Climate Change

Hopefully they can figure out a way to stop cows from farting before its too late

I think one of the biggest things overlooked is the effects. If we someday heed the warnings of the climate scientists about what is currently happening, then we Will be relying solely on what they say is going to happen so we can prepare effectively.

I have a huge problem with this “polar vortex” being a result of climate change. They suggest it is unnatural but it also went unpredicted as far as I know. If they cant predict this, then what are we supposed to believe?

I get a feeling we’re going to see a lot of surprises in the next 20-30 years regarding climate change.

I saw a biography on a well known politician that talked about climate change and how he addressed it in his area. He said the way it is being sold to the public is completely wrong. It needs to be sold in a way that says “invest in this and we will benefit like this”. No different than improving infrastructure and no need to link it to climate change.

Climate change is simply a political pawn. A few people here get it.

Is the planet changing abnormally? Yeah probably, but making that statement is like arguing what to do about it on a fishing forum. The doom and gloom seems to only be in the elections and news. The DNR and governmental departs are simply making changes to account for it. He’ll, I remember about a decade ago they said that we can expect to have a climate like Northern Iowa in the next 50 years. I don’t think that’s going to trigger a mass famine. What am I missing?

philtickelson wrote:

I will side with the scientists who are spending the majority of their lives researching climate change.

If you were a scientist funded by taxpayer dollars (Which almost all are) and found no problem, you might be out of a job, eh?

-J.

biggill wrote:

I think one of the biggest things overlooked is the effects. If we someday heed the warnings of the climate scientists about what is currently happening, then we Will be relying solely on what they say is going to happen so we can prepare effectively.

I have a huge problem with this “polar vortex” being a result of climate change. They suggest it is unnatural but it also went unpredicted as far as I know. If they cant predict this, then what are we supposed to believe?

I get a feeling we’re going to see a lot of surprises in the next 20-30 years regarding climate change.

Umm
https://www.axios.com/polar-vortex-is-about-to-split-up-5c2e7460-67fb-49da-b73a-079ffbe205b9.html

And, yes many surprises are likely in the future. The climate is a sleeping bear and we’re poking at it with a stick knowing it’s going to get posed but not exactly how it’s going to lash out.

Didn’t feel like reading the 6 pages of comments, but here’s my opinion. Wether you believe in it or don’t why wouldn’t you want to reduce emissions and your personal effects regardless. That statement should also include within reason. I don’t feel that everyone should be forced to drive a certain car, live in a certain area, etc.. but I’m all for being environmentally friendly when able.

slipbob_nick wrote:

Didn’t feel like reading the 6 pages of comments, but here’s my opinion. Wether you believe in it or don’t why wouldn’t you want to reduce emissions and your personal effects regardless. That statement should also include within reason. I don’t feel that everyone should be forced to drive a certain car, live in a certain area, etc.. but I’m all for being environmentally friendly when able.

What are we suppose to do? live in a cave? and walk everywhere? Paddle your fishing boat? IMHO it ain’t as bad as what they make you think it is.

As soon as someone shows me how to be able to live my life without burning fossil fuels I’m in.

and – Who is trying to be purposely environmentally un-friendly in today’s world?

BTW – I don’t believe in man made climate change and I try to do everything I can to be environmentally friendly, but still seem to be perceived as a bad person because I’m a non-believer.

Its mother nature.Not a thing anyone can do to stop her,she will do what she wants when she wants.Keep fighting her,throwing money at her,in the end she will come out on top.There isnt a person alive that knows what will become of her.All we can do is enjoy the best she has to offer and endure the worst she can dish out because all good things eventually come to an end.

Eel pout I think we’re thinking along the same lines. I’m saying within reason if we can do something that helps great but needs to be a happy medium. It can’t be over the top. I could be wrong but it seems like when climate change comes up it’s one extreme or the other either people want to do nothing or want to mandate everyone lives in the cities and can’t drive a car.

There has been enough of these scientist caught red handed manipulating the data to get the results they were paid to get or probably wanted to get in the first place and that in itself is enough to tell me and should most people this is more of a agenda driven political issue than it is truth in science.

