines such as those required in childhood.

The "vaccine phobia" is hardly a new phenomenon but it is a dangerous one; witness the increases in outbreaks of measles in the US for example.

In all my years in the field I've never seen anything remotely close to the rampant garbage peddled during this pandemic. Of course, none of the major peddlers walked the halls of NYC hospitals like Elmhurst when body bags were literally piled to the ceiling in the halls outside the morgue because there was no room for them there.

Isaac Asimov

Beyond direct temperature measurements, they’ve got plenty of proxy measurements to fairly accurately predict and corroborate temperatures and climate well before they were recorded. Spending five minutes to actually understand the science would have told you that. Things like the chemical and structural composition of rocks, fossils, ocean sediments, tree rings, and ice cores.

Yes (see link), there is data out there showing the major causes of mortality of birds and turbines are less than power lines, cars, mirrored glass, and house cats (#1 cause). I've personally collected bird mortality bird data at wind farms and the rate is typically 1-2 birds/MW/year. Not that high comparatively.

As BEG said, just five minutes...

April 7 (Reuters) - An American wind energy company that pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges after at least 150 eagles were killed, most hacked by turbine blades, has agreed to spend as much as $27 million on efforts to prevent more deaths. ESI Energy Inc., a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Inc. (NEE.N), opens new tab, one of the largest U.S. providers of renewable energy, entered a plea agreement for violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the U.S. Justice Department said.

How many times have we seen science change their minds?.... granted Not all science is wrong.

But sometimes it's best to just sit back and watch, rather than join the circus.

And will always change until universal absolute truths and that's a positive. It has got us to the depths of the ocean to the moon and beyond, it has more than double human life span, it brought understanding to subatomic particles and quantum physics, supercomputers and AI, and so on.

The Bible is "wrong" about the universe...does that mean the entire Bible is wrong?

What people don't trust are politicians and media. The moment a politician says the science need us to alter our lives, give up our money, loose convinces... then the science becomes suspect. It's been used as a prop way to many times by these people to blindly trust it/them anymore.

The frustration should not lay with the skeptical or disbelievers, but with the people who made them that way.

I agree mostly with your post Catscratch; however, don't get your science from any politician ever. There is personal responsibility IMO to check the science yourself and it's just as bad to push data you haven't fact check yourself IMO. Qualifying it with "I heard" doesn't absolve you from passing on misinformation (false witness). IMO the misinformation spread is not an insignificant threat to our sovereignty.

Bird and wind power generation was brought up earlier. While in college I spent time collecting dead birds from under guide wires supporting radio towers. There were a lot (mostly night migrants). So many in fact that scavengers had trails from their nightly checks. Oftentimes I'd only find a cluster feathers. Point being is that almost everything we humans do have an affect, not just the new things.

Interestingly, about half the dead bats aren't hit by the blades. They get in the negative pressure vacuum behind the blades and the lungs implode.

China is a major air polluter and we out perform them economically in many way and we have cleaner air.

That's the spirit fellas.

snippets From the article;

If you read the latest OECD publication, “Employment Outlook 2024: The Net Zero Transition and the Labour Market,” you would imagine that the world has not gone through the largest monetary and fiscal stimulus in decades.

Net zero will make you poorer. Negative real wage growth is a consequence of Keynesian policies. The results are so poor, they are embarrassing. Furthermore, the report illustrates the impoverishment of citizens and subtly suggests that achieving the net zero goal will present an even greater challenge. Translation: You will be even poorer.

According to the OECD report, 20% of the global workforce is in jobs that will expand due to the net-zero transition. The report basically tells us that the remaining 80% will face significant challenges.

(he points out at length that the Biden Admins Employment numbers have been manipulated to make this policy appear better than it is, then)

If the unemployment rate has fallen but the average hours worked per worker are flat, the labour participation rate has slumped, and real wages have declined, then there is no real improvement in employment.

According to the OECD report, average hours worked per worker have declined in all countries except three of the entire OECD, and real wage growth is negative in the United States as well as many other economies.

Now remember that these dreadful statistics come after the largest so-called “stimulus package” in decades. The largest monetary experiment, combined with an unprecedented level of public debt increase, has left workers poorer. The worst is yet to come.

The OECD report warns that the net zero transition will increase inflation in essential goods and services as well as generate significant displacement of low-skilled labor. They even warn that low-skilled jobs in high-emission sectors pay better, and this will create challenges for citizens.

There is no way in which one can defend this social engineering. Keynesianism always leads to malinvestment, misallocation of capital, higher indebtedness, and worse outcomes for workers and the middle class for a very simple reason: governments do not have better or more information about the requirements of society, and they spend money that comes from somebody else.

Malinvestment does happen in an open economy. However, creative destruction takes care of it. Malinvestment when the government controls the economy is the norm. And instead of creative destruction, we get subsidized misallocation of capital.

