noharleyyet
Well-known member
..and vice versa. Politics don't give a flying eff about objective truths unless speckling a narrative with small portions.
Climate Change
- Thread starter Panda Bear
- Start date
..and vice versa. Politics don't give a flying eff about objective truths unless speckling a narrative with small portions.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
that is a true disappointment.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
@rjthehunter and @ShadowFast1 I think that does or does not anthropocentric climate change exist is missing the boat a bit.
I think what is more relevant, particular to the conversation of conservation and public lands, is the conversation of "ok given that reality what is going to happen next."
I venture that in reality this is what most folks are concerned with, we are conserved with a potentially harmful things being done in the name of stopping climate change. In particular I'm most conserved with solar and wind energy development being fast tracked without adequate research being done to study the effect on the landscape and wildlife.
I think lots of others are worried about their jobs, I work in the OG industry so this piece of the conversation certainly hits home for me as I'm sure it does many others. It's definitely vexing to hear the the triads on the new about your industry and how you're all evil and trying to kill the planet. This stupidity does not in fact negate the science. If anything, I believe, it calls for cooler heads to avail. To acknowledge the work done by the scientific community, and then to present and or/discuss limitations and problems with potential solutions and suggest others. To not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I've articulated this before but he it goes again, regardless of your opinion on the topic, the conversation as shifted at all levels, trying to fight the science is unproductive. This does not mean there isn't a lot at stake, and in order to advocate for those things, it is much better to focus on specific outcomes from climate oriented policy decisions. Example, a huge solar development in Wyoming, point out that studies have already been shown that mule deer, sage grouse, and pronghorn in that area could be very negatively impacted by human development and therefore that kinda of massive development needs to be examined.
Say at the federal government level or state that their is a policy drafted to shut down coal mining in the Powder River area of WY. I think it's important to point out that one of the largest users of this coal is the Scherer plant in Georgia, which not only provides cheap electricity to a state that has a massive number of people below the poverty line but also powers a ton of domestic manufacturing. Shutting down this source of coal would affect many of the most venerable American's and should not be done with about a strategy to mitigate this impact. It's all well and good for a wealthy folks in Aspen to triple their power bills to go full green, but that's not reasonable for many American's who currently can barely make ends meet.
It's not about Climate Change it's about poorly devised policies, and negative stereotypes about a lot of people that work in the energy industry.
I think what is more relevant, particular to the conversation of conservation and public lands, is the conversation of "ok given that reality what is going to happen next."
I venture that in reality this is what most folks are concerned with, we are conserved with a potentially harmful things being done in the name of stopping climate change. In particular I'm most conserved with solar and wind energy development being fast tracked without adequate research being done to study the effect on the landscape and wildlife.
I think lots of others are worried about their jobs, I work in the OG industry so this piece of the conversation certainly hits home for me as I'm sure it does many others. It's definitely vexing to hear the the triads on the new about your industry and how you're all evil and trying to kill the planet. This stupidity does not in fact negate the science. If anything, I believe, it calls for cooler heads to avail. To acknowledge the work done by the scientific community, and then to present and or/discuss limitations and problems with potential solutions and suggest others. To not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I've articulated this before but he it goes again, regardless of your opinion on the topic, the conversation as shifted at all levels, trying to fight the science is unproductive. This does not mean there isn't a lot at stake, and in order to advocate for those things, it is much better to focus on specific outcomes from climate oriented policy decisions. Example, a huge solar development in Wyoming, point out that studies have already been shown that mule deer, sage grouse, and pronghorn in that area could be very negatively impacted by human development and therefore that kinda of massive development needs to be examined.
Say at the federal government level or state that their is a policy drafted to shut down coal mining in the Powder River area of WY. I think it's important to point out that one of the largest users of this coal is the Scherer plant in Georgia, which not only provides cheap electricity to a state that has a massive number of people below the poverty line but also powers a ton of domestic manufacturing. Shutting down this source of coal would affect many of the most venerable American's and should not be done with about a strategy to mitigate this impact. It's all well and good for a wealthy folks in Aspen to triple their power bills to go full green, but that's not reasonable for many American's who currently can barely make ends meet.
