Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

'If Climate Change Isn’t Real, I’ll Give You My Beretta'

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Conservationist
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

February 15, 2012

'If Climate Change Isn’t Real, I’ll Give You My Beretta'

By Hal Herring

The Conservation Hawks is a new group dedicated to harnessing the power of sportsmen to address climate change. Stop. Before you give in to anger, or to the “conservation fatigue” that can fall upon us like a giant wet carpet whenever climate change is mentioned, consider this: If you can convince Conservation Hawks chairman Todd Tanner that he’s wasting his time, that he does not have to worry about climate change, he will present to you his most prized possession: A Beretta Silver Pigeon 12 gauge over/under that was a gift from his wife, and has been a faithful companion on many a Montana bird hunt. I know the gun, and I’ve hunted and fished with Todd for years. He’s not kidding. You convince him, he’ll give you the gun. 

Conservation Hawks has an all-star board of directors, including my friends Bill Geer and Katie McKalip, who both work for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and have a deep understanding of the issues we face as sportsmen. I talked with Todd Tanner recently about what the Conservation Hawks hope to accomplish.

Hal Herring: First, are you serious about the Beretta?

Todd Tanner: I am serious. If somebody can convince me that I don’t have to worry about climate change, I’ll give it them. Or I’ll auction it off and donate the proceeds to the charity of their choice. But it will have to be a real argument, with real facts. I don’t think that argument exists, but I’m willing to be surprised.

HH: Why the Conservation Hawks?

TT: Let’s say you are walking down a trail in the wilderness with your wife and kids, and you come upon a grizzly sow, standing on a carcass. She charges, flat out. You’re in front of your family. What do you do? Just give up? Pretend it’s not happening? Let her maul you and everything your care about? Of course you don’t. You take action. That is how I see climate change. It’s real, it’s threatening everything we love. Not taking action is not an option.  

HH: Why now?

TT: This is the point where we can still stand up and have an effect. Maybe it’s the last point. I want that freedom we’ve enjoyed to fish and hunt to continue. Maybe most important, I have a son. I cannot be complicit in surrendering all this that I’ve had and loved for my whole life—just say, sorry, I gave up and let it be taken from him. When I knew the science, and the facts.

HH: What percentage of sportsmen do you think really care anything about this issue?

TT:  I’d say maybe 50 percent. But that’s a tricky question. Bill Geer spent a lot of time giving presentations about the effects of climate change to sportsmen’s groups around Montana. He was in Eureka, talking to a group of guys that really didn’t believe the conventional take on climate change. Bill just said, “No problem, what I’m more interested in anyway is what changes have you guys witnessed, firsthand, in your lifetimes.” Well, that set off the conversation, then. Everybody had a story about that. And everybody I know does, too. Because these days, it’s fishermen and hunters who are the ones who notice these things. It used to be that so many more people were outdoors, nowadays it is just us. And it seems like we should be the ones to take the lead on this. We have the most at stake.

HH: What about those sportsmen who will say that this is just not a problem, or not a problem that we can do anything about?

TT: That’s okay. The facts are out there, and we’ll present them as best we can. But I’m not asking anybody to take my word for anything. Just observe, and believe your own eyes and observations. If you are older, think about what’s changed in your lifetime. If you’re younger, ask the old timers, and they’ll tell you. I’ve been a fisherman since 1965, and a hunter since 1974, the first year it was legal for me to carry a gun in the woods. You can’t fit a piece of paper between what I’ve seen in my life outdoors and what I know of the science of climate change.  It’s not about politics, or who votes for who. It’s about what is real.  

HH: And what about those who say this is just another excuse for more government intrusion and power?

TT:  I don’t think they’ve really thought it through. You want to talk about government intrusion, think about what it means if we don’t address this now while we have the time and resources. We will lose the freedoms that we have because somebody—and it will be government—will be in an all out effort to try and address the effects. To try and address the effects of our neglect. We’ll face the worst thing of all- losing our freedom. And we’ll already have lost most of hunting and fishing. That’s how serious I believe this is.

HH: And if somebody can convince you differently?

TT: They get my Berretta. And I’ll be certainly be happier. I’ll spend more time fishing and hunting with my son and a lot less time worrying about this.

Comments (173)

Top Rated
All Comments
from CL3 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

He's not going to lose that gun. Besides, how can anyone not err to the side of caution here? "OH, it's a cold winter." or "Oh, it's a warm summer."

No, how about climate change is here as evidenced by the extreme weather patterns. Also, where is all the arctic ice going?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Changing an ideolog's mind isn't going to happen. Only rational people can objectively look at data. Tanner an Herring live in a dream world all signs point to global warming.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Roderick K. Purcell wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Trouble with this whole debate about the climate is it's wrapped around the axle of politics. If you hate Al Gore, you're more likely to dismiss what he says about global warming. If you like him, you're more open to the idea. Most sportsmen are, at heart, pretty conservative folks. But we are out there, year after year, seeing the creeks get warmer and the droughts get worse and worse. I'm looking forward to seeing what this Tanner fellow thinks we should do about it...

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I'll take a crack at this; not because I want the shotgun, although I wouldn't turn it down; but more because I think that the fallacy of global warming via climate change has been vehemently pushed down our throats for long enough, and I would like to make the argument a little more plain that what is carefully scripted in the writer's and the protagonist's claim.

Firstly, Does climate change Exist? Yes it does; but does it exist because of the man-made global warming hysteria that the main stream media and the carbon-offsetting charlatans proselytize about and attempt to make us feel guilty about? Certainly not. Here's where I will ease Mr. Tanner's mind, inform the public and attempt to earn said shotgun.

How could I say that Climate change shouldn't worry Mr. Tanner? Doesn't the Earth experience warming/cooling cycles? Certainly. Are we on planet earth experiencing a warming trend or cooling trend? The facts that I see point to the former, but it is not something that Mr. Tanner need concern himself with. That is not to say that we as sportsmen and women don't need to concern ourselves with the changes we see to the environment or do all we can to protect our eco-systems.

National Geographic's web site provides a story printed in 2007 which supports my position about Mr. Tanner not having to worry about climate change. According to Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, the reason for the climate change experienced on Earth is not due to global warming of the man made variety, but because of the thermal radiation fluctuations of the Sun itself.

That's right shotgun fans, the Earth experiences heating and cooling cycles because of the sun's outptut, not because of your CFC laden Styrofoam cups or Aerosol hairspray cans.

Mr. Abdussamatov goes on to say this "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars" and "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance".

What does this mean in plain English? Simply that the Earth heats and cools according to the intensity of the Sun's thermal output. For example; the Earth and Mars have experienced ice ages throughout their existence. Mr. Abdussamatov's theory is that by studying the fluctuations in the warmth of the Sun, he can show the trends as they closely mirror each other on Earth and Mars. Needless to say, the Dr's theory hasn't been well received by the larger scientific community. Why? Because he doesn't buy into the mass hysteria of man-made climate change. I don't think the Dr. gets a Christmas card from Al Gore either.

I would also add that the Earth experiences something called "Milankovitch cycles". These are periods of 20K to 100K years where the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is altered. As the earth is thought to be in between ice ages right now, we appear to be revolving closer to the sun in this orbit. As the cycle changes, the earth will cool. In short, this is all a part of our living planet's life cycle.

The Earth heats and cools with regularity. I say to Mr. Tanner, enjoy the Summers, turn down the heater in the Winter, and polish up that shotgun, because I like a clean weapon!

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Even if you buy the alarmist non-sense, regulations in the developed world only move production (and jobs) to Asia where, according to the UN, they release 3-4 times the emmissions to produce $1 of goods.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

HeidelbergJaeger:

You've responded so matter-of-factly that I suspect many will take your response as scientific truth, but Abdussamatov's claim is just another theory.

I believe there are fluctuations over the years (and who knows, the sun may play a role), that everything is tied together and very complex, but our human-ways in an increasingly populated world, is also very tough on the planet outside of simply warming it up. We do a lot of things that affect the climate.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

As I and many others have said, people are passionate about the debate on climate change. I don't begrudge those who believe in man-made climate change, even if I don't agree with them. Arguments based on reason are a good thing; arguments based on emotion are not. Through rational debate, frank and honest exchange of ideas and theories, humankind can attempt to learn more about our living planet.

Zealots on both sides of the issue will twist the facts to suit their theories; this does nothing to foster and understanding our changing environment and does everything to alienate those with an open mind on the topic.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

HeidelburgJaeger, You my friend should be shooting some very nice guns next season, however you & I along with afferraro, know you can't change the minds of certain trains of thought it's sort of an addiction to put it simply. Another show that was on several years back either on Discovery or NatGeo was how scientists made an argument on the Global Warming to the essence of Global warming had occured rapidly between the industrial age to the present time due to the fact of get this clean air! Their argument was during the industrial age we didn't have all the rule and regulations on clean air which allowed unlimited amounts of soot(for lack of better term) to be released into the atmosphere essentially blocking the suns rays from reaching the earth itself and once the rules and regulations where put into place to limit said soot it then allowed the suns rays to more readily reach the earths surface.

We all can sit here and argue whether or not man made Global Warming is real but none of us will be able to convince the other otherwise especially when there are rewards in the end. One of the worlds biggest proponents of the global warming hoax(IMO) has defected from it and said he was boondogled on the sceince in his words. The argument for global warming as regurgitated by CL3 has been and still being proven incorrect by none other than NASA scientists and satelites. Some argue the fact of the different temps from year to year such as this years winter being far warmer than previous years, I say La Nina. What about last year and the four prior years with temps in the region extremely cold. In the end I'm with HJ and the sun determines the global temps and weather just as the moon determines the tides, there is an ebb & flow in temps and weather.

Lets get back to the conservation talk fellas!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I've got three Model 12s and a Ruger o/u and a few other guns so I'll let Todd keep his gun. Glacier Bay in Ak has been retreating since 1760. The glacier filled the entire bay where it calved into Icy Strait when first encountered in 1760. It has been shrinking ever since. USG thinks it grew to Icy Strait during the period know as "the Little Ice Age" and has been retreating ever since. I've been hunting since 1959 and was fishing a tad earlier with my dad. I see more wilderness animals, ie. bald eagles and osprey in areas where they had been extinct than anyone would ever have believed back in the 50s. I think Todd's son is going to live in a world where the opportunity to experience the outdoor heritage is going to be even better than my opportunities have been. Unless of course the government takes it away from him for his own good.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Outsider wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Enjoy your shotgun, your mind is made up....

Geologically speaking, the human race has been here for a few seconds...in that time we no way of telling what we have or havent done to change climate. To have a definative answer, we would need to look at hundreds of thousands of years of tempature data...we barely have 100 years of semi accurate data....We cannot make an accurate assumption with the data we have. Its that simple.

We have cycles of tempature ups and downs, just like the mood we are in on a daily basis...good, bad, indifferent...up and down up and down up and down...Hell, just the other days one of the major scientists that conjured up climate change jumped off the bandwagon saying it was complete horse poop.

Don't worry about the polar ice caps they will not be melting any time soon.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from TM wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Todd, it's a trick question, so you're sure to keep your gun. Way to get us talking though.

Over the last 500 million years or so, there have been cycles of global warming and global cooling. "Climate change" is the norm. There's no such thing as climate static. What caused these ice ages, these warming periods? Well, with the few exceptions of airborne particulate catastrophes (like volcanic eruptions or meteor impacts), we don't know. But that's not a very satisfying answer, so we look internally. And there's a recentcy bias to all analysis, so we look at the time only from the industrial revolution to the present (approximately 150 years).

Man-made global warming (or AGW, as the IPCC calls it -- that's the International Protocol on Climate Change) always struck me as pretty anthro-arrogant. We don't know what has caused most historical periods of climate change with any degree of certainty, but we do know that airborne carbon dioxide levels and water vapor are high. And maybe methane. So we try to shoehorn modern observations about climate and its changes over short periods change into our knowledge of man's activities. Modern man has existed on the earth for less than 200,000 years. No doubt we've changed the face of the earth. But all the carbon we're extracting and converting to other carbon forms is terrestrial in origin. And it's been here for hundreds of millions or billions of years.

Long after we're all gone and buried and a new species writes posts in outdoor magazines, there will be climate change. Maybe they'll be better able to explain it than we are.

Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Noble Laureate in physics, quit the American Physical Society over its doctrinaire anti-science position on global warming. In his resignation letter he noted:

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from vasportsman wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Global warming, right up there with religion and politics, everyone has an opinion and nobody is going to convince anyone else any different. I respectfully abstain.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from TM wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

How do you stand on the goose?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from bruisedsausage wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Yeah, I first thought this might be a cake walk, but as we all know, "you can take a horse to water, but wet birds can't fly."
Deciding to believe in something without any credible evidence to support it tells me that he won't be convinced. And with what little data we have about this subject certainly isn't enough to draw any valid conclusions. "Correlation does not imply causation" is more than appropriate to describe this situation. I guess I should dig into my vault and send Mr. Tanner a letter with all of the scientific information we have about the subject.(that I've collected and written papers on) I'm an Environmental Engineering Major, and if you take my word for it, you don't have anything to worry about. Except possibly plant growth increasing over the next thousand millenniums.

"If we all do a little....well....we'll accomplish a little"

The drastic measures that would have to be taken to eliminate any possibility of humans causing global warming would be so profound that we would all have to go back to living in caves. Maybe the biggest question Mr. Tanner should consider debating over in his mind has to do with "our" carbon footprint. For example; if he believes that we are causing global warming because of the use of fossil fuels, and burning coal, etc. Why would this cause global warming? Maybe Mr. Tanner hasn't thought about this, but maybe we've been in a spell of global cooling? All of the carbon based fuel we're using was once a living organism on the face of the earth. It then decomposed and became oil.(basically rotten dinosaurs and plants). And maybe Mr. Tanner can ask himself an "if then" question, which is basically, that if all these "carbons" were once a part of the ecological setting, then maybe it's not unnatural for them to be used and re-introduced into the atmosphere? I'll attach a short segment I recently composed about this subject. And if Mr. Tanner wants to do something about "possibly" causing the earth to warm he'll start pushing the material presented in my paper.

“Biomass fuel is a renewable energy source and its importance will increase as national energy policy and strategy focuses more heavily on renewable sources and conservation” (Demirbas, 2007). “Biomass is clean because it has [a] negligible content of sulphur, nitrogen, and ash, which gives lower emissions of sulfur [dioxides], nitrogen oxides, and soot than conventional fossil fuels”(Balat, M., 2009). Fossil fuels when burned are emitting large quantities of CO2 that haven’t been accounted for in an ecological setting for millions of years, whereas biomass produces “zero net [emissions] of carbon dioxide, because carbon dioxide released from biomass will be recycled into the plants by photosynthesis quantitatively”( Zhang, Q., Xu, Y., Wang, T., & Chang, J., 2007).
Usually biomass gasification harnesses the energy stored in the chemical bonds of agricultural waste, forest residues or any other of the profusion of carbohydrate containing leftovers that can serve as renewable energy feed stocks. “Wood, peat moss, rice hulks, and black liquor” (Verbong, G., & Kirkels, A., 2011) have been used most frequently. Black liquor is a byproduct of the lumber/paper producing industry that can be gasified from a liquid state. It’s also normally used to generate electricity although concurrently it can also be used to provide thermal energy, used in heating and cooling. The actual gasification primarily produces “syngas, consisting primarily of hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO), with lesser amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), methane (CH4), higher hydrocarbons (C2+), and nitrogen(N2)”(Marano, J., & Ciferno, J., 2002) Syngas is a standalone gas, in that it can be combusted in the same way natural gas is used to produce energy, or be burned by itself. Another option for collecting gases from gasification is the direct approach. This is simply a blower that pushes air into the gasifier. The result is called producer gas, which contains higher rates of nitrogen and lower levels of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. If conditioned, producer gas can be used for the same applications that syngas and natural gas are used for. Once syngas is obtained you have flexibility and options, as syngas contains all the products and chemicals used in the petrochemical manufacturing process. Syngas is in a form such that it can be converted to liquid fuel. And this could theoretically be used to power automobiles or machinery that needed mobile fuel sources. Biomass gasification has an advantage over photovoltaic cells in areas located at far northern and southern latitudes. This is because during part of the year in these areas, there is little solar radiation available to provide energy to produce power. Biomass gasification also produces heat that can be used to heat buildings, which is also a much needed commodity in far northern and southern communities.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

bruised you made an error! Wet birds most assuredly can fly. Ospreys have perfected shaking water almost like a lab as they fly. Other than that, I agree on the AGW angle.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

You know what's irony?

Listening to a bunch of global-warming deniers call the general public "brainwashed" for listening to the censensus of the vast, vast, vast majority of climate scientists on a climate-science related matter.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from bruisedsausage wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Guess I stepped on someones toes? LOL

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Looks like a bunch of folks here just don't want to take the challenge. Lots of opinions here but most start off with "I'll never change his mind so I don't need to accept the challenge".
Whether you believe we have lots of data or not enough doesn't really matter as many here have already made their minds up.
Here's the thing, most of the folks who label climate change as a hoax are really looking for an excuse to carry on with business as usual. They have the mindset that whatever mankind does is insignificant so we might as well just stink up the place as long as we're making a buck.
Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other what one believes about climate change, there's no excuse for crapping in your own back yard and leaving it because it's too expensive to clean up.
Bring on the dings.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from CharlesJordan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I thought this disassociation of climate change and human activity that I see all through these "you are howling at the moon" comments was finally so obviously wrong that most people had given up preaching that rubbish. We are not having an effect? How could anyone even remotely entertain such a ludicrous idea? Of course we are contributing, and the numbers of tonnage that we are doing so with are staggering. The EPA released a list of the major emitters of greenhouse gases in 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday. Of the top 100 emitters, 96 were power plants. The report identified a total of 6,700 U.S. facilities that the EPA monitored in 2010. The top three emitters were coal-fired power plants owned by Southern Co. The EPA estimates that each plant released roughly 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2010.
That's 60 million metric tons emitted in one year from just three sources out of 6,700 monitored. It just doesn't take a genius to know that emissions of that scale and globally do certainly contribute. I would also seem to be obvious when a pot of chili is getting saltier and you aren't sure where it's coming from nor if it will stop getting worse, the last thing on God's green earth you should do is toss another handful of salt in it.
I can't say all humans are part of the problem because they aren't, in fact to blame humans before plain old human greed is a bit naive. As was famously belched by Richard Dreyfuss in the movie Jaws: "I think you are going to ignore this problem until it swims up and bites you in the @#$!"
The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, qualified as air pollutants under the Clear Air Act. I don't consider the supreme court to be susceptible to heartfelt "hoodwinking" that seems to be being pointed at as the source of all this irrational squawking about global warming.
Being a preponderant voice stating that all the global warming alarmist will soon reach it's culmination as an undeniable indication that you are either greedy or stupid, or both. It's quite astonishing and also demoralizing to watch as political precept becomes a tool used by the wealthy to tax the earth's systems like this, when we have no real proof nor any way of producing it just where all of this is leading us. That is precisely why they get away with it, it's almost impossible to delegate responsibility for global warming.
It is extreme ignorant stupidity on the part of humanity to view this issue through such rose colored glasses.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

After I get that Baretta from Todd I'll work on him about the theory of electricity (no one has ever seen an electron) and evolution too.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

There is a lot more than CO2 and what info is available is being suppressed. Did you know, there's more oxygen coming off the United States than coming on? OOPS! I wasn't suppose to say dat! Sunspot activity for this year is going to be pretty bad if you own a satellite or fancy electronic gear. OOPS! I wasn't suppose to say that either LOL!

Yes Man contributes a little bit like if you filled the Superbowl with ping pong balls and only one represented mercury, that is how little a Coal Fire Plant produces, yet mandates for florescent bulbs containing mercury far more exceed than a coal fire plant will produce.

Bottom line, if your going to blow this CO'2 crap, ya' need to look at the whole picture there Grasshopper!

Today to take a stand is to invite controversy. The safest way to succeed is to repeat what others are saying. To find a leader and follow him. To be anything but on the safe side of the moderates, is to invite the wrath of people who dread nothing so much as taking a stand. And so increasingly the good guys stand alone.

Disclaimer: This opinion does not constitute legal advice. Please consult an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Wear sunscreen, protective eyewear, and hearing protection. Buckle your seatbelt. Call your mother. --
The Armchair Outfitter

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from bruisedsausage wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Maybe a little out of context but fits aptly with the conversation.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

You can all ding me for this too, but maybe before you start parroting mantra you should question where all your information comes from. I really don't care that the NY Times or whoever wrote in an article. What I want is the information from a scholarly article that has been published and accepted by the scientific community. If you have any values of the temperature gain I wouldn't mind seeing those as well. If you already have it plotted as a relation of time even better. Second request is that you also include a standard deviation of the period along with your numbers. Lastly if you feel so inclined maybe you can explain to me what happens to the suns thermal columns when they encounter high levels of CO2. Global warming? What?

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Godwin's Law, see above.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I'm happy to make an error, and bet that there is climate change, but not created by man! Any group that can prevent the Keystone Pipeline from being built are environmental terrorists, as they have been accurately described.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

As the Muir and related Glaciers expanded down Glacier Bay into Icy Strait during the "Little Ice Age" it displaced the native people who lived there. The glaciers have retreated over 60 miles before the co2 levels hit the level that "climate scientists" consider to be causing "climate change." If you just used your eyes and didn't have a historical perspective you would be alarmed by the retreat of the glaciers in Glacier Bay. Todd and his buddy Bill want you to be scared of what you see and to discount the hundreds of years of scientific data that precedes the current theory because it invalidates it. Geological evidence, like that of Glacier Bay, is a inconveniece to their theory. That is why M. Mann et al discount such geological and historical data that include the "Medieval Warming Period" and the "little Ice Age". It is necessary to ignore real data and a "scientific consensus" to maintain their fiction. Co2 is a component in current warming that is continued from the "Little Ice Age." I'm for continued data collection. I'm not for the scare tactics that claim that thunder is Giants Bowling or other non scientific balderdash. The US Geological Service is proud of the data that they have collected and rightly so. Google it if you want to get a different perspective on what you "see", and how to interpert it.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

By the way Todd, there is 100 years more data on Glacier Bay glaciers than there is on Glacier National Park glaciers. If I were to speculate I'd say that in that 100 years the glaciers in Montana were shrinking in the 1700's too, just as they were in Glacier Bay.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

So, the problem here is one of a general logical fallacy shared by the most informed of the global warming CO2-forcing deniers. It is this. The fallacy that equal results implies equal cause. Yes, there has been climate change in the past that has resulted in heating. As one blog post noted, Milankovic cycles are involved. (Good for you! Most Climate Change objectors think it's all about solar variation). As others more commonly note, there are, indeed, cycles in solar output. There are at least THREE such cycles, all with different periodicities; the most common one has a cycle period of about 11 years.

Now, here's the problem. If Milankovic cycles and solar cycles were the ONLY factors involved with short period global temperature change (say, over an interval of 5000 years), then WE SHOULD BE COOLING OFF.

As some have noted (taking the wrong lesson from the fact), in the 1970s, "global cooling" was a scientific discussion (on a time frame of thousands of years). Short term cooling was expected because of the Milankovic and solar cycles.

But we are not cooling. We are heating up. Why are we heating up?

For people who understand chemistry and physics, it is well known that if you increase CO2 concentrations, you trap more heat. You cannot NOT trap more heat. CO2 is transparent to Ultraviolet light, translucent to Infrared "light." Ultraviolet light from the earth hits objects on the surface -- rocks, trees, etc. The ultraviolet light energy is transformed into kinetic energy (heat) when the UV hits mineral atoms and so forth. At night, all those heated rocks and roads, roofs and cars, trees and even water, radiate that heat into the sky. But that radiation is INFRARED (the definition of heat). And CO2 is translucent to INFRARED. The CO2 abosbs the heat. The atmosphere gets warmer. Where does the heat go from there?

Some of it radiates from the CO2 into space. Some of it radiates back into the ground. Some of it stays in the atmosphere. Warmer nights. And some of it transfers by convection into the oceans and into glaciers. Melting the glaciers. Warming the oceans. As documented.

Can massive changes in CO2 affect temperature? Heck YES. The evolution of land plants, some hundreds of millions of years ago, had a massive draw down effect on CO2, cooling the planet. Where did the CO2 go? Into plant tissues. What happened to the plants? Over the Aeons, it became carbon (you may have heard of the Carboniferous). Every time we burn coal or oil we're reversing, on a small scale, that massive Carboniferous period atmospheric CO2 draw-down.

How much are we reversing it? By, at current rates, 30 Billion Metric Tonnes Every Year. More EACH year than all of the volcanoes on earth for the last 2000 years.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

THAT is how CO2 works.

WHAT one does about it, is a separate issue entirely.

I agree generally with those who say that any form of commitment to a carbon reduction that does not cover ALL countries (inlcuding China, India, and Brazil) is a non-startet.

As individuals, however, ALL and each of us can strive for smaller carbon footprints and benefit by saving buttloads of money. That means compact fluorescent bulbs. It means buying vehicles with good fuel efficiency for the tasks they need to support. And it means buying appliances with very good energy ratings. It means recycling, wherever possible, insulating your house, and if you can swing it (most cannot), adding some kind of solar component augment to your home.

You can keep that gas water heater for ex. But you'll burn a lot less gas if you have a solar water heater to preheat the water. Those are just examples.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Mike Diehl: Excellent comments. I also wonder that if history tells us we should be in a cooling period (based upon theories from both sides), why is all of our ice disappearing now?

Hoski: "...there's no excuse for crapping in your own back yard and leaving it because it's too expensive to clean up." BINGO.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

From yesterday's NYT's article, Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science: "Leaked documents suggest that an organization known for attacking climate science is planning a new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools, the latest indication that climate change is becoming a part of the nation’s culture wars.

The documents, from a nonprofit organization in Chicago called the Heartland Institute, outline plans to promote a curriculum that would cast doubt on the scientific finding that fossil fuel emissions endanger the long-term welfare of the planet. 'Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective,' one document said."

What a suprise, some of the funding comes from The Keystone XL pipeline masterminds, the Koch Bros.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

RealGoodMan: Those Koch Bros are some bad bad bad men.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rob Sisson wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I'm a hunter, angler, conservative Catholic, and a former mayor who lowered taxes in my city to the lowest level in over 50 years. I also didn't stay a Holiday Inn Express last night. Therefore, I'll defer to NOAA, NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, and 98% of climate scientists who believe global warming has been dramatically increased by man's activities (ie-burning fossil fuels).

Quite possibly, the Yellowstone caldera will blow the big one, filling the upper atmosphere with ash, reflecting heat back into space, and save us. Or maybe some other dramatic natural phenomena will occur to save us.

I do know, if you hunt, fish, or hike in the Rockies, you've seen the damaged forests. Whether it's manmade warming or not, those beetles are taking a bite out of our natural world.

As a conservative, you must ask yourself, "What if I'm wrong? What if I've been snookered by right wing talk radio funded by Exxon? What if the droughts and the beetle infestation are symptoms of warming? What will my grandchildren say if I do nothing today to insure them a healthy future?"

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

And yet, I don't think we can ignore right wing talk radio. We need to, at least to some extent, confront their fears. Recognition that CO2 is forcing global warming is a good SCIENTIFIC and rational point of view. But we need for the "Talk Radio" types to understand that "Admitting the basic validity of the science does not automatically imply that a 'UN Mandate' or some other exogenous, treaty-based 'solution' is the only reasonable response."

A good political solution or solutions COULD be purely domestic, and done properly could result in the creation of more jobs in the United States. We do not necessarily have to sign on to some agreement to tax fuel transactions and hand the money over to the UN or whatever other fear lurks in the minds of denialists.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Follow the money, people. The same politicians that call climate change a hoax are the same ones raking in the big bucks in campaign contributions from the gas, oil and coal companies.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Roderick K. Purcell wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

In the 1870s and 80s, scientists like William Hornaday and others warned America: You're killing your bison too fast. They're going to be extinct. Some smart leaders, like Theodore Roosevelt, listened and acted. Others said "BS! There's millions of bison! We can never shoot them all! Humans are too puny!" then one day, bison hunters went into the northern prairie and couldn't find a bison. There were none left, except a few hundred in Saskatchewan. Scientists were right. Same thing is happening now, only the stakes are bigger. Do we have the guts to listen to the scientists and take action? Denial is the easy out.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I built a barn in 1985 with an 800sq ft solar panel. I shoot guns that were manufactured before co2 was considered a problem, Model 12 Winchesters. 99.9999% of all the time I've spent in boats in my life have been in row boats and canoes. I've never owned a vehicle that wasn't a utilitarian choice. I've hauled livestock and feed for my farm in a chevy chevette. I don't need to hear doodly about carbon footprints.

The Heartland Institute has a budget of 6.5 million dollars a year. Compare that to the hundred million dollar budgets of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, etcetra,ad nauseam.

As Mike mentioned above Brazill, China, India, and the US emmit vast amounts of co2. As a matter of fact humanity has never in its history emmitted more co2 on a yearly basis or in total than it has in the last 15 years and the Global Temp has not increased to match. The Global temp has remained relatively flat during this period despite the linear temperature result that has been predicted by the AGW cultists. Either co2 is not the driver of temps posited, or the models are seriously flawed. I favor the theory that co2 is an influence on temps but not the driver the cultists would have you believe. Government is at least as much the problem as it is the solution. The US goverment is spending over 10 billion dollars a year on the co2 aspect of climate change and 0 dollars a year on any other explaination. When your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Glaciers advanced and receded before the co2 climate change theory was postulated and they will advance and recede in the future.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rob Sisson wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

US utility companies are sitting on more than $2 trillion in deferred capital expenditures. All they need is a road map for America's energy future, and they'll start spending that money on construction and equipment. It would be the single largest economic stimulus our nation has ever seen.

The real green jobs will be in construction: concrete, steel, electric, plumbing, pipe-fitting...as utility companies replace the older, dirtier power plants with newer, more efficient plants. We just need a coherent energy policy.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Agreed Rob. From American Rivers: "...many people recognize the need to invest in our clean and safe water (except maybe Congress, who cut water infrastructure funding in the FY12 budget…). Forbes writes that '2012 is the year America must get serious about our water infrastructure,' and the American Society of Civil Engineers recent 'Failure to Act' report demonstrates that letting our pipes, treatment plants and other water infrastructure decline further will have major adverse impacts on the economy, causing losses as much as $4.1 trillion to GDP through 2040.

On the flip side – investing in clean water creates good jobs. As part of a recent report American Rivers released with Green for All, we found that investments in our water infrastructure would yield 1.9 million American jobs and add $265 billion to the economy. In the Chesapeake Bay, projects to reduce polluted stormwater runoff could provide work for 178,000 full-time equivalent jobs across the bay watershed over the next five years.

Investing is important, but how we invest is just as important. In addition to rebuilding our treatment plants and repairing leaking pipes, we should prioritize investing in smart solutions like green infrastructure that cost-effectively reduces polluted runoff, flooding and sewer overflows. Whether using green roofs, green streets or water efficiency, these approaches save money, create jobs and create clean and vibrant communities..."

