Southern Elk
Well-known member
I think what you are describing has more to do with plate tectonics than climate change.
Climate Change in Alaska?
- Thread starter shoots-straight
- Start date
- Status
I think what you are describing has more to do with plate tectonics than climate change.
WyoDoug
Well-known member
Not necessarily. When you go from plush green rain forest to desert as in the Sierra or what Death Valley used to be during the prehistoric days, that is climate change caused by shifting of the earth's plates along with other contributing factors. It might be tectonics but it is still causing climate change to the area on it as it moves. Very gradual as compared to what pollution from both natural and man-made sources do but still. The shifting of the plates under Hawaii is what keeps the volcanoes going there and the release of methane and sulfur dioxide and other toxic gases has a definite affect on climate change in that area. Unfortunately, the first thing affected by it is the wildlife. The science to date just don't explain it and we need to go back to day one and do it without bias and let the evidence fall where it may.
Piseco
New member
I blame Obamacare , Signed Big Fins MN relatives
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I believe that climate change is a very serious issue for sportsman. That's why I posted the latest dire news to grace the headlines. There is no denying what's going on. We as sportsman will have less opportunities because of this. Are we willing to do something to reverse this?
RW
RW
Bambistew
Well-known member
This heat sucks... the worst part is the sun is up for 18hrs and bakes all day. No relief in sight 7+ days over 80, and fire danger is off the charts.
I'm getting a bit worried about my sheep hunt. If it stays hot I cant get across the glacial fed streams to my spot. May have to push it back till September. The little creek near my house is running about 3x what it was 2 weeks ago from the glacier melt.
As far as critters, I doubt it will be good for theboy. The moose will probably benefit as shrubs encroach north. Prior to about 1950 there were basically no moose north of the Yukon valley, now they can be found on the North Slope.
It was 92 at my house today, laugh, but it rarely gets to the mid 70s in the summer. I remember one summer we had like 4 days over 70. It's usually about 10-12. I bought an AC unit, never would have thought I needed one. Crazy hot...
I'm getting a bit worried about my sheep hunt. If it stays hot I cant get across the glacial fed streams to my spot. May have to push it back till September. The little creek near my house is running about 3x what it was 2 weeks ago from the glacier melt.
As far as critters, I doubt it will be good for theboy. The moose will probably benefit as shrubs encroach north. Prior to about 1950 there were basically no moose north of the Yukon valley, now they can be found on the North Slope.
It was 92 at my house today, laugh, but it rarely gets to the mid 70s in the summer. I remember one summer we had like 4 days over 70. It's usually about 10-12. I bought an AC unit, never would have thought I needed one. Crazy hot...
shoots-straight
Well-known member
So, Bambi,
How about bugs? What does this do to them? Good, bad, or indifferent?
Sounds like it's good for moose in the north, but bad for moose down south on extreme southern usage of their range. Same with Goats?
What about Polar bears? Ice melt is not a good thing for them either.
Muskox must be sweltering under that wool coat, even if it's shed.
How about bugs? What does this do to them? Good, bad, or indifferent?
Sounds like it's good for moose in the north, but bad for moose down south on extreme southern usage of their range. Same with Goats?
What about Polar bears? Ice melt is not a good thing for them either.
Muskox must be sweltering under that wool coat, even if it's shed.
pointingdogsrule
Well-known member
So you're saying I should invest in air conditioner stock
it was global warming, which is total nonesence. those who would destroy the nation had to change it to climate change because no one was buying what they spew.
same way they dumped liberal for progressive.
it really doesn't matter what you name it , BS is BS just the same.
while many will fall for it, those who matter, never will.
those who spout climate change will tell you it is scientifically accepted and cannot be disputed . this is not so. there are many ,many scientists who dismiss it as a hoax.
for the record … I do believe climates change . it has since the earth was formed and will continue to do so till the very end.
global warming is simply a tool used by those who ,profess themselves to be wise but are actually foolish , to seek to control and silence those who disagree with them.
Scientists Prove Man-made Global Warming a Hoax
Published on April 10, 2019
Written by John Nolte
Far-left ThinkProgress reports that scientists have finally proven that the theory of man-made Global Warming is a total hoax.
Of course, no one will admit it, but that is exactly what has happened. A new scientific study shows has revealed the following:
Yes, you read that correctly, three million — million — years ago CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, but there is one major difference between three million years ago and today…
Three million years ago, we humans were not driving cars or eating the meat that requires cow farts; we weren’t barbecuing or refusing to recycle or building factories; there was no Industrial Age, no plastic, no air conditioning, no electricity, no lumber mills, no consumerism, no aerosols.
In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today. And yet…
CO2 levels were the same then as they are now…
Hmmm…?
But I thought humans warmed the planet? That’s the hustle we’ve been sold for three decades now — you know, that WE are the problem.
We have also been told the problem is DEFINITELY NOT a billions-year-old planet running through cycles where the temperature might fluctuate a bit. Oh, no, that could never be it — so stop saying that could be, you Denier.
Well, what about the Ice Age that occurred thousands and thousands of years before the Industrial Age.
Shut up, Denier.