The government needs it’s carbon tax. They need to demonize the fossil fuel companies and other large corporations and turn public opinion against them so people cheer when the government punishes them by leveraging huge amounts of carbon taxes on them. Thereby largely reducing their capacity to produce the very things that every single person on this planet uses everyday in more ways then you can even think of at any kind of reasonable cost to the consumer. You think the cost of living is high now? Wait until enormous carbon taxes are passed on to all of us by these companies. These companies don’t just absorb these things and say “well that’s the cost of doing business I guess” Then you are going to have your own carbon tax to pay if you don’t behave in the right way by buying electric cars and installing solar panels on your house.

The truth is huge carbon taxes are going to have a much larger impact on peoples daily lives sooner than any climate change real or imagined will ever have in our life times.

This is just my view of it and I’m not here to get in a never ending argument with anybody. I would say nearly every one here is probably as environmentally responsible people as anybody else out there and maybe even more so as sportsman tend to be.

Round and round this goes, and yet no one can agree that it’s the animals that suffer the most.

These discussions keep spinning with no end in sight.

At least not until the gorilla pushes the sheep…

slipbob_nick wrote:

I don’t feel that everyone should be forced to drive a certain car, live in a certain area, etc.. but I’m all for being environmentally friendly when able.

That’s the rub. Most people who don’t buy into climate change probably agree with that statement. But when people push climate change the solutions are drastic, raising are cost of living while lowering our standard of living in the name of the earth suffering irreversible damage if we don’t do something now.

Ive been of the opinion that if people were serious about climate change they would start with saying we need to restore the forests and vegetation back to historic levels. Forests are act as radiators for the earth. The earth has been flattened in many areas sometimes exasperated by being replaced with asphalt and concrete which absorb and radiate heat. One example is We know cities create a heat island effect, yet no one talks about that effect on temps rising.

What really screws up the global climate is when you change regional climates like chopping down tropical rain forests for agriculture.

Research and Mico events i have witnessed led me to this comclusion.

I remember when a part of the twin cities was known as tornado alley, but that went away when the west/nw suburbs were developed. I also remember the Fridley tornado in 1986 that got stuck in spring Brook as it fed off the warmer moisture trapped air due to the high concentration of trees.

Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes, “was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.”

Isn’t this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?

In this case, it didn’t warrant any news coverage.

In fact, in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown’s story, no other news outlet picked up on it. They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism’s impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that “our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly.”

Reporters even found time to cover a group that says they want to carve President Trump’s face into a glacier to prove climate change “is happening.”

In other words, the mainstream news covered stories that repeated what climate change advocates have been saying ad nauseam for decades.

That’s not to say that a two-year stretch of cooling means that global warming is a hoax. Two years out of hundreds or thousands doesn’t necessarily mean anything. And there could be a reasonable explanation. But the drop in temperatures at least merits a “Hey, what’s going on here?” story.

What’s more, journalists are perfectly willing to jump on any individual weather anomaly — or even a picture of a starving polar bear — as proof of global warming. (We haven’t seen any stories pinning Hawaii’s recent volcanic activity on global warming yet, but won’t be surprised if someone tries to make the connection.)

We’ve noted this refusal to cover inconvenient scientific findings many times in this space over the years.

Hiding The Evidence
There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven’t seen any increase in violent weather in decades?

Crickets.

Reporters no doubt worry that covering such findings will only embolden “deniers” and undermine support for immediate, drastic action.

But if fears of catastrophic climate change are warranted — which we seriously doubt — ignoring things like the rapid cooling in the past two years carries an even bigger risk.

Suppose, Brown writes, the two-year cooling trend continues. “At some point the news will leak out that all global warming since 1980 has been wiped out in two and a half years, and that record-setting events went unreported.”

He goes on: “Some people could go from uncritical acceptance of steadily rising temperatures to uncritical refusal to accept any warming at all.”

Brown is right. News outlets should decide what gets covered based on its news value, not on whether it pushes an agenda. Otherwise, they’re doing the public a disservice and putting their own already shaky credibility at greater risk.

I haven’t read the entire thread because this topic is overdone and boring, but I am sure there are some very passionate people who think it is imperative we make drastic changes. My favorite question of them is what desperate changes have you made in your personal life to mitigate global warming.

Ice Cap wrote:

There has been enough of these scientist caught red handed manipulating the data to get the results they were paid to get or probably wanted to get in the first place and that in itself is enough to tell me and should most people this is more of a agenda driven political issue than it is truth in science.