(americanrivers.org/newsroom/blog/kbaer-2012125cities-should-go-green-to.html)

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Global temperature has not "remained flat." It has increased. The increase began during the mid-19th century (the middle 1800s) and has accelerated in near perfect correlation with increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from CharlesJordan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I would love to see a dozen impeccable studies that could prove that dumping 300 billions tons of CO2 into the air since 2022 has has the effect of temperature rising. But even if they had them, they would be attacked and beaten away and the usual.
I also regret watching as other sources are without development because they don't have the money in them.
When everything from west Texas to Memphis turns into a dust bowl, and a new desert opens up in central Russia's bread belt, now weve got problems that start global wars.
Americans in particular waste so much energy doing mostly nothing with it each and every day, that changes in simple social gluttony could help the overall picture.
It's truly sad watching people champion global changes that could cause catastrophic problems, and we don't have a road map the drive it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RockySquirrel wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Who cares what the cause is, The fact is it is happening and we need to adapt to it. If using less fossil fuels slows down the change.... OK. The answer is: We, Humans, Us, have to stay on this planet as we make it cause there ain't no where else to go. If you trash your house, you still have to live in it. We have a finite amount of stuff. There is a finite about of oils, natural gas and clean water and raw materials. We need to use it wisely or our children's children will be cursing us and spitting on our graves (if they haven't dug up the caskets to recycle the metals).

In short: Who cares what causes climate change, we still need to slow our consumption (no matter what big oil says); or some day, after the environment is trashed this planet will not be a fun place to live, and then hell will be in session. There is no unicorns to fly off on.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I'd like to reinforce a point Hal made early on in his story. Conservation Hawks is a group of passionate, talented, dedicated hunters and anglers who are focused on defending our sporting heritage and passing along a healthy natural world to our kids & grandkids. While I'm the chairman, I'm only one small part of the organization. We have an outstanding board of directors, and an incredibly strong group of supporters. If you'd like to learn more about us, visit our website at conservationhawks.org. And if you'd like to share your opinions - either pro or con - on the work we're doing, please stop by our blog at conservationhawks.org/blog.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from TM wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

So who gets the Beretta? No one?!? I'm starting to feel the same way I do at the carnival.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from BrowningBC wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Since the industrial revolution, we have been pumping these sequestered forms of carbon and burning them into the atmosphere. Seems logical that this would have an effect on our environment. How the ratio of these mad-made greenhouse gasses to solar thermal radiation fluctuations is affecting our weather patterns is beyond my knowledge.

Wasn't there a F&S article a while back with the journo on the Caribou hunt with the nomadic natives who were noticing historical deviations from "typical" herd behavior? Believe they said the earth is trying to tell us something, it's up to us as sportsmen to listen. Only 25 years of age but I hope my progeny are able to enjoy the natural resources I grew up enjoying.

Any way you look at it we have become a society of taking what we want instead of using only what we need.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from pmdockins wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Let's put it this way. If you through lead, mercury, unnatural gases or unnatural amounts of gases into the air and water along with other substances that are KNOWN TO BE TOXIC we will have issues. Period. Can I tell you with 100% certainty that global warming exists? No. Can I tell you with certainty that gases and other items littered in our atmosphere and water change over time and often become even more dangerous. Yes.

Am I concerned about global warming and cooling? Yes. But I am more concerned about the pollution. To me they go hand in hand. Fix the pollution and you don't have to worry about warming and cooling.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from poetwild wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Correlation does not confer causality. Thus, there can be other factors yet that can affect climate which disprove this theory of man caused temperature change via CO2. It should be noted that carbon is a primary element in our universe so to characterize it as a pollutant seems questionable. Despite this massive loading of CO2 in our atmosphere, it is virtually in the same proportion among atmospheric gases as before this current age. Water vapor has a profound impact on air temperature according to other scientific researchers but I hear no call to control it. In fact, lots of vapor could increase cloud cover and thus cancel out other temperature raising factors. Who is being irrational now?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I love the 350hp V8 Yamaha outboard ad over the Global Warming Question in this mag. It only burns 31+ gal/hr @6000 rpm. Just a tad more than my canoe.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Enviroscientist wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I think Todd will be keeping his Beretta.

Most all of us out door types have seen changes over the years, or decades. That is the nature of climate. Climate is not a steady-state proposition. To believe that is is to misunderstand the natural world in which we live.

What is at issue really is the effect that man has on the climate. I think there is a genuine arrogance that insists that since we can seed clouds and make it rain we can control the climate.

The conclusions that Todd are drawing are not from the science itself, but from his presuppositions.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from poetwild wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Regarding carbon in our atmosphere...it is an extremely common element on our planet found in solid, liquid and gaseous states. My graphite fly rod is made of carbon. My hunting firearms? Carbon. My fishing knife? Carbon. My vehicle runs on liquefied carbon. Heat my home on carbon. The CO2 in the atmosphere gets utilized by plants and converts it to life supporting oxygen. Plants and people are largely made of carbon. In fact, all my friends are carbon-based lifeforms. Let's not demonize the element,please. As in my earlier post, the atmosphere is 98% nitrogen and oxygen. Water vapor is 3rd, argon is 4th while CO2 (5th) comes in at 0.04% of total gases. According to scientific research, this proportionality has been virtually unchanged over the past several thousand years. We need to continue research before taking drastic measures.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rob Sisson wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

If you are skeptical about climate change, please spend some time at www.skepticalscience.com. It's okay to be a skeptic and to question ideas. This site provides details, though, to refute some of the urban myths about carbon dioxide. If you want to hear conservatives talking about climate issues, visit climateconservative.org (full disclosure, I'm president of the organization behind that website).

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Horseapples wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Most of the comments have been well thought out and I appreciate the ties to science and literature by some. The subject stirs the emotions because of our chosen ideologies but we must not sacrifice our planet for the sake of political dogma.

It seems the only thing driving change today is money however. Until the uber-rich decide they finally have enough to make them happy (maybe they never will) then they will hold us hostage to the internal combustion engine and fossil fuels. Hydrogen fuel cells are the way to go for transportation and power generation. Hydrogen is the most plentiful element on the planet. With current technology it would cost twice per gallon as gasoline to produce but the efficiency in a vehicle would be greater than twice the energy output of a gallon of gasoline. I'd spend $5 to go 100 miles! When the supply of oil becomes depleted to the point that people revolt at the price, hydrogen will hit the scene. The "exhaust" from a hydrogen fuel cell is water. Check it out for yourself. Lobby for hydrogen technology investments if you really want to do some good.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Michael Shepard wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Here in NW Montana, our summers are shorter and shorter..you should talk to my duck hunting buddy, who grows veggies in his small truck garden...has done records for 40 plus years now..it has shortened dramatically, and is NOT warming....quit trying to control my life with yet another liberal attempt to contol how I live...I graduated in 1971 from college, and in our geographical studies, we were alerted to a cooling going on..look at the lack of sunspots and how it impacted the earth in the 1950's and 60's////this is why I will NEVER vote for a damn democrat they have sallowed this crap to the max..

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I will refrain from becoming involved in this exercise in verbal futility, since it is now way too late to address the endless and escalating problems. You will believe what you prefer - as always. I was born in 1933 and began my lifelong hunting and fishing career before I was 10 years old. Since those far-off days, I have seen the natural world disappear and degrade in more ways than I could ever have imagined. Yes, I have witnessed a few great improvements over these many years mainly due to environmental efforts by many dedicated people, (certainly not much due to hunters and fisherman) but overall the battle is being lost. The blame for it can be spread widely through this insane society of ours and it no longer matters. The carefree days of roaming the woods and waters are all done and we are witnessing the last of what all our ancestors took for granted. I was privileged to see and do some of the very best of it. Too bad we threw it all away. It did not have to happen. How stupid.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Daniel Ettinger wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Tanner is a fraud. He has no intention of giving away his Beretta. He doesn't want his truth clouded by the facts. I've read tons of research from both sides of the scientific community and overall, the data sides with these changes being a scam.
Important things like, solar changes, axial tilt of our planet, orbital variances and even geological events, are ignored by the Chicken Littles of climate change.
They indulge in sloppy science and accept some ponied up consensus. Once upon a time, the consensus was that our planet was the center of the universe. It was also the consensus that our planet was flat. Yes, over the last century or so, the temperature has increased...by less than a degree, and that is based on archaic records produced with less than exacting instruments.
As to the extreme weather patterns, it has to be taken into consideration that more people live in the path of hurricane and tornado regions therefore, more people get hurt and killed and more homes and businesses get damaged and destroyed.
It's those myopic views that cause the harbingers of doom preaching climate change, from being taken seriously by people who can see the bigger picture.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

When I saw the headline of this post, I initially thought, whoa, maybe I can shed a little light on the subject, interject a little of my brand of "matter of factness" and who knows, win what appears to be a nice shotgun in the process. I was dismayed to see the only comment left by Mr. Tanner was about his website.

You ought to know that its generally considered bad form to make a grand offer or claim without the intent to back it up. If that was even your way of steering folks to your conservation site. I'll admit, you do appear to have some good looking credentials behind the names of the folks you are working with; and yes, I did visit your site and the teddy roosevelt society that was also linked to CH, but where I come from, a man's offer made in good faith and acted on in the same is something that will define how others perceive you or your word.

I never took for granted that Mr. Tanner would part ways with his purty shotgun; after all, if my wife purchased something like that for me, the last thing I would do is give it away on a subjective claim. But I do feel like Mr Tanner has certainly not endeared himself or his fledgling organization without so much as even responding to one of those (like myself) who stepped up and accepted the challenge in the post to offer an opinion on climate change.

I get that this offer on the shotgun was about changing your mind reference climate change Mr. Tanner, and you're the ultimate judge if your ideology has done a 180; however, to go and just post an ad for your website as a response to those who posted is just not gonna drive the web traffic, nor is anyone going to take what you say seriously.

Conservation minded or not, many people stop listening when you cry wolf one too many times. Granted that I don't hold extensive degrees ecology or natural sciences, I do for one have the unique ability to gather facts, create hypothesis and compile data before revising and making a theory. Seems to me that if we all did that in our own neck of the woods, we'll have some nice places to pass along to future generations without having to get wrapped around the axle on something that won't be confirmed in my lifetime.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from TM wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

There is ever-increasing scientific consensus that the competing opinions voiced on climate change are a leading emitter of greenhouse gases.

In short, you're all (on both sides) full of hot air!

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Why do libs always say, "climate change" and not man induced climate change? Of course there is climate change. And why did the libs, and Fat Albert get exposed for their corrupt agenda when we are talking Science? I thought science was devoid of corruption.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

The way I see it is also this. I've plans for being "somewhere else" when the worst of the CO2 forced Global Warming chickens come to roost. It'll likely mean the end of many communities in the USA and worldwide, and a whole lot of social misery, and possibly starvation and death.

Global warming denialists turned refugee won't be welcome in my neighborhood, nor anti-scientists. You all can live like ostriches with your head deep in denialist doo doo. Natural selection will tell, in time.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Get over the stupid shotgun- his comment was tongue in cheek more than anything.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Louzianajones wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Todd, you should not worry about climate change.There is nothing you can do about it. The climate is not static. It is a dynamic feature of the earth and will always be changing. You should be more worried about government change. That is where the real danger lies.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Daniel Allison wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Yep! You sure have a point about the man made climate change. We sure need to do something about all those suburbans idling in a traffic jam on Mars, Io and Pluto. They are warming too. The "consensis" scientist are now trying to explain why the average temperature has stayed steady or fallen in the past eleven years while co2 has increased. It is a real problem for them. Could it be that their computer models are wrong? We already know from the Angelina e-mails that they started with a result and entered only data that supported that result and left out or faked what did not fit. Three thousand out of thirty three thousand is not a concenis where I live. It is a minority with a big mouth and a lot of politicial pull and money. Goebbels got it right, Tell a big enough lie and tell it enough times and it will become the truth. Climate will change and we can not change that, but we can change with it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Daniel Allison wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Also I think Mr. Tod Tanner is very un-trustworthy. There is no way he will ever part with that shot gun, unless he is getting a divorce. Making an offer with no intention of fulfilling it is fraud at best and contempt for the readers at worst.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

HeidelbergJaeger - “I was dismayed to see the only comment left by Mr. Tanner was about his website.”

I’m not sure if this will go through, but I’ve been fishing in Idaho for the last few days and I’ve been having a difficult time commenting on this thread via my motel internet connection. One of my comments went up and stayed up; two didn’t.

In any case, I’m not sure folks are getting the full picture. Here are my original R&GC posts on the subject, which may shed a little light on the subject.

Part I
One of the dangers with organizations like CH is that we can end up stuck in our own little circle, preaching to the choir and not making much of a difference to the world at large. That’s not our goal here at Conservation Hawks. We want to reach people - lots of them - as quickly as possible. Not because we’re hoping for fame or glory, or to satisfy our egos, or because Conservation Hawks will turn into a cash cow if we can just sign up enough hunters & anglers. (By the way, we don’t charge folks to register as a CH supporter. You can do it for free on our website.)

No, we’re old fashioned. We just want to pass along a healthy natural world to our kids and grandkids so they can experience the same quality fishing & hunting we enjoy today. And in order to do that, we need a big tent. We need to reach every kind of sportsman: the fly fishers and upland bird hunters, the cane pole folks who fish for crappie & bream, the bass anglers with their fancy boats and gear, the elk hunters who dream of distant, snow-dusted mountains, the whitetail and turkey fanatics, the spey rod steelheaders, the muskie guys and walleye gals and the quiet men who run hounds far from the beaten path. We need them all; we need to reach them all. Whether they believe that climate change is the biggest, gravest threat out there, or whether they’re not quite sure what to think, or whether they’re convinced that global warming is a load of crap (or a communist plot); regardless, we need them.

So I want to invite every one of you, whether you agree with us or not, to join the conversation here on our Rod & Gun Club blog.

Part II
I hate wasting my time. I truly do. It annoys the hell out of me. And there’s nothing, and I mean nothing, worse than toiling at something long after you’ve figured out it makes no sense to go on. So please help me out. I’m convinced that climate change is the gathering storm on the horizon, the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the horn awaiting Gabriel’s lips. That’s what so many climate scientists are saying. That’s what all the evidence out my front door tells me. That’s what my heart whispers. But what if I’m wrong? Can you imagine anything more frustrating then spending years of your life fighting against something that doesn’t even exist? You know what they’d say. There he goes, drinking the kool-aid, tilting at windmills, chasing will-o'-the-wisps. Good ol’ Don ever-clueless Quixote.

So if you’re a climate dove or a climate denier, come to our Rod & Gun Club blog and convince me that I’m wrong about climate change. Explain why I’m mistaken. Take the weight from my shoulders and help me to go back to the things I love, rather than feeling like I have to push this huge boulder up a never-ending hill. I’ll thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Part III
This post is for folks who don’t accept the science of climate change.

Skin in the game. You know what that means, right? We need a stake in the outcome. We have to pay to play. So here’s what I’ll do - gladly, with joy - for the person who convinces me that our Conservation Hawks team is mistaken about climate change, and that we should be looking elsewhere for the biggest threats on the horizon.

I own a handsome 12 gauge shotgun my wife gave me for my birthday a while back. It’s a Beretta 687 Silver Pigeon and in spite of my questionable shooting skills it’s killed a fair number of birds over the years. So here’s my challenge to you. I will auction off my Beretta and donate the proceeds to the charity of your choice if you can convince me that I’m mistaken about climate change.

Or, if you’re not big on charities, I’ll give you the shotgun. No strings, free & clear; It’s yours. All you have to do is convince me - with logic, or passion, or whatever means you have at your disposal - that I’m wrong about climate change, or that my fellow Conservation Hawks and I are wasting our time on the issue.

Just so we’re clear - I will listen to your arguments. You have my word. Hell, I’d love to learn that my concerns about climate change are completely unwarranted. But you’re going to have to be more persuasive than our climate scientists, and that won’t be easy.

One other thing. Fair is fair, and we all need to have a little skin in the game. So if you’re positive that climate change is a hoax, come to our Rod & Gun Club blog, jump on any Monday Open Thread and make your case. Only before you do, please visit our website, hit the “Donate” button, and pony up your end of the bargain. A few bucks in the kitty will show that you’re serious about your views and deserving of a thoughtful response.

Here’s the truth. We have to get past the question about whether climate change is “real.” If we’re going to come out the other end of this tunnel, hunters & anglers need to start working together on some very difficult problems. But first we have to have an open, honest, informed discussion and put this issue to rest. Let’s start that discussion now.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Just so we're clear: I've read all the comments on this thread, and none of them have changed my long-held views on climate change. If you're truly interested in doing so, you might want to address the following questions:

Why are millions of acres of forest dying in the western U.S. and Canada?

Why did the U.S. National Academy of Sciences recently call anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change a “settled fact?”

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2000 - 2009 the warmest decade ever recorded?

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2010 the warmest year ever recorded?

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why have our global temperatures risen at the same time the sun’s energy output has decreased?

Why do 97% to 98% of climate scientists agree that our climate is warming and that humans are responsible for much of the temperature increase?

Why has the fossil fuel industry spent so much money trying to convince us that the science on climate change is not yet settled?

What would you tell your kids & grandkids if you dismissed the threat from climate change and they lost most - or all - of their hunting and fishing because we failed to act in time?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Just so we're clear: I've read all the comments on this thread, and none of them have changed my long-held views on climate change. If you're truly interested in doing so, you might want to address the following questions:

Why are millions of acres of forest dying in the western U.S. and Canada?

Why did the U.S. National Academy of Sciences recently call anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change a “settled fact?”

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2000 - 2009 the warmest decade ever recorded?

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2010 the warmest year ever recorded?

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why have our global temperatures risen at the same time the sun’s energy output has decreased?

Why do 97% to 98% of climate scientists agree that our climate is warming and that humans are responsible for much of the temperature increase?

Why has the fossil fuel industry spent so much money trying to convince us that the science on climate change is not yet settled?

What would you tell your kids & grandkids if you dismissed the threat from climate change and they lost most - or all - of their hunting and fishing because we failed to act in time?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Armchair Mike wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

The problem with the argument for man made global warming is that it is not based on evidence. If one accepts the age of the Earth the best science available to us suggests, several hundred years is an eye blink in terms of geologic time. Climatology is a relatively new science based on a couple of hundred years of meteorologic observation. Predictions of global warming now are no more valid than predictions in the 1970s of the coming Ice Age due to global cooling. Either prediction was based on an insufficient sample of data. It was cooler in Foley, Alabama today than it was yesterday, although it was later in the year by one day. The Earth tilted on its axis further toward the sun, so it should have been warmer, but it was not. I do not believe this observation on my part is evidence of global cooling, because my sample of data is insufficient to draw that conclusion and my methodology does not account for all potential variables, including the cold front that moved into the area. I am not an ideologue on the subject of clean technology, but I do believe we should pursue it for its own sake and not because of pseudoscience. Otherwise, when short-term temperature fluctuations demonstrate a cooling trend, any progress we make toward renewable clean energy will end. Mr. Cooper has kindly given my disclaimer.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Erik Jensen wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Great that someone is taking this on ! The bigges problem I have with the climate-change deniers is they attribute bizarre behavior to scientists. They claim this all a hoax, a big scam...what is the motivation ? Of course, scientists are just like everyone else. Who wouldn't want to keep on using as much energy as you please ? Not spending tons of time and effort taking on huge powerful industries like big oil and coal ? Or, if you're into other environmental and conservation issues, why not take something else on instead creating a huge fake problem ? I love America, but we have something in our political culture that we could do without: the paranoid, conspiratorial theories. These generally infect a good chunk of conservative people, but it can really get into a lot of the left sometimes as well. A good example was after 9/11, there was a widespread belief amongst a certain percentage of liberals (about a third) that George Bush was involved with 9/11. Totally ridiculous. I write this as someone who hates George Bush, but the idea that he "did" 9/11 has no rational basis. There was no evidence and even if Bush thought of carrying out such a plot, it would be too risky. It's the same with the climate change deniers. They start with the premise of conspiracy and go to great lengths in attempts to prove their ridiculous premise by fabricating evidence, and so far they've come up with nothing.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

The forests die from air pollution...that is the biggest threat to man. Concentrations of folks in the big city, and health problems do to air pollution, but it is down right arrogant to think man influences global warming. And the political power of the thought is killing our economy, and I believe INTENATIONALLY...that will result in a 3rd world country garbage dump if allowed to continue. Obama hires a socialist Energy Sec. that recommends $10 a gal. gasoline to promote a corrupt green energy policy?!!!!! Does anyone have a clue what that would create right now?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from crowman wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I love all the people who blame big this and that for all the climate change that is happening [or not] to our planet. Everyone can help slow this down themselves QUITE HAVING SO MANY KIDS. All industries are just feeding the demand for products that the increase of population wants. All this whining about the problem being somehow THEIR fault and NOT the 6 kids you decided to have not being ANY part of the problem is stupid beyond belief. When the world starts to wake up to the cause and effect of population increase then I will maybe start to use less until then use it like a rental car, pedal to the metal were doomed anyway have fun to the end.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I think rather than trying to convince the non-believers that climate change is real- just stick to the conservation message. Regardless of whether it's real or not, we shouldn't be trashing, polluting and wasting like a bunch of mindless pigs. Whether it's a family household, small business or a corporation. Conservation should be more than just protecting lands and wildlife- what about water conservation or energy conservation in the household? This is all stuff we should be doing anyway. A large percentage of the energy we pay for in the household ends up going to waste as a result of inefficient insulation, outdated appliances, leaving lights on, leaving electronics plugged in 24/7 etc. Why someone needs to leave their dustbuster and charger plugged in 365 days a year even though it's used maybe 3 times, I'll never understand. When I started using LED and cfl bulbs, belkin conserve switches, smart power strips, and did some weatherization and easy steps around the house- I instantly noticed a substantial amount in savings on my utility bills. I even saw it by borrowing my buddy's killowatt meter. My next project is water conservation. Rain garden in my backyard, rain barrel for the wife's garden, low flow aerators and so on. It saves us money and its the damn right thing to do. Not to mention, doing these conservation efforts makes me feel even more patriotic.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from PigHunter wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Actually, increased CO2 has been shown to be great for increased food production. Warmer temps will open up more land to agriculture in Canada and Russia.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Pighunter: You making lemonade out of lemons here?!

crowman: Good point. I also think over-population lies at the root of many of the world's problems.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bruisedsausage wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

"Why are millions of acres of forest dying in the western U.S. and Canada?"

Mostly it is attributed to the pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) which of course you're going to assume is being very successful because of mild winters and warmer temperatures, however this isn't entirely the case. Much of it has to do with the logging industry being shut down, and being fought at every avenue, resulting in lengthy court battles between the FS and special interest groups. I could write a thesis paper on this alone, however I'm going to get to the next question.

Why did the U.S. National Academy of Sciences recently call anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change a “settled fact?”

I would surmise that much of it has to do with trend. We don't have enough information to conclusively argue that the temperatures are either warming or cooling. If you want to look at the average temperature of the earth over the last 300 million years, then we might be able to draw a conclusion, but that isn't an option.

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2000 - 2009 the warmest decade ever recorded?

Well we haven't been tracking weather temperatures for very long. By any standard... For all we know 2000-2009 could have been 50F cooler than the average temperature that the earth has been over the past few million years. Again not enough information to make any credible claim, and yet make one under the pretense of being 100% true.

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2010 the warmest year ever recorded?

See above. Don't get me wrong, climate change is very real, just shouldn't be attributed with human activities due to the lack of information.

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why have our global temperatures risen at the same time the sun’s energy output has decreased?

Not sure where you're getting this information, but the sun's energy output hasn't decreased. In fact its been increasing, causing solar radiation flares. Something I'm sure you've heard about.

Why do 97% to 98% of climate scientists agree that our climate is warming and that humans are responsible for much of the temperature increase?

Again not sure where you're getting your facts or numbers, but I would say that it's nowhere near 97% to 98% of climate scientists that agree. Basic facts: Humans produce almost no CO2 compared to normal biological activity on the earth. Less than 1% actually.

Why has the fossil fuel industry spent so much money trying to convince us that the science on climate change is not yet settled?

Well simply put, you never bite the hand that feeds. Not arguing for the fuel industry here, however with many special interests groups acting like ravenous wolves trying to attack them its in their best interest to spend as much as they can fighting unfounded claims. Case example would be all the special interest groups fighting logging. FACT: Our natural resources that are replenish-able. (like trees) release the same exact amount of "pollutants" (if you can even call them that) while rotting in the forest as they do being harvested and then used for the betterment of humans. Doesn't matter how you slice the cookie you'll always have the same compounds and the same amount of them. Doesn't matter if the breakdown comes from a biological source or man, the exact same amount of "pollutants" are released as it is used.

What would you tell your kids & grandkids if you dismissed the threat from climate change and they lost most - or all - of their hunting and fishing because we failed to act in time?

Simply put, unless we start living in caves and give up all of our current infrastructure there is no way to guarantee that we aren't contributing even in the slightest to climate change. We have bigger things to worry about, than worrying about climate change. If the climate changes at anywhere near the same rate at which it has over the last 150 yrs. (meaning with linearity) your great great great great great grandchildren won't even notice much of a difference (in temperatures). Not only that, species are able to adapt to many different environments quite rapidly. Pretty amazing biological creations they are. Proof is in the distribution of the different species over vastly different areas. More likely your great great great great grandchildren won't have the ability to have the same opportunities as you and I because of human population growth exploding.

No worries about the shotgun, I could care less about one. I would just like to educate those around of misinformation as best I can. All of the information I present comes from factual material that I have studied quite extensively. As far as any changes that we can make in order to preserve and sustain our environment as it is, should start sooner than later. Such as using more of our natural resources for better purposes. Using them more efficiently, and educating those special interest groups that don't understand why they are arguing a fallacy, and further complicating and destroying the environment. Hands down if you want the best subject to argue for and against "fossil fuels". you need to study Biomass Gasification. It's a much better substitute for fuels in today's world than ever before. If you do a little research you'll find that big oil fought like crazy to control the market and stop the gasification sciences. Again its a renewable energy source with zero net emissions.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

If you believe that co2 causes climate change, how dare you go on interstate fishing trips? Is the carbon you burn the "good" carbon? Just who and where do you want to limit energy for Todd? Talking about government energy rationing and skyrocketing energy prices for who? I've about had it with internet dandies promoting limiting my energy expenditures while they are off spewing co2 for their employment and enjoyment. Todd and too many others are all about limiting co2 expenditures for you and me while they claim exemptions for themselves. How about it Todd, how much have you and your family cut back on your travel? I know that there are many things that I would like to do locally, like study bald eagle and osprey populations that I don't do because of my self imposed, for monetary and conservation reasons, limits. I could drive over to Derby Hill every day and watch the spring hawk migration but I don't. Its less than 20 miles, no big deal. I ration my own energy expenditures. Are the Conservation Hawks going to limit their hunting and fishing travel? No new guns or boats or motors? Canoes only maybe? Are you guys going to wear hair shirts or just petition the government to make your readers unable to travel to destinations more than walking distance from home? Tell us your goal, let us in on the game plan. You want us to stand up and have an effect. You want sportsmen to vote for people who will impose some kind of energy rationing law on ourselves? I don't believe in the science and I don't believe in your cure.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Harding7 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I agree that there is climate change - and over 98% of it is completely out of our control!

The computer models being used are set up by avowed environmentalists who are using assumptions which have not been proved and therefore the results validate their claims because the programs can do nothing else! I know because a good friend of mine who is an expert in both research and meteorology has said that any one of these programs he's seen leave out massive items of global impact - like sunspot and solar wind activity. These are HUGE in impact and totally out of our control!

Conservationalism is needed, but with reason and within logical bounds.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from PigHunter wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Agriculture and Food Supply - EPA

"The IPCC concluded that, for North America as a whole (IPCC, 2007):

Moderate climate change will likely increase yields of North American rain fed agriculture, but with smaller increases and more spatial variability than in earlier estimates. Most studies project likely climate-related yield increases of 5-20 percent over the first decades of the century, with the overall positive effects of climate persisting through much or all of the 21st century."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

While I believe that man-made climate change is definitely a possibility, I agree with Labrador on his point- people can walk the walk, but can they talk the talk? Conservation Hawks should recommend simple activities that sportsmen and their families can do on their own to help conserve energy, food, water etc. Even the whole reduce and reuse thing. It all matters and if more people did something on a personal level- it would all add up. But of course you got the lazy morons who think, "oh well I'm just one person so who cares?" Yeah, you and millions of people say the same thing and we're stuck in this same wasteful cycle. We can't always rely on the stinkin' government to clean up after our mess, so we have to take it into our own hands. It's not asking for much, these are easy and common-sense tasks. Awareness and education is fine, but the organization is better off trying to influence people to re-think what conservation really means and how it applies to our everyday lives. If there's a guy out there that sends in a donation to Conservation Hawks, but buys his produce from countries like Chile and Spain, leaves his heat on 24/7 at 73 degrees, leaves his sprinkler on during rainy days, runs the laundry machine to wash a pair of socks, soaks his lawn in pesticides and chemicals, and drives his gas guzzler to the supermarket to buy bottled water and all that crap- you're a dope. I wish Conservation Hawks best of luck with the organization, I'm all for it- but I ask that they advocate for change on the personal level as well. Similar to what Recycled Fish does with anglers. I'd then be happy to make a donation.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from wanderfire wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Global warming deniers are playing dice with the earth. They would have us careen around a blind curve on their faith that their is no oncoming traffic.

Burnet D. Brown
Woodland Hills, CA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Many thanks to all the folks participating in this discussion. It's an important one.

Lab12 - You raise an interesting issue. If we're going to talk the talk, we should also walk the walk. My fishing trip was work related - I'm an outdoor writer and I went down to Idaho for a story - but I definitely put more CO2 in the air than I would have if I stayed home. Point taken.

In a broader sense, though, we're not trying to force sportsmen to travel less, or hunt & fish less. In fact, just the opposite. Our hope is that America’s sportsmen will help institute policies that will protect the natural landscape while saving us money. We have faith in American ingenuity, and we believe that with the right incentives, American companies will produce low-or-no emissions vehicles that cost far less to drive. And once those vehicles are widely available, we’ll save money at the same time we protect our future.

BruisedSausage - I disagree with many of your conclusions, but I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned response. We’re going to put up a slightly different version of those questions on the CH blog over the next day or two. If you’d like to discuss your points in greater detail, stop by the blog tomorrow or Tuesday and either re-post your comments or address the new questions.

One quick point I can make from memory (I’m 5 days behind on everything after my fishing trip, and I don’t have time to dig up the info right now). You asked where I was getting my numbers on the 97% to 98% of climate scientists who believe the evidence supports anthropogenic climate change. That figure comes from the National Academy of Sciences. If you jump on Google, you should be able to confirm that figure in 5 minutes or less.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I'll take issue with a couple of Mr. Tanner's points in the above comment;

#1. American companies will produce low or no emissions vehicles- The government got us tax payers into the electric / hybrid auto business as soon as it bailed out GM. Look now at what we have to show for it. These vehicles are not as reliable nor as efficient as they were once touted, and so as to illustrate my point, the Obama administration has recently faced such a consumer backlash that they had to pony up and start a buy back program for owners of Chevy Volts. People that have a firm grasp on reality see that these vehicles are a pipe dream or an environmentalist's way of feeling guilt free about driving, and cannot compete with a traditional gasoline powered vehicle. If the current administration was serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, they would have opened up the ANWR for drilling, or would have not balked on the Keystone oil pipeline. Don't you see, its a bait and switch approach that the current and most former administrations are doing. Promise the taxpayers lower energy costs, then 3 years later, here we are with the highest oil prices in forever, ending at 103$ and change a barrel on the NYSE. The source of this report is the Independent out of the UK.

#2 the 97 or 98 percent of climate scientists that support climate change (as to say nearly all scientists accept the theory of anthropogenic climate change- If you're going to cite the National Academy of Sciences and their cohorts within the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), then you should also cite as honest accounting the more than 1000 climate scientists that have come out against the theory of climate change as a complete and utter fraud.