It's not about Climate Change it's about poorly devised policies, and negative stereotypes about a lot of people that work in the energy industry.
rjthehunter
Well-known member
Do you have a link? How did they measure this? Where did they get their information? See how it goes? I feel like some of you forget how big this earth is and how small of a role we really play in what happens. If it's such a big deal, shut your cars and trucks off, stop heating your homes with natural gas, don't buy any food that is made in a factory. What do you want us to say? If you believe it's real, fix it. If you think the earth is just doing the earths thing, then let it be. If you're going to be a vocal advocate, act on it. It's hypocritical to say people are doing all this and it's bad but continue to do it. I'm not going to sit here and argue about climate change. I have 100 better things to do.
If you truly believe that climate change is real, do something about it instead of trying to convince everyone else on the internet that it's real.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
said 7 pages deep on a hunting forum.
Bigjay73
Well-known member
Probably the best post yet
BigHornRam
Well-known member
You seem to get it pretty much wllm. The part I'm not sure you are willing to sign off on is the "science" that originated this thread. It had "97% scientific consensus" that it was correct. It was not. It was horribly wrong.
That opens the door to distrust, and I haven't yet seen any evidence that the scientists have learned anything from this mistake.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...
climate.nasa.gov
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
For perspective California generated more emissions during 2018 producing electricity than was produced by having essentially the entire state on fire. There 7.8 billion of us now... individually, we have very little impact... collectively we have a massive impact.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
"It's not about Climate Change it's about poorly devised policies, and negative stereotypes about a lot of people that work in the energy industry."
I watched Tom Steyer on CNBC several years ago state that it was about "controlling the masses", then came the deer in the headlights look when he reliezed he said it on national tv.
I'm going to have agree with Tom. That's what much of this climate change debate is really about.
I watched Tom Steyer on CNBC several years ago state that it was about "controlling the masses", then came the deer in the headlights look when he reliezed he said it on national tv.
I'm going to have agree with Tom. That's what much of this climate change debate is really about.
Man regardless of this thread> On this Board/Forum Hunttalk it just really seems that Climate change is the topic or is brought up/mentioned way more than what bullet or broadhead to use to kill an elk or deer. Im serious!
Last edited:
BigHornRam
Well-known member
That is not what is being discussed in the O P. The 97% consensus was with the computer modeling that projected a sharp increase (hockey stick) in the global temperature based on CO2 emissions, and would lead to the melting of Glacier Parks glaciers by 2020. That's the "science" that lead to the making of the signs in the park. The science was wrong. Badly wrong. Admit that fact and we can move on.Just because what you "hear" isn't skewed 97% to 3%, doesn't mean it's not true. As Ken pointed out, when the politics don't jive with the facts they ignore them.Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Can I ask you to explain what specific problems you are having with the science that is suggesting otherwise?
For example
Is it that you don't believe that carbon dating is accurate enough time wise?
Or that you don't believe that carbon 14 vs Carbon 13 and carbon 12 as a good enough indicator of a human cause?
Why do you specifically have doubts?
I mean other than "if you believe in god then you can't believe in science or math"
Or the ever popular
"People who believe in climate change are stupid"
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Inaccurate in timing yes but badly wrong man I don't know are they melting faster than before?
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Particions are for grumpy old lead eaters
Yup they are> Oh my, The most offensive line on hunttalk would offend so many on here would go like this> So I drove my fullsize F350 lifted to my big ranch and shot a lead bullet out of my ar-15 then gave all my donations to RMEF and not BHA and I don't like IPA's.Particions are for grumpy old lead eaters
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
You sir can leave
BigHornRam
Well-known member
The science was way off on what amount CO2 contributes to global warming. Garbage in, garbage out when using computer models to predict future global temperature increases. Today's "best" science uses new and improved numbers regarding CO2 in the atmosphere. Make sense?
Similar threads