Any sources on this? I would like to read more about it. Can you also look up the sources media bias here: http://www.mediabiasfactcheck.com , with an emphasis on the ‘factual reporting’ portion?

Jon Jordan wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>philtickelson wrote:</div>
I will side with the scientists who are spending the majority of their lives researching climate change.

If you were a scientist funded by taxpayer dollars (Which almost all are) and found no problem, you might be out of a job, eh?

-J.

Not really? I trust scientists a hell of a lot more than I do politicians or corporations. That’s largely a myth as well:

New York Times

Most fossil fuel companies are doing their own research, because they’d be stupid not to. And they are largely finding the same result as these ‘money driven’ scientists.

And scientists don’t make legislation, they hopefully inform it. Politicians do make legislation.

One of the most dangerous outcomes of this current administration is how they’ve tried to vilify actual experts/scientists. If those in charge aren’t using facts and research to guide them, what are they using?

mplspug wrote:

I haven’t read the entire thread because this topic is overdone and boring, but I am sure there are some very passionate people who think it is imperative we make drastic changes. My favorite question of them is what desperate changes have you made in your personal life to mitigate global warming.

The onus lies more on our country’s administration and corporations. Most of the emissions/impact on the environment come from large corporations, not individuals.
http://fortune.com/2017/07/10/climate-change-green-house-gases/

Fortune Magazine

I don’t think your question is as good as you think it is. Do you think opioid prescription and use is a problem in the US? WELL YOU CAN’T BECAUSE YOU HAVEN”T DONE ANYTHING TO FIX IT! That’s what the leaders of our country are supposed to be doing….

Do you think veterans aren’t supported adequately when they return from active duty. WELL WHAT HAVE YOU DONE ABOUT IT YOU LAZY PILE.

Do you think healthcare costs are too expensive for most families, especially those who have children with diabilities? WELL WHY HAVEN’T YOU CHANGED THAT IN BETWEEN THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF HOSPITAL BILLS YOU’VE BEEN PAYING FOR YOUR CANCER RIDDEN CHILD.

It sure is getting hot in here.

…we’re proud of not knowing things. Americans have reached a point where ignorance, especially of anything related to public policy, is an actual virtue. To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong about anything.” Tom Nichols

“Keep Public Lands Public – Now and Forever”

If half of the dusch bags wasting their time on this BS would use their time to cure cancer I might have some respect for them.

There’s already a cure. You just can’t afford it.

Who’s the last billionaire you’ve heard of with cancer?…

Ryan Wilson wrote:

There’s already a cure. You just can’t afford it.

Who’s the last billionaire you’ve heard of with cancer?…

The late Steve Jobs. Died of pancreatic cancer.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

Round and round this goes, and yet no one can agree that it’s the animals that suffer the most.

These discussions keep spinning with no end in sight.

At least not until the gorilla pushes the sheep…

<div class=”oembed-wrap”><div class=”fluid-width-video-wrapper” style=”padding-top: 56.2353%;”><iframe src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/O0G5gX6EVXE?feature=oembed&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen=”” id=”fitvid450057″></iframe></div></div>

How so true, it’s like a free for all.

If human caused climate change is real and as bad as they claim it to be, why is it that all of the proposed ” fixes ” do almost nothing to actually fix it ?
So far all the ” fixes ” do nothing but give governments much more money and power.

NO ONE likes change, especially a certain political party. You know the ones insecurity that use dems as a negative and repeatedly blame them for everything without thought of receiving there message that they are above them.

1hl&sinker wrote:

NO ONE likes change, especially a certain political party. You know the ones insecurity that use dems as a negative and repeatedly blame them for everything without thought of receiving there message that they are above them.

Hooked on phonics really works bro? Get some !

mplspug wrote:

I haven’t read the entire thread because this topic is overdone and boring, but I am sure there are some very passionate people who think it is imperative we make drastic changes.

Yeah, do ya think?

It’s like a volleyball game with no out of bounds. Back and forth…crying foul and pointing fingers through the net.

“This is my point”, well this is my point shouting across the stage if we could visualize it as a live theatrical play.

And this little forum is but a mere speck in the world of climate change sparring.

I find it all laughable (my opinion)

I still ask why no advocate for the innocent animals?