Many of the so called facts used by the "scientists" that are pushing the THEORY of climate change or man influenced climate change have been exposed and their work corroborated as willful misrepresentations of facts and also found to have intentionally published fraudulent climatic data to support their position knowing full well that their data was wholly inaccurate. This accusation is true and has been exposed by international news media such as the BBC. The proof one needs to see is in the leaked files of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (the preeminent scholastic research dealing with climatic data). You can find the Guardian's coverage here www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climate-emails-question-answe... or by going to the BBC and searching "climategate". The US DOE has even suspended financial support in 2009 to the UEA CRU because of the credibility of the UEA CRU was severely damaged as a result of the leaked information. Professor Phil Jones even stepped down as head of the CRU because of his willful neglect of complete climate data disclosure in a report within the UN's assessment of climate science.

Mr. Tanner, I respect that you're trying to rally the people around your cause. Its because people like you stand up and raise an issue that many are inspired to research and form their own opinions. I think however, that if you're going to cite scientists that have been proven to use and publish factually inaccurate data to support your position, that you be willing to consider the alternative position. More and more scientist dispute the theory of man made climate change everyday. Scientists have repeatedly made the conscious decision to alienate themselves from the establishment scientific institutions and ultimately their profession by speaking out against a process that they know is fundamentally flawed.

You talked about having a stake in the game; my stake is this- I won't let myself be misled by charlatans or crooks. I will clean my own yard and witness those who cry wolf be discredited by those who shared their same opinion when the chips are down. I am all for passing on a better environment than what I inherited, but it will not be at the expense of my integrity nor my cognitive abilities.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Heidelberg, who are these 1000 climate scientists your referring to? Are you sure they're "climate scientists?" Because years ago your fellow deniers began citing the number at 400, then it was 700 and now 1000. The original figure of 400 was from Senator Inhofe's flawed report. The majority of those original 400 scientists have ZERO credentials in climate research (i.e. -uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/650Skeptics.HTM). So you have a bunch of botanists and earth science teachers chiming in- great. The climategate "conspiracy" is much ado about nothing. Here, knock yourself out: (skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm). Note: that site will dispel the rest of your commonly-used denier myths. "We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one."

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Realgoodman- throw an http in front climatedepot.com and you can follow the link to the 321 page PDF report that was presented to the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico in December 2010. You give me a website, I'll give you one. There, we're even.

that should get you thinking. Here's a few quotes from the report, abridged for your convenience.

“We're not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC‘s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium."

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself." -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory."

Now I used to live in the Bay Area of California. The scientists at LL National Laboratory are some pretty smart folks. They did give us nuclear weapons by the way.

Now of course, you'll debate my numbers. You'll say there are 10 million scientists that dispute my position. But I say that there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Anything that the climate change peddling folks are pushing can't be backed up because we just don't have the extensive historical data to give a full and accurate picture.

But here's where I'll submit to you proof that the earth can and will handle catastrophic climate change and come back better than before. Example no 1, The extinction event for the Dinosaurs. Was it caused by collisions with interstellar rock strata or was it caused by violent vulcanism? Who knows. Either way, the Earth healed and spawned new life. Can you argue with that?

Example no 2; surface nuclear testing in the South Pacific. From Bikini Atoll to the French Polynesian testing grounds, the environment has bounced back remarkably. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Bikini Advisory Group determined in 1997 that "It is safe to walk on all of the islands ... although the residual radioactivity on islands in Bikini Atoll is still higher than on other atolls in the Marshall Islands, it is NOT HAZARDOUS to health at the levels measured ... The main radiation risk would be from the food: eating locally grown produce, such as fruit, could add significant radioactivity to the body...Eating coconuts or breadfruit from Bikini Island occasionally would be NO CAUSE FOR CONCERN. Eating many over a long period of time without having taken remedial measures, however, MIGHT result in radiation doses higher than internationally agreed safety levels." IAEA estimated that living in the atoll and consuming local food would result in an effective dose of about 15 mSv/year."

Additionally, many of the relatives of those displaced by the atomic testing on Bikini have routinely petitioned the US Government to be relocated to Bikini. They are aware of the threats to health, and yet they want to go back. If people were facing a serious threat to their lives, would they want to return?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

I think it should also be noted that some of the commenters on here aren't sportsmen or F&S readers, they're anti-climate change/tea party trolls. They took to the internet to blast this article and CH. Someone even wrote a widely-shared post in response to Hal's article. See for yourself, google: “Climate Change is Like Being Mauled By a Crazed Mama Bear"

How pathetic huh? No wonder there were some angry posts on here...

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

By the way, Field and Stream supports my position on Bikini Atoll; "This A-bomb test site has become an angler's paradise...Bikini is the last of the best saltwater fishing in the world."

-Field & Stream magazine, November, 1997

How's that for climate change??

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Hey Hal

Explain one thing to us, why they don't show percentage of CO2 and O2 on a map and the variations over the year with all the NASA U2 bird that would frequent the hanger where I was stationed in Alaska. OOPS! There I go again; I wasn’t supposed to say that!! All that data worldwide showing the earth’s ionosphere is healing itself of that giant hole down yonder on the south end of the earth. OOPS! I did it again, DARNIT! And the Ice fields are growing including the polar bear population and there off the endangered species list. DA BURN IT! I DID IT AGAIN!!

But what the heck do I know about NASA!

www.fieldandstream.com/photos/trophyroom/recent/single?pnid=1001449314#1...

You can keep your gun Fella, I made a pledge with myself years ago never take another Fellas last dollar, his gun and darn sure not his dog on a sure bet or any bet actually! Now I did ask a fella to hold my trophy while I kissed his wife. Just kidding, I wouldn’t do that, not gentlemanly like.

By the way,

www.fieldandstream.com/photos/trophyroom/recent/single?pnid=1001459645#1...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from David Sneed wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

We are told that climate change is real by scientists who tell us that sea levels are rising as a result.

The science schools from all over were bidding to build the multi-billion science center on City Island in New York City. Cornell University is the winner.

City Island is at sea level. If it is true that sea levels will rise why are scientists wanting to spend billions of dollars?

Climate change must not be real from a science standpoint

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

You will be keeping your Beretta. The climate changes, always has always will. You have to understand the difference between events and mechanisms. Events are things we see and can measure. Those are things like temperature over time, rainfall, hurricanes etc.

Mechanisms are the CAUSE of those changes we see. The cause of the changes for the past 4.5 billion years have been complex and varied, but always natural. The cause today is claimed to be human emission of CO2. So if you wanted to make the bet properly you should have stipulated that the causes of the changes we see in the climate are ONLY because of oour CO2 emissions.

Had you done that you would owe me that Beretta. You see, not one science paper has ever linked changes in the climate to emissions of CO2. I'll post that again, NOT ONE science paper has empirically connected any change in the climate to CO2. What they have are computer models, and in science computer models are not evidence of anything.

Now we have solar scientists claiming that Solar Cycle 24 is gong to give us decades of colder than average climate, regardless of CO2. Of course only time will tell.

The other aspect which you would lose the bet is on the severity of the changes in the climate. Fact of the matter is climate is no more dangerous now than in the past. If anything warmer periods throughout human history has shown to always be better for humans. Colder periods, such as the little ice age, was devistating to humans, millions starved from failed crops.

So you owe me your Beretta.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

No, that is not correct nor is that how science works. You don't have to demonstrate that CO2 forcing is the ONLY cause. All you need to demonstrate is that it is the best explanation for the current heating event. Which it is.

This has been said enough times to reduce it to five, simple, factually correct sentences that CO2 forcing-deniers are unable to refute.

1.Global warming is happening. The evidence for it is beyond dispute.

2. CO2 forcing is one of several known mechanisms related to past episodes of global warming and global cooling over the past roughly half billion years.

3. Apart from CO2-enrichment, all of the previously known causes of global warming have been scientifically rejected because none of the other explanations fit with the current warming trend.

4. Therefore, CO2-forcing is overwhelmingly and by general consensus of more than 90% of people trained in climatology the only reasonable explanation for the current warming trend.

5. If someone finds a better explanation -- some undiscovered forcing mechanism perhaps, then #4 would no longer apply.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

I get quite a laugh out of the people who invoke a conspiracy theory encompassing tens of thousands of climate scientists across a score of nations world wide all colluding to secretly fake everyone out about CO2 forcing.

Or as They Might Be Giants noted:

"A scientific theory is more than just a hunch or guess. It's more like a question that's been put to a lot of tests. When a theory emerges consistent with the facts, the proof is with science."

TMBG -- "Science is Real"

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Fact of the matter is climate is no more dangerous now than in the past."

Immediately prior to the Carboniferous period, there was so much CO2 in the atmosphere that were any of us to attempt to live in that kind of climate we'd (1) be really hot all the time, and (2) slowly suffocate to death over a period of two or three days.

What changed all that was the emergence of terrestrial plants that promoted a huge drawdown in atmospheric CO2.

Over time, much of the CO2 sequestered by those plants, in the form of carbon, became trapped in the earth in the form of coal and oil.

Which coal and oil we now burn, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and undoing the carbon sequestration that occurred during the Carboniferous period.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Totally. They're conspiracy theorists. They sit and wait at their computers to pounce on any anything climate change related. I'm not kidding. Google: "Richard Wakefield and climate change" - yet another troll like the many others that have hijacked this thread to promote their anti-science agenda.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Immediately prior to the Carboniferous period, there was so much CO2 in the atmosphere that were any of us to attempt to live in that kind of climate we'd (1) be really hot all the time, and (2) slowly suffocate to death over a period of two or three days.

What changed all that was the emergence of terrestrial plants that promoted a huge drawdown in atmospheric CO2.

Over time, much of the CO2 sequestered by those plants, in the form of carbon, became trapped in the earth in the form of coal and oil.

Which coal and oil we now burn, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and undoing the carbon sequestration that occurred during the Carboniferous period.

---------

RW: Gross over simplification. First it would be like living in the tropics, everywhere. Since people leave the winter to holiday in the tropics, I fail to see how that is bad. Second, your notion of suffocating is pure nonsense. CO2 then was twenty times today, which is .035*20 or 0.7% To suffocate people requires CO2 to be 15%.

Plants don't make oil Marine ecosystems do. Shallow marine environments who didn't disolve from acidification.

Yes, we are undoing the carbon sequestration. We are returning CO2 to the atmophere where it came from. 99% of the last 500MYO CO2 was many times more than today. Big deal. If anything the planet was near plant suffocation from CO2 being too low. Lose plants and everything dies. More CO2 means faster plant growth, means more food for us and all animals.

There is no evidence that any changes in the climate from increased CO2 will be detramental to humans or to any life on the planet. It's your side that must provide empirical evidence of any such detramental changes. There are none in the geological record because of CO2.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from TM wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

What's funny about the dialogue going on this post is that it's divided (for the most part) into the pro-science and the anti-science posters. What's even more funny, is that the pro-science posters are the skeptics while most of the anti-science posters are the environmental advocates. Don't believe me? Well, scroll through the comments.

Who's calling who names? "conspiracy theorists" and "tea party trolls." Really?

The pro-science guys are the skeptics. More testing please. Is there merit to the 2 or 3 percent of the scientific community (likely more than that by an order of magnitude) who do not tow the line? If not, why not? Why has the change predicted by the IPCC not been as quick as predicted? Are these refinements to the model or an indication of problems with the theory?

Instead, we get: "Settled facts" and "Consensus." Really? These are not scientific arguments, and they should not be satisfying to Hal and Todd. These are lazy arguments of believers, not science.

I'd have a lot more respect for Hal and Todd's position if it was: "there's a lot of science out there about global warming. this could dramatically impact sportsmen. Let's get behind further studies and get some public funding to determine if it is man made and if so, what the effects will be, and if so, what we can do to reduce the problem."

That's not what we're getting here. Instead it's "oh my, climate change is a well settled, huge, huge, huge problem. Get behind some unspecified fix. Man made this problem. Overwhelming consensus exists in the scientific community. If we don't do something, your way of life is threatened."

Folks, that's not science, it's religion. And it's also not persuasive to the unconverted.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Failures of scientific consensus:

99% of geologists thought continents didnt move.

99% of psycologists thought Eugenics was valid.

99% of astonomers thought the universe was endless.

99% of scientists thought evolution was gradual.

They were all wrong.

Medical "consensus" gets destroyed every year.

Consensus has no place in science.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

from RealGoodMan wrote 2 hours 27 min ago
Totally. They're conspiracy theorists. They sit and wait at their computers to pounce on any anything climate change related. I'm not kidding. Google: "Richard Wakefield and climate change" - yet another troll like the many others that have hijacked this thread to promote their anti-science agenda.

-------------

RW: Please post a link to one science paper that shows the climate is changing beyond normal variation.

Please post a link to one paper that empirically links CO2 to those changes. You do know what "empirically" means, right?

You can shut me up for ever if you do that. And please, no models. Models are not evidence. They are flawed representations of what we THINK the climate is doing. EVERY one of them have been wrong.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from PigHunter wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Here's something for 'The Sky Is Falling' fanatics. Search the Wall Street Journal for the following (this site won't let me post the links)

No Need to Panic About Global Warming ~ The Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2012
"The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2."

"The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere."

Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming ~ February 21, 2012
"The Trenberth letter tells us that decarbonization of the world's economy would "drive decades of economic growth." This is not a scientific statement nor is there evidence it is true. A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology. If there were economic advantages to investing in technology that depends on taxpayer support, companies like Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Solar Millenium, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Ener1 and the Renewable Energy Development Corporation would be prospering instead of filing for bankruptcy in only the past few months."

"The European experience with green technologies has also been discouraging. A study found that every new "green job" in Spain destroyed more than two existing jobs and diverted capital that would have created new jobs elsewhere in the economy. More recently, European governments have been cutting subsidies for expensive CO2-emissionless energy technologies, not what one would expect if such subsidies were stimulating otherwise languid economies. And as we pointed out in our op-ed, it is unlikely that there will be any environmental benefit from the reduced CO2 emissions associated with green technologies, which are based on the demonization of CO2."

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Gross over simplification."

Correct. It's not meant to be a detailed, handholding, walk you through every step of it post. You can get that at the NOAA or NAS websites.

"First it would be like living in the tropics, everywhere."

Incorrect. It would be like living in the heart of the Sahara desert, almost everywhere. That is because there is still massive solar input, which becomes heat after interacting with the ground (simplification), which is trapped in greater proportions when CO2 concentrations increase. The earth tries to balance that out by recirculating the heat (through oceanic currents and atmospheric currents) to the poles -- which, by virtue of having a much greater angle of incidence from insolation, would be cooler.

"Second, your notion of suffocating is pure nonsense. CO2 then was twenty times today, which is .035*20 or 0.7% To suffocate people requires CO2 to be 15%."

To suffocate people immediately takes 15%. To suffocate people slowly takes less. If you'd like to experience the effect for yourself, I recommend you get yourself a nice case of acute emphysemia and then try living without recourse to an O2 tank.

"Plants don't make oil Marine ecosystems do. Shallow marine environments who didn't disolve from acidification."

That is not entirely accurate. Terrestrial plants are part of the oil and also coal formation process as they were a huge component of carbon sequestration. One of the ways that we know that is that pollen is a remarkably durable microfossil and pollen grains in oil bearing deposits could only come from terrestrial plants. Also, marine invertebrates sequester carbon as CaCO3. So it's mostly plants.

"99% of the last 500MYO CO2 was many times more than today."

That is incorrect. More importantly, during the episodes where CO2 concentrations were much higher, biodiversity was generally lower.

"More CO2 means faster plant growth, means more food for us and all animals."

No, it does not mean that. Since botany is part of my tradecraft, I can assure you that the limiting factors on plant growth are primarily amount of light, amount of water, and amount of soil nutrients. Too hot or too cold tends to kill that which is. You can stuff carbon dioxide into a fish tank all you want. If your plants in your terrarium are in nitrogen poor soil and they're not nitrogen fixers, they're dead. Simple as that.

"There is no evidence that any changes in the climate from increased CO2 will be detramental to humans or to any life on the planet."

That is a claim, not a fact. As claims go, it strikes me as profoundly odd. Sure, water is the basis of life. Bury every continent in four feet of it and you will make a mess of things in a very harmful way. Your assertion is infantile in its simplicity and, on account of being an utterly made up non-sequitur, worthy of pure scorn.

"It's your side that must provide empirical evidence of any such detramental changes. There are none in the geological record because of CO2."

That is not correct. It is quite clear that you lack much familiarity with any aspect of paleoclimatology.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Folks, that's not science, it's religion. And it's also not persuasive to the unconverted."

The unconverted are unpersuadable. 90% of the people who actually study this phenomenon are in agreement. They're professionals trained in the field. And they're scientists. Their agreement on the matter stems from the fact that all the evidence supports their position, and there is no evidence that supports an alternative position.

If you can't accept the science as it is, because you're afraid to have a policy discussion that has not occurred, then you are a poor excuse for a "skeptic."

"Further study" is not necessary. We know that an object dropped from your hand at anything near sea level will accelerate towards the ground from it's original state at a rate of 9.8 meters per second-second. "Further study" is not required. Global warming is an established fact. CO2 forcing is the only currently available explanation.

The only open questions are "Just how bad would the effects be?" and "If they're bad enough to require mitigation, will the cost and suffering be greater if we do nothing or greater if we react prematurely?"

I'm all for refining predictions. But the question you need to ask is how tolerant are you of the marginal extreme? It may be that the extremes are unlikely. But if they do occur, most humans are probably toast. You don't need to get to "suffocation levels of CO2." All you need to do is f**k up agriculture enough so that a whole lot of nations have large, starving populations. The societal and economic and warfare consequences would be very pleasing to General Jack Ripper.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Mike Diehl: Let's be clear. CO2 at twenty times 250myo down to 5 times 55myo did not kill animals during that 200 million years. It is 0.05% lower than fatal at twenty times today. You are wrong about the effects of CO2 at that low level. CO2 doesnt have any affect on people at all until 9%, which is what the Apollo craft were kept just below that. Second, commercial greenhouses keep their CO2 levels at around 1000ppm to boost plant growth. So you are wrong there too.

I did note that you did not provide ONE paper to the questions I asked. That's because there isnt any. Hence what you have is a dogmatic belief system.

As far as life flourishing, yes I'm quite familiar with paleontology, and you are quite wrong about the planet being like the Sahara. Back up your claims with peer reviewed papers or retract your nonsense.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

TM- you must be living in some sort of Orwellian bizarro world where up is down and yes is no. You're labeling people that believe in man-made climate change as anti-science posters? I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's still a bad point. In regards to my name-calling, it's all true. I've posted 2 examples to back this up. A handful of the individuals that have posted on this page are newly-registered trolls that do not fish, hunt or give a damn about conservation. They spend their hours spewing the same anti-climate change rhetoric on forums, message boards and blogs. It's one thing if these climate-change skeptics were truly concerned with the state of conservation in this country or illustrated some sort of interest in protecting our natural resources, but that's not the case. In fact, they could probably care less. So what's their motive? Sorry- I think I'll side with the people that have shown a passion for protecting our lands, air and water all along. Like I said earlier in regard to climate change deniers in D.C. - follow the money. These politicians are in the pockets of the gas, oil and coal companies. Now, for some of the deniers on this page- follow the motive. They're the rank-n-file supporters of these anti-science and anti-conservation politicians. There are hundreds of scientists to this day that deny evolution . On a final note, The Discovery Institute in their intelligent design campaigns have stated that there are over 700 scientists that dispute Darwinian evolution and support the theory of creationism. Who wants to take that cause up?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

TM- you must be living in some sort of Orwellian bizarro world where up is down and yes is no. You're labeling people that believe in man-made climate change as anti-science posters? I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's still a bad point. In regards to my name-calling, it's all true. I've posted 2 examples to back this up. A handful of the individuals that have posted on this page are newly-registered trolls that do not fish, hunt or give a damn about conservation. They spend their hours spewing the same anti-climate change rhetoric on forums, message boards and blogs. It's one thing if these climate-change skeptics were truly concerned with the state of conservation in this country or illustrated some sort of interest in protecting our natural resources, but that's not the case. In fact, they could probably care less. So what's their motive? Sorry- I think I'll side with the people that have shown a passion for protecting our lands, air and water all along. Like I said earlier in regard to climate change deniers in D.C. - follow the money. These politicians are in the pockets of the gas, oil and coal companies. Now, for some of the deniers on this page- follow the motive. They're the rank-n-file supporters of these anti-science and anti-conservation politicians. There are hundreds of scientists to this day that deny evolution . On a final note, The Discovery Institute in their intelligent design campaigns have stated that there are over 700 scientists that dispute Darwinian evolution and support the theory of creationism. Who wants to take that cause up?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"CO2 doesnt have any affect on people at all until 9%, which is what the Apollo craft were kept just below that."

Ah, no. That is not correct. At 9%, people start to pass out. It has effects at lower concentrations, especially among people with asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, cancer, influenza, or the elderly. A bunch of that is about lung efficiency. Certainly, Apollo astronauts were selected because they were in prime physical condition, and most capable of resisting the effects of CO2 increases.

The concentrations in Apollo craft were higher than normal not because no one cared, but because of mass limits. You couldn't carry enough CO2 filters to purge all the exhaled gas for a 10 day round trip. The atmosphere supply they carried was pure O2 in order to maximize the duration of each launch.

They had the same problem, incidently, in Biosphere 2. Increasing the CO2 concentration did not substantially promote plant growth. It did, however, make the dome uninhabitable and force its early abandonment.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Wakefield. You did not ask any questions. You made a pack of assertions that, by the way, you did not back up with a single scholarly citation.

I direct your attention to the NOAA web site. You will have to read it. I can't transmit the information to you telepathically. There is no privileged shortcut to knowledge for Deniers. To understand the whole thing, you need to read stuff written by climate scientists, not by petroleum geologists, tobacco lawyers, fishmongers, automobile mechanics, or opinion researchers hired by GOPAC.

Here you go. Read and learn.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

ANd, by the way, none of that really gets at the issues raised by Mr. Tanner. According to THIS study,

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

at 450 ppm (we are currently at 393 as you can see from the NOAA link) we lose most of the global ice. If you think hunting Dall sheep, polar bears, fishing for wild Alaskan salmon, hunting for white tails in the norhern states rather than, say, javelina, CO2 forced global warming does not have to kill you to ruin your hunt.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Captjim wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

It's a trick question. The earth has been going through climate change since it was created and still is. It's currently in the warming phase (hence the melting of the ice age glaciers). TT is going worry about what he want's to worry about and nobody is going to change that. On the same token people are going to believe what they want to believe regarding global warming no matter what the facts are. As proof I give ghosts, ufo's bigfoot, psychics, and especially religion. People believe in these without one shred of proof.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Ah, no. That is not correct. At 9%, people start to pass out. It has effects at lower concentrations, especially among people with asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, cancer, influenza, or the elderly. A bunch of that is about lung efficiency. Certainly, Apollo astronauts were selected because they were in prime physical condition, and most capable of resisting the effects of CO2 increases.

The concentrations in Apollo craft were higher than normal not because no one cared, but because of mass limits. You couldn't carry enough CO2 filters to purge all the exhaled gas for a 10 day round trip. The atmosphere supply they carried was pure O2 in order to maximize the duration of each launch.

They had the same problem, incidently, in Biosphere 2. Increasing the CO2 concentration did not substantially promote plant growth. It did, however, make the dome uninhabitable and force its early abandonment.

------------

RW: Cite your references, otherwise you are stating nothing.

I see this site does not allow links, so google:

Documentation for Immediately Dangerous To Life or Health Concentrations (IDLHs)

Carbon dioxide

" Signs of intoxication have been produced by a 30-minute exposure at 50,000 ppm [Aero 1953], and a few minutes exposure at 70,000 to 100,000 ppm produces unconsciousness [Flury and Zernik 1931]. It has been reported that submarine personnel exposed continuously at 30,000 ppm were only slightly affected, provided the oxygen content of the air was maintained at normal concentrations [Schaefer 1951]. It has been reported that 100,000 ppm is the atmospheric concentration immediately dangerous to life [AIHA 1971] and that exposure to 100,000 ppm for only a few minutes can cause loss of consciousness [Hunter 1975]. "

We are now at 350ppm, twenty times is 7000ppm. WELL below any effect levels.

As for plant growth, explain how sauropods got so big? With plants growing several times faster there was more than enough plant food for them.

Again, explain how come terrestrial animal life flourished so well if CO2 was at toxic levels. Explain why marine ecosystems did so well and not disolved by acidic oceans.

BTW, go read Oil 101 on how oil formations occured. They are ALL marine, not plants in origin.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Since links arnt allowed you will have to google these titles on forcings:

A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts

Harmonic climate model versus the IPCC general circulation climate models

Topology of Earth’s climate indices and phase-locked states

Spatio-temporal chaos Climate Etc.

There is no consensus at all on how much CO2 affects the climate, none. The climate system is very complex, and for anyone to claim the science is settled, and no more study needs to be done is not science, but pseudoscience.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

I direct your attention to the NOAA web site. You will have to read it. I can't transmit the information to you telepathically. There is no privileged shortcut to knowledge for Deniers. To understand the whole thing, you need to read stuff written by climate scientists, not by petroleum geologists, tobacco lawyers, fishmongers, automobile mechanics, or opinion researchers hired by GOPAC.

Here you go. Read and learn.

-------------

RW: I have, people like you have sent me to that site all the time. Its what you people do when you cannot cite specific papers on your own. If you do decide to actually read what's there you will see that NOT ONE paper or reference shows any EMPIRICAL link between CO2 and changes in the climate. You are equating ALL climate changes to CO2, right? Is that your position? Is it your position that any changes in the climate are all because of CO2? Does that include the severe COLD and deep snow they are getting in Eastern Europe and Japan? How less severe would the Texas drought had been if not for CO2? Please cite a paper showing that.

And yes, I do read the nonsense from your side, all the time. Know thy enemy. Sites funded by fossil fuels? And which would those be? Be specific which sites are funded by the FF industry? Make sure you also provide evidence that they are funded by the FF industry, the same industry that is keeping you alive BTW. Society would completely collapse without FF, but maybe that's what you want?

I also read Judith Curry, a climate scientist who now rejects AGW. Read her site. You may learn something that just might pull the dogma from your eyes.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

ANd, by the way, none of that really gets at the issues raised by Mr. Tanner. According to THIS study,

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

at 450 ppm (we are currently at 393 as you can see from the NOAA link) we lose most of the global ice. If you think hunting Dall sheep, polar bears, fishing for wild Alaskan salmon, hunting for white tails in the norhern states rather than, say, javelina, CO2 forced global warming does not have to kill you to ruin your hunt.

-------

Pure speculation, there is NO EVIDENCE to back that up. The Antarctic isn't melting, niether is the Arctic, beyond normal variation. We now learned that the Himalaya glaciers are exactly the same over the last 20 years.

Now as for ice on the planet. The last 200,000 years of ice at the polls is what is the anomally. Prior to that for the previous 500 million years there wasn't any.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Pure speculation... no evidence..."

____________________________________________

Mr. Wakefield, as we are allegedly discussing facts in a rational way, that sort of unsubstantiated claim has no merit in this conversation. The evidence is overwhelming, and 90% of climate scientists agree. I see no purpose in your "If I should nanananana loud enough perhaps I can drown out the voices of thousands of climatologists" tactics.

Again, I direct you to the NOAA web site.

www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-glacier.shtml

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

This is from the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Can find the whole thing with working links and a pre-updated version of the entire Senate Report here:

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Posted by Marc Morano – 9:30 AM EST - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV

U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009

Update: March 17, 2009: 59 Scientists Joint Senate Report
Update: January 28, 2009: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic

Update: December 22, 2008: More Prominent Scientists Join Senate Report

Link to Full Printable 255-Page PDF Report

(Updates Previous Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims” released on Decmeber 11, 2008)

INTRODUCTION:
Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 and 2009 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 and 2009 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”

This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]

Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s National Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, "As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. (LINK) In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

Skeptical scientists are gaining recognition despite what many say is a bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.” (LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK & LINK ]

Highlights of the Updated 2008/2009 Senate Minority Report featuring over 700 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

#

This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told EPW how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. [Also see: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008 ]

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes ‘Corrupted Science’ in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ]

One of the more recent attempts to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) The more than 700 scientists expressing skepticism, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK)

Examples of "consensus" claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:

Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat." (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006 - LINK)

CNN's Miles O'Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. "We're done." O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually." (LINK)

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as "one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels." (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: "About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members." (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic "finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet."

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): "While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case." (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007.

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" on global warming.

While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"As for plant growth, explain how sauropods got so big? With plants growing several times faster there was more than enough plant food for them.

Again, explain how come terrestrial animal life flourished so well if CO2 was at toxic levels. Explain why marine ecosystems did so well and not disolved by acidic oceans."

__________________________________________________

Mr. Wakefield. As *ANY* credble, well-informed scholar knows, sauropod dinosaurs lived during the very late Triassic and Jurassic -- roughly 200 million year after the END of the Carboniferous. The Carboniferous, as ANY credible scholar knows, saw a rather compelling DECREASE in atmospheric CO2 owing to the expansion of terrestrial plants. The period of very high CO2 concentration was the Devonian.

I find it very strange that your, umm, views on this matter are so emotionally persuasive to yourself that on the one hand you claim to have detailed knowledge of the material, but on the other hand you are either confused about or deliberately conflate geologic era separated by hundreds of millions of years.

The distinct impression I have from you is that to you, facts simply do not matter. Shouting "no evidence" as your objection to everything suggests, to me anyhow, that your eyes and your mind are closed to all forms of evidence.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

There are literally hundreds of studies that support my postion Mr. Wakefield. To list them all would be tedious and, I suspect, a waste of effort, since you would not read them. Surely there can be "no evidence" if you turn away from the evidence set before your eyes.

For others, here is another interesting piece about the adverse effects of increased atmospheric CO2.

www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338581/title/Carbon_dioxide_breaking...

The study explains how CO2 enrichment near seeps adversely affects marine invertebrates. It is known that increasing atmospheric CO2 leads to enrichment (and acidification) of seawater. It therefore follows, logically, and inescapably, that increasing CO2 will increase the frequency and intensity of adverse effects to marine invertebrates. It's logic 101.

Why does it matter? Marine invertebrates are one of the larger "carbon uptake" mechanisms on the Earth. They take in the carbon from CO2 and use it to make CaCO3 in their "shells." If you've seen limestone, or chalk, or a huge coral reef that has grown by accretion over millions of years, you've seen where that carbon ultimately goes.

But it only works to a point. Once acidification becomes too great, marine invertebrates fail. This leads to lower CO2 uptake (because there are fewer invertebrates using it), which leads to greater atmospheric CO2, which leads to more acidification, which leads to fewer marine invertebrates.

It *could* start a very nasty vicious cycle. While one should not say that it WILL, to assert that it WON'T and therefore such concerns are groundless, is foolish. In economics and evolutionary biology, these sorts of considerations fall in the general arena of marginal risk, minimax (costs/consequences) analyses, and "opportunity costs."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

By the way, if anyone wants to see one of many sources that include, among other things, a good easy to read graphic of atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Phanerozoic (roughly the last half billion years), see:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692169/pdf/YAKVJWBFM62NRFN4_353_83...

Figure 4 (p.93)provides a chart of proxy estimated atmospheric CO2 (see left vertical axis) by age (X axis).

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Again, I direct you to the NOAA web site.

---------

RW: How much of those changes are NORMAL? By how much does our CO2 emissions contribute to those changes. Again, I ask, show me a science paper that emperically links CO2 to those changes.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Mr. Wakefield. As *ANY* credble, well-informed scholar knows, sauropod dinosaurs lived during the very late Triassic and Jurassic -- roughly 200 million year after the END of the Carboniferous. The Carboniferous, as ANY credible scholar knows, saw a rather compelling DECREASE in atmospheric CO2 owing to the expansion of terrestrial plants. The period of very high CO2 concentration was the Devonian.

