Straight Arrow
Well-known member
About as much as possible. The only thing clear to me is that man doesn't even know what he doesn't even know.
Climate Change
- Thread starter Panda Bear
- Start date
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I think it a likely contributing factor to the moose - tick issue.
The united states is mostly in the temperate/desert/chaparral biomes, flora and fauna of these biomes tend to generalists rather than specialists because of the widely varying weather. Therefore, most of our big game animals are somewhat insulated from the effects of climate change. In biomes with more specialists like the rainforest animals are more likely to be effected. To see these effects you will have to look at population level data over a time, some of this is hard to assess as other factors play a much larger role in their increase or decline. EG burning the rainforest, or reintroducing elk to states that are good elk habitat, without historic predators or hunting (so Kentucky elk are gonna explode your data set).
I think it would be almost impossible to prove cause and effect relationships between climate change and NA big game, likey lots of concerning correlations.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
I see no way that the vicious fire cycle on mule deer winter range hasn't been helped by warmer weather and increased thunderstorms.
I wont post a screen shot but turn on the fire layer of on x and cruise over southern Idaho it seems as tho all of the winter range has burned since 1995
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Good! I think I know what I think you know, S A.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
No it doesn't.
You are saying the science prediction was accurate in referenceto outcome. (Increase co2 causes glacier to melt) but it took more co2 than thought so it took longer. It seems like we agree on all things but what is more important timing of outcome or outcome.
I agree that is a hurtful error or worse scare tactic but thats just semantics.
I don't know why people believe science is supposed to be an absolute truth 2+2 =4.
The number one quality of good science is to never trust an outcome until all possible theories and hypotheses are exhausted.
We all know that is not possible on all subjects. So we end up with 2+2 = approx 3 to 5 but most likely 4.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Increased CO2 in the atmosphere has been determined scientifically to increase global temperature. That has been established. The value attributed to CO2 has not. The value initially assigned to CO2 by the 97% consensus was off by a considerable amount. Not a slight error. The global warming hype and dire predictions that insued because of this error (Al Gore, New Green Deal, The Entire list of Democratic 2020 candidates, ect) does not give this science credibility with the public majority.
That is not the public's fault.
That is not the public's fault.
This is interesting ! the 97% of scientist was from a John Cook study and has been discredited as it should have been
IMO the earth is warming but what caused it we dont know for sure should we be good stewards of the planet you bet , are most climate policies a joke they sure are, the USA can not solve this by its self look at china and india and their issues and other lesser developed countries
The earth has warmed and cooled many time over the years and we had nothing to do with it could that still be the case we dont know for sure
And any consensus about anything doesnt mean much because at in the 1400s everyone knew the sun revolved around the earth
And everyone knew the earth was flat and in the 1800s everyone knew man couldnt fly
IMO the earth is warming but what caused it we dont know for sure should we be good stewards of the planet you bet , are most climate policies a joke they sure are, the USA can not solve this by its self look at china and india and their issues and other lesser developed countries
The earth has warmed and cooled many time over the years and we had nothing to do with it could that still be the case we dont know for sure
And any consensus about anything doesnt mean much because at in the 1400s everyone knew the sun revolved around the earth
And everyone knew the earth was flat and in the 1800s everyone knew man couldnt fly
and the bighorn Mts
T
tjones
Guest
At any one of those warming and cooling times were there ever 8 billion of us on earth?
You think Greta would agree with Thanos in the Avengers movies?
T
tjones
Guest
BigHornRam
Well-known member
No. But dinosaur flatulence may have played a part.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Discredited no but it looks like its less for non publishing studies 83 - 85% ish.
Each bar is an independent study of climate experts opinions of whether or not they believe climate change is being caused by humans.
Its from a forbs article debating the 97% those crazy lefties!
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change
Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?
www.google.com
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Thanos believed the universe was overpopulated and therefore decided the only fair way to protect it was to randomly remove 50% of it's inhabitants from existence.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
I have got to agree with this although Im more interested in if its really happening and less about public opinion.
T
tjones
Guest
I see. Thanks.
Not sure what it has to do the the thread, but its the off season and 8 pages in so ya makes perfect sense.
rjthehunter
Well-known member
There's plenty of science suggesting otherwise. Is it just a solar fluctuations? Can you explain the Medieval warm period?
They can't admit it. People think scientists are the reason the world goes around. They speculate a lot. Science is not a definite thing which many seem to be missing.
Are the global warming people the same people that always think the worlds going to end by a certain date?
Irrelevant
Well-known member
GD if you can't take the time to click on a couple of links get-the-f-out.
NASA ain't full of a bunch of people who work a full time job as a building contractor and dabble in climate debates on a hunting forum. They're actually experts at this shit.
Similar threads