Meanwhile, this debate will never end…

….let’s watch another message of absolute silliness

snowflake wrote:

The force is strong with this one. Much sh!t between the ears with this one there is. Hmm.

Go sit in your safe room

Safe room?

There is no such thing, that’s like saying “I’m happy”

And people can say they’re “happy too”, in their “safe room”

And I’m from outer space, but I’m not one of the “collective”…

…the Queen is dead

snowflake wrote:

“I still ask for why no advocate for the innocent animals.”

The force is strong with this one. Much sh!t between the ears with this one there is. Hmm.

Go sit in your safe room

“Members posting rude, inflammatory, hostile, consistently negative or demeaning posts or content are subject to suspension, ban or deletion of the respective member account”

Pretty well sums you up

I think I read 5 comments on all 7 pages.

Nobody is changing anybody’s mind.

At the end of the day we should all do things to help reduce pollution.

I think Arnold got it right when he wrote this.

I don’t give a **** if we agree about climate change.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER·MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2015
I see your questions.
Each and every time I post on my Facebook page or tweet about my crusade for a clean energy future, I see them.
There are always a few of you, asking why we should care about the temperature rising, or questioning the science of climate change.
I want you to know that I hear you. Even those of you who say renewable energy is a conspiracy. Even those who say climate change is a hoax. Even those of you who use four letter words.
I’ve heard all of your questions, and now I have three questions for you.
Let’s put climate change aside for a minute. In fact, let’s assume you’re right.
First – do you believe it is acceptable that 7 million people die every year from pollution? That’s more than murders, suicides, and car accidents – combined.
Every day, 19,000 people die from pollution from fossil fuels. Do you accept those deaths? Do you accept that children all over the world have to grow up breathing with inhalers?
Now, my second question: do you believe coal and oil will be the fuels of the future?
Besides the fact that fossil fuels destroy our lungs, everyone agrees that eventually they will run out. What’s your plan then?
I, personally, want a plan. I don’t want to be like the last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads. I don’t want to be the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged. That’s exactly what is going to happen to fossil fuels.
A clean energy future is a wise investment, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either wrong, or lying. Either way, I wouldn’t take their investment advice.
Renewable energy is great for the economy, and you don’t have to take my word for it. California has some of the most revolutionary environmental laws in the United States, we get 40% of our power from renewables, and we are 40% more energy efficient than the rest of the country. We were an early-adopter of a clean energy future.
Our economy has not suffered. In fact, our economy in California is growing faster than the U.S. economy. We lead the nation in manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, entertainment, high tech, biotech, and, of course, green tech.
I have a final question, and it will take some imagination.
There are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast.
I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.
I’m guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice – who would ever want to breathe those fumes?
This is the choice the world is making right now.
To use one of the four-letter words all of you commenters love, I don’t give a damn if you believe in climate change. I couldn’t care less if you’re concerned about temperatures rising or melting glaciers. It doesn’t matter to me which of us is right about the science.
I just hope that you’ll join me in opening Door Number Two, to a smarter, cleaner, healthier, more profitable energy future.

Jonesy wrote:

I don’t give a **** if we agree about climate change.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER·MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2015

Good post Jonesy. I really wanted to post something here from Arnold as well but it’ll be glossed over like all the rest of the intelligent views on how to move forward, or not move forward I should say. He has some of the most sensible views on how to handle it and why.

Nobody here will care because it doesn’t agree nor disagree with their arguments. Pretty sad but it’s representative of how politics have worked in this country for the past couple decades. If you want to call it “worked”. Our bipartisan system is in the worst state of failure it’s ever been in.

philtickelson wrote:

I don’t think your question is as good as you think it is.

It is because their are things you can do as an individual to reduce your carbon footprint. You illustrated my point. People passionate aren’t willing to do anything unless the government inflicts it on us all.

It seems millions upon million believe in global warming as a crisis. They advocate for change.
It seems to me all those people could make an impact if they all used solar panels, drove electric cars etc. What are they waiting for? I hear the world is dying.

I’m all for electric vehicles or some other powered cars as long as they can do the same work as gas powered vehicles.

Wind Mills and solar farms are ok too…

…as long as I don’t have to see them every day.

I’ve heard about solar and wind power for about 40 years and how they are the future. How has big oil kept them down all these years?