-------------

RW: CO2 levels were 7000ppm some 300myo, it dropped to about 1800ppm 55myo then to today's 350ppm. During that period of high CO2 land animals did very well, including the great mammalian diversity 55myo when palm trees grew at the bottom of Greenland.

And no, plants were not the cause of the drop, rain disolving sediments making carbonate rocks did. Soon as India collided with Asia, it changed the rain patterns and CO2 dropped quickly after that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Once acidification becomes too great, marine invertebrates fail.

-----------

RW: Then how come marine invertibrates didn't fail 300myo when CO2 was twenty times today? The FACT is the ocean IS NOT getting acidic, it's getting less basic. Now I know exactly what you are going to say, because all you True Believers say it. No, getting less basic is NOT getting more acidic. Go back and reread your highschool chemisty.

www.co2science.org has thousands of papers disputing AGW, supporting normal natural changes. Including a database of paper on this so called "acidification." It's not a problem.

www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N9/EDIT.php

wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

By the way, if anyone wants to see one of many sources that include, among other things, a good easy to read graphic of atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Phanerozoic (roughly the last half billion years),

---------

RW: nice you're admitting that CO2 was much higher in the geological past, when life flourished with NO BAD EFFECTS. Interesing also CO2 was very high right at the time the planet was a snowball 650myo. Look it up.

What you have done is shown that high CO2 is NORMAL for the vast majority of the last 500my of earth history, only the last 200,000 was it this low in all that time. So all we are doing by buring FF is returning that CO2 back into the atmosphere where it came from in the first place.

So I'm still wating for you to show me one climate event happening today that is beyond normal variation which empirically is linked to CO2 increases.

I'm also waiting for you to answer if you think ALL changes in the climate are because of CO2.

You want a rational discussion answer those questions.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Again, I ask, show me a science paper that emperically links CO2 to those changes."

________________________________

Here you go. One of many such papers available.

www.oar.noaa.gov/research/papers07/greenhouse.html

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Then how come marine invertibrates didn't fail 300myo when CO2 was twenty times today?"

_____________________________________________________

You are incorrect. As noted before, 300MYA CO2 concentrations were roughly similar to today's levels. I already provided the link above (see Figure 4).

You seem committed to simply making up statements about the paleoclimatic past to support your claims in the hope that no one will notice that your statements about the paleoclimatic past are utter rubbish.

Honestly. You confused the Devonian with the late Triassic, and now you appear possibly to have confused the Devonian with the late Carboniferous.

300 MYA the proxy-estimated CO2 was virtually identical to the present day. The overall climate was very similar. All you need to do is look up any academic website for a climate summary of the "Pennsylvanian Period" of the "Carboniferous."

Or you can read this peer reviewed paper:

www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12567.abstract

I'll quote it since our conversation constitutes "fair use."

"Here, I derive 24 Late Paleozoic CO2 estimates from the fossil cuticle record of arborsecent lycopsids of the equatorial Carboniferous and Permian swamp communities. Quantitative calibration of Late Carboniferous (330–300 Myr ago) and Permian (270–260 Myr ago) lycopsid stomatal indices yield average atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 344 ppm and 313 ppm, respectively." (D.J. Beerling)

As the abstract clearly states, 300 Million Years ago, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was about 50 ppm LOWER than it is today.

It was not "7000 times higher" as you fatuously claim.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Meh. Sorry, "20 times higher than today" as you fatuously claim.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"RW: nice you're admitting that CO2 was much higher in the geological past, when life flourished with NO BAD EFFECTS. Interesing also CO2 was very high right at the time the planet was a snowball 650myo. Look it up."

______________________________________________________

That statement is completely dishonest. It's utter rubbish, and, in the context of what purports to be an actual conversation about facts, both immoral and insulting.

I have "admitted" nothing except that during the DEVONIAN PERIOD when there was NO TERRESTRIAL LIFE OF ANY KIND ON EARTH, CO2 concentrations were much greater. Highly enriched CO2 conditions were not only NOT the "normal" state of our atmosphere in the most recent geological epoch, but were also not a normal state at any time during the last half billion years.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

By the way, you still seem a little sloppy with the facts. The "Snowball Earth" hypothesis of which you speak was not "650Mya" as you allege, but rather 716-711 Mya. It is generally referred to as the "Sturtian Glaciation." See:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142228.htm

Note that CO2 increases caused by trapping the carbon cycle oceanic organisms led to a Global Warming Event that promoted the END of the Sturtian Glaciation. The ice came before the CO2 build up. The ice CAUSED the CO2 build up to happen (by derailing the oceanic carbon cycle) and the CO2-Forced Global Warming Event melted the ice. End of Sturtian.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

For everyone else I should note two things.

Snowball Earth is a hypothesis. There's a couple of geological studies that support it, and a few that suggest that it is not entirely accurate.

There was a longer interval called the Cryogenian period marked by glacial advances and retreats. That lasted from the mid 700Mya range to around 630Mya. During that interval, CO2 concentrations MAY have increased, leading to global melting, as the previous cite suggested, but at least one article posits methane enrichment as the cause of the great melt on the basis that atmospheric O2 content was very low as compared with today.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Also:

"www.co2science.org has thousands of papers disputing AGW, supporting normal natural changes. Including a database of paper on this so called "acidification." It's not a problem."

_____________________________________________________

It does not have thousands of papers disputing AGW. It has hundreds of opinions and blog statements, almost none of which were written by climate scientists, and almost none of which have been peer reviewed, much less published, in any science journal.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Heidelberg- this post is in response to your "700 scientists dissent over man-made Global Warming Claims" post that you took from Senator Inhofe's page.

To cite from Steven Dutch's (Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay) report.

Some of these "700 scientists" include individuals with scientific credentials NOT relevant to climate change.

Some examples include: 2 horticulturists, 2 botanists, a wildlife documentary maker, 40 chemists, a zoologist, 8 mathematicians, 2 electrical engineers, a malaria expert, 3 astronauts, a field geologist and 5 mechanical engineers.

There's 40 individuals on that list with ZERO scientific credentials. More than half of these individuals are economists.

"Bottom line: 58% of the 'experts' quoted on Inhofe's blog have no credentials in climate research and only 16% have top-notch credentials."

(uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/650Skeptics.HTM)

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

RealGoodman- 50 percent of those who use statistics are wrong 100 percent of the time when the statistic's methodology is questioned.

Don't give me statistics when you know full well the earth is capable of healing itself, and has done repeatedly. The Earth's climate is always in a state of change- but it is not man-made factors behind it.

Cite for me definitive data; no models, or theories, that can portray the last 10,000 years of life on earth as having warmed to the point of destroying life. You won't be able to, because the data does not exist. Climate change is a part of life on this planet. Saying that you want to stop climate change is like saying you want to stop time. You just can't do it. You can influence your environment, but you can't stop the Earth from changing its own life course.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

It does not have thousands of papers disputing AGW. It has hundreds of opinions and blog statements, almost none of which were written by climate scientists, and almost none of which have been peer reviewed, much less published, in any science journal.

---------

That is a lie. They are all published peer reviewed papers. Show links to those which are not.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Here you go. One of many such papers available.

www.oar.noaa.gov/research/papers07/greenhouse.html

-----------

RW: Fail. First this is forcings assumed by COMPUTER MODELS (the paper is paywall protected). Second, the abstracts admits to NORMAL forcings. Third, there is NOTHING there on what the changes any of this has had on the climate.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

I have "admitted" nothing except that during the DEVONIAN PERIOD when there was NO TERRESTRIAL LIFE OF ANY KIND ON EARTH, CO2 concentrations were much greater. Highly enriched CO2 conditions were not only NOT the "normal" state of our atmosphere in the most recent geological epoch, but were also not a normal state at any time during the last half billion years.

------------

RW:

Elevated Eocene Atmospheric CO2 and Its Subsequent Decline
Tim K. Lowenstein* and Robert V. Demicco
+ Author Affiliations

Department of Geological Sciences and Environmental Studies, State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lowenst@binghamton.edu
Abstract
Quantification of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 ([CO2]atm) during warm periods of Earth's history is important because burning of fossil fuels may produce future [CO2]atm approaching 1000 parts per million by volume (ppm). The early Eocene (~56 to 49 million years ago) had the highest prolonged global temperatures of the past 65 million years. High Eocene [CO2]atm is established from sodium carbonate minerals formed in saline lakes and preserved in the Green River Formation, western United States. Coprecipitation of nahcolite (NaHCO3) and halite (NaCl) from surface waters in contact with the atmosphere indicates [CO2]atm > 1125 ppm (four times preindustrial concentrations), which confirms that high [CO2]atm coincided with Eocene warmth.

-----------

see also www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Note the graph of CO2 and temps.

CO2 has been several times higher than now when land animals were flourishing.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

300 MYA the proxy-estimated CO2 was virtually identical to the present day.

---------

RW: You are cherry picking a low period. CO2 recovered to more than 3000ppm by 250myo and was steady until India collided with Asia, as I noted before.

See graph www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

I did not "cherry pick" anything. YOU named the time period, I told you what the CO2 concentration was. You're the one who said it was 7 times higher 300 MYA. All I did was point out that it was in fact LOWER 300 MYA than it now is.

Now that you're down to "several times" higher you're being marvelously obtuse but at least closer to the mark.

Now let's take your chart and consider the implications. Notice, on your chart, that global mean temperature strongly correlates with measured CO2. Since we know HOW CO2 traps heat (this has been known for over 100 years), the strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and heat is not merely a correlation, but a **correlation for which the cause is known.**

That is why pretty much all current climate scientists agree that the present warming trend is being caused by CO2 forcing.

The second part of your statement attends to something that I mentioned very early in this blog. Namely this: Climate scientists are in near universal agreement that global warming is happening and CO2 concentration increases caused by fossil fuel emissions are driving it. But the CONSEQUENCES remain a matter of debate.

Yes, indeed, dinosaurs did exist when CO2 concentrations were greater. But then, we're not them are we. So, it's rather a stretch to claim that "because some life existed on Earth when CO2 concentrations were greater, therefore increasing CO2 concentrations cannot have any adverse effects." That line of reasoning is an example of, in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detector Kit, the "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle."

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"CO2 has been several times higher than now when land animals were flourishing."

____________________________________________________

"Flourishing" is such a marvelously ambiguous word. It can mean anything from "gee there's a lot of different kinds of bacteria on this sandwich I found in the lunch room" to "Welcome to the Upper Amazon Basin circa 1830."

The question isn't "Will life go extinct if we push CO2-forcing to the limit." It never was that question. Your effort to make it that sort of question is an obvious effort at frame-shifting.

The question to hand is "What will be the effects of CO2 forced global warming and " (at least here at F&S and on the CH web site) "how will this affect hunters and fishermen?"

And that is the point of discussing it.

We can say that habitat change will occur. Where, to what extent, and the effect on our outdoor resources are under consideration here.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"years of life on earth as having warmed to the point of destroying life."

______________________________________________

To my knowledge, climate scientists that are concerned about global warming have never seriously entertained the idea that global warming will destroy all life on earth.

The issue to hand IS, since the objective facts of the matter are known and settled, "How bad will it get and what will the consequences be."

If, for example, you are fonder of hunting collared peccary than you are of white-tailed deer, and you presently live in Kansas, you might like some of the consequences of global warming.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from PigHunter wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Mike Diehl you are reported for offensive language in one above post. I see you once again resort to name calling when you lose a debate.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Pig- yeah that'll show him! No, but seriously, that's pathetic. That was PG-13 "offensive language" at the worst. In fact, that's the type of action one takes when losing a debate. Most people refer to that sort of thing as sore losing.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Wakefield lost the debate, PH. That's why he called me a liar when his quiver was empty.

Anyhow, do your best, or worst, or whatever you want. No one at F&S is going to take action against me for providing a little forthright PG-13 blunt talk to someone who calls me a "liar." I could have said more. Perhaps if I ever meet him ftf I can give him a more fitting, errm, form of "rebuttal."

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Now let's take your chart and consider the implications. Notice, on your chart, that global mean temperature strongly correlates with measured CO2. Since we know HOW CO2 traps heat (this has been known for over 100 years), the strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and heat is not merely a correlation, but a **correlation for which the cause is known.**

-----------

RW: I didn't make the chart, it's from scientists. And no there is no CAUSATION infered. There is CORRELATION to some extent, but there is no way of knowing the CAUSE between them. A warmer climate could have caused the higher CO2, not the other way around.

-------------

That is why pretty much all current climate scientists agree that the present warming trend is being caused by CO2 forcing.

---------

RW: there is no evidence CO2 is the cause, and not the other way around.

---------

The second part of your statement attends to something that I mentioned very early in this blog. Namely this: Climate scientists are in near universal agreement that global warming is happening and CO2 concentration increases caused by fossil fuel emissions are driving it. But the CONSEQUENCES remain a matter of debate.

----------

RW: Consensus has no place in science, I have already pointed to a number of times in the past where the consensus is wrong, and still wrong today in some circles (Taxonomy for example). But it is nice to see that you are open to the good possibility that warming, that is not as cold winters, summers and tropics the same as today, may indeed be good, for everyone.

------------

Yes, indeed, dinosaurs did exist when CO2 concentrations were greater. But then, we're not them are we.

----------

RW: No, but birds are today.

----------

So, it's rather a stretch to claim that "because some life existed on Earth when CO2 concentrations were greater, therefore increasing CO2 concentrations cannot have any adverse effects." That line of reasoning is an example of, in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detector Kit, the "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle."

---------

RW: except for the fact that life DID flourish, otherwise we would not be here. You just cant admit that you were wrong about the lethality of CO2 levels.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Flourishing" is such a marvelously ambiguous word. It can mean anything from "gee there's a lot of different kinds of bacteria on this sandwich I found in the lunch room" to "Welcome to the Upper Amazon Basin circa 1830."

----------

RW: I will refrase. Life underwent explosive diversification and occupied most of the planet. There are a number of such times in the geological record. I again point you to the book Oil 101 because the author explains the various eras of great life expansion, in warmer periods, which produced our oil fields.

-----------

The question isn't "Will life go extinct if we push CO2-forcing to the limit." It never was that question. Your effort to make it that sort of question is an obvious effort at frame-shifting.

--------

RW: Yet that is exactly what your side has been saying, including that we will turn the earth into venus, or do you deny your side has made such claims?

---------

The question to hand is "What will be the effects of CO2 forced global warming and " (at least here at F&S and on the CH web site) "how will this affect hunters and fishermen?"

And that is the point of discussing it.

-----------

If anything for Canada it will mean longer summers with cooler temps than what we had in the 1930's (that is fact from EC dataset.) It means a longer growing season, and it means more growing areas. Forests will move further north.

-------------

We can say that habitat change will occur. Where, to what extent, and the effect on our outdoor resources are under consideration here.

------------

RW: As it has done for billions of years. Our CO2 has had NOTHING to do with the changes today, which you still have not addressed. What is happening today that is beyond normal variation? Why is that so hard to answer?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Call me a "liar" to my face some time, you warty brained, effimate wristed, helium-shoed urban twat.

------

RW: just dishing back the insulting that you started, which is typical of True Believers.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Call me a "liar" to my face some time, you warty brained, effimate wristed, helium-shoed urban twat.

--------
RW: Oh and for the record, I don't live in any city, but the country.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Anyhow, do your best, or worst, or whatever you want. No one at F&S is going to take action against me for providing a little forthright PG-13 blunt talk to someone who calls me a "liar." I could have said more. Perhaps if I ever meet him ftf I can give him a more fitting, errm, form of "rebuttal."

-----------

RW: Interesting that your last resort is to now threat with violence. This is because you cannot support your belief system, it is coming under attack from evidence and rational discussion challenging AGW, and you can't take it. So you start name calling, and now resort to personal harm threats. Nice.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Wakefield: You're a guy who called one fellow a fraud and called me a liar. No one insulted you. We did decisively refute your claims. I understand you find that frustrating. It wasn't grounds for calling anyone a liar. So I think this river o crocodile tears your crying is both very entertaining and also very emblemic of the creature at the core of your being.

"As it has done for billions of years. Our CO2 has had NOTHING to do with the changes today, which you still have not addressed. What is happening today that is beyond normal variation? Why is that so hard to answer"

You still seem unable to grasp the basic fact. We understand already, in climate science, what drives normal variation. The point is, it has been objectively demonstrated that the ONLY forcing mechanism at play in the present warming trend is CO2 forcing.

The problem for your argument is that you need to provide a plausible MECHANISM that is an ALTERNATIVE to CO2 forcing. Invoking "normal variation" as a kind of chant is not a refutation, it's simply an acknowledgement that the warming is happening and so far it's within the range of what we've seen in the past.

The problem OF COURSE is that scale of CO2 emission, which presently exceeds 27 billion metric tons per year, is unlike ANY regularly occurring forcing event that anyone can identify. We're in new territory when we're putting that much CO2 into the air.

Finally of course, it remains the case that you don't need to kill everything to make conditions much poorer for hunting and fishing. So your, errm, standard for concern, which seems to be "if it isn't going to kill all terrestrial life on earth then it's not a concern," seems both incredibly narrow and not at all germane to the subject of this blog.

After all, we're talking about whether GW will adversely affect hunting and fishing.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Consensus has no place in science"

Rubbish. Consensus is always how science works. A hypothesis is proposed. It is examined by alot of people. Tested where possible. Compared to other hypotheses. "When a theory emerges consistent with the facts, the proof is with science."

At present, there is no credible alternative hypothesis for the current warming trend to CO2 forcing. It is a KNOWN FACT that changes in solar intensity are not doing it. It is a KNOWN FACT that we're not in the right part of the Milankovic cycle to result in global warming due to orbital mechanics. It is a KNOWN FACT that the global warming is happening. It is a KNOWN FACT that increasing the CO2 content in atmosphere results in increased heat capture. And it is a KNOWN FACT that we have been putting 27 billion metric tons into the atmosphere from fossil fuels above and beyond all natural sources of CO2.

To claim that "something else must be doing it" you have to be able to state what that something is, and demonstrate that it is reasonably likely to be causing it. You don't get to just invoke "it must be something else" and therefore dismiss the established facts.

What you're doing here is not scientific reasoning. It's Magical Thinking. Yeah, it could be the Galaxy Pixy or the Wicked Witch of the West or Angels shooting up the atmosphere with little blazing arrows. But you have no evidence for any of those things happening.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

You still seem unable to grasp the basic fact. We understand already, in climate science, what drives normal variation. The point is, it has been objectively demonstrated that the ONLY forcing mechanism at play in the present warming trend is CO2 forcing.

-----------

RW: what warming that is happening now is beyond normal variation? Since there is nothing in temperatures that is beyond changes that have happened in the past, then there is NO TREND you can pin on anything.

See: www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-90903-2010-JA.pdf

------------

The problem for your argument is that you need to provide a plausible MECHANISM that is an ALTERNATIVE to CO2 forcing. Invoking "normal variation" as a kind of chant is not a refutation, it's simply an acknowledgement that the warming is happening and so far it's within the range of what we've seen in the past.

-----------

RW: It's not up to me to provide a mechanism, it's up to your side to provide the evidence to back up your mechanism. I have, however, provided a mechanism, I guess you didn't bother to check the reference. pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/2007GL030288.pdf

Second, if there are events that have happened in the past which have to be natural in causes, like the Medieval Warm Period, and we have a warm trend today, what discriminates this trend from that previous natural warm trend? In fact, the IPCC has admitted that the warm trend from 1800 to 1945 was not because of CO2 (emissions then were too low), but purely natural in cause. There was no warming from 1945 to 1975 even though CO2 increased by four fold. The only warming period you have any hope of pinning on CO2 is the short 25 years from 1975 to 2000, because since 2000 there has been no increase in global average temps (admitted in the Climategate emails from your side).

So what you have to provide is discriminatory evidence that the ONLY cause is your cause. As I noted, there is NOT ONE science paper that has linked CO2 to any changes in the climate. All you are doing is regugitating the same thing over and over "Forcings prove it must be CO2" Problem is, those forcings are based on COMPUTER SIMULATIONS. I have posted above one of many papers now challenging those forcing assumptions.

-------------

The problem OF COURSE is that scale of CO2 emission, which presently exceeds 27 billion metric tons per year, is unlike ANY regularly occurring forcing event that anyone can identify. We're in new territory when we're putting that much CO2 into the air.

-----------

RW: In all of earth history? You have no evidence today is different. Plus, so what? There is no empirical evidence CO2 is doing anything.

-------------

Finally of course, it remains the case that you don't need to kill everything to make conditions much poorer for hunting and fishing. So your, errm, standard for concern, which seems to be "if it isn't going to kill all terrestrial life on earth then it's not a concern," seems both incredibly narrow and not at all germane to the subject of this blog.

After all, we're talking about whether GW will adversely affect hunting and fishing.

---------

RW: You don't give evolution any credit. And if anything you have provided no evidence that changes we see happening are detrimental, or beyond normal variation. The biggest threat to wildlife isnt climate change, but habitat change because of human encroachment. Have a look at Google Earth in the Rockies. Large swaths of clear cutting. Most of it going to China and the US.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

To Tod Tanner:

------------

TT: Just so we're clear: I've read all the comments on this thread, and none of them have changed my long-held views on climate change. If you're truly interested in doing so, you might want to address the following questions:

Why are millions of acres of forest dying in the western U.S. and Canada?

---------

RW: From what? Pine beetle? Not AGW: www.examiner.com/climate-change-in-national/pine-beetles-as-a-harbinger-...

--------

TT: Why did the U.S. National Academy of Sciences recently call anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change a “settled fact?”

-------

RW: Science NEVER has settled theories. AGW is not a fact, it is a mechanism used to explain the facts, that's a theory. The climate changes, always has. CO2 is claimed as the CAUSE of those changes, that's theory, not fact.

Question, do you think ALL climate change is because of CO2? Of not, what percent is caused by CO2?

------

TT: If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2000 - 2009 the warmest decade ever recorded?

------

RW: That's false. Not ever recorded because our recordings of temperature are at best 100 years, most of the places on the planet is less than 50 years. In all of Canada there are only 12 stations with record back to 1900, out of 1300 stations. In the Arctic there are no records prior to the 1950s. The fact is summer TMax in Canada has been FALLING since 1930. Record breaking days has nothing to do with changing climate. It has everything to do with accounting. The first year of taking records EVERY day was a record breaker. The number of record breaking days drops off in a decay curve.

Temps are measured in 1/10 degree. If you assume that the lowest July 1 of any year can get is 10C, and the hottest possible temp it can get is 40C then thats 30*10 slots for temps. That would take 300 years to fill them all if all were evenly probable. Since they are not (it follows a bell curve) it would take more than 5000 years to fill all the possible slots. (you can write a simple computer program to see this). Record breaking temps doesn't mean there is any trend.

-----------

TT: If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2010 the warmest year ever recorded?

-----------

RW: Again a bogus claim. How come Eastern Europe is seeing the coldest temps EVER, and the most snow EVER?

-----------

TT: If climate change wasn’t responsible, why have our global temperatures risen at the same time the sun’s energy output has decreased?

-----------

RW: Solar scientists are claiming that Solar Cycle 24, which we are starting in, will bring 30-40 years of colder than normal temps. In fact, average temp has been flat since 1998.

-----------

TT: Why do 97% to 98% of climate scientists agree that our climate is warming and that humans are responsible for much of the temperature increase?

----------

RW: Another bogus claim. That 98% is a small group of gatekeepers exposed in the ClimateGate emails. More than 80% of geologists reject AGW because they know what the planet has done in the past. Climate scientists focus on only the last 30 years of earth history.

---------

TT: Why has the fossil fuel industry spent so much money trying to convince us that the science on climate change is not yet settled?

--------

RW: Another myth. The FF industry's contribution to challenging AGW is less than 100 million. The US government alone has spent 80 BILLION on climate science over the last 20 years. Yeah, money is involved alright.

------------

TT: What would you tell your kids & grandkids if you dismissed the threat from climate change and they lost most - or all - of their hunting and fishing because we failed to act in time?

---------

RW: if you are so worried about climate change causing problems, then how come you are not complaining about earthquakes? Not one person has died because of AGW, yet we know hundreds of thousands have died from earthquakes. So why not advocate moving all people from active tectonic zones?

Sounds to me you have made a bogus bet to give your firearm away, you had no intension of doing so from the beginning. The question now becomes, how many years do I have to wait for your gun when you finally admit the climate isn't doing anything abnormal?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Richard Wakefield,
I'm sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood me. I said that I'd give my shotgun to the first person who convinced me that I'm wrong about climate change. I'm afraid you haven't done that. And just so we're clear, getting your facts wrong on a regular basis doesn't increase your odds of success.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

from Todd Tanner wrote 1 hour 45 min ago
Richard Wakefield,
I'm sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood me. I said that I'd give my shotgun to the first person who convinced me that I'm wrong about climate change. I'm afraid you haven't done that. And just so we're clear, getting your facts wrong on a regular basis doesn't increase your odds of success.

----------

RW: Like which facts? Explain and provide peer reviewed papers to back up your claim.

You need to serious look at the following:

judithcurry.com
wattsupwiththat.com
www.co2science.org
joannenova.com.au

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Todd the big question that needs to be asked is what would it take, what would have to happen in the climate, for you to realize that you are indeed wrong?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Science progresses by testing predictions against real world data obtained from direct observations and rigorous experiments. The stakes in the global-warming debate are much too high to ignore this observational evidence and declare the science settled. The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost. -- Claude Allegre + 15 co-authors, The Wall Street Journal, 21 February 2012

www.thegwpf.org/index.php?option=com_acymailing&ctrl=url&urlid=2595&mail...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Richard, is it true your a creationist as well?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

'The 8 coldest days of the last decade have all occurred in the first seven weeks of 2012. Temperatures have dropped almost a full degree since 2010'

www.real-science.com/joe-bastardi-nailed

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

from RealGoodMan wrote 23 min 37 sec ago
Richard, is it true your a creationist as well?

----------

You tell me:

Wakefield, J. R. (1988), "The geology of 'Gentry’s Tiny Mystery'", Journal of Geological Education 36: 161–175, www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

I was at that page earlier. I've also seen some of your other works online where you bash wind, solar and other forms of clean, renewable energy, while praising oil and coal. I've seen your blog bashing smart meters and your youtube videos. So that leads me to ask: do you have any financial stake in any of this? Just come clean. Have you ever served as an independent contractor, consultant or been an employee for a fossil-fuel funded free-market type think-tank or a fossil fuel company? Have you ever been hired for political work? My point is this: I think you have an agenda that goes beyond making arguments against man-made climate change. That's not to take anything away from your work and writings, but for the sake of honesty and transparency-I'd like to know. You're obviously more than just an average joe skeptic with a degree in biology.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

from RealGoodMan wrote 33 min 36 sec ago
I was at that page earlier. I've also seen some of your other works online where you bash wind, solar and other forms of clean, renewable energy, while praising oil and coal. I've seen your blog bashing smart meters and your youtube videos.

-------

RW: Do you have any evidence that refutes my analysis on wind or solar? If not, then it stands as is.

------

So that leads me to ask: do you have any financial stake in any of this? [NO] Just come clean. Have you ever served as an independent contractor, consultant or been an employee for a fossil-fuel funded free-market type think-tank or a fossil fuel company? [I wrote a call center database and software for Sunoco Natural Gas, a company now gone, 20 years ago for only 13 months, nothing since] Have you ever been hired for political work? [NO] My point is this: I think you have an agenda that goes beyond making arguments against man-made climate change. [ONLY AGENDA I HAVE IS FOR GOOD SCIENCE, THAT'S WHY I ALSO TOOK ON CREATIONISM] That's not to take anything away from your work and writings, but for the sake of honesty and transparency-I'd like to know. You're obviously more than just an average joe skeptic with a degree in biology.

--------

RW: CORRECT, I don't take ANYONE'S word on anything, I check it out myself. That includes getting the data and doing my own analysis. I actually accepted AGW at first. The day I rejected it was the day I heard one say "the science is settled" I knew right then something was not right, nothing in science is ever settled. People only say that when they don't want you to check on what they are hiding.

So now what does that mean for my arguments and position? It has some merit? I have presented the evidence against AGW, and also clearified the difference between events (things we see and measure) and mechanisms (the causes of those things we see and measure, which are theories explaining the things we see and measure, which is what the claim is that CO2 causes changes in the climate we see.)

All I can say to all of you is that the science is no where near settled. Climate models are full of assumptions, misunderstandings and gaping holes in our understanding, that's why you hear them ask for more money to make better models. Well, if the current models explain everything why do they need better ones?

Now if you claim "Oh, but the current models show us that CO2 must increase the tempertature." Then what you are doing is making an ASSUMPTION, which must be verified with empirical evidence. So far the climate has NOT behaved as the IPCC claims it should. New things are found every day that shows the climate has a huge buffering system which keeps us in the Goldilocks zone. The most recent one is now they are finding out that cloud cover is lower today than 20 years ago, that affects how the heat is trapped and radiated.

The bottom line to all of this is real simple. What changes today are happening that are beyond normal variation? None. And by normal variation I do not mean over the last 100 years, but over several thousand. This is because there are cycles in the system that are more than 100 years long. And since nothing is happening that hasnt happened before, CO2 cannot be affecting the climate in any measurable way. Basic logic.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Richard Wakefield,

Good question. I answered it at the Conservation Hawks blog.

conservationhawks.org/blog/

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

question: do richardwakefield and haidelberjaeger even hunt or fish?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

wisc14- www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/deer-hunting/finding-deer-...

just to alleviate your concern, you'll see that I was selected for one of the best hunting photos of December 2011 by F&S.

If you were really inquiring if I was a hunter/fisherman you could have just clicked on my profile page and see that yes I do hunt and fish, thereby rendering your comment unnecessary. Otherwise your thinly veiled attempt to call me out for sticking to my position on this topic is childish and immature.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

The earth naturally goes through cycles of heating and cooling anyone who passed earth science in high school should know that. The idea that global warming is caused by humans is all just a scam to get uninformed one issue voters, and so 8th grade science teachers have something to nag about.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Of course climate change is a fact. It has happened throughout history. What I dispute is the fact that man has much of an impact on it if at all. All the so called scientific evidence that people provide is a minute sample of evidence compared to millions of years that we were not here to collect data. There has always been global warming and cooling, and any idiot that thinks we can change that deserves the repercusions that happen to the economy and world when politicians tax and penalize us to death for pollution and every other thing that will suposedly ruin the earth. One thing I know is that I am insignifagant compared to the earth.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

So, was this just a ruse to get people to steer towards the guy's website or were the editors and Mr. Herring fleeced on the premise of this guy's "promise"?? no follow up from field and stream? no mention of any of the opposing opinions that hold water as compared to the global warming crowd? Everything I see is "go to my blog at so and so website" or "if you see the answers that I posted to the conservation website"... Herring should have known better than to give such a guy a platform. Tanner should be willing to address the very real, relevant and accurate points made by myself and others here, and instead selectively replies, and only on his website, not here in the forum where he was given a place to state his case. F&S editors need to do a self assessment and see if they really want this website to be a soap box for the global warming crowd or if they want to return this to the rest of us who hunt, fish and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. Frankly, I won't be reading this conservation blog or wasting my time on Tanner's website, and I recommend that anyone with a brain capable of independent thought do the same.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Riiiiight. Because ignoring people whose opinions are backed by 90% of climate scientists just because they don't agree with your dogmatic, faith based denials of climate forcing, is evidence of "having a brain" -- in the Backwards Universe anyhow.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Diehl, at what point did I invoke faith in this argument? Your ad homonym attack holds no water and shows a lack of ability to decisively debate without resorting to this type of unfounded accusation. If understanding the basic premises of scientific reality by way of the earth's distance relative to sun vis a vis a climate in constant state of change is beyond you, then you're right to be easily led by your so called climate scientists...enjoy following the other sheep, because your view will never change.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dbramley wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Before the world got to be what it is today we had the Ice age. There where no factories and no cars and no polutants. Yet the world had a global warming effect. What caused it ???? Who knows solar flares, or a meteor hitting earth . Nobody can prove or disprove anything, for all we know life from anouther planet melted the ice. What I am saying is yes there are climate changes but no matter what we do on earth we are not going to be able to change it. We are people not gods. Deal with it facts are that the sun has been warming the earth for a long time and solar flares are getting hotter every yr. Who knows if the sun will blow up tommorow or if a giant meteor doesnt hit us again and send us into anouther Ice age. Get over the weather people. You cant change it acept it and move on

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Heidelbergsheep =

"Faith based" was not meant to be an insult in the way your assertion that "anyone that does not agree with you is brainless" was meant to be an insult. Your complaint about "ad hominem" is hypocritical considering your previous posts.