And yet…
According to the study, scientists also discovered that during this period of Global Warming “there were no ice sheets covering either Greenland or West Antarctica, and much of the East Antarctic ice sheet was gone.”
How is this possible 2,999,971 years before Arnold Schwarzenegger bought his Hummer?
It gets worse:
How is that possible 2,999,945 years before Americans moved to the suburbs and lit up the charcoal grills?
Naturally, even in the face of a study that totally debunks the whole concept of man-made Global Warming, ThinkProgress is sticking with that hoax but is also forced to concede the following:
But-but-but-but Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy told me we only have 12 years!
And then ThinkProgress drops this anti-science stink bomb:
Because, because, because Orange Man Bad:
No, actually, what this study proves is that there is nothing we can do to stop the Earth’s naturally occurring climate cycles. Even the worst of the worst, even the most maniacal pushing the Global Warming Hoax admit that, at best, we can only cool the planet a couple of degrees, which will do next to nothing if the planet is determined to again warm itself by seven degrees, as we now know it did 2,999,998 years before the Bad Orange Man approved a couple of pipelines.
Read more at www.breitbart.com
looks like I am not the only one who denies it.
yet it cannot be denied ? how can this be so??
Published on April 10, 2019
Written by John Nolte
Far-left ThinkProgress reports that scientists have finally proven that the theory of man-made Global Warming is a total hoax.
Of course, no one will admit it, but that is exactly what has happened. A new scientific study shows has revealed the following:
Yes, you read that correctly, three million — million — years ago CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, but there is one major difference between three million years ago and today…
Three million years ago, we humans were not driving cars or eating the meat that requires cow farts; we weren’t barbecuing or refusing to recycle or building factories; there was no Industrial Age, no plastic, no air conditioning, no electricity, no lumber mills, no consumerism, no aerosols.
In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today. And yet…
CO2 levels were the same then as they are now…
Hmmm…?
But I thought humans warmed the planet? That’s the hustle we’ve been sold for three decades now — you know, that WE are the problem.
We have also been told the problem is DEFINITELY NOT a billions-year-old planet running through cycles where the temperature might fluctuate a bit. Oh, no, that could never be it — so stop saying that could be, you Denier.
Well, what about the Ice Age that occurred thousands and thousands of years before the Industrial Age.
Shut up, Denier.
And yet…
According to the study, scientists also discovered that during this period of Global Warming “there were no ice sheets covering either Greenland or West Antarctica, and much of the East Antarctic ice sheet was gone.”
How is this possible 2,999,971 years before Arnold Schwarzenegger bought his Hummer?
It gets worse:
How is that possible 2,999,945 years before Americans moved to the suburbs and lit up the charcoal grills?
Naturally, even in the face of a study that totally debunks the whole concept of man-made Global Warming, ThinkProgress is sticking with that hoax but is also forced to concede the following:
But-but-but-but Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy told me we only have 12 years!
And then ThinkProgress drops this anti-science stink bomb:
Because, because, because Orange Man Bad:
No, actually, what this study proves is that there is nothing we can do to stop the Earth’s naturally occurring climate cycles. Even the worst of the worst, even the most maniacal pushing the Global Warming Hoax admit that, at best, we can only cool the planet a couple of degrees, which will do next to nothing if the planet is determined to again warm itself by seven degrees, as we now know it did 2,999,998 years before the Bad Orange Man approved a couple of pipelines.
Read more at www.breitbart.com
looks like I am not the only one who denies it.
yet it cannot be denied ? how can this be so??
Ben Sellers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 572
The problem deciding if climate change is real is that it has become a political football. Most people decide whether it’s true or not because they are looking through a conservative or progressive frame of reference. Scientists on both sides, yes Both sides, are designing their work to prove or disprove C.C., not to objectively find out if it’s real and if so quantify the amount of human caused CC over what is already happening. Huge swings in climate have happened many times, and when it happened it was fast. There have always been droughts, heat waves, cold snaps, floods, tornados, fires, and hurricanes. What you think you see now vs what you remember or what someone else remembers is irrelevant. That is not a true or unbiased comparison.
It is easy to fall into a general feeling of guilt that we are destroying the world. We see change, largely negative, over time and feel that we should have something to stop it. I think world population growth is really the root cause of the majority of the environmental issues. The problem with that is there is not a convenient solution to population growth without infringing on people’s basic human rights. IF climate change is real, AND we halve the amount of CO2 a person uses and we double the population in the next 50 to 100 years we have not solved the climate issue.
I’ve worked with the conroll of air pollution my entire career and still haven’t been able to decide whether I believe we have human induced climate change.
It is easy to fall into a general feeling of guilt that we are destroying the world. We see change, largely negative, over time and feel that we should have something to stop it. I think world population growth is really the root cause of the majority of the environmental issues. The problem with that is there is not a convenient solution to population growth without infringing on people’s basic human rights. IF climate change is real, AND we halve the amount of CO2 a person uses and we double the population in the next 50 to 100 years we have not solved the climate issue.
