Not one to let a dead horse lay

Let me make one more attempt to explain my view. I honestly would like to have someone explain why I am wrong. I try to keep an open mind.
Most of my questions have been met with sarcastic responses that imply that those of us who are not convinced are too "simple" to understand the answers

As Lee pointed out, the timber industry in the USA was decimated by the "everybody agrees" mentality.
Maybe this was not supported by scientists, but if they disagreed they made little effort to get their positions out to the public. This destroyed many people's lives.
This and many other similar issues tried in the court of public opinion have lead me to be very skeptical.

On to Global Warming, I don't think that anyone disagrees that the 10 day weather forecast is at best, somewhat unreliable.
Why? My understanding is that the computer models are not complete. They cannot contain enough of the many variables that affect weather patterns.

The fact that the climate is changing supports my position. The climate has always gone through cycles. That is the status quo and not debatable.

My problem is the contention that man is causing the recent warmup by emitting greenhouse gasses.
If the climate models are not complete enough to predict the weather next week, how can they prove that the additional gases produced by man are changing anything?

Before man, large portions of the US went up in wildfires producing massive amounts of greenhouse gasses. Does this climate model take into account the gasses NOT produced because of the changes man has made to the face of the earth.

The contention is being made, at least by some scientists, that mans cattle are producing enough methane to change the climate. Legislation if being proposed that will affect peoples lives.
What of the many millions of Buffalo and other large mammals that roamed the plains of America before we arrived? Has the methane produced before we reduced these herds been taken into account?

To sum up 1: 10 day forecast = sometimes correct
2: Last two years forecast of more frequent and more severe hurricanes = Wow, way off
3: 50 year forecast = 100% accurate, the world is ending unless we give up our lifestyle

REALLY? Explain to a simple duckhunter why I should believe this last prediction.

Not a preacher, but apparently a heretic,

Mike
 
If global warming were to continue, could it be possible that Wisconsin could be the southern most point of the migratory flyway and we would butter our grits instead of putting sugar on them? (hehe)
 
Mike,

Not too "simple", but simply not able to digest and evaluate the primary literature to truly make your own decisions. To learn how to evaluate the primary literature in my field took me 5 years, 10 to become proficient. Within a field, like climatology, there is also a learning curve. So, yes in 5-10 years you could be trained to evaluate for yourself climate change (incidentailly, it takes 5-6-7-8 years to get a PhD following an undergrad degree). So, yes I'm saying that you are not able to evaluate the issue of climate change yourself, neither am I because it isn't my speciality. Where are you left? My best suggestion is something like the IPCC report, which was complied by the most respected scientists in their field. You dismissed it because there was a mention of Al Gore on the website. Can't help you there. So pretty much you are stuck with making a decision based on your gut and aided by whatever material from the popular press or put out by advocacy groups that you read.

You throw a whole bunch of stuff out there, from cow farts to logging and forest fires. I can't give you a response to them, each one of those woudl take probably me a whole day to get a condensed story on and that woudl be a very naive view.

You are highly suspicous of models and I am too. What I can tell you in my outsiders view fo what data really changed the community's opinion on global change is not models, but direct observations.
 
Mike in the 40 years that I worked in air traffic with weather reports and short term forecasts,the accuracy rate was about 20% for overnight forecasts within parameters for revision.Too many variables in the atmosphere.
 
You are highly suspicous of models and I am too. What I can tell you in my outsiders view fo what data really changed the community's opinion on global change is not models, but direct observations.
Click to expand...
What I find most interesting is that if you were to go into a room full of scientists and present a case on anything OTHER than global warming, with a few years of "direct observation" as your only evidence, you would be laughed out of the room.

The hysrteria surrounding this "phenomenon" is making money for a few and pushing an agenda for many.

Excuse me. I still have about 18" of global warming I need to clear off the roof.

Nick
 
You are highly suspicous of models and I am too. What I can tell you in my outsiders view fo what data really changed the community's opinion on global change is not models, but direct observations.
Click to expand...
What I find most interesting is that if you were to go into a room full of scientists and present a case on anything OTHER than global warming, with a few years of "direct observation" as your only evidence, you would be laughed out of the room.