"Faith based" was meant to point out that you've been told that there is no evidence for anthropogenic global warming and, since you have not bothered to read any of the science behind it, you're simply willing to accord by virtue of "faith" a credibility and respect to an opinion that is (1) not held by climate scientists, and (2) not substantiated by any facts.

Vis the Earth's distance from the sun. It's more complicated than that. It's The Earth's Distance From The Sun and the Earth's Axial Tilt Relative to the Plane Of Earth's Orbit During The Northern Hemisphere Winter. Honestly, if you're going to invoke an explanation, you ought at least to understand what it is you're invoking.

The problem of course is that WE ALREADY KNOW THAT MILANKOVIC CYCLES ARE NOT DRIVING THE CURRENT HEATING TREND. Indeed, by the Milankovic and Solar cycles, the Earth should be cooling off. But it's not. It's heating up.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

"What caused it ???? Who knows solar flares, or a meteor hitting earth . Nobody can prove or disprove anything, for all we know life from anouther planet melted the ice."

Pretty much all of the foregoing is NOT correct. Paleoclimatologists have a very good handle on climate change and specific instances of rapid climate change in the past. In general, these attend to changes in atmospheric composition (for the past HALF BILLION years that is pretty much all about CO2), continental drift, Milankovic Cycles, and Solar Cycles.

Of those, NONE of the usual suspects (solar cycles, Milankovic cycles, continental drift) can account for the current heating trend. The current heating trend is more rapid than any in the last ten thousand years, according to environmental proxy data. It happens to correspond with atmospheric CO2 enrichment caused by burning fossil fuels. Since the mechanism by which CO2 traps heat is a known process (and has been since the first laboratory experiments demonstrated the effect in the 1850s), we havem as prosecutors say, "a means, a motive, and a smoking gun" to implicate CO2 from human burning of fossil fuels.

And that, my friends, is the indisputed FACT of the matter.

Tomorrow, some anti-scientist MAY come up with a credible alternative explanation implicating unicorn farts, spun sugar, angels shooting flaming arrows at the sky, or the Tooth Fairy, and if they do the job well, climate scientists may have to revise the model.

But TODAY, RIGHT NOW and for the last 20 years, the ONLY plausible model that is consistent with the evidence is CO2 forcing from burning fossil fuels.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

diehl, first off, get your paraphrasing correct- never did I say anyone was brainless, rather that anyone with a brain capable of independent thought should not waste their time on this topic any longer. You apparently don't fit into that category.

You cite a lot of "facts", but suffice it to say that many of these so called facts have been the product of over zealous climate researchers with an axe to grind and a pension for distorting or outright manufacturing data. You have not mentioned the East Anglia Research Unit's debacle of fraud nor have you shown with any legitimacy how humankind is facilitating the process of man-made climate change.

If you're so convinced about man-made climate change or what ever flavor of the month title you want to call it, you can do something to make yourself feel better and be free to make a donation to your favorite climate charity in my name, while I will drive my dodge ram on the autobahn at 110MpH using 98 octane with my AC on full blast with the windows open.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

My paraphrasing seems fine with me. You can find six different ways to call people who don't side with your religion "brainless" but it's all basically the same sneer.

As for the facts. For a guy who claims to dislike ad hominem, dismissing empirical data on the basis that everyone talking about it are "overzealous climate researchers with an axe to grind" is kinda amusing. Basically, you've invoked a conspiracy theory to dismiss data that are inconvenient for your dogmatic belief. If that isn't symptomatic of "faith based reasoning" then nothing is.

Ah, and the closing remark is in essence "haha climate change be dambed." Hey fella, it's all ok for you to do that. But just so we're clear, there are people keeping track of who's doing the denying; if things get as bad as they might, climate change deniers are going to be pretty unwanted among communities of those who are prepared to survive the consequences.

And I'm good with you driving your pos ram on the Autobahn at 180 mph with the air conditioner on and the windows open. Yer fuel economy will stink, and you Yurupeans do pay a whopping surcharge for that sort of thing. So you're probably dropping a lot of money in some German bureaucracy's pocket while you burn out the engine on that ram. It's all good. P.S. Thanks for buying American.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Heidelberg- it's fine if you don't believe in man-made climate change. But the polluting of our air and water is very real. If you want to waste and pollute at the expense of our health and natural resources and give polluters a free pass out of spite, you've got some growing up to do. I noticed the topic of faith came up and if I had to guess, you're certainly no man of the Good Book if your gluttonous and selfish comments hold any truth. I understand that your comment was an attempt at being funny, but I gather from your overall collection of statements that conservation isn't of much concern to you. So that leads me to ask, why the heck are you on the F&S Conservationist Blog? If you've got something constructive to say, let us know. Otherwise, go right ahead and follow through on your threat of leaving the blog. Don't let the door hit you and your imported beer on the way out.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 1 year 39 weeks ago

Well look here- proof showing that the earth's climate has been in a state of a cooling trend for the last 2000 years.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-c...

Mr Tanner, please polish that shotgun..

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 1 year 39 weeks ago

Don’t worry - I take good care of my shotgun. Unfortunately, though, your logic needs a little polishing. Let me explain:

It’s certainly possible that the planet was on a cooling trend for the last 2000 years, but that has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. We didn’t start releasing large quantities of greenhouse gasses until recently, and almost all of our measured warming has occurred since 1970. So here’s what we know:

The 70s were warmer than the 60s.
The 80s were warmer than the 70s.
The 90s were warmer than the 80s.
The 00s were warmer than the 90s.

2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record.

2010 was the warmest year ever recorded.

Our most recent 12 month period, from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 was the warmest 12 month period ever measured in the United States.

Just yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the American Meteorological Society released peer-reviewed studies linking climate change to our recent extreme weather.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 1 year 39 weeks ago

When you have a second, check out the most recent post on our Conservation Hawks blog and click on the links to ABC, CBS, NBC & PBS. All 4 networks ran stories last night connecting our unnaturally hot, unusually destructive weather to climate change.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 39 weeks ago

No worries, Todd. Speaking as one who knows the tree-ring climate record from NOAA, I can tell you that there has not been a global cooling trend for the last 2 millennia. Your shotgun is in no danger of being claimed by people whose only form of argumentation is the "straw man argument."

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

There is a lot more than CO2 and what info is available is being suppressed. Did you know, there's more oxygen coming off the United States than coming on? OOPS! I wasn't suppose to say dat! Sunspot activity for this year is going to be pretty bad if you own a satellite or fancy electronic gear. OOPS! I wasn't suppose to say that either LOL!

Yes Man contributes a little bit like if you filled the Superbowl with ping pong balls and only one represented mercury, that is how little a Coal Fire Plant produces, yet mandates for florescent bulbs containing mercury far more exceed than a coal fire plant will produce.

Bottom line, if your going to blow this CO'2 crap, ya' need to look at the whole picture there Grasshopper!

Today to take a stand is to invite controversy. The safest way to succeed is to repeat what others are saying. To find a leader and follow him. To be anything but on the safe side of the moderates, is to invite the wrath of people who dread nothing so much as taking a stand. And so increasingly the good guys stand alone.

Disclaimer: This opinion does not constitute legal advice. Please consult an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Wear sunscreen, protective eyewear, and hearing protection. Buckle your seatbelt. Call your mother. --
The Armchair Outfitter

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I'll take a crack at this; not because I want the shotgun, although I wouldn't turn it down; but more because I think that the fallacy of global warming via climate change has been vehemently pushed down our throats for long enough, and I would like to make the argument a little more plain that what is carefully scripted in the writer's and the protagonist's claim.

Firstly, Does climate change Exist? Yes it does; but does it exist because of the man-made global warming hysteria that the main stream media and the carbon-offsetting charlatans proselytize about and attempt to make us feel guilty about? Certainly not. Here's where I will ease Mr. Tanner's mind, inform the public and attempt to earn said shotgun.

How could I say that Climate change shouldn't worry Mr. Tanner? Doesn't the Earth experience warming/cooling cycles? Certainly. Are we on planet earth experiencing a warming trend or cooling trend? The facts that I see point to the former, but it is not something that Mr. Tanner need concern himself with. That is not to say that we as sportsmen and women don't need to concern ourselves with the changes we see to the environment or do all we can to protect our eco-systems.

National Geographic's web site provides a story printed in 2007 which supports my position about Mr. Tanner not having to worry about climate change. According to Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, the reason for the climate change experienced on Earth is not due to global warming of the man made variety, but because of the thermal radiation fluctuations of the Sun itself.

That's right shotgun fans, the Earth experiences heating and cooling cycles because of the sun's outptut, not because of your CFC laden Styrofoam cups or Aerosol hairspray cans.

Mr. Abdussamatov goes on to say this "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars" and "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance".

What does this mean in plain English? Simply that the Earth heats and cools according to the intensity of the Sun's thermal output. For example; the Earth and Mars have experienced ice ages throughout their existence. Mr. Abdussamatov's theory is that by studying the fluctuations in the warmth of the Sun, he can show the trends as they closely mirror each other on Earth and Mars. Needless to say, the Dr's theory hasn't been well received by the larger scientific community. Why? Because he doesn't buy into the mass hysteria of man-made climate change. I don't think the Dr. gets a Christmas card from Al Gore either.

I would also add that the Earth experiences something called "Milankovitch cycles". These are periods of 20K to 100K years where the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is altered. As the earth is thought to be in between ice ages right now, we appear to be revolving closer to the sun in this orbit. As the cycle changes, the earth will cool. In short, this is all a part of our living planet's life cycle.

The Earth heats and cools with regularity. I say to Mr. Tanner, enjoy the Summers, turn down the heater in the Winter, and polish up that shotgun, because I like a clean weapon!

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Looks like a bunch of folks here just don't want to take the challenge. Lots of opinions here but most start off with "I'll never change his mind so I don't need to accept the challenge".
Whether you believe we have lots of data or not enough doesn't really matter as many here have already made their minds up.
Here's the thing, most of the folks who label climate change as a hoax are really looking for an excuse to carry on with business as usual. They have the mindset that whatever mankind does is insignificant so we might as well just stink up the place as long as we're making a buck.
Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other what one believes about climate change, there's no excuse for crapping in your own back yard and leaving it because it's too expensive to clean up.
Bring on the dings.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Follow the money, people. The same politicians that call climate change a hoax are the same ones raking in the big bucks in campaign contributions from the gas, oil and coal companies.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Roderick K. Purcell wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Trouble with this whole debate about the climate is it's wrapped around the axle of politics. If you hate Al Gore, you're more likely to dismiss what he says about global warming. If you like him, you're more open to the idea. Most sportsmen are, at heart, pretty conservative folks. But we are out there, year after year, seeing the creeks get warmer and the droughts get worse and worse. I'm looking forward to seeing what this Tanner fellow thinks we should do about it...

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from bruisedsausage wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Maybe a little out of context but fits aptly with the conversation.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

You can all ding me for this too, but maybe before you start parroting mantra you should question where all your information comes from. I really don't care that the NY Times or whoever wrote in an article. What I want is the information from a scholarly article that has been published and accepted by the scientific community. If you have any values of the temperature gain I wouldn't mind seeing those as well. If you already have it plotted as a relation of time even better. Second request is that you also include a standard deviation of the period along with your numbers. Lastly if you feel so inclined maybe you can explain to me what happens to the suns thermal columns when they encounter high levels of CO2. Global warming? What?

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I've got three Model 12s and a Ruger o/u and a few other guns so I'll let Todd keep his gun. Glacier Bay in Ak has been retreating since 1760. The glacier filled the entire bay where it calved into Icy Strait when first encountered in 1760. It has been shrinking ever since. USG thinks it grew to Icy Strait during the period know as "the Little Ice Age" and has been retreating ever since. I've been hunting since 1959 and was fishing a tad earlier with my dad. I see more wilderness animals, ie. bald eagles and osprey in areas where they had been extinct than anyone would ever have believed back in the 50s. I think Todd's son is going to live in a world where the opportunity to experience the outdoor heritage is going to be even better than my opportunities have been. Unless of course the government takes it away from him for his own good.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

You know what's irony?

Listening to a bunch of global-warming deniers call the general public "brainwashed" for listening to the censensus of the vast, vast, vast majority of climate scientists on a climate-science related matter.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

So, the problem here is one of a general logical fallacy shared by the most informed of the global warming CO2-forcing deniers. It is this. The fallacy that equal results implies equal cause. Yes, there has been climate change in the past that has resulted in heating. As one blog post noted, Milankovic cycles are involved. (Good for you! Most Climate Change objectors think it's all about solar variation). As others more commonly note, there are, indeed, cycles in solar output. There are at least THREE such cycles, all with different periodicities; the most common one has a cycle period of about 11 years.

Now, here's the problem. If Milankovic cycles and solar cycles were the ONLY factors involved with short period global temperature change (say, over an interval of 5000 years), then WE SHOULD BE COOLING OFF.

As some have noted (taking the wrong lesson from the fact), in the 1970s, "global cooling" was a scientific discussion (on a time frame of thousands of years). Short term cooling was expected because of the Milankovic and solar cycles.

But we are not cooling. We are heating up. Why are we heating up?

For people who understand chemistry and physics, it is well known that if you increase CO2 concentrations, you trap more heat. You cannot NOT trap more heat. CO2 is transparent to Ultraviolet light, translucent to Infrared "light." Ultraviolet light from the earth hits objects on the surface -- rocks, trees, etc. The ultraviolet light energy is transformed into kinetic energy (heat) when the UV hits mineral atoms and so forth. At night, all those heated rocks and roads, roofs and cars, trees and even water, radiate that heat into the sky. But that radiation is INFRARED (the definition of heat). And CO2 is translucent to INFRARED. The CO2 abosbs the heat. The atmosphere gets warmer. Where does the heat go from there?

Some of it radiates from the CO2 into space. Some of it radiates back into the ground. Some of it stays in the atmosphere. Warmer nights. And some of it transfers by convection into the oceans and into glaciers. Melting the glaciers. Warming the oceans. As documented.

Can massive changes in CO2 affect temperature? Heck YES. The evolution of land plants, some hundreds of millions of years ago, had a massive draw down effect on CO2, cooling the planet. Where did the CO2 go? Into plant tissues. What happened to the plants? Over the Aeons, it became carbon (you may have heard of the Carboniferous). Every time we burn coal or oil we're reversing, on a small scale, that massive Carboniferous period atmospheric CO2 draw-down.

How much are we reversing it? By, at current rates, 30 Billion Metric Tonnes Every Year. More EACH year than all of the volcanoes on earth for the last 2000 years.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rob Sisson wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I'm a hunter, angler, conservative Catholic, and a former mayor who lowered taxes in my city to the lowest level in over 50 years. I also didn't stay a Holiday Inn Express last night. Therefore, I'll defer to NOAA, NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, and 98% of climate scientists who believe global warming has been dramatically increased by man's activities (ie-burning fossil fuels).

Quite possibly, the Yellowstone caldera will blow the big one, filling the upper atmosphere with ash, reflecting heat back into space, and save us. Or maybe some other dramatic natural phenomena will occur to save us.

I do know, if you hunt, fish, or hike in the Rockies, you've seen the damaged forests. Whether it's manmade warming or not, those beetles are taking a bite out of our natural world.

As a conservative, you must ask yourself, "What if I'm wrong? What if I've been snookered by right wing talk radio funded by Exxon? What if the droughts and the beetle infestation are symptoms of warming? What will my grandchildren say if I do nothing today to insure them a healthy future?"

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I built a barn in 1985 with an 800sq ft solar panel. I shoot guns that were manufactured before co2 was considered a problem, Model 12 Winchesters. 99.9999% of all the time I've spent in boats in my life have been in row boats and canoes. I've never owned a vehicle that wasn't a utilitarian choice. I've hauled livestock and feed for my farm in a chevy chevette. I don't need to hear doodly about carbon footprints.

The Heartland Institute has a budget of 6.5 million dollars a year. Compare that to the hundred million dollar budgets of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, etcetra,ad nauseam.

As Mike mentioned above Brazill, China, India, and the US emmit vast amounts of co2. As a matter of fact humanity has never in its history emmitted more co2 on a yearly basis or in total than it has in the last 15 years and the Global Temp has not increased to match. The Global temp has remained relatively flat during this period despite the linear temperature result that has been predicted by the AGW cultists. Either co2 is not the driver of temps posited, or the models are seriously flawed. I favor the theory that co2 is an influence on temps but not the driver the cultists would have you believe. Government is at least as much the problem as it is the solution. The US goverment is spending over 10 billion dollars a year on the co2 aspect of climate change and 0 dollars a year on any other explaination. When your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Glaciers advanced and receded before the co2 climate change theory was postulated and they will advance and recede in the future.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I think rather than trying to convince the non-believers that climate change is real- just stick to the conservation message. Regardless of whether it's real or not, we shouldn't be trashing, polluting and wasting like a bunch of mindless pigs. Whether it's a family household, small business or a corporation. Conservation should be more than just protecting lands and wildlife- what about water conservation or energy conservation in the household? This is all stuff we should be doing anyway. A large percentage of the energy we pay for in the household ends up going to waste as a result of inefficient insulation, outdated appliances, leaving lights on, leaving electronics plugged in 24/7 etc. Why someone needs to leave their dustbuster and charger plugged in 365 days a year even though it's used maybe 3 times, I'll never understand. When I started using LED and cfl bulbs, belkin conserve switches, smart power strips, and did some weatherization and easy steps around the house- I instantly noticed a substantial amount in savings on my utility bills. I even saw it by borrowing my buddy's killowatt meter. My next project is water conservation. Rain garden in my backyard, rain barrel for the wife's garden, low flow aerators and so on. It saves us money and its the damn right thing to do. Not to mention, doing these conservation efforts makes me feel even more patriotic.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I'll take issue with a couple of Mr. Tanner's points in the above comment;

#1. American companies will produce low or no emissions vehicles- The government got us tax payers into the electric / hybrid auto business as soon as it bailed out GM. Look now at what we have to show for it. These vehicles are not as reliable nor as efficient as they were once touted, and so as to illustrate my point, the Obama administration has recently faced such a consumer backlash that they had to pony up and start a buy back program for owners of Chevy Volts. People that have a firm grasp on reality see that these vehicles are a pipe dream or an environmentalist's way of feeling guilt free about driving, and cannot compete with a traditional gasoline powered vehicle. If the current administration was serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, they would have opened up the ANWR for drilling, or would have not balked on the Keystone oil pipeline. Don't you see, its a bait and switch approach that the current and most former administrations are doing. Promise the taxpayers lower energy costs, then 3 years later, here we are with the highest oil prices in forever, ending at 103$ and change a barrel on the NYSE. The source of this report is the Independent out of the UK.

#2 the 97 or 98 percent of climate scientists that support climate change (as to say nearly all scientists accept the theory of anthropogenic climate change- If you're going to cite the National Academy of Sciences and their cohorts within the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), then you should also cite as honest accounting the more than 1000 climate scientists that have come out against the theory of climate change as a complete and utter fraud.

Many of the so called facts used by the "scientists" that are pushing the THEORY of climate change or man influenced climate change have been exposed and their work corroborated as willful misrepresentations of facts and also found to have intentionally published fraudulent climatic data to support their position knowing full well that their data was wholly inaccurate. This accusation is true and has been exposed by international news media such as the BBC. The proof one needs to see is in the leaked files of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (the preeminent scholastic research dealing with climatic data). You can find the Guardian's coverage here www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climate-emails-question-answe... or by going to the BBC and searching "climategate". The US DOE has even suspended financial support in 2009 to the UEA CRU because of the credibility of the UEA CRU was severely damaged as a result of the leaked information. Professor Phil Jones even stepped down as head of the CRU because of his willful neglect of complete climate data disclosure in a report within the UN's assessment of climate science.

Mr. Tanner, I respect that you're trying to rally the people around your cause. Its because people like you stand up and raise an issue that many are inspired to research and form their own opinions. I think however, that if you're going to cite scientists that have been proven to use and publish factually inaccurate data to support your position, that you be willing to consider the alternative position. More and more scientist dispute the theory of man made climate change everyday. Scientists have repeatedly made the conscious decision to alienate themselves from the establishment scientific institutions and ultimately their profession by speaking out against a process that they know is fundamentally flawed.

You talked about having a stake in the game; my stake is this- I won't let myself be misled by charlatans or crooks. I will clean my own yard and witness those who cry wolf be discredited by those who shared their same opinion when the chips are down. I am all for passing on a better environment than what I inherited, but it will not be at the expense of my integrity nor my cognitive abilities.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

By the way, Field and Stream supports my position on Bikini Atoll; "This A-bomb test site has become an angler's paradise...Bikini is the last of the best saltwater fishing in the world."

-Field & Stream magazine, November, 1997

How's that for climate change??

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Fact of the matter is climate is no more dangerous now than in the past."

Immediately prior to the Carboniferous period, there was so much CO2 in the atmosphere that were any of us to attempt to live in that kind of climate we'd (1) be really hot all the time, and (2) slowly suffocate to death over a period of two or three days.

What changed all that was the emergence of terrestrial plants that promoted a huge drawdown in atmospheric CO2.

Over time, much of the CO2 sequestered by those plants, in the form of carbon, became trapped in the earth in the form of coal and oil.

Which coal and oil we now burn, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and undoing the carbon sequestration that occurred during the Carboniferous period.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from TM wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

What's funny about the dialogue going on this post is that it's divided (for the most part) into the pro-science and the anti-science posters. What's even more funny, is that the pro-science posters are the skeptics while most of the anti-science posters are the environmental advocates. Don't believe me? Well, scroll through the comments.

Who's calling who names? "conspiracy theorists" and "tea party trolls." Really?

The pro-science guys are the skeptics. More testing please. Is there merit to the 2 or 3 percent of the scientific community (likely more than that by an order of magnitude) who do not tow the line? If not, why not? Why has the change predicted by the IPCC not been as quick as predicted? Are these refinements to the model or an indication of problems with the theory?

Instead, we get: "Settled facts" and "Consensus." Really? These are not scientific arguments, and they should not be satisfying to Hal and Todd. These are lazy arguments of believers, not science.

I'd have a lot more respect for Hal and Todd's position if it was: "there's a lot of science out there about global warming. this could dramatically impact sportsmen. Let's get behind further studies and get some public funding to determine if it is man made and if so, what the effects will be, and if so, what we can do to reduce the problem."

That's not what we're getting here. Instead it's "oh my, climate change is a well settled, huge, huge, huge problem. Get behind some unspecified fix. Man made this problem. Overwhelming consensus exists in the scientific community. If we don't do something, your way of life is threatened."

Folks, that's not science, it's religion. And it's also not persuasive to the unconverted.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

This is from the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Can find the whole thing with working links and a pre-updated version of the entire Senate Report here:

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Posted by Marc Morano – 9:30 AM EST - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV

U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009

Update: March 17, 2009: 59 Scientists Joint Senate Report
Update: January 28, 2009: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic

Update: December 22, 2008: More Prominent Scientists Join Senate Report

Link to Full Printable 255-Page PDF Report

(Updates Previous Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims” released on Decmeber 11, 2008)

INTRODUCTION:
Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 and 2009 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 and 2009 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”

This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]

Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s National Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, "As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. (LINK) In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

Skeptical scientists are gaining recognition despite what many say is a bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.” (LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK & LINK ]

Highlights of the Updated 2008/2009 Senate Minority Report featuring over 700 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

#

This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told EPW how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. [Also see: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008 ]

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes ‘Corrupted Science’ in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ]

One of the more recent attempts to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) The more than 700 scientists expressing skepticism, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK)

Examples of "consensus" claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:

Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat." (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006 - LINK)

CNN's Miles O'Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. "We're done." O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually." (LINK)

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as "one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels." (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: "About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members." (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic "finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet."

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): "While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case." (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007.

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" on global warming.

While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

I was at that page earlier. I've also seen some of your other works online where you bash wind, solar and other forms of clean, renewable energy, while praising oil and coal. I've seen your blog bashing smart meters and your youtube videos. So that leads me to ask: do you have any financial stake in any of this? Just come clean. Have you ever served as an independent contractor, consultant or been an employee for a fossil-fuel funded free-market type think-tank or a fossil fuel company? Have you ever been hired for political work? My point is this: I think you have an agenda that goes beyond making arguments against man-made climate change. That's not to take anything away from your work and writings, but for the sake of honesty and transparency-I'd like to know. You're obviously more than just an average joe skeptic with a degree in biology.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

He's not going to lose that gun. Besides, how can anyone not err to the side of caution here? "OH, it's a cold winter." or "Oh, it's a warm summer."

No, how about climate change is here as evidenced by the extreme weather patterns. Also, where is all the arctic ice going?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from TM wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

How do you stand on the goose?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from CharlesJordan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I thought this disassociation of climate change and human activity that I see all through these "you are howling at the moon" comments was finally so obviously wrong that most people had given up preaching that rubbish. We are not having an effect? How could anyone even remotely entertain such a ludicrous idea? Of course we are contributing, and the numbers of tonnage that we are doing so with are staggering. The EPA released a list of the major emitters of greenhouse gases in 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday. Of the top 100 emitters, 96 were power plants. The report identified a total of 6,700 U.S. facilities that the EPA monitored in 2010. The top three emitters were coal-fired power plants owned by Southern Co. The EPA estimates that each plant released roughly 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2010.
That's 60 million metric tons emitted in one year from just three sources out of 6,700 monitored. It just doesn't take a genius to know that emissions of that scale and globally do certainly contribute. I would also seem to be obvious when a pot of chili is getting saltier and you aren't sure where it's coming from nor if it will stop getting worse, the last thing on God's green earth you should do is toss another handful of salt in it.
I can't say all humans are part of the problem because they aren't, in fact to blame humans before plain old human greed is a bit naive. As was famously belched by Richard Dreyfuss in the movie Jaws: "I think you are going to ignore this problem until it swims up and bites you in the @#$!"
The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, qualified as air pollutants under the Clear Air Act. I don't consider the supreme court to be susceptible to heartfelt "hoodwinking" that seems to be being pointed at as the source of all this irrational squawking about global warming.
Being a preponderant voice stating that all the global warming alarmist will soon reach it's culmination as an undeniable indication that you are either greedy or stupid, or both. It's quite astonishing and also demoralizing to watch as political precept becomes a tool used by the wealthy to tax the earth's systems like this, when we have no real proof nor any way of producing it just where all of this is leading us. That is precisely why they get away with it, it's almost impossible to delegate responsibility for global warming.
It is extreme ignorant stupidity on the part of humanity to view this issue through such rose colored glasses.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

As the Muir and related Glaciers expanded down Glacier Bay into Icy Strait during the "Little Ice Age" it displaced the native people who lived there. The glaciers have retreated over 60 miles before the co2 levels hit the level that "climate scientists" consider to be causing "climate change." If you just used your eyes and didn't have a historical perspective you would be alarmed by the retreat of the glaciers in Glacier Bay. Todd and his buddy Bill want you to be scared of what you see and to discount the hundreds of years of scientific data that precedes the current theory because it invalidates it. Geological evidence, like that of Glacier Bay, is a inconveniece to their theory. That is why M. Mann et al discount such geological and historical data that include the "Medieval Warming Period" and the "little Ice Age". It is necessary to ignore real data and a "scientific consensus" to maintain their fiction. Co2 is a component in current warming that is continued from the "Little Ice Age." I'm for continued data collection. I'm not for the scare tactics that claim that thunder is Giants Bowling or other non scientific balderdash. The US Geological Service is proud of the data that they have collected and rightly so. Google it if you want to get a different perspective on what you "see", and how to interpert it.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

THAT is how CO2 works.

WHAT one does about it, is a separate issue entirely.

I agree generally with those who say that any form of commitment to a carbon reduction that does not cover ALL countries (inlcuding China, India, and Brazil) is a non-startet.

As individuals, however, ALL and each of us can strive for smaller carbon footprints and benefit by saving buttloads of money. That means compact fluorescent bulbs. It means buying vehicles with good fuel efficiency for the tasks they need to support. And it means buying appliances with very good energy ratings. It means recycling, wherever possible, insulating your house, and if you can swing it (most cannot), adding some kind of solar component augment to your home.

You can keep that gas water heater for ex. But you'll burn a lot less gas if you have a solar water heater to preheat the water. Those are just examples.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

From yesterday's NYT's article, Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science: "Leaked documents suggest that an organization known for attacking climate science is planning a new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools, the latest indication that climate change is becoming a part of the nation’s culture wars.

The documents, from a nonprofit organization in Chicago called the Heartland Institute, outline plans to promote a curriculum that would cast doubt on the scientific finding that fossil fuel emissions endanger the long-term welfare of the planet. 'Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective,' one document said."

What a suprise, some of the funding comes from The Keystone XL pipeline masterminds, the Koch Bros.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Roderick K. Purcell wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

In the 1870s and 80s, scientists like William Hornaday and others warned America: You're killing your bison too fast. They're going to be extinct. Some smart leaders, like Theodore Roosevelt, listened and acted. Others said "BS! There's millions of bison! We can never shoot them all! Humans are too puny!" then one day, bison hunters went into the northern prairie and couldn't find a bison. There were none left, except a few hundred in Saskatchewan. Scientists were right. Same thing is happening now, only the stakes are bigger. Do we have the guts to listen to the scientists and take action? Denial is the easy out.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rob Sisson wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

US utility companies are sitting on more than $2 trillion in deferred capital expenditures. All they need is a road map for America's energy future, and they'll start spending that money on construction and equipment. It would be the single largest economic stimulus our nation has ever seen.

The real green jobs will be in construction: concrete, steel, electric, plumbing, pipe-fitting...as utility companies replace the older, dirtier power plants with newer, more efficient plants. We just need a coherent energy policy.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Agreed Rob. From American Rivers: "...many people recognize the need to invest in our clean and safe water (except maybe Congress, who cut water infrastructure funding in the FY12 budget…). Forbes writes that '2012 is the year America must get serious about our water infrastructure,' and the American Society of Civil Engineers recent 'Failure to Act' report demonstrates that letting our pipes, treatment plants and other water infrastructure decline further will have major adverse impacts on the economy, causing losses as much as $4.1 trillion to GDP through 2040.

On the flip side – investing in clean water creates good jobs. As part of a recent report American Rivers released with Green for All, we found that investments in our water infrastructure would yield 1.9 million American jobs and add $265 billion to the economy. In the Chesapeake Bay, projects to reduce polluted stormwater runoff could provide work for 178,000 full-time equivalent jobs across the bay watershed over the next five years.