I’ve worked with the conroll of air pollution my entire career and still haven’t been able to decide whether I believe we have human induced climate change.
icebreaker12
Active member
Scientists Prove Man-made Global Warming a Hoax
Published on April 10, 2019
Written by John Nolte
Far-left ThinkProgress reports that scientists have finally proven that the theory of man-made Global Warming is a total hoax.
Of course, no one will admit it, but that is exactly what has happened. A new scientific study shows has revealed the following:
Yes, you read that correctly, three million — million — years ago CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, but there is one major difference between three million years ago and today…
Three million years ago, we humans were not driving cars or eating the meat that requires cow farts; we weren’t barbecuing or refusing to recycle or building factories; there was no Industrial Age, no plastic, no air conditioning, no electricity, no lumber mills, no consumerism, no aerosols.
In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today. And yet…
CO2 levels were the same then as they are now…
Hmmm…?
But I thought humans warmed the planet? That’s the hustle we’ve been sold for three decades now — you know, that WE are the problem.
We have also been told the problem is DEFINITELY NOT a billions-year-old planet running through cycles where the temperature might fluctuate a bit. Oh, no, that could never be it — so stop saying that could be, you Denier.
Well, what about the Ice Age that occurred thousands and thousands of years before the Industrial Age.
Shut up, Denier.
And yet…
According to the study, scientists also discovered that during this period of Global Warming “there were no ice sheets covering either Greenland or West Antarctica, and much of the East Antarctic ice sheet was gone.”
How is this possible 2,999,971 years before Arnold Schwarzenegger bought his Hummer?
It gets worse:
How is that possible 2,999,945 years before Americans moved to the suburbs and lit up the charcoal grills?
Naturally, even in the face of a study that totally debunks the whole concept of man-made Global Warming, ThinkProgress is sticking with that hoax but is also forced to concede the following:
But-but-but-but Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy told me we only have 12 years!
And then ThinkProgress drops this anti-science stink bomb:
Because, because, because Orange Man Bad:
No, actually, what this study proves is that there is nothing we can do to stop the Earth’s naturally occurring climate cycles. Even the worst of the worst, even the most maniacal pushing the Global Warming Hoax admit that, at best, we can only cool the planet a couple of degrees, which will do next to nothing if the planet is determined to again warm itself by seven degrees, as we now know it did 2,999,998 years before the Bad Orange Man approved a couple of pipelines.
Read more at www.breitbart.com
looks like I am not the only one who denies it.
yet it cannot be denied ? how can this be so??
Yea, so I really suggest you reread the article you posted as well as the linked study. Because the point they are making is, yes, CO2 has been this high before, but conditions were vastly different and they’ve never seen CO2 increase this quickly.
Directly from the publication:
Sometimes we have to take a step back and realize that our view points skew the way we interpret things.
I have said this before, but I think its what to do about it that’s worth arguing about.
Rarely do you see anything proposed that has data to back it up that can substantiate a claim that implementing policy X will have Y impact on the global temperature.
Polluting and then buying a credit to ‘offset’ your pollution doesn’t lower the temperature. It just takes money out of your pocket, puts it in somebody else’s pocket. Then you get it back by passing the cost to your consumer. Adding more tax to a gallon of gas slightly decreases my expendable income, but not the mean global temperature.
When a peer reviewed study can correlate that there is a relationship between a decreased level of expendable money in the middle class, and the mean temperature of the earth, I’ll commit to a $500 direct payroll deduction every pay period to go to climate initiatives. I’m sure millions more people will do the same and we’ll be hunting Musk ox in what used to be the Great Salt Lake Basin before we know it. But that won’t happen.
In fact, I think there is a strong argument to be made that the less money people have, the less they care about pollution, climate or the environment in general.
Politicians always pushing ‘climate policy’ could be taken more serious by a lot of people if they’d step away from the carbon tax, cap and trade, ‘offset’ bong.
Climate policy today isn’t much more than a way to enrich a handful of selected billionaires, many of whom will pump millions back into the superPACs of the politicians that enabled the policies.
Rarely do you see anything proposed that has data to back it up that can substantiate a claim that implementing policy X will have Y impact on the global temperature.
Polluting and then buying a credit to ‘offset’ your pollution doesn’t lower the temperature. It just takes money out of your pocket, puts it in somebody else’s pocket. Then you get it back by passing the cost to your consumer. Adding more tax to a gallon of gas slightly decreases my expendable income, but not the mean global temperature.
When a peer reviewed study can correlate that there is a relationship between a decreased level of expendable money in the middle class, and the mean temperature of the earth, I’ll commit to a $500 direct payroll deduction every pay period to go to climate initiatives. I’m sure millions more people will do the same and we’ll be hunting Musk ox in what used to be the Great Salt Lake Basin before we know it. But that won’t happen.
In fact, I think there is a strong argument to be made that the less money people have, the less they care about pollution, climate or the environment in general.
Politicians always pushing ‘climate policy’ could be taken more serious by a lot of people if they’d step away from the carbon tax, cap and trade, ‘offset’ bong.
Climate policy today isn’t much more than a way to enrich a handful of selected billionaires, many of whom will pump millions back into the superPACs of the politicians that enabled the policies.
Last edited:
Well, I knew it wouldn't take long for this one to go off the rails. Locked.
- Status
Similar threads