I have.

No one likes to look at the whole picture when they have an agenda.

Further, a medium size generating station of 250 MW would kill ~375 birds if in a wind station. Why in the name of logic would you compare that to house cats. How is a house cat even relevant to this argument? Logic left the building on that one. So how many thousands of birds are wind turbines responsible for killing? Probably over 150 GW of wind turbines, maybe a lot more than that. That's a lot of dead birds.

As soon as you back up anything you said I'll respond. Otherwise it's just BS.

1. I've permitted over 50 operating wind farms in the U.S. That alone will more than cover the entire carbon footprint of my entire family.

2. House is all electric and I buy electrons from the wind projects I permitted.

3. House has 2X6 walls, led lighting, extra efficient HVAC and appliances, tankless water heater.

4. Hybrid vehicle that gets +50mpg.

5. Recycling pick up

6. Work from home mostly or in the field so driving is limited.

So I've more than covered my carbon footprint and then some.

How about you all? CaptObvious? Zbone?

that statement suggests you make your living in the wind energy space. is that the case?

this seems to suggest you do...

"No it doesn't...little following puppy."

so much for the "done with the name calling" thing. that didnt last long.

Your assumption is wrong.

not to the name calling...that says a lot more about you than me. as to your hypocrisy though...that can be spotted a mile away.

as to following you around...again...just more ksflatlander narcissism. bowsite is a pretty small community. theres a pretty good chance that a poster...especially one with views that are often in opposition to the majority...is going to get noticed and responded to. it really isnt about you "brother"...its about your opinions.

when discussing something like "climate change"...a persons motivations...especially financial... are always relevant. that might be directly (as in income)...or indirectly (as in political donations).

It just seems to me you follow me around and incessantly post immediately after me. You can call it random but statistics would say otherwise. And stop with the projecting but feel free to tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

CaptMike- still no substance but your consistent so there is that

It just seems to me you follow me around and incessantly post immediately after me. You can call it random but statistics would say otherwise. And stop with the projecting but feel free to tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

of course it would. thats why i did exactly that.

"that statement suggests you make your living in the wind energy space. is that the case?"

I’m shocked that the Ricky the Verbal Ninja doesn’t acknowledge he asked a yes or no question!

Broken Vineyard Wind Turbine Scatters Debris Along Nantucket's South Shore; Wind Farm Operations Shut Down By Feds

That was the title of the Article in the Nantucket Current. That project is supplying Zero energy...and will require an expensive clean up BUT the good news is the climate weinies like KS Flat pushing these projects got their big paychecks...we as taxpayers get to pay for their mistakes.

Debris from a broken Vineyard Wind turbine blade washed up all over Nantucket's south shore Tuesday morning, prompting the offshore energy company to mount a cleanup effort and the federal government to shut down the wind farm "until further notice."

Residents began reporting pieces of green and white foam, along with larger pieces of what appears to fiberglass, along southern Nantucket beaches at daybreak, stretching from Madaket out to Nobadeer.

The federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement announced Tuesday afternoon that Vineyard Wind's "operations are shut down until further notice."

All south shore beaches were closed to swimming by the town just after 11 a.m. as a result of the debris. There is no estimate for when they will be reopened.

"The water is closed to swimming on all south shore beaches, due to large floating debris and sharp fiberglass shards," Nantucket Harbormaster Sheila Lucey said. "You can walk on the beaches, however we strongly recommend you wear footwear due to sharp, fiberglass shards and debris on the beaches."

Doubt it matters to you at all Bruce.... you're crossing the line with me. I don't tolerate rude belligerent stuff like that in my private life. Not at all. You want to be an azzhole though.. go right ahead... I've mostly written you off lately

Of course I asked a yes or no question. That’s what I was accused of not doing. That was the whole point.

Please try to keep up.

I'm not the one bragging about making a paycheck from these Windmill projects- just stating the facts of them crashing and burning....and it's going to be an expensive clean up.

These projects didn't work on the Hawaiian islands- some of the windiest places on earth...now it's a rusting soon to be superfund site.

Many bird and bats post-construction surveys are voluntary but we mostly do those associated with an endangered species take permit. A take permit is a permit to incidentally kill endangered species at a certain rate (insignificant kill rate) that doesn't cause a population decline..

"These projects didn't work on the Hawaiian islands- some of the windiest places on earth...now it's a rusting soon to be superfund site."

I know that issues with take of the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat was an issue.

thanks for posting that. i have no doubt the "follow the science" folks here will tell you how wrong those deniers are...but it was a very thought provoking piece.

Almost made me laugh out loud...8^)))

Yep, hilariously not true. Another Trump lie. Trump Tower with its mirrored glass kills many more birds vs a wind turbine. Hilarious.