Investing is important, but how we invest is just as important. In addition to rebuilding our treatment plants and repairing leaking pipes, we should prioritize investing in smart solutions like green infrastructure that cost-effectively reduces polluted runoff, flooding and sewer overflows. Whether using green roofs, green streets or water efficiency, these approaches save money, create jobs and create clean and vibrant communities..."

(americanrivers.org/newsroom/blog/kbaer-2012125cities-should-go-green-to.html)

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from pmdockins wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Let's put it this way. If you through lead, mercury, unnatural gases or unnatural amounts of gases into the air and water along with other substances that are KNOWN TO BE TOXIC we will have issues. Period. Can I tell you with 100% certainty that global warming exists? No. Can I tell you with certainty that gases and other items littered in our atmosphere and water change over time and often become even more dangerous. Yes.

Am I concerned about global warming and cooling? Yes. But I am more concerned about the pollution. To me they go hand in hand. Fix the pollution and you don't have to worry about warming and cooling.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I will refrain from becoming involved in this exercise in verbal futility, since it is now way too late to address the endless and escalating problems. You will believe what you prefer - as always. I was born in 1933 and began my lifelong hunting and fishing career before I was 10 years old. Since those far-off days, I have seen the natural world disappear and degrade in more ways than I could ever have imagined. Yes, I have witnessed a few great improvements over these many years mainly due to environmental efforts by many dedicated people, (certainly not much due to hunters and fisherman) but overall the battle is being lost. The blame for it can be spread widely through this insane society of ours and it no longer matters. The carefree days of roaming the woods and waters are all done and we are witnessing the last of what all our ancestors took for granted. I was privileged to see and do some of the very best of it. Too bad we threw it all away. It did not have to happen. How stupid.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Daniel Ettinger wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Tanner is a fraud. He has no intention of giving away his Beretta. He doesn't want his truth clouded by the facts. I've read tons of research from both sides of the scientific community and overall, the data sides with these changes being a scam.
Important things like, solar changes, axial tilt of our planet, orbital variances and even geological events, are ignored by the Chicken Littles of climate change.
They indulge in sloppy science and accept some ponied up consensus. Once upon a time, the consensus was that our planet was the center of the universe. It was also the consensus that our planet was flat. Yes, over the last century or so, the temperature has increased...by less than a degree, and that is based on archaic records produced with less than exacting instruments.
As to the extreme weather patterns, it has to be taken into consideration that more people live in the path of hurricane and tornado regions therefore, more people get hurt and killed and more homes and businesses get damaged and destroyed.
It's those myopic views that cause the harbingers of doom preaching climate change, from being taken seriously by people who can see the bigger picture.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

When I saw the headline of this post, I initially thought, whoa, maybe I can shed a little light on the subject, interject a little of my brand of "matter of factness" and who knows, win what appears to be a nice shotgun in the process. I was dismayed to see the only comment left by Mr. Tanner was about his website.

You ought to know that its generally considered bad form to make a grand offer or claim without the intent to back it up. If that was even your way of steering folks to your conservation site. I'll admit, you do appear to have some good looking credentials behind the names of the folks you are working with; and yes, I did visit your site and the teddy roosevelt society that was also linked to CH, but where I come from, a man's offer made in good faith and acted on in the same is something that will define how others perceive you or your word.

I never took for granted that Mr. Tanner would part ways with his purty shotgun; after all, if my wife purchased something like that for me, the last thing I would do is give it away on a subjective claim. But I do feel like Mr Tanner has certainly not endeared himself or his fledgling organization without so much as even responding to one of those (like myself) who stepped up and accepted the challenge in the post to offer an opinion on climate change.

I get that this offer on the shotgun was about changing your mind reference climate change Mr. Tanner, and you're the ultimate judge if your ideology has done a 180; however, to go and just post an ad for your website as a response to those who posted is just not gonna drive the web traffic, nor is anyone going to take what you say seriously.

Conservation minded or not, many people stop listening when you cry wolf one too many times. Granted that I don't hold extensive degrees ecology or natural sciences, I do for one have the unique ability to gather facts, create hypothesis and compile data before revising and making a theory. Seems to me that if we all did that in our own neck of the woods, we'll have some nice places to pass along to future generations without having to get wrapped around the axle on something that won't be confirmed in my lifetime.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

The way I see it is also this. I've plans for being "somewhere else" when the worst of the CO2 forced Global Warming chickens come to roost. It'll likely mean the end of many communities in the USA and worldwide, and a whole lot of social misery, and possibly starvation and death.

Global warming denialists turned refugee won't be welcome in my neighborhood, nor anti-scientists. You all can live like ostriches with your head deep in denialist doo doo. Natural selection will tell, in time.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Just so we're clear: I've read all the comments on this thread, and none of them have changed my long-held views on climate change. If you're truly interested in doing so, you might want to address the following questions:

Why are millions of acres of forest dying in the western U.S. and Canada?

Why did the U.S. National Academy of Sciences recently call anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change a “settled fact?”

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2000 - 2009 the warmest decade ever recorded?

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2010 the warmest year ever recorded?

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why have our global temperatures risen at the same time the sun’s energy output has decreased?

Why do 97% to 98% of climate scientists agree that our climate is warming and that humans are responsible for much of the temperature increase?

Why has the fossil fuel industry spent so much money trying to convince us that the science on climate change is not yet settled?

What would you tell your kids & grandkids if you dismissed the threat from climate change and they lost most - or all - of their hunting and fishing because we failed to act in time?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from bruisedsausage wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

"Why are millions of acres of forest dying in the western U.S. and Canada?"

Mostly it is attributed to the pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) which of course you're going to assume is being very successful because of mild winters and warmer temperatures, however this isn't entirely the case. Much of it has to do with the logging industry being shut down, and being fought at every avenue, resulting in lengthy court battles between the FS and special interest groups. I could write a thesis paper on this alone, however I'm going to get to the next question.

Why did the U.S. National Academy of Sciences recently call anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change a “settled fact?”

I would surmise that much of it has to do with trend. We don't have enough information to conclusively argue that the temperatures are either warming or cooling. If you want to look at the average temperature of the earth over the last 300 million years, then we might be able to draw a conclusion, but that isn't an option.

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2000 - 2009 the warmest decade ever recorded?

Well we haven't been tracking weather temperatures for very long. By any standard... For all we know 2000-2009 could have been 50F cooler than the average temperature that the earth has been over the past few million years. Again not enough information to make any credible claim, and yet make one under the pretense of being 100% true.

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2010 the warmest year ever recorded?

See above. Don't get me wrong, climate change is very real, just shouldn't be attributed with human activities due to the lack of information.

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why have our global temperatures risen at the same time the sun’s energy output has decreased?

Not sure where you're getting this information, but the sun's energy output hasn't decreased. In fact its been increasing, causing solar radiation flares. Something I'm sure you've heard about.

Why do 97% to 98% of climate scientists agree that our climate is warming and that humans are responsible for much of the temperature increase?

Again not sure where you're getting your facts or numbers, but I would say that it's nowhere near 97% to 98% of climate scientists that agree. Basic facts: Humans produce almost no CO2 compared to normal biological activity on the earth. Less than 1% actually.

Why has the fossil fuel industry spent so much money trying to convince us that the science on climate change is not yet settled?

Well simply put, you never bite the hand that feeds. Not arguing for the fuel industry here, however with many special interests groups acting like ravenous wolves trying to attack them its in their best interest to spend as much as they can fighting unfounded claims. Case example would be all the special interest groups fighting logging. FACT: Our natural resources that are replenish-able. (like trees) release the same exact amount of "pollutants" (if you can even call them that) while rotting in the forest as they do being harvested and then used for the betterment of humans. Doesn't matter how you slice the cookie you'll always have the same compounds and the same amount of them. Doesn't matter if the breakdown comes from a biological source or man, the exact same amount of "pollutants" are released as it is used.

What would you tell your kids & grandkids if you dismissed the threat from climate change and they lost most - or all - of their hunting and fishing because we failed to act in time?

Simply put, unless we start living in caves and give up all of our current infrastructure there is no way to guarantee that we aren't contributing even in the slightest to climate change. We have bigger things to worry about, than worrying about climate change. If the climate changes at anywhere near the same rate at which it has over the last 150 yrs. (meaning with linearity) your great great great great great grandchildren won't even notice much of a difference (in temperatures). Not only that, species are able to adapt to many different environments quite rapidly. Pretty amazing biological creations they are. Proof is in the distribution of the different species over vastly different areas. More likely your great great great great grandchildren won't have the ability to have the same opportunities as you and I because of human population growth exploding.

No worries about the shotgun, I could care less about one. I would just like to educate those around of misinformation as best I can. All of the information I present comes from factual material that I have studied quite extensively. As far as any changes that we can make in order to preserve and sustain our environment as it is, should start sooner than later. Such as using more of our natural resources for better purposes. Using them more efficiently, and educating those special interest groups that don't understand why they are arguing a fallacy, and further complicating and destroying the environment. Hands down if you want the best subject to argue for and against "fossil fuels". you need to study Biomass Gasification. It's a much better substitute for fuels in today's world than ever before. If you do a little research you'll find that big oil fought like crazy to control the market and stop the gasification sciences. Again its a renewable energy source with zero net emissions.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from PigHunter wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Here's something for 'The Sky Is Falling' fanatics. Search the Wall Street Journal for the following (this site won't let me post the links)

No Need to Panic About Global Warming ~ The Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2012
"The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2."

"The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere."

Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming ~ February 21, 2012
"The Trenberth letter tells us that decarbonization of the world's economy would "drive decades of economic growth." This is not a scientific statement nor is there evidence it is true. A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology. If there were economic advantages to investing in technology that depends on taxpayer support, companies like Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Solar Millenium, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Ener1 and the Renewable Energy Development Corporation would be prospering instead of filing for bankruptcy in only the past few months."

"The European experience with green technologies has also been discouraging. A study found that every new "green job" in Spain destroyed more than two existing jobs and diverted capital that would have created new jobs elsewhere in the economy. More recently, European governments have been cutting subsidies for expensive CO2-emissionless energy technologies, not what one would expect if such subsidies were stimulating otherwise languid economies. And as we pointed out in our op-ed, it is unlikely that there will be any environmental benefit from the reduced CO2 emissions associated with green technologies, which are based on the demonization of CO2."

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"CO2 doesnt have any affect on people at all until 9%, which is what the Apollo craft were kept just below that."

Ah, no. That is not correct. At 9%, people start to pass out. It has effects at lower concentrations, especially among people with asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, cancer, influenza, or the elderly. A bunch of that is about lung efficiency. Certainly, Apollo astronauts were selected because they were in prime physical condition, and most capable of resisting the effects of CO2 increases.

The concentrations in Apollo craft were higher than normal not because no one cared, but because of mass limits. You couldn't carry enough CO2 filters to purge all the exhaled gas for a 10 day round trip. The atmosphere supply they carried was pure O2 in order to maximize the duration of each launch.

They had the same problem, incidently, in Biosphere 2. Increasing the CO2 concentration did not substantially promote plant growth. It did, however, make the dome uninhabitable and force its early abandonment.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

By the way, if anyone wants to see one of many sources that include, among other things, a good easy to read graphic of atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Phanerozoic (roughly the last half billion years), see:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692169/pdf/YAKVJWBFM62NRFN4_353_83...

Figure 4 (p.93)provides a chart of proxy estimated atmospheric CO2 (see left vertical axis) by age (X axis).

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Again, I ask, show me a science paper that emperically links CO2 to those changes."

________________________________

Here you go. One of many such papers available.

www.oar.noaa.gov/research/papers07/greenhouse.html

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Meh. Sorry, "20 times higher than today" as you fatuously claim.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

I did not "cherry pick" anything. YOU named the time period, I told you what the CO2 concentration was. You're the one who said it was 7 times higher 300 MYA. All I did was point out that it was in fact LOWER 300 MYA than it now is.

Now that you're down to "several times" higher you're being marvelously obtuse but at least closer to the mark.

Now let's take your chart and consider the implications. Notice, on your chart, that global mean temperature strongly correlates with measured CO2. Since we know HOW CO2 traps heat (this has been known for over 100 years), the strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and heat is not merely a correlation, but a **correlation for which the cause is known.**

That is why pretty much all current climate scientists agree that the present warming trend is being caused by CO2 forcing.

The second part of your statement attends to something that I mentioned very early in this blog. Namely this: Climate scientists are in near universal agreement that global warming is happening and CO2 concentration increases caused by fossil fuel emissions are driving it. But the CONSEQUENCES remain a matter of debate.

Yes, indeed, dinosaurs did exist when CO2 concentrations were greater. But then, we're not them are we. So, it's rather a stretch to claim that "because some life existed on Earth when CO2 concentrations were greater, therefore increasing CO2 concentrations cannot have any adverse effects." That line of reasoning is an example of, in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detector Kit, the "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle."

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"years of life on earth as having warmed to the point of destroying life."

______________________________________________

To my knowledge, climate scientists that are concerned about global warming have never seriously entertained the idea that global warming will destroy all life on earth.

The issue to hand IS, since the objective facts of the matter are known and settled, "How bad will it get and what will the consequences be."

If, for example, you are fonder of hunting collared peccary than you are of white-tailed deer, and you presently live in Kansas, you might like some of the consequences of global warming.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Richard Wakefield,

Good question. I answered it at the Conservation Hawks blog.

conservationhawks.org/blog/

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

wisc14- www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/deer-hunting/finding-deer-...

just to alleviate your concern, you'll see that I was selected for one of the best hunting photos of December 2011 by F&S.

If you were really inquiring if I was a hunter/fisherman you could have just clicked on my profile page and see that yes I do hunt and fish, thereby rendering your comment unnecessary. Otherwise your thinly veiled attempt to call me out for sticking to my position on this topic is childish and immature.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

The earth naturally goes through cycles of heating and cooling anyone who passed earth science in high school should know that. The idea that global warming is caused by humans is all just a scam to get uninformed one issue voters, and so 8th grade science teachers have something to nag about.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Riiiiight. Because ignoring people whose opinions are backed by 90% of climate scientists just because they don't agree with your dogmatic, faith based denials of climate forcing, is evidence of "having a brain" -- in the Backwards Universe anyhow.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Heidelbergsheep =

"Faith based" was not meant to be an insult in the way your assertion that "anyone that does not agree with you is brainless" was meant to be an insult. Your complaint about "ad hominem" is hypocritical considering your previous posts.

"Faith based" was meant to point out that you've been told that there is no evidence for anthropogenic global warming and, since you have not bothered to read any of the science behind it, you're simply willing to accord by virtue of "faith" a credibility and respect to an opinion that is (1) not held by climate scientists, and (2) not substantiated by any facts.

Vis the Earth's distance from the sun. It's more complicated than that. It's The Earth's Distance From The Sun and the Earth's Axial Tilt Relative to the Plane Of Earth's Orbit During The Northern Hemisphere Winter. Honestly, if you're going to invoke an explanation, you ought at least to understand what it is you're invoking.

The problem of course is that WE ALREADY KNOW THAT MILANKOVIC CYCLES ARE NOT DRIVING THE CURRENT HEATING TREND. Indeed, by the Milankovic and Solar cycles, the Earth should be cooling off. But it's not. It's heating up.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

My paraphrasing seems fine with me. You can find six different ways to call people who don't side with your religion "brainless" but it's all basically the same sneer.

As for the facts. For a guy who claims to dislike ad hominem, dismissing empirical data on the basis that everyone talking about it are "overzealous climate researchers with an axe to grind" is kinda amusing. Basically, you've invoked a conspiracy theory to dismiss data that are inconvenient for your dogmatic belief. If that isn't symptomatic of "faith based reasoning" then nothing is.

Ah, and the closing remark is in essence "haha climate change be dambed." Hey fella, it's all ok for you to do that. But just so we're clear, there are people keeping track of who's doing the denying; if things get as bad as they might, climate change deniers are going to be pretty unwanted among communities of those who are prepared to survive the consequences.

And I'm good with you driving your pos ram on the Autobahn at 180 mph with the air conditioner on and the windows open. Yer fuel economy will stink, and you Yurupeans do pay a whopping surcharge for that sort of thing. So you're probably dropping a lot of money in some German bureaucracy's pocket while you burn out the engine on that ram. It's all good. P.S. Thanks for buying American.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Heidelberg- it's fine if you don't believe in man-made climate change. But the polluting of our air and water is very real. If you want to waste and pollute at the expense of our health and natural resources and give polluters a free pass out of spite, you've got some growing up to do. I noticed the topic of faith came up and if I had to guess, you're certainly no man of the Good Book if your gluttonous and selfish comments hold any truth. I understand that your comment was an attempt at being funny, but I gather from your overall collection of statements that conservation isn't of much concern to you. So that leads me to ask, why the heck are you on the F&S Conservationist Blog? If you've got something constructive to say, let us know. Otherwise, go right ahead and follow through on your threat of leaving the blog. Don't let the door hit you and your imported beer on the way out.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Changing an ideolog's mind isn't going to happen. Only rational people can objectively look at data. Tanner an Herring live in a dream world all signs point to global warming.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

HeidelbergJaeger:

You've responded so matter-of-factly that I suspect many will take your response as scientific truth, but Abdussamatov's claim is just another theory.

I believe there are fluctuations over the years (and who knows, the sun may play a role), that everything is tied together and very complex, but our human-ways in an increasingly populated world, is also very tough on the planet outside of simply warming it up. We do a lot of things that affect the climate.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

As I and many others have said, people are passionate about the debate on climate change. I don't begrudge those who believe in man-made climate change, even if I don't agree with them. Arguments based on reason are a good thing; arguments based on emotion are not. Through rational debate, frank and honest exchange of ideas and theories, humankind can attempt to learn more about our living planet.

Zealots on both sides of the issue will twist the facts to suit their theories; this does nothing to foster and understanding our changing environment and does everything to alienate those with an open mind on the topic.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from TM wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Todd, it's a trick question, so you're sure to keep your gun. Way to get us talking though.

Over the last 500 million years or so, there have been cycles of global warming and global cooling. "Climate change" is the norm. There's no such thing as climate static. What caused these ice ages, these warming periods? Well, with the few exceptions of airborne particulate catastrophes (like volcanic eruptions or meteor impacts), we don't know. But that's not a very satisfying answer, so we look internally. And there's a recentcy bias to all analysis, so we look at the time only from the industrial revolution to the present (approximately 150 years).

Man-made global warming (or AGW, as the IPCC calls it -- that's the International Protocol on Climate Change) always struck me as pretty anthro-arrogant. We don't know what has caused most historical periods of climate change with any degree of certainty, but we do know that airborne carbon dioxide levels and water vapor are high. And maybe methane. So we try to shoehorn modern observations about climate and its changes over short periods change into our knowledge of man's activities. Modern man has existed on the earth for less than 200,000 years. No doubt we've changed the face of the earth. But all the carbon we're extracting and converting to other carbon forms is terrestrial in origin. And it's been here for hundreds of millions or billions of years.

Long after we're all gone and buried and a new species writes posts in outdoor magazines, there will be climate change. Maybe they'll be better able to explain it than we are.

Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Noble Laureate in physics, quit the American Physical Society over its doctrinaire anti-science position on global warming. In his resignation letter he noted:

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from vasportsman wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Global warming, right up there with religion and politics, everyone has an opinion and nobody is going to convince anyone else any different. I respectfully abstain.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Godwin's Law, see above.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Mike Diehl: Excellent comments. I also wonder that if history tells us we should be in a cooling period (based upon theories from both sides), why is all of our ice disappearing now?

Hoski: "...there's no excuse for crapping in your own back yard and leaving it because it's too expensive to clean up." BINGO.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

And yet, I don't think we can ignore right wing talk radio. We need to, at least to some extent, confront their fears. Recognition that CO2 is forcing global warming is a good SCIENTIFIC and rational point of view. But we need for the "Talk Radio" types to understand that "Admitting the basic validity of the science does not automatically imply that a 'UN Mandate' or some other exogenous, treaty-based 'solution' is the only reasonable response."

A good political solution or solutions COULD be purely domestic, and done properly could result in the creation of more jobs in the United States. We do not necessarily have to sign on to some agreement to tax fuel transactions and hand the money over to the UN or whatever other fear lurks in the minds of denialists.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RockySquirrel wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Who cares what the cause is, The fact is it is happening and we need to adapt to it. If using less fossil fuels slows down the change.... OK. The answer is: We, Humans, Us, have to stay on this planet as we make it cause there ain't no where else to go. If you trash your house, you still have to live in it. We have a finite amount of stuff. There is a finite about of oils, natural gas and clean water and raw materials. We need to use it wisely or our children's children will be cursing us and spitting on our graves (if they haven't dug up the caskets to recycle the metals).

In short: Who cares what causes climate change, we still need to slow our consumption (no matter what big oil says); or some day, after the environment is trashed this planet will not be a fun place to live, and then hell will be in session. There is no unicorns to fly off on.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from TM wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

So who gets the Beretta? No one?!? I'm starting to feel the same way I do at the carnival.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I love the 350hp V8 Yamaha outboard ad over the Global Warming Question in this mag. It only burns 31+ gal/hr @6000 rpm. Just a tad more than my canoe.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Enviroscientist wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I think Todd will be keeping his Beretta.

Most all of us out door types have seen changes over the years, or decades. That is the nature of climate. Climate is not a steady-state proposition. To believe that is is to misunderstand the natural world in which we live.

What is at issue really is the effect that man has on the climate. I think there is a genuine arrogance that insists that since we can seed clouds and make it rain we can control the climate.

The conclusions that Todd are drawing are not from the science itself, but from his presuppositions.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from poetwild wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Regarding carbon in our atmosphere...it is an extremely common element on our planet found in solid, liquid and gaseous states. My graphite fly rod is made of carbon. My hunting firearms? Carbon. My fishing knife? Carbon. My vehicle runs on liquefied carbon. Heat my home on carbon. The CO2 in the atmosphere gets utilized by plants and converts it to life supporting oxygen. Plants and people are largely made of carbon. In fact, all my friends are carbon-based lifeforms. Let's not demonize the element,please. As in my earlier post, the atmosphere is 98% nitrogen and oxygen. Water vapor is 3rd, argon is 4th while CO2 (5th) comes in at 0.04% of total gases. According to scientific research, this proportionality has been virtually unchanged over the past several thousand years. We need to continue research before taking drastic measures.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rob Sisson wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

If you are skeptical about climate change, please spend some time at www.skepticalscience.com. It's okay to be a skeptic and to question ideas. This site provides details, though, to refute some of the urban myths about carbon dioxide. If you want to hear conservatives talking about climate issues, visit climateconservative.org (full disclosure, I'm president of the organization behind that website).

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Louzianajones wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Todd, you should not worry about climate change.There is nothing you can do about it. The climate is not static. It is a dynamic feature of the earth and will always be changing. You should be more worried about government change. That is where the real danger lies.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

HeidelbergJaeger - “I was dismayed to see the only comment left by Mr. Tanner was about his website.”

I’m not sure if this will go through, but I’ve been fishing in Idaho for the last few days and I’ve been having a difficult time commenting on this thread via my motel internet connection. One of my comments went up and stayed up; two didn’t.

In any case, I’m not sure folks are getting the full picture. Here are my original R&GC posts on the subject, which may shed a little light on the subject.

Part I
One of the dangers with organizations like CH is that we can end up stuck in our own little circle, preaching to the choir and not making much of a difference to the world at large. That’s not our goal here at Conservation Hawks. We want to reach people - lots of them - as quickly as possible. Not because we’re hoping for fame or glory, or to satisfy our egos, or because Conservation Hawks will turn into a cash cow if we can just sign up enough hunters & anglers. (By the way, we don’t charge folks to register as a CH supporter. You can do it for free on our website.)

No, we’re old fashioned. We just want to pass along a healthy natural world to our kids and grandkids so they can experience the same quality fishing & hunting we enjoy today. And in order to do that, we need a big tent. We need to reach every kind of sportsman: the fly fishers and upland bird hunters, the cane pole folks who fish for crappie & bream, the bass anglers with their fancy boats and gear, the elk hunters who dream of distant, snow-dusted mountains, the whitetail and turkey fanatics, the spey rod steelheaders, the muskie guys and walleye gals and the quiet men who run hounds far from the beaten path. We need them all; we need to reach them all. Whether they believe that climate change is the biggest, gravest threat out there, or whether they’re not quite sure what to think, or whether they’re convinced that global warming is a load of crap (or a communist plot); regardless, we need them.

So I want to invite every one of you, whether you agree with us or not, to join the conversation here on our Rod & Gun Club blog.

Part II
I hate wasting my time. I truly do. It annoys the hell out of me. And there’s nothing, and I mean nothing, worse than toiling at something long after you’ve figured out it makes no sense to go on. So please help me out. I’m convinced that climate change is the gathering storm on the horizon, the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the horn awaiting Gabriel’s lips. That’s what so many climate scientists are saying. That’s what all the evidence out my front door tells me. That’s what my heart whispers. But what if I’m wrong? Can you imagine anything more frustrating then spending years of your life fighting against something that doesn’t even exist? You know what they’d say. There he goes, drinking the kool-aid, tilting at windmills, chasing will-o'-the-wisps. Good ol’ Don ever-clueless Quixote.

So if you’re a climate dove or a climate denier, come to our Rod & Gun Club blog and convince me that I’m wrong about climate change. Explain why I’m mistaken. Take the weight from my shoulders and help me to go back to the things I love, rather than feeling like I have to push this huge boulder up a never-ending hill. I’ll thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Part III
This post is for folks who don’t accept the science of climate change.

Skin in the game. You know what that means, right? We need a stake in the outcome. We have to pay to play. So here’s what I’ll do - gladly, with joy - for the person who convinces me that our Conservation Hawks team is mistaken about climate change, and that we should be looking elsewhere for the biggest threats on the horizon.

I own a handsome 12 gauge shotgun my wife gave me for my birthday a while back. It’s a Beretta 687 Silver Pigeon and in spite of my questionable shooting skills it’s killed a fair number of birds over the years. So here’s my challenge to you. I will auction off my Beretta and donate the proceeds to the charity of your choice if you can convince me that I’m mistaken about climate change.

Or, if you’re not big on charities, I’ll give you the shotgun. No strings, free & clear; It’s yours. All you have to do is convince me - with logic, or passion, or whatever means you have at your disposal - that I’m wrong about climate change, or that my fellow Conservation Hawks and I are wasting our time on the issue.

Just so we’re clear - I will listen to your arguments. You have my word. Hell, I’d love to learn that my concerns about climate change are completely unwarranted. But you’re going to have to be more persuasive than our climate scientists, and that won’t be easy.

One other thing. Fair is fair, and we all need to have a little skin in the game. So if you’re positive that climate change is a hoax, come to our Rod & Gun Club blog, jump on any Monday Open Thread and make your case. Only before you do, please visit our website, hit the “Donate” button, and pony up your end of the bargain. A few bucks in the kitty will show that you’re serious about your views and deserving of a thoughtful response.

Here’s the truth. We have to get past the question about whether climate change is “real.” If we’re going to come out the other end of this tunnel, hunters & anglers need to start working together on some very difficult problems. But first we have to have an open, honest, informed discussion and put this issue to rest. Let’s start that discussion now.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Erik Jensen wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Great that someone is taking this on ! The bigges problem I have with the climate-change deniers is they attribute bizarre behavior to scientists. They claim this all a hoax, a big scam...what is the motivation ? Of course, scientists are just like everyone else. Who wouldn't want to keep on using as much energy as you please ? Not spending tons of time and effort taking on huge powerful industries like big oil and coal ? Or, if you're into other environmental and conservation issues, why not take something else on instead creating a huge fake problem ? I love America, but we have something in our political culture that we could do without: the paranoid, conspiratorial theories. These generally infect a good chunk of conservative people, but it can really get into a lot of the left sometimes as well. A good example was after 9/11, there was a widespread belief amongst a certain percentage of liberals (about a third) that George Bush was involved with 9/11. Totally ridiculous. I write this as someone who hates George Bush, but the idea that he "did" 9/11 has no rational basis. There was no evidence and even if Bush thought of carrying out such a plot, it would be too risky. It's the same with the climate change deniers. They start with the premise of conspiracy and go to great lengths in attempts to prove their ridiculous premise by fabricating evidence, and so far they've come up with nothing.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from crowman wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I love all the people who blame big this and that for all the climate change that is happening [or not] to our planet. Everyone can help slow this down themselves QUITE HAVING SO MANY KIDS. All industries are just feeding the demand for products that the increase of population wants. All this whining about the problem being somehow THEIR fault and NOT the 6 kids you decided to have not being ANY part of the problem is stupid beyond belief. When the world starts to wake up to the cause and effect of population increase then I will maybe start to use less until then use it like a rental car, pedal to the metal were doomed anyway have fun to the end.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from PigHunter wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Actually, increased CO2 has been shown to be great for increased food production. Warmer temps will open up more land to agriculture in Canada and Russia.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

If you believe that co2 causes climate change, how dare you go on interstate fishing trips? Is the carbon you burn the "good" carbon? Just who and where do you want to limit energy for Todd? Talking about government energy rationing and skyrocketing energy prices for who? I've about had it with internet dandies promoting limiting my energy expenditures while they are off spewing co2 for their employment and enjoyment. Todd and too many others are all about limiting co2 expenditures for you and me while they claim exemptions for themselves. How about it Todd, how much have you and your family cut back on your travel? I know that there are many things that I would like to do locally, like study bald eagle and osprey populations that I don't do because of my self imposed, for monetary and conservation reasons, limits. I could drive over to Derby Hill every day and watch the spring hawk migration but I don't. Its less than 20 miles, no big deal. I ration my own energy expenditures. Are the Conservation Hawks going to limit their hunting and fishing travel? No new guns or boats or motors? Canoes only maybe? Are you guys going to wear hair shirts or just petition the government to make your readers unable to travel to destinations more than walking distance from home? Tell us your goal, let us in on the game plan. You want us to stand up and have an effect. You want sportsmen to vote for people who will impose some kind of energy rationing law on ourselves? I don't believe in the science and I don't believe in your cure.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from PigHunter wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Agriculture and Food Supply - EPA

"The IPCC concluded that, for North America as a whole (IPCC, 2007):

Moderate climate change will likely increase yields of North American rain fed agriculture, but with smaller increases and more spatial variability than in earlier estimates. Most studies project likely climate-related yield increases of 5-20 percent over the first decades of the century, with the overall positive effects of climate persisting through much or all of the 21st century."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Realgoodman- throw an http in front climatedepot.com and you can follow the link to the 321 page PDF report that was presented to the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico in December 2010. You give me a website, I'll give you one. There, we're even.

that should get you thinking. Here's a few quotes from the report, abridged for your convenience.

“We're not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC‘s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium."

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself." -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory."

Now I used to live in the Bay Area of California. The scientists at LL National Laboratory are some pretty smart folks. They did give us nuclear weapons by the way.

Now of course, you'll debate my numbers. You'll say there are 10 million scientists that dispute my position. But I say that there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Anything that the climate change peddling folks are pushing can't be backed up because we just don't have the extensive historical data to give a full and accurate picture.

But here's where I'll submit to you proof that the earth can and will handle catastrophic climate change and come back better than before. Example no 1, The extinction event for the Dinosaurs. Was it caused by collisions with interstellar rock strata or was it caused by violent vulcanism? Who knows. Either way, the Earth healed and spawned new life. Can you argue with that?