The hysrteria surrounding this "phenomenon" is making money for a few and pushing an agenda for many.

Excuse me. I still have about 18" of global warming I need to clear off the roof.

Nick
Click to expand...


Nick,

I don't quite get your point. Direct observation... as in things observed or measurements taken not model results, this was in reference to Mike’s concern about global climate models. I can't understand getting "laughed out of the room" for presenting a direct observation, it seems like in your need to shoot your mouth off you didn't think about what you wrote. Direct observations include, the date something happens, or the presence or absence of something, and are quantifiable and the basis of nearly all science. Drop a rock what does it do? that is an observation.

I wonder where you get your IMPRESSION of what happens when data is presented in a room full of scientists. I'll give you my IMPRESSION… and it is that you are talking out your ass.

Tod
 
I don't get involved much but I've been watching this thread and want to chime in. My position on global warming and the use of your/my tax dollars to do something about it is simply this: what can it hurt? As hunters, you should all be conservationists of sorts and understand/appreciate the natural environment more than most who never really connect with the world outside a shopping mall. The threat of global warming and the green movement are increasing awareness DRAMATICALLY among those who otherwise would not give a damn about the earth. Whether or not CO2 emissions contribute to global climate change, isn't research into alternative energy sources a good thing? Shouldn't we try to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by developing green technology, thereby staying as far away from the middle east as possible AND improving the quality of our environment? If the answer is yes, guess what...your tax dollars will be used.

I like several who have posted on this thread, used to be very skeptical as to whether humans and the emission of so-called greenhouse gasses actually contribute to the percieved global climate change. I don't know why. I am incredibly stubborn and just wanted to disagree with the "hippies" I guess. Now, however, I treat the issue with ambivalence. I don't know if we are causing any changes, but who cares? I won't even do any research into the matter to find out. I'd much rather take the ball that Al Gore et. al have set in motion and run with it, hoping that others who wouldn't care in the past get swept up in the movement as well. I don't really like Al Gore. I have a few adjectives I believe aptly describe him, but I'll refrain from using them on this forum. He may be getting rich off this movement, but IT IS A WORTHY CAUSE. He has ralllied tons of support among people who now care and want to do something to help the earth, and that's great. I argue that we should not be fighting over whether or not global warming is caused by man, but over the best way to take advantage of the fact that people are actually starting to think about the environment. Those who claim that they've had more snow this winter than ever are missing the point: people are starting to care!

As hunters, we contribute a huge sum of money toward conservation in many ways and we do so willingly. I'd happily pay even more for a hunting license or duck stamp because I know the money goes to a cause I care about. So how can you gripe so much if your tax dollars are used to further a movement, the goal of which is unquestionably to create a better environment, and if successful, WILL improve the quality of the environment. And hey, if by chance we actually end up reversing the "global warming trend," thereby "saving the polar bears" and the SCAUP which rely on wetlands sealed by permafrost in the boreal forest for nesting and breeding, we win again!

In this debate, only one thing is certain: if we as hunters fight the green movement/battle against global warming every step of the way, it reflects horribly upon us as conservationists. It will only worsen the public's view of hunters. Many people do not understand hunting or the fact that we actually care about and protect the resources we use. We should be encouraging more people to start caring about the way we treat our environment, thereby proving that we aren't just killers, and this is a great opportunity to do so! Anti-hunters don't listen when you tell them how much money we contribute to conservation, all they see is bloodshed. However, if instead of fighting the green movement we embraced it, the argument against hunting is crippled dramatically. This is a terrific platform from which hunters COULD advocate for the development of clean fuels, the rehabilitation of our waterways, conservation of wetlands, etc. Furthermore, for once, your tax dollars could be used in a way in which YOU stand to reap the rewards even more than most...you could see tangible results, because you, as sportsmen, connect with the environment much more than the average taxpayer. Best of all, it will cast hunters in a positive light, unqustionably as stewards of the environment and not just consumers. The ball is right there, but if you just want to complain about taxes, you'll never pick it up and run with it.

Sorry for making this so long. I just wanted to share my thoughts. I didn't read the last thread, so I hope I'm not just beating the dead horse even worse. Also, I don't mean to attack anyone on this forum for what they've said. These are just my views...take them for what they're worth.

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top