Nope I didn't watch the video. I don't get my science from YouTube or social media. Kind of like the 2000 Mules thing lol.

I’m betting you get most of your “peer reviewed” science and data from the same source as the name written at the top of your paystub.

Uh, that's a no. I don't work for a scientific journal. But I do tend to use peer reviewed data...call me crazy. Your comment does however show how little you understand about the science, science data, and the scientific process.

A purely subjective observation... north central Minnesota winter temperatures have risen at least 8 or 10 degrees in last 50 years. I've observed this ..This is messing up a lot of things for certain. That big of increase in 50 years does not seem natural in my opinion

"When you hear “warming,” you may envision summer months, sunny days, and heat waves. But in truth, most of our warming hasn’t happened in the summer. Most of Minnesota’s observed warming has been when it’s coldest.

This climate trend is called “cold weather warming,” and it means that the average temperature of winter months is increasing faster than the average temperature of summer months. Over the last 50 years, Minnesota’s winter has warmed an incredible 13 times faster than summer. And the frequencies of -35°F readings in northern Minnesota and -25°F readings in the south have fallen by up to 90%."

Sound like a deal?

Lake near me eelpout have vanished, tullibee declined heavily, pine beetles thicker, birch trees suffering, blights more common, more ticks. On and on. Lot of other changes.

This is entirely my very subjective opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

Yea you are a scientist

Assuming something about someone without knowing a dang thing about them.

The consummate liberal hater. You have defined yourself perfectly.

How is fact checking a source baiting?

And why would I bait Rusty anyways? Rusty is a good guy and we text each other sometimes. Rusty and I may not always agree but he is a stand up person and I'd hunt and hang with him any day. Sorry if I hurt your street cred here Rusty lol.

Stalemate again! I tried:)

I tried to get you to fact check sources. I tried ;)

What I don't get is that many say there's not enough data but yet they are 100% certain man-made climate change isn't real. Do you see the irony in that?

But I tell you what. I know a sure fire way to get me to believe you are right. Get me a $100,000 grant to study climate change for a year. I GUARANTEE you I will find it. My data will probably say it's worse than most of the current scientists. In which I will need $250,000 the next year to do more extensive research

"And contrary to Mr. Santorum’s suggestion, Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel companies do fund research. From 1977 to 2014, 83 percent of the company’s peer-reviewed studies and 80 percent of its internal communications acknowledged that climate change is real and caused by humans, according to a 2017 study that reviewed Exxon’s documents."

In addition, if there was bias due to funding sources, that is the exact reason for our scientific process of peer review and consensus. Bad science is chewed up and spit out by peers. They can be hard on each others data. Science encourages dissent but you have to back it up with real verifiable data. Lastly, if there is good data out there showing that the consensus is wrong, there is notoriety and financial motive out there for those scientists that can prove it. E.g., Einstein, Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, Newton, etc.

So answer your own question, who funded Climate: The Movie? And why doesn't Tom Newton publish his findings in a scientific journal where his data can be challenged?

Belief without data is faith. Conclusions based on verifiable data is science. There's a whole lot of faith here regarding climate science even with a consensus of varifiable scientific data at your finger tips.

I don't put any stock on evidence and data from any one person or source. I'll stick with consensus and the climate change scientific experts consensus is that world average temps are increasing rapidly relative to time and increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the main driver. I'm going to go with the consensus science and not faith in a YouTube video, an electrical engineer, a handful of climate scientists, a tweet meme, Bowsite posts, or Jaquomo's friend. Call me crazy.

Shane

"The record for the world's hottest day has tumbled twice in one week, according to the European climate change service.

On Monday the global average surface air temperature reached 17.15C, breaking the record of 17.09C set on Sunday.

It beats the record set in July 2023, and it could break again this week.

Parts of the world are experiencing powerful heatwaves including the Mediterranean, Russia and Canada.

Climate change is driving up global temperatures as greenhouse gas emissions released when humans burn fossil fuels warm the Earth's atmosphere.

"While fluctuations are to be expected, as the climate continues to warm, we are likely to keep seeing records being broken, and each new record is taking us further into uncharted territory," says Prof Rebecca Emerton, a climate scientist at the Copernicus Climate Change Service.

The naturally-occurring climate phenomenon El Niño also added heat to the climate in the first six months of this year but its effects have now waned.

Extreme heat is a serious health hazard, with thousands of deaths attributed to high temperatures every year.

In 2000-2019, almost half a million heat-related deaths around the world occurred each year, according to the World Health Organization.

China has issued heat alerts this week, with central and northwestern areas of the country recording temperatures higher than 40C.

Russia has been battling wildfires in Siberia, and Spain and Greece also endured days of high temperatures.

In the US, more than 40 million people on Tuesday faced dangerous temperatures, and wildfires have broken out in western areas of the country."

Ice ages. Not so much