Example no 2; surface nuclear testing in the South Pacific. From Bikini Atoll to the French Polynesian testing grounds, the environment has bounced back remarkably. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Bikini Advisory Group determined in 1997 that "It is safe to walk on all of the islands ... although the residual radioactivity on islands in Bikini Atoll is still higher than on other atolls in the Marshall Islands, it is NOT HAZARDOUS to health at the levels measured ... The main radiation risk would be from the food: eating locally grown produce, such as fruit, could add significant radioactivity to the body...Eating coconuts or breadfruit from Bikini Island occasionally would be NO CAUSE FOR CONCERN. Eating many over a long period of time without having taken remedial measures, however, MIGHT result in radiation doses higher than internationally agreed safety levels." IAEA estimated that living in the atoll and consuming local food would result in an effective dose of about 15 mSv/year."

Additionally, many of the relatives of those displaced by the atomic testing on Bikini have routinely petitioned the US Government to be relocated to Bikini. They are aware of the threats to health, and yet they want to go back. If people were facing a serious threat to their lives, would they want to return?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

I get quite a laugh out of the people who invoke a conspiracy theory encompassing tens of thousands of climate scientists across a score of nations world wide all colluding to secretly fake everyone out about CO2 forcing.

Or as They Might Be Giants noted:

"A scientific theory is more than just a hunch or guess. It's more like a question that's been put to a lot of tests. When a theory emerges consistent with the facts, the proof is with science."

TMBG -- "Science is Real"

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Failures of scientific consensus:

99% of geologists thought continents didnt move.

99% of psycologists thought Eugenics was valid.

99% of astonomers thought the universe was endless.

99% of scientists thought evolution was gradual.

They were all wrong.

Medical "consensus" gets destroyed every year.

Consensus has no place in science.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Gross over simplification."

Correct. It's not meant to be a detailed, handholding, walk you through every step of it post. You can get that at the NOAA or NAS websites.

"First it would be like living in the tropics, everywhere."

Incorrect. It would be like living in the heart of the Sahara desert, almost everywhere. That is because there is still massive solar input, which becomes heat after interacting with the ground (simplification), which is trapped in greater proportions when CO2 concentrations increase. The earth tries to balance that out by recirculating the heat (through oceanic currents and atmospheric currents) to the poles -- which, by virtue of having a much greater angle of incidence from insolation, would be cooler.

"Second, your notion of suffocating is pure nonsense. CO2 then was twenty times today, which is .035*20 or 0.7% To suffocate people requires CO2 to be 15%."

To suffocate people immediately takes 15%. To suffocate people slowly takes less. If you'd like to experience the effect for yourself, I recommend you get yourself a nice case of acute emphysemia and then try living without recourse to an O2 tank.

"Plants don't make oil Marine ecosystems do. Shallow marine environments who didn't disolve from acidification."

That is not entirely accurate. Terrestrial plants are part of the oil and also coal formation process as they were a huge component of carbon sequestration. One of the ways that we know that is that pollen is a remarkably durable microfossil and pollen grains in oil bearing deposits could only come from terrestrial plants. Also, marine invertebrates sequester carbon as CaCO3. So it's mostly plants.

"99% of the last 500MYO CO2 was many times more than today."

That is incorrect. More importantly, during the episodes where CO2 concentrations were much higher, biodiversity was generally lower.

"More CO2 means faster plant growth, means more food for us and all animals."

No, it does not mean that. Since botany is part of my tradecraft, I can assure you that the limiting factors on plant growth are primarily amount of light, amount of water, and amount of soil nutrients. Too hot or too cold tends to kill that which is. You can stuff carbon dioxide into a fish tank all you want. If your plants in your terrarium are in nitrogen poor soil and they're not nitrogen fixers, they're dead. Simple as that.

"There is no evidence that any changes in the climate from increased CO2 will be detramental to humans or to any life on the planet."

That is a claim, not a fact. As claims go, it strikes me as profoundly odd. Sure, water is the basis of life. Bury every continent in four feet of it and you will make a mess of things in a very harmful way. Your assertion is infantile in its simplicity and, on account of being an utterly made up non-sequitur, worthy of pure scorn.

"It's your side that must provide empirical evidence of any such detramental changes. There are none in the geological record because of CO2."

That is not correct. It is quite clear that you lack much familiarity with any aspect of paleoclimatology.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Pure speculation... no evidence..."

____________________________________________

Mr. Wakefield, as we are allegedly discussing facts in a rational way, that sort of unsubstantiated claim has no merit in this conversation. The evidence is overwhelming, and 90% of climate scientists agree. I see no purpose in your "If I should nanananana loud enough perhaps I can drown out the voices of thousands of climatologists" tactics.

Again, I direct you to the NOAA web site.

www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-glacier.shtml

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"As for plant growth, explain how sauropods got so big? With plants growing several times faster there was more than enough plant food for them.

Again, explain how come terrestrial animal life flourished so well if CO2 was at toxic levels. Explain why marine ecosystems did so well and not disolved by acidic oceans."

__________________________________________________

Mr. Wakefield. As *ANY* credble, well-informed scholar knows, sauropod dinosaurs lived during the very late Triassic and Jurassic -- roughly 200 million year after the END of the Carboniferous. The Carboniferous, as ANY credible scholar knows, saw a rather compelling DECREASE in atmospheric CO2 owing to the expansion of terrestrial plants. The period of very high CO2 concentration was the Devonian.

I find it very strange that your, umm, views on this matter are so emotionally persuasive to yourself that on the one hand you claim to have detailed knowledge of the material, but on the other hand you are either confused about or deliberately conflate geologic era separated by hundreds of millions of years.

The distinct impression I have from you is that to you, facts simply do not matter. Shouting "no evidence" as your objection to everything suggests, to me anyhow, that your eyes and your mind are closed to all forms of evidence.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

There are literally hundreds of studies that support my postion Mr. Wakefield. To list them all would be tedious and, I suspect, a waste of effort, since you would not read them. Surely there can be "no evidence" if you turn away from the evidence set before your eyes.

For others, here is another interesting piece about the adverse effects of increased atmospheric CO2.

www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338581/title/Carbon_dioxide_breaking...

The study explains how CO2 enrichment near seeps adversely affects marine invertebrates. It is known that increasing atmospheric CO2 leads to enrichment (and acidification) of seawater. It therefore follows, logically, and inescapably, that increasing CO2 will increase the frequency and intensity of adverse effects to marine invertebrates. It's logic 101.

Why does it matter? Marine invertebrates are one of the larger "carbon uptake" mechanisms on the Earth. They take in the carbon from CO2 and use it to make CaCO3 in their "shells." If you've seen limestone, or chalk, or a huge coral reef that has grown by accretion over millions of years, you've seen where that carbon ultimately goes.

But it only works to a point. Once acidification becomes too great, marine invertebrates fail. This leads to lower CO2 uptake (because there are fewer invertebrates using it), which leads to greater atmospheric CO2, which leads to more acidification, which leads to fewer marine invertebrates.

It *could* start a very nasty vicious cycle. While one should not say that it WILL, to assert that it WON'T and therefore such concerns are groundless, is foolish. In economics and evolutionary biology, these sorts of considerations fall in the general arena of marginal risk, minimax (costs/consequences) analyses, and "opportunity costs."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Then how come marine invertibrates didn't fail 300myo when CO2 was twenty times today?"

_____________________________________________________

You are incorrect. As noted before, 300MYA CO2 concentrations were roughly similar to today's levels. I already provided the link above (see Figure 4).

You seem committed to simply making up statements about the paleoclimatic past to support your claims in the hope that no one will notice that your statements about the paleoclimatic past are utter rubbish.

Honestly. You confused the Devonian with the late Triassic, and now you appear possibly to have confused the Devonian with the late Carboniferous.

300 MYA the proxy-estimated CO2 was virtually identical to the present day. The overall climate was very similar. All you need to do is look up any academic website for a climate summary of the "Pennsylvanian Period" of the "Carboniferous."

Or you can read this peer reviewed paper:

www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12567.abstract

I'll quote it since our conversation constitutes "fair use."

"Here, I derive 24 Late Paleozoic CO2 estimates from the fossil cuticle record of arborsecent lycopsids of the equatorial Carboniferous and Permian swamp communities. Quantitative calibration of Late Carboniferous (330–300 Myr ago) and Permian (270–260 Myr ago) lycopsid stomatal indices yield average atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 344 ppm and 313 ppm, respectively." (D.J. Beerling)

As the abstract clearly states, 300 Million Years ago, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was about 50 ppm LOWER than it is today.

It was not "7000 times higher" as you fatuously claim.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"RW: nice you're admitting that CO2 was much higher in the geological past, when life flourished with NO BAD EFFECTS. Interesing also CO2 was very high right at the time the planet was a snowball 650myo. Look it up."

______________________________________________________

That statement is completely dishonest. It's utter rubbish, and, in the context of what purports to be an actual conversation about facts, both immoral and insulting.

I have "admitted" nothing except that during the DEVONIAN PERIOD when there was NO TERRESTRIAL LIFE OF ANY KIND ON EARTH, CO2 concentrations were much greater. Highly enriched CO2 conditions were not only NOT the "normal" state of our atmosphere in the most recent geological epoch, but were also not a normal state at any time during the last half billion years.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

By the way, you still seem a little sloppy with the facts. The "Snowball Earth" hypothesis of which you speak was not "650Mya" as you allege, but rather 716-711 Mya. It is generally referred to as the "Sturtian Glaciation." See:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142228.htm

Note that CO2 increases caused by trapping the carbon cycle oceanic organisms led to a Global Warming Event that promoted the END of the Sturtian Glaciation. The ice came before the CO2 build up. The ice CAUSED the CO2 build up to happen (by derailing the oceanic carbon cycle) and the CO2-Forced Global Warming Event melted the ice. End of Sturtian.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

For everyone else I should note two things.

Snowball Earth is a hypothesis. There's a couple of geological studies that support it, and a few that suggest that it is not entirely accurate.

There was a longer interval called the Cryogenian period marked by glacial advances and retreats. That lasted from the mid 700Mya range to around 630Mya. During that interval, CO2 concentrations MAY have increased, leading to global melting, as the previous cite suggested, but at least one article posits methane enrichment as the cause of the great melt on the basis that atmospheric O2 content was very low as compared with today.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Also:

"www.co2science.org has thousands of papers disputing AGW, supporting normal natural changes. Including a database of paper on this so called "acidification." It's not a problem."

_____________________________________________________

It does not have thousands of papers disputing AGW. It has hundreds of opinions and blog statements, almost none of which were written by climate scientists, and almost none of which have been peer reviewed, much less published, in any science journal.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

RealGoodman- 50 percent of those who use statistics are wrong 100 percent of the time when the statistic's methodology is questioned.

Don't give me statistics when you know full well the earth is capable of healing itself, and has done repeatedly. The Earth's climate is always in a state of change- but it is not man-made factors behind it.

Cite for me definitive data; no models, or theories, that can portray the last 10,000 years of life on earth as having warmed to the point of destroying life. You won't be able to, because the data does not exist. Climate change is a part of life on this planet. Saying that you want to stop climate change is like saying you want to stop time. You just can't do it. You can influence your environment, but you can't stop the Earth from changing its own life course.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"CO2 has been several times higher than now when land animals were flourishing."

____________________________________________________

"Flourishing" is such a marvelously ambiguous word. It can mean anything from "gee there's a lot of different kinds of bacteria on this sandwich I found in the lunch room" to "Welcome to the Upper Amazon Basin circa 1830."

The question isn't "Will life go extinct if we push CO2-forcing to the limit." It never was that question. Your effort to make it that sort of question is an obvious effort at frame-shifting.

The question to hand is "What will be the effects of CO2 forced global warming and " (at least here at F&S and on the CH web site) "how will this affect hunters and fishermen?"

And that is the point of discussing it.

We can say that habitat change will occur. Where, to what extent, and the effect on our outdoor resources are under consideration here.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Pig- yeah that'll show him! No, but seriously, that's pathetic. That was PG-13 "offensive language" at the worst. In fact, that's the type of action one takes when losing a debate. Most people refer to that sort of thing as sore losing.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Wakefield: You're a guy who called one fellow a fraud and called me a liar. No one insulted you. We did decisively refute your claims. I understand you find that frustrating. It wasn't grounds for calling anyone a liar. So I think this river o crocodile tears your crying is both very entertaining and also very emblemic of the creature at the core of your being.

"As it has done for billions of years. Our CO2 has had NOTHING to do with the changes today, which you still have not addressed. What is happening today that is beyond normal variation? Why is that so hard to answer"

You still seem unable to grasp the basic fact. We understand already, in climate science, what drives normal variation. The point is, it has been objectively demonstrated that the ONLY forcing mechanism at play in the present warming trend is CO2 forcing.

The problem for your argument is that you need to provide a plausible MECHANISM that is an ALTERNATIVE to CO2 forcing. Invoking "normal variation" as a kind of chant is not a refutation, it's simply an acknowledgement that the warming is happening and so far it's within the range of what we've seen in the past.

The problem OF COURSE is that scale of CO2 emission, which presently exceeds 27 billion metric tons per year, is unlike ANY regularly occurring forcing event that anyone can identify. We're in new territory when we're putting that much CO2 into the air.

Finally of course, it remains the case that you don't need to kill everything to make conditions much poorer for hunting and fishing. So your, errm, standard for concern, which seems to be "if it isn't going to kill all terrestrial life on earth then it's not a concern," seems both incredibly narrow and not at all germane to the subject of this blog.

After all, we're talking about whether GW will adversely affect hunting and fishing.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Consensus has no place in science"

Rubbish. Consensus is always how science works. A hypothesis is proposed. It is examined by alot of people. Tested where possible. Compared to other hypotheses. "When a theory emerges consistent with the facts, the proof is with science."

At present, there is no credible alternative hypothesis for the current warming trend to CO2 forcing. It is a KNOWN FACT that changes in solar intensity are not doing it. It is a KNOWN FACT that we're not in the right part of the Milankovic cycle to result in global warming due to orbital mechanics. It is a KNOWN FACT that the global warming is happening. It is a KNOWN FACT that increasing the CO2 content in atmosphere results in increased heat capture. And it is a KNOWN FACT that we have been putting 27 billion metric tons into the atmosphere from fossil fuels above and beyond all natural sources of CO2.

To claim that "something else must be doing it" you have to be able to state what that something is, and demonstrate that it is reasonably likely to be causing it. You don't get to just invoke "it must be something else" and therefore dismiss the established facts.

What you're doing here is not scientific reasoning. It's Magical Thinking. Yeah, it could be the Galaxy Pixy or the Wicked Witch of the West or Angels shooting up the atmosphere with little blazing arrows. But you have no evidence for any of those things happening.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Richard, is it true your a creationist as well?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

from RealGoodMan wrote 33 min 36 sec ago
I was at that page earlier. I've also seen some of your other works online where you bash wind, solar and other forms of clean, renewable energy, while praising oil and coal. I've seen your blog bashing smart meters and your youtube videos.

-------

RW: Do you have any evidence that refutes my analysis on wind or solar? If not, then it stands as is.

------

So that leads me to ask: do you have any financial stake in any of this? [NO] Just come clean. Have you ever served as an independent contractor, consultant or been an employee for a fossil-fuel funded free-market type think-tank or a fossil fuel company? [I wrote a call center database and software for Sunoco Natural Gas, a company now gone, 20 years ago for only 13 months, nothing since] Have you ever been hired for political work? [NO] My point is this: I think you have an agenda that goes beyond making arguments against man-made climate change. [ONLY AGENDA I HAVE IS FOR GOOD SCIENCE, THAT'S WHY I ALSO TOOK ON CREATIONISM] That's not to take anything away from your work and writings, but for the sake of honesty and transparency-I'd like to know. You're obviously more than just an average joe skeptic with a degree in biology.

--------

RW: CORRECT, I don't take ANYONE'S word on anything, I check it out myself. That includes getting the data and doing my own analysis. I actually accepted AGW at first. The day I rejected it was the day I heard one say "the science is settled" I knew right then something was not right, nothing in science is ever settled. People only say that when they don't want you to check on what they are hiding.

So now what does that mean for my arguments and position? It has some merit? I have presented the evidence against AGW, and also clearified the difference between events (things we see and measure) and mechanisms (the causes of those things we see and measure, which are theories explaining the things we see and measure, which is what the claim is that CO2 causes changes in the climate we see.)

All I can say to all of you is that the science is no where near settled. Climate models are full of assumptions, misunderstandings and gaping holes in our understanding, that's why you hear them ask for more money to make better models. Well, if the current models explain everything why do they need better ones?

Now if you claim "Oh, but the current models show us that CO2 must increase the tempertature." Then what you are doing is making an ASSUMPTION, which must be verified with empirical evidence. So far the climate has NOT behaved as the IPCC claims it should. New things are found every day that shows the climate has a huge buffering system which keeps us in the Goldilocks zone. The most recent one is now they are finding out that cloud cover is lower today than 20 years ago, that affects how the heat is trapped and radiated.

The bottom line to all of this is real simple. What changes today are happening that are beyond normal variation? None. And by normal variation I do not mean over the last 100 years, but over several thousand. This is because there are cycles in the system that are more than 100 years long. And since nothing is happening that hasnt happened before, CO2 cannot be affecting the climate in any measurable way. Basic logic.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

question: do richardwakefield and haidelberjaeger even hunt or fish?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Of course climate change is a fact. It has happened throughout history. What I dispute is the fact that man has much of an impact on it if at all. All the so called scientific evidence that people provide is a minute sample of evidence compared to millions of years that we were not here to collect data. There has always been global warming and cooling, and any idiot that thinks we can change that deserves the repercusions that happen to the economy and world when politicians tax and penalize us to death for pollution and every other thing that will suposedly ruin the earth. One thing I know is that I am insignifagant compared to the earth.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

"What caused it ???? Who knows solar flares, or a meteor hitting earth . Nobody can prove or disprove anything, for all we know life from anouther planet melted the ice."

Pretty much all of the foregoing is NOT correct. Paleoclimatologists have a very good handle on climate change and specific instances of rapid climate change in the past. In general, these attend to changes in atmospheric composition (for the past HALF BILLION years that is pretty much all about CO2), continental drift, Milankovic Cycles, and Solar Cycles.

Of those, NONE of the usual suspects (solar cycles, Milankovic cycles, continental drift) can account for the current heating trend. The current heating trend is more rapid than any in the last ten thousand years, according to environmental proxy data. It happens to correspond with atmospheric CO2 enrichment caused by burning fossil fuels. Since the mechanism by which CO2 traps heat is a known process (and has been since the first laboratory experiments demonstrated the effect in the 1850s), we havem as prosecutors say, "a means, a motive, and a smoking gun" to implicate CO2 from human burning of fossil fuels.

And that, my friends, is the indisputed FACT of the matter.

Tomorrow, some anti-scientist MAY come up with a credible alternative explanation implicating unicorn farts, spun sugar, angels shooting flaming arrows at the sky, or the Tooth Fairy, and if they do the job well, climate scientists may have to revise the model.

But TODAY, RIGHT NOW and for the last 20 years, the ONLY plausible model that is consistent with the evidence is CO2 forcing from burning fossil fuels.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 1 year 39 weeks ago

Don’t worry - I take good care of my shotgun. Unfortunately, though, your logic needs a little polishing. Let me explain:

It’s certainly possible that the planet was on a cooling trend for the last 2000 years, but that has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. We didn’t start releasing large quantities of greenhouse gasses until recently, and almost all of our measured warming has occurred since 1970. So here’s what we know:

The 70s were warmer than the 60s.
The 80s were warmer than the 70s.
The 90s were warmer than the 80s.
The 00s were warmer than the 90s.

2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record.

2010 was the warmest year ever recorded.

Our most recent 12 month period, from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 was the warmest 12 month period ever measured in the United States.

Just yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the American Meteorological Society released peer-reviewed studies linking climate change to our recent extreme weather.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 1 year 39 weeks ago

When you have a second, check out the most recent post on our Conservation Hawks blog and click on the links to ABC, CBS, NBC & PBS. All 4 networks ran stories last night connecting our unnaturally hot, unusually destructive weather to climate change.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

HeidelburgJaeger, You my friend should be shooting some very nice guns next season, however you & I along with afferraro, know you can't change the minds of certain trains of thought it's sort of an addiction to put it simply. Another show that was on several years back either on Discovery or NatGeo was how scientists made an argument on the Global Warming to the essence of Global warming had occured rapidly between the industrial age to the present time due to the fact of get this clean air! Their argument was during the industrial age we didn't have all the rule and regulations on clean air which allowed unlimited amounts of soot(for lack of better term) to be released into the atmosphere essentially blocking the suns rays from reaching the earth itself and once the rules and regulations where put into place to limit said soot it then allowed the suns rays to more readily reach the earths surface.

We all can sit here and argue whether or not man made Global Warming is real but none of us will be able to convince the other otherwise especially when there are rewards in the end. One of the worlds biggest proponents of the global warming hoax(IMO) has defected from it and said he was boondogled on the sceince in his words. The argument for global warming as regurgitated by CL3 has been and still being proven incorrect by none other than NASA scientists and satelites. Some argue the fact of the different temps from year to year such as this years winter being far warmer than previous years, I say La Nina. What about last year and the four prior years with temps in the region extremely cold. In the end I'm with HJ and the sun determines the global temps and weather just as the moon determines the tides, there is an ebb & flow in temps and weather.

Lets get back to the conservation talk fellas!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Outsider wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Enjoy your shotgun, your mind is made up....

Geologically speaking, the human race has been here for a few seconds...in that time we no way of telling what we have or havent done to change climate. To have a definative answer, we would need to look at hundreds of thousands of years of tempature data...we barely have 100 years of semi accurate data....We cannot make an accurate assumption with the data we have. Its that simple.

We have cycles of tempature ups and downs, just like the mood we are in on a daily basis...good, bad, indifferent...up and down up and down up and down...Hell, just the other days one of the major scientists that conjured up climate change jumped off the bandwagon saying it was complete horse poop.

Don't worry about the polar ice caps they will not be melting any time soon.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

bruised you made an error! Wet birds most assuredly can fly. Ospreys have perfected shaking water almost like a lab as they fly. Other than that, I agree on the AGW angle.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bruisedsausage wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Guess I stepped on someones toes? LOL

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

After I get that Baretta from Todd I'll work on him about the theory of electricity (no one has ever seen an electron) and evolution too.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

RealGoodMan: Those Koch Bros are some bad bad bad men.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from BrowningBC wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Since the industrial revolution, we have been pumping these sequestered forms of carbon and burning them into the atmosphere. Seems logical that this would have an effect on our environment. How the ratio of these mad-made greenhouse gasses to solar thermal radiation fluctuations is affecting our weather patterns is beyond my knowledge.

Wasn't there a F&S article a while back with the journo on the Caribou hunt with the nomadic natives who were noticing historical deviations from "typical" herd behavior? Believe they said the earth is trying to tell us something, it's up to us as sportsmen to listen. Only 25 years of age but I hope my progeny are able to enjoy the natural resources I grew up enjoying.

Any way you look at it we have become a society of taking what we want instead of using only what we need.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from poetwild wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Correlation does not confer causality. Thus, there can be other factors yet that can affect climate which disprove this theory of man caused temperature change via CO2. It should be noted that carbon is a primary element in our universe so to characterize it as a pollutant seems questionable. Despite this massive loading of CO2 in our atmosphere, it is virtually in the same proportion among atmospheric gases as before this current age. Water vapor has a profound impact on air temperature according to other scientific researchers but I hear no call to control it. In fact, lots of vapor could increase cloud cover and thus cancel out other temperature raising factors. Who is being irrational now?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Horseapples wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Most of the comments have been well thought out and I appreciate the ties to science and literature by some. The subject stirs the emotions because of our chosen ideologies but we must not sacrifice our planet for the sake of political dogma.

It seems the only thing driving change today is money however. Until the uber-rich decide they finally have enough to make them happy (maybe they never will) then they will hold us hostage to the internal combustion engine and fossil fuels. Hydrogen fuel cells are the way to go for transportation and power generation. Hydrogen is the most plentiful element on the planet. With current technology it would cost twice per gallon as gasoline to produce but the efficiency in a vehicle would be greater than twice the energy output of a gallon of gasoline. I'd spend $5 to go 100 miles! When the supply of oil becomes depleted to the point that people revolt at the price, hydrogen will hit the scene. The "exhaust" from a hydrogen fuel cell is water. Check it out for yourself. Lobby for hydrogen technology investments if you really want to do some good.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Michael Shepard wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Here in NW Montana, our summers are shorter and shorter..you should talk to my duck hunting buddy, who grows veggies in his small truck garden...has done records for 40 plus years now..it has shortened dramatically, and is NOT warming....quit trying to control my life with yet another liberal attempt to contol how I live...I graduated in 1971 from college, and in our geographical studies, we were alerted to a cooling going on..look at the lack of sunspots and how it impacted the earth in the 1950's and 60's////this is why I will NEVER vote for a damn democrat they have sallowed this crap to the max..

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Why do libs always say, "climate change" and not man induced climate change? Of course there is climate change. And why did the libs, and Fat Albert get exposed for their corrupt agenda when we are talking Science? I thought science was devoid of corruption.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Get over the stupid shotgun- his comment was tongue in cheek more than anything.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Daniel Allison wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Yep! You sure have a point about the man made climate change. We sure need to do something about all those suburbans idling in a traffic jam on Mars, Io and Pluto. They are warming too. The "consensis" scientist are now trying to explain why the average temperature has stayed steady or fallen in the past eleven years while co2 has increased. It is a real problem for them. Could it be that their computer models are wrong? We already know from the Angelina e-mails that they started with a result and entered only data that supported that result and left out or faked what did not fit. Three thousand out of thirty three thousand is not a concenis where I live. It is a minority with a big mouth and a lot of politicial pull and money. Goebbels got it right, Tell a big enough lie and tell it enough times and it will become the truth. Climate will change and we can not change that, but we can change with it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Just so we're clear: I've read all the comments on this thread, and none of them have changed my long-held views on climate change. If you're truly interested in doing so, you might want to address the following questions:

Why are millions of acres of forest dying in the western U.S. and Canada?

Why did the U.S. National Academy of Sciences recently call anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change a “settled fact?”

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2000 - 2009 the warmest decade ever recorded?

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2010 the warmest year ever recorded?

If climate change wasn’t responsible, why have our global temperatures risen at the same time the sun’s energy output has decreased?

Why do 97% to 98% of climate scientists agree that our climate is warming and that humans are responsible for much of the temperature increase?

Why has the fossil fuel industry spent so much money trying to convince us that the science on climate change is not yet settled?

What would you tell your kids & grandkids if you dismissed the threat from climate change and they lost most - or all - of their hunting and fishing because we failed to act in time?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Armchair Mike wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

The problem with the argument for man made global warming is that it is not based on evidence. If one accepts the age of the Earth the best science available to us suggests, several hundred years is an eye blink in terms of geologic time. Climatology is a relatively new science based on a couple of hundred years of meteorologic observation. Predictions of global warming now are no more valid than predictions in the 1970s of the coming Ice Age due to global cooling. Either prediction was based on an insufficient sample of data. It was cooler in Foley, Alabama today than it was yesterday, although it was later in the year by one day. The Earth tilted on its axis further toward the sun, so it should have been warmer, but it was not. I do not believe this observation on my part is evidence of global cooling, because my sample of data is insufficient to draw that conclusion and my methodology does not account for all potential variables, including the cold front that moved into the area. I am not an ideologue on the subject of clean technology, but I do believe we should pursue it for its own sake and not because of pseudoscience. Otherwise, when short-term temperature fluctuations demonstrate a cooling trend, any progress we make toward renewable clean energy will end. Mr. Cooper has kindly given my disclaimer.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

The forests die from air pollution...that is the biggest threat to man. Concentrations of folks in the big city, and health problems do to air pollution, but it is down right arrogant to think man influences global warming. And the political power of the thought is killing our economy, and I believe INTENATIONALLY...that will result in a 3rd world country garbage dump if allowed to continue. Obama hires a socialist Energy Sec. that recommends $10 a gal. gasoline to promote a corrupt green energy policy?!!!!! Does anyone have a clue what that would create right now?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Harding7 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I agree that there is climate change - and over 98% of it is completely out of our control!

The computer models being used are set up by avowed environmentalists who are using assumptions which have not been proved and therefore the results validate their claims because the programs can do nothing else! I know because a good friend of mine who is an expert in both research and meteorology has said that any one of these programs he's seen leave out massive items of global impact - like sunspot and solar wind activity. These are HUGE in impact and totally out of our control!

Conservationalism is needed, but with reason and within logical bounds.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

While I believe that man-made climate change is definitely a possibility, I agree with Labrador on his point- people can walk the walk, but can they talk the talk? Conservation Hawks should recommend simple activities that sportsmen and their families can do on their own to help conserve energy, food, water etc. Even the whole reduce and reuse thing. It all matters and if more people did something on a personal level- it would all add up. But of course you got the lazy morons who think, "oh well I'm just one person so who cares?" Yeah, you and millions of people say the same thing and we're stuck in this same wasteful cycle. We can't always rely on the stinkin' government to clean up after our mess, so we have to take it into our own hands. It's not asking for much, these are easy and common-sense tasks. Awareness and education is fine, but the organization is better off trying to influence people to re-think what conservation really means and how it applies to our everyday lives. If there's a guy out there that sends in a donation to Conservation Hawks, but buys his produce from countries like Chile and Spain, leaves his heat on 24/7 at 73 degrees, leaves his sprinkler on during rainy days, runs the laundry machine to wash a pair of socks, soaks his lawn in pesticides and chemicals, and drives his gas guzzler to the supermarket to buy bottled water and all that crap- you're a dope. I wish Conservation Hawks best of luck with the organization, I'm all for it- but I ask that they advocate for change on the personal level as well. Similar to what Recycled Fish does with anglers. I'd then be happy to make a donation.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Many thanks to all the folks participating in this discussion. It's an important one.

Lab12 - You raise an interesting issue. If we're going to talk the talk, we should also walk the walk. My fishing trip was work related - I'm an outdoor writer and I went down to Idaho for a story - but I definitely put more CO2 in the air than I would have if I stayed home. Point taken.

In a broader sense, though, we're not trying to force sportsmen to travel less, or hunt & fish less. In fact, just the opposite. Our hope is that America’s sportsmen will help institute policies that will protect the natural landscape while saving us money. We have faith in American ingenuity, and we believe that with the right incentives, American companies will produce low-or-no emissions vehicles that cost far less to drive. And once those vehicles are widely available, we’ll save money at the same time we protect our future.

BruisedSausage - I disagree with many of your conclusions, but I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned response. We’re going to put up a slightly different version of those questions on the CH blog over the next day or two. If you’d like to discuss your points in greater detail, stop by the blog tomorrow or Tuesday and either re-post your comments or address the new questions.

One quick point I can make from memory (I’m 5 days behind on everything after my fishing trip, and I don’t have time to dig up the info right now). You asked where I was getting my numbers on the 97% to 98% of climate scientists who believe the evidence supports anthropogenic climate change. That figure comes from the National Academy of Sciences. If you jump on Google, you should be able to confirm that figure in 5 minutes or less.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from David Sneed wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

We are told that climate change is real by scientists who tell us that sea levels are rising as a result.

The science schools from all over were bidding to build the multi-billion science center on City Island in New York City. Cornell University is the winner.

City Island is at sea level. If it is true that sea levels will rise why are scientists wanting to spend billions of dollars?

Climate change must not be real from a science standpoint

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

You will be keeping your Beretta. The climate changes, always has always will. You have to understand the difference between events and mechanisms. Events are things we see and can measure. Those are things like temperature over time, rainfall, hurricanes etc.

Mechanisms are the CAUSE of those changes we see. The cause of the changes for the past 4.5 billion years have been complex and varied, but always natural. The cause today is claimed to be human emission of CO2. So if you wanted to make the bet properly you should have stipulated that the causes of the changes we see in the climate are ONLY because of oour CO2 emissions.

Had you done that you would owe me that Beretta. You see, not one science paper has ever linked changes in the climate to emissions of CO2. I'll post that again, NOT ONE science paper has empirically connected any change in the climate to CO2. What they have are computer models, and in science computer models are not evidence of anything.

Now we have solar scientists claiming that Solar Cycle 24 is gong to give us decades of colder than average climate, regardless of CO2. Of course only time will tell.

The other aspect which you would lose the bet is on the severity of the changes in the climate. Fact of the matter is climate is no more dangerous now than in the past. If anything warmer periods throughout human history has shown to always be better for humans. Colder periods, such as the little ice age, was devistating to humans, millions starved from failed crops.

So you owe me your Beretta.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

No, that is not correct nor is that how science works. You don't have to demonstrate that CO2 forcing is the ONLY cause. All you need to demonstrate is that it is the best explanation for the current heating event. Which it is.

This has been said enough times to reduce it to five, simple, factually correct sentences that CO2 forcing-deniers are unable to refute.

1.Global warming is happening. The evidence for it is beyond dispute.

2. CO2 forcing is one of several known mechanisms related to past episodes of global warming and global cooling over the past roughly half billion years.

3. Apart from CO2-enrichment, all of the previously known causes of global warming have been scientifically rejected because none of the other explanations fit with the current warming trend.

4. Therefore, CO2-forcing is overwhelmingly and by general consensus of more than 90% of people trained in climatology the only reasonable explanation for the current warming trend.

5. If someone finds a better explanation -- some undiscovered forcing mechanism perhaps, then #4 would no longer apply.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Immediately prior to the Carboniferous period, there was so much CO2 in the atmosphere that were any of us to attempt to live in that kind of climate we'd (1) be really hot all the time, and (2) slowly suffocate to death over a period of two or three days.

What changed all that was the emergence of terrestrial plants that promoted a huge drawdown in atmospheric CO2.

Over time, much of the CO2 sequestered by those plants, in the form of carbon, became trapped in the earth in the form of coal and oil.

Which coal and oil we now burn, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and undoing the carbon sequestration that occurred during the Carboniferous period.

---------

RW: Gross over simplification. First it would be like living in the tropics, everywhere. Since people leave the winter to holiday in the tropics, I fail to see how that is bad. Second, your notion of suffocating is pure nonsense. CO2 then was twenty times today, which is .035*20 or 0.7% To suffocate people requires CO2 to be 15%.

Plants don't make oil Marine ecosystems do. Shallow marine environments who didn't disolve from acidification.

Yes, we are undoing the carbon sequestration. We are returning CO2 to the atmophere where it came from. 99% of the last 500MYO CO2 was many times more than today. Big deal. If anything the planet was near plant suffocation from CO2 being too low. Lose plants and everything dies. More CO2 means faster plant growth, means more food for us and all animals.

There is no evidence that any changes in the climate from increased CO2 will be detramental to humans or to any life on the planet. It's your side that must provide empirical evidence of any such detramental changes. There are none in the geological record because of CO2.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

from RealGoodMan wrote 2 hours 27 min ago
Totally. They're conspiracy theorists. They sit and wait at their computers to pounce on any anything climate change related. I'm not kidding. Google: "Richard Wakefield and climate change" - yet another troll like the many others that have hijacked this thread to promote their anti-science agenda.

-------------

RW: Please post a link to one science paper that shows the climate is changing beyond normal variation.

Please post a link to one paper that empirically links CO2 to those changes. You do know what "empirically" means, right?

You can shut me up for ever if you do that. And please, no models. Models are not evidence. They are flawed representations of what we THINK the climate is doing. EVERY one of them have been wrong.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Folks, that's not science, it's religion. And it's also not persuasive to the unconverted."

The unconverted are unpersuadable. 90% of the people who actually study this phenomenon are in agreement. They're professionals trained in the field. And they're scientists. Their agreement on the matter stems from the fact that all the evidence supports their position, and there is no evidence that supports an alternative position.

If you can't accept the science as it is, because you're afraid to have a policy discussion that has not occurred, then you are a poor excuse for a "skeptic."

"Further study" is not necessary. We know that an object dropped from your hand at anything near sea level will accelerate towards the ground from it's original state at a rate of 9.8 meters per second-second. "Further study" is not required. Global warming is an established fact. CO2 forcing is the only currently available explanation.

The only open questions are "Just how bad would the effects be?" and "If they're bad enough to require mitigation, will the cost and suffering be greater if we do nothing or greater if we react prematurely?"

I'm all for refining predictions. But the question you need to ask is how tolerant are you of the marginal extreme? It may be that the extremes are unlikely. But if they do occur, most humans are probably toast. You don't need to get to "suffocation levels of CO2." All you need to do is f**k up agriculture enough so that a whole lot of nations have large, starving populations. The societal and economic and warfare consequences would be very pleasing to General Jack Ripper.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Mike Diehl: Let's be clear. CO2 at twenty times 250myo down to 5 times 55myo did not kill animals during that 200 million years. It is 0.05% lower than fatal at twenty times today. You are wrong about the effects of CO2 at that low level. CO2 doesnt have any affect on people at all until 9%, which is what the Apollo craft were kept just below that. Second, commercial greenhouses keep their CO2 levels at around 1000ppm to boost plant growth. So you are wrong there too.

I did note that you did not provide ONE paper to the questions I asked. That's because there isnt any. Hence what you have is a dogmatic belief system.

As far as life flourishing, yes I'm quite familiar with paleontology, and you are quite wrong about the planet being like the Sahara. Back up your claims with peer reviewed papers or retract your nonsense.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

TM- you must be living in some sort of Orwellian bizarro world where up is down and yes is no. You're labeling people that believe in man-made climate change as anti-science posters? I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's still a bad point. In regards to my name-calling, it's all true. I've posted 2 examples to back this up. A handful of the individuals that have posted on this page are newly-registered trolls that do not fish, hunt or give a damn about conservation. They spend their hours spewing the same anti-climate change rhetoric on forums, message boards and blogs. It's one thing if these climate-change skeptics were truly concerned with the state of conservation in this country or illustrated some sort of interest in protecting our natural resources, but that's not the case. In fact, they could probably care less. So what's their motive? Sorry- I think I'll side with the people that have shown a passion for protecting our lands, air and water all along. Like I said earlier in regard to climate change deniers in D.C. - follow the money. These politicians are in the pockets of the gas, oil and coal companies. Now, for some of the deniers on this page- follow the motive. They're the rank-n-file supporters of these anti-science and anti-conservation politicians. There are hundreds of scientists to this day that deny evolution . On a final note, The Discovery Institute in their intelligent design campaigns have stated that there are over 700 scientists that dispute Darwinian evolution and support the theory of creationism. Who wants to take that cause up?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Wakefield. You did not ask any questions. You made a pack of assertions that, by the way, you did not back up with a single scholarly citation.

I direct your attention to the NOAA web site. You will have to read it. I can't transmit the information to you telepathically. There is no privileged shortcut to knowledge for Deniers. To understand the whole thing, you need to read stuff written by climate scientists, not by petroleum geologists, tobacco lawyers, fishmongers, automobile mechanics, or opinion researchers hired by GOPAC.

Here you go. Read and learn.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

ANd, by the way, none of that really gets at the issues raised by Mr. Tanner. According to THIS study,

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

at 450 ppm (we are currently at 393 as you can see from the NOAA link) we lose most of the global ice. If you think hunting Dall sheep, polar bears, fishing for wild Alaskan salmon, hunting for white tails in the norhern states rather than, say, javelina, CO2 forced global warming does not have to kill you to ruin your hunt.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Since links arnt allowed you will have to google these titles on forcings:

A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts

Harmonic climate model versus the IPCC general circulation climate models

Topology of Earth’s climate indices and phase-locked states

Spatio-temporal chaos Climate Etc.

There is no consensus at all on how much CO2 affects the climate, none. The climate system is very complex, and for anyone to claim the science is settled, and no more study needs to be done is not science, but pseudoscience.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

I direct your attention to the NOAA web site. You will have to read it. I can't transmit the information to you telepathically. There is no privileged shortcut to knowledge for Deniers. To understand the whole thing, you need to read stuff written by climate scientists, not by petroleum geologists, tobacco lawyers, fishmongers, automobile mechanics, or opinion researchers hired by GOPAC.

Here you go. Read and learn.

-------------

RW: I have, people like you have sent me to that site all the time. Its what you people do when you cannot cite specific papers on your own. If you do decide to actually read what's there you will see that NOT ONE paper or reference shows any EMPIRICAL link between CO2 and changes in the climate. You are equating ALL climate changes to CO2, right? Is that your position? Is it your position that any changes in the climate are all because of CO2? Does that include the severe COLD and deep snow they are getting in Eastern Europe and Japan? How less severe would the Texas drought had been if not for CO2? Please cite a paper showing that.

And yes, I do read the nonsense from your side, all the time. Know thy enemy. Sites funded by fossil fuels? And which would those be? Be specific which sites are funded by the FF industry? Make sure you also provide evidence that they are funded by the FF industry, the same industry that is keeping you alive BTW. Society would completely collapse without FF, but maybe that's what you want?

I also read Judith Curry, a climate scientist who now rejects AGW. Read her site. You may learn something that just might pull the dogma from your eyes.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Once acidification becomes too great, marine invertebrates fail.

-----------

RW: Then how come marine invertibrates didn't fail 300myo when CO2 was twenty times today? The FACT is the ocean IS NOT getting acidic, it's getting less basic. Now I know exactly what you are going to say, because all you True Believers say it. No, getting less basic is NOT getting more acidic. Go back and reread your highschool chemisty.

www.co2science.org has thousands of papers disputing AGW, supporting normal natural changes. Including a database of paper on this so called "acidification." It's not a problem.

www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N9/EDIT.php

wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Wakefield lost the debate, PH. That's why he called me a liar when his quiver was empty.

Anyhow, do your best, or worst, or whatever you want. No one at F&S is going to take action against me for providing a little forthright PG-13 blunt talk to someone who calls me a "liar." I could have said more. Perhaps if I ever meet him ftf I can give him a more fitting, errm, form of "rebuttal."

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

You still seem unable to grasp the basic fact. We understand already, in climate science, what drives normal variation. The point is, it has been objectively demonstrated that the ONLY forcing mechanism at play in the present warming trend is CO2 forcing.

-----------

RW: what warming that is happening now is beyond normal variation? Since there is nothing in temperatures that is beyond changes that have happened in the past, then there is NO TREND you can pin on anything.

See: www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-90903-2010-JA.pdf

------------

The problem for your argument is that you need to provide a plausible MECHANISM that is an ALTERNATIVE to CO2 forcing. Invoking "normal variation" as a kind of chant is not a refutation, it's simply an acknowledgement that the warming is happening and so far it's within the range of what we've seen in the past.

-----------

RW: It's not up to me to provide a mechanism, it's up to your side to provide the evidence to back up your mechanism. I have, however, provided a mechanism, I guess you didn't bother to check the reference. pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/2007GL030288.pdf

Second, if there are events that have happened in the past which have to be natural in causes, like the Medieval Warm Period, and we have a warm trend today, what discriminates this trend from that previous natural warm trend? In fact, the IPCC has admitted that the warm trend from 1800 to 1945 was not because of CO2 (emissions then were too low), but purely natural in cause. There was no warming from 1945 to 1975 even though CO2 increased by four fold. The only warming period you have any hope of pinning on CO2 is the short 25 years from 1975 to 2000, because since 2000 there has been no increase in global average temps (admitted in the Climategate emails from your side).

So what you have to provide is discriminatory evidence that the ONLY cause is your cause. As I noted, there is NOT ONE science paper that has linked CO2 to any changes in the climate. All you are doing is regugitating the same thing over and over "Forcings prove it must be CO2" Problem is, those forcings are based on COMPUTER SIMULATIONS. I have posted above one of many papers now challenging those forcing assumptions.

-------------

The problem OF COURSE is that scale of CO2 emission, which presently exceeds 27 billion metric tons per year, is unlike ANY regularly occurring forcing event that anyone can identify. We're in new territory when we're putting that much CO2 into the air.

-----------

RW: In all of earth history? You have no evidence today is different. Plus, so what? There is no empirical evidence CO2 is doing anything.

-------------

Finally of course, it remains the case that you don't need to kill everything to make conditions much poorer for hunting and fishing. So your, errm, standard for concern, which seems to be "if it isn't going to kill all terrestrial life on earth then it's not a concern," seems both incredibly narrow and not at all germane to the subject of this blog.

After all, we're talking about whether GW will adversely affect hunting and fishing.

---------

RW: You don't give evolution any credit. And if anything you have provided no evidence that changes we see happening are detrimental, or beyond normal variation. The biggest threat to wildlife isnt climate change, but habitat change because of human encroachment. Have a look at Google Earth in the Rockies. Large swaths of clear cutting. Most of it going to China and the US.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

To Tod Tanner:

------------

TT: Just so we're clear: I've read all the comments on this thread, and none of them have changed my long-held views on climate change. If you're truly interested in doing so, you might want to address the following questions:

Why are millions of acres of forest dying in the western U.S. and Canada?

---------

RW: From what? Pine beetle? Not AGW: www.examiner.com/climate-change-in-national/pine-beetles-as-a-harbinger-...

--------

TT: Why did the U.S. National Academy of Sciences recently call anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change a “settled fact?”

-------

RW: Science NEVER has settled theories. AGW is not a fact, it is a mechanism used to explain the facts, that's a theory. The climate changes, always has. CO2 is claimed as the CAUSE of those changes, that's theory, not fact.

Question, do you think ALL climate change is because of CO2? Of not, what percent is caused by CO2?

------

TT: If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2000 - 2009 the warmest decade ever recorded?

------

RW: That's false. Not ever recorded because our recordings of temperature are at best 100 years, most of the places on the planet is less than 50 years. In all of Canada there are only 12 stations with record back to 1900, out of 1300 stations. In the Arctic there are no records prior to the 1950s. The fact is summer TMax in Canada has been FALLING since 1930. Record breaking days has nothing to do with changing climate. It has everything to do with accounting. The first year of taking records EVERY day was a record breaker. The number of record breaking days drops off in a decay curve.

Temps are measured in 1/10 degree. If you assume that the lowest July 1 of any year can get is 10C, and the hottest possible temp it can get is 40C then thats 30*10 slots for temps. That would take 300 years to fill them all if all were evenly probable. Since they are not (it follows a bell curve) it would take more than 5000 years to fill all the possible slots. (you can write a simple computer program to see this). Record breaking temps doesn't mean there is any trend.

-----------

TT: If climate change wasn’t responsible, why was 2010 the warmest year ever recorded?

-----------

RW: Again a bogus claim. How come Eastern Europe is seeing the coldest temps EVER, and the most snow EVER?

-----------

TT: If climate change wasn’t responsible, why have our global temperatures risen at the same time the sun’s energy output has decreased?

-----------

RW: Solar scientists are claiming that Solar Cycle 24, which we are starting in, will bring 30-40 years of colder than normal temps. In fact, average temp has been flat since 1998.

-----------

TT: Why do 97% to 98% of climate scientists agree that our climate is warming and that humans are responsible for much of the temperature increase?

----------

RW: Another bogus claim. That 98% is a small group of gatekeepers exposed in the ClimateGate emails. More than 80% of geologists reject AGW because they know what the planet has done in the past. Climate scientists focus on only the last 30 years of earth history.

---------

TT: Why has the fossil fuel industry spent so much money trying to convince us that the science on climate change is not yet settled?

--------

RW: Another myth. The FF industry's contribution to challenging AGW is less than 100 million. The US government alone has spent 80 BILLION on climate science over the last 20 years. Yeah, money is involved alright.

------------

TT: What would you tell your kids & grandkids if you dismissed the threat from climate change and they lost most - or all - of their hunting and fishing because we failed to act in time?

---------

RW: if you are so worried about climate change causing problems, then how come you are not complaining about earthquakes? Not one person has died because of AGW, yet we know hundreds of thousands have died from earthquakes. So why not advocate moving all people from active tectonic zones?

Sounds to me you have made a bogus bet to give your firearm away, you had no intension of doing so from the beginning. The question now becomes, how many years do I have to wait for your gun when you finally admit the climate isn't doing anything abnormal?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Richard Wakefield,
I'm sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood me. I said that I'd give my shotgun to the first person who convinced me that I'm wrong about climate change. I'm afraid you haven't done that. And just so we're clear, getting your facts wrong on a regular basis doesn't increase your odds of success.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

from RealGoodMan wrote 23 min 37 sec ago
Richard, is it true your a creationist as well?

----------

You tell me:

Wakefield, J. R. (1988), "The geology of 'Gentry’s Tiny Mystery'", Journal of Geological Education 36: 161–175, www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

So, was this just a ruse to get people to steer towards the guy's website or were the editors and Mr. Herring fleeced on the premise of this guy's "promise"?? no follow up from field and stream? no mention of any of the opposing opinions that hold water as compared to the global warming crowd? Everything I see is "go to my blog at so and so website" or "if you see the answers that I posted to the conservation website"... Herring should have known better than to give such a guy a platform. Tanner should be willing to address the very real, relevant and accurate points made by myself and others here, and instead selectively replies, and only on his website, not here in the forum where he was given a place to state his case. F&S editors need to do a self assessment and see if they really want this website to be a soap box for the global warming crowd or if they want to return this to the rest of us who hunt, fish and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. Frankly, I won't be reading this conservation blog or wasting my time on Tanner's website, and I recommend that anyone with a brain capable of independent thought do the same.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Diehl, at what point did I invoke faith in this argument? Your ad homonym attack holds no water and shows a lack of ability to decisively debate without resorting to this type of unfounded accusation. If understanding the basic premises of scientific reality by way of the earth's distance relative to sun vis a vis a climate in constant state of change is beyond you, then you're right to be easily led by your so called climate scientists...enjoy following the other sheep, because your view will never change.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dbramley wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Before the world got to be what it is today we had the Ice age. There where no factories and no cars and no polutants. Yet the world had a global warming effect. What caused it ???? Who knows solar flares, or a meteor hitting earth . Nobody can prove or disprove anything, for all we know life from anouther planet melted the ice. What I am saying is yes there are climate changes but no matter what we do on earth we are not going to be able to change it. We are people not gods. Deal with it facts are that the sun has been warming the earth for a long time and solar flares are getting hotter every yr. Who knows if the sun will blow up tommorow or if a giant meteor doesnt hit us again and send us into anouther Ice age. Get over the weather people. You cant change it acept it and move on

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 39 weeks ago

No worries, Todd. Speaking as one who knows the tree-ring climate record from NOAA, I can tell you that there has not been a global cooling trend for the last 2 millennia. Your shotgun is in no danger of being claimed by people whose only form of argumentation is the "straw man argument."

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bruisedsausage wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Yeah, I first thought this might be a cake walk, but as we all know, "you can take a horse to water, but wet birds can't fly."
Deciding to believe in something without any credible evidence to support it tells me that he won't be convinced. And with what little data we have about this subject certainly isn't enough to draw any valid conclusions. "Correlation does not imply causation" is more than appropriate to describe this situation. I guess I should dig into my vault and send Mr. Tanner a letter with all of the scientific information we have about the subject.(that I've collected and written papers on) I'm an Environmental Engineering Major, and if you take my word for it, you don't have anything to worry about. Except possibly plant growth increasing over the next thousand millenniums.

"If we all do a little....well....we'll accomplish a little"

The drastic measures that would have to be taken to eliminate any possibility of humans causing global warming would be so profound that we would all have to go back to living in caves. Maybe the biggest question Mr. Tanner should consider debating over in his mind has to do with "our" carbon footprint. For example; if he believes that we are causing global warming because of the use of fossil fuels, and burning coal, etc. Why would this cause global warming? Maybe Mr. Tanner hasn't thought about this, but maybe we've been in a spell of global cooling? All of the carbon based fuel we're using was once a living organism on the face of the earth. It then decomposed and became oil.(basically rotten dinosaurs and plants). And maybe Mr. Tanner can ask himself an "if then" question, which is basically, that if all these "carbons" were once a part of the ecological setting, then maybe it's not unnatural for them to be used and re-introduced into the atmosphere? I'll attach a short segment I recently composed about this subject. And if Mr. Tanner wants to do something about "possibly" causing the earth to warm he'll start pushing the material presented in my paper.

“Biomass fuel is a renewable energy source and its importance will increase as national energy policy and strategy focuses more heavily on renewable sources and conservation” (Demirbas, 2007). “Biomass is clean because it has [a] negligible content of sulphur, nitrogen, and ash, which gives lower emissions of sulfur [dioxides], nitrogen oxides, and soot than conventional fossil fuels”(Balat, M., 2009). Fossil fuels when burned are emitting large quantities of CO2 that haven’t been accounted for in an ecological setting for millions of years, whereas biomass produces “zero net [emissions] of carbon dioxide, because carbon dioxide released from biomass will be recycled into the plants by photosynthesis quantitatively”( Zhang, Q., Xu, Y., Wang, T., & Chang, J., 2007).
Usually biomass gasification harnesses the energy stored in the chemical bonds of agricultural waste, forest residues or any other of the profusion of carbohydrate containing leftovers that can serve as renewable energy feed stocks. “Wood, peat moss, rice hulks, and black liquor” (Verbong, G., & Kirkels, A., 2011) have been used most frequently. Black liquor is a byproduct of the lumber/paper producing industry that can be gasified from a liquid state. It’s also normally used to generate electricity although concurrently it can also be used to provide thermal energy, used in heating and cooling. The actual gasification primarily produces “syngas, consisting primarily of hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO), with lesser amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), methane (CH4), higher hydrocarbons (C2+), and nitrogen(N2)”(Marano, J., & Ciferno, J., 2002) Syngas is a standalone gas, in that it can be combusted in the same way natural gas is used to produce energy, or be burned by itself. Another option for collecting gases from gasification is the direct approach. This is simply a blower that pushes air into the gasifier. The result is called producer gas, which contains higher rates of nitrogen and lower levels of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. If conditioned, producer gas can be used for the same applications that syngas and natural gas are used for. Once syngas is obtained you have flexibility and options, as syngas contains all the products and chemicals used in the petrochemical manufacturing process. Syngas is in a form such that it can be converted to liquid fuel. And this could theoretically be used to power automobiles or machinery that needed mobile fuel sources. Biomass gasification has an advantage over photovoltaic cells in areas located at far northern and southern latitudes. This is because during part of the year in these areas, there is little solar radiation available to provide energy to produce power. Biomass gasification also produces heat that can be used to heat buildings, which is also a much needed commodity in far northern and southern communities.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I'm happy to make an error, and bet that there is climate change, but not created by man! Any group that can prevent the Keystone Pipeline from being built are environmental terrorists, as they have been accurately described.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

By the way Todd, there is 100 years more data on Glacier Bay glaciers than there is on Glacier National Park glaciers. If I were to speculate I'd say that in that 100 years the glaciers in Montana were shrinking in the 1700's too, just as they were in Glacier Bay.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CharlesJordan wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I would love to see a dozen impeccable studies that could prove that dumping 300 billions tons of CO2 into the air since 2022 has has the effect of temperature rising. But even if they had them, they would be attacked and beaten away and the usual.
I also regret watching as other sources are without development because they don't have the money in them.
When everything from west Texas to Memphis turns into a dust bowl, and a new desert opens up in central Russia's bread belt, now weve got problems that start global wars.
Americans in particular waste so much energy doing mostly nothing with it each and every day, that changes in simple social gluttony could help the overall picture.
It's truly sad watching people champion global changes that could cause catastrophic problems, and we don't have a road map the drive it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Todd Tanner wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

I'd like to reinforce a point Hal made early on in his story. Conservation Hawks is a group of passionate, talented, dedicated hunters and anglers who are focused on defending our sporting heritage and passing along a healthy natural world to our kids & grandkids. While I'm the chairman, I'm only one small part of the organization. We have an outstanding board of directors, and an incredibly strong group of supporters. If you'd like to learn more about us, visit our website at conservationhawks.org. And if you'd like to share your opinions - either pro or con - on the work we're doing, please stop by our blog at conservationhawks.org/blog.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Daniel Allison wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Also I think Mr. Tod Tanner is very un-trustworthy. There is no way he will ever part with that shot gun, unless he is getting a divorce. Making an offer with no intention of fulfilling it is fraud at best and contempt for the readers at worst.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Pighunter: You making lemonade out of lemons here?!

crowman: Good point. I also think over-population lies at the root of many of the world's problems.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wanderfire wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Global warming deniers are playing dice with the earth. They would have us careen around a blind curve on their faith that their is no oncoming traffic.

Burnet D. Brown
Woodland Hills, CA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Hey Hal

Explain one thing to us, why they don't show percentage of CO2 and O2 on a map and the variations over the year with all the NASA U2 bird that would frequent the hanger where I was stationed in Alaska. OOPS! There I go again; I wasn’t supposed to say that!! All that data worldwide showing the earth’s ionosphere is healing itself of that giant hole down yonder on the south end of the earth. OOPS! I did it again, DARNIT! And the Ice fields are growing including the polar bear population and there off the endangered species list. DA BURN IT! I DID IT AGAIN!!

But what the heck do I know about NASA!

www.fieldandstream.com/photos/trophyroom/recent/single?pnid=1001449314#1...

You can keep your gun Fella, I made a pledge with myself years ago never take another Fellas last dollar, his gun and darn sure not his dog on a sure bet or any bet actually! Now I did ask a fella to hold my trophy while I kissed his wife. Just kidding, I wouldn’t do that, not gentlemanly like.

By the way,

www.fieldandstream.com/photos/trophyroom/recent/single?pnid=1001459645#1...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Totally. They're conspiracy theorists. They sit and wait at their computers to pounce on any anything climate change related. I'm not kidding. Google: "Richard Wakefield and climate change" - yet another troll like the many others that have hijacked this thread to promote their anti-science agenda.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Captjim wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

It's a trick question. The earth has been going through climate change since it was created and still is. It's currently in the warming phase (hence the melting of the ice age glaciers). TT is going worry about what he want's to worry about and nobody is going to change that. On the same token people are going to believe what they want to believe regarding global warming no matter what the facts are. As proof I give ghosts, ufo's bigfoot, psychics, and especially religion. People believe in these without one shred of proof.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Ah, no. That is not correct. At 9%, people start to pass out. It has effects at lower concentrations, especially among people with asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, cancer, influenza, or the elderly. A bunch of that is about lung efficiency. Certainly, Apollo astronauts were selected because they were in prime physical condition, and most capable of resisting the effects of CO2 increases.

The concentrations in Apollo craft were higher than normal not because no one cared, but because of mass limits. You couldn't carry enough CO2 filters to purge all the exhaled gas for a 10 day round trip. The atmosphere supply they carried was pure O2 in order to maximize the duration of each launch.

They had the same problem, incidently, in Biosphere 2. Increasing the CO2 concentration did not substantially promote plant growth. It did, however, make the dome uninhabitable and force its early abandonment.

------------

RW: Cite your references, otherwise you are stating nothing.

I see this site does not allow links, so google:

Documentation for Immediately Dangerous To Life or Health Concentrations (IDLHs)

Carbon dioxide

" Signs of intoxication have been produced by a 30-minute exposure at 50,000 ppm [Aero 1953], and a few minutes exposure at 70,000 to 100,000 ppm produces unconsciousness [Flury and Zernik 1931]. It has been reported that submarine personnel exposed continuously at 30,000 ppm were only slightly affected, provided the oxygen content of the air was maintained at normal concentrations [Schaefer 1951]. It has been reported that 100,000 ppm is the atmospheric concentration immediately dangerous to life [AIHA 1971] and that exposure to 100,000 ppm for only a few minutes can cause loss of consciousness [Hunter 1975]. "

We are now at 350ppm, twenty times is 7000ppm. WELL below any effect levels.

As for plant growth, explain how sauropods got so big? With plants growing several times faster there was more than enough plant food for them.

Again, explain how come terrestrial animal life flourished so well if CO2 was at toxic levels. Explain why marine ecosystems did so well and not disolved by acidic oceans.

BTW, go read Oil 101 on how oil formations occured. They are ALL marine, not plants in origin.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

ANd, by the way, none of that really gets at the issues raised by Mr. Tanner. According to THIS study,

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

at 450 ppm (we are currently at 393 as you can see from the NOAA link) we lose most of the global ice. If you think hunting Dall sheep, polar bears, fishing for wild Alaskan salmon, hunting for white tails in the norhern states rather than, say, javelina, CO2 forced global warming does not have to kill you to ruin your hunt.

-------

Pure speculation, there is NO EVIDENCE to back that up. The Antarctic isn't melting, niether is the Arctic, beyond normal variation. We now learned that the Himalaya glaciers are exactly the same over the last 20 years.

Now as for ice on the planet. The last 200,000 years of ice at the polls is what is the anomally. Prior to that for the previous 500 million years there wasn't any.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Again, I direct you to the NOAA web site.

---------

RW: How much of those changes are NORMAL? By how much does our CO2 emissions contribute to those changes. Again, I ask, show me a science paper that emperically links CO2 to those changes.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Mr. Wakefield. As *ANY* credble, well-informed scholar knows, sauropod dinosaurs lived during the very late Triassic and Jurassic -- roughly 200 million year after the END of the Carboniferous. The Carboniferous, as ANY credible scholar knows, saw a rather compelling DECREASE in atmospheric CO2 owing to the expansion of terrestrial plants. The period of very high CO2 concentration was the Devonian.

-------------

RW: CO2 levels were 7000ppm some 300myo, it dropped to about 1800ppm 55myo then to today's 350ppm. During that period of high CO2 land animals did very well, including the great mammalian diversity 55myo when palm trees grew at the bottom of Greenland.

And no, plants were not the cause of the drop, rain disolving sediments making carbonate rocks did. Soon as India collided with Asia, it changed the rain patterns and CO2 dropped quickly after that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

By the way, if anyone wants to see one of many sources that include, among other things, a good easy to read graphic of atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Phanerozoic (roughly the last half billion years),

---------

RW: nice you're admitting that CO2 was much higher in the geological past, when life flourished with NO BAD EFFECTS. Interesing also CO2 was very high right at the time the planet was a snowball 650myo. Look it up.

What you have done is shown that high CO2 is NORMAL for the vast majority of the last 500my of earth history, only the last 200,000 was it this low in all that time. So all we are doing by buring FF is returning that CO2 back into the atmosphere where it came from in the first place.

So I'm still wating for you to show me one climate event happening today that is beyond normal variation which empirically is linked to CO2 increases.

I'm also waiting for you to answer if you think ALL changes in the climate are because of CO2.

You want a rational discussion answer those questions.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

I have "admitted" nothing except that during the DEVONIAN PERIOD when there was NO TERRESTRIAL LIFE OF ANY KIND ON EARTH, CO2 concentrations were much greater. Highly enriched CO2 conditions were not only NOT the "normal" state of our atmosphere in the most recent geological epoch, but were also not a normal state at any time during the last half billion years.

------------

RW:

Elevated Eocene Atmospheric CO2 and Its Subsequent Decline
Tim K. Lowenstein* and Robert V. Demicco
+ Author Affiliations

Department of Geological Sciences and Environmental Studies, State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lowenst@binghamton.edu
Abstract
Quantification of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 ([CO2]atm) during warm periods of Earth's history is important because burning of fossil fuels may produce future [CO2]atm approaching 1000 parts per million by volume (ppm). The early Eocene (~56 to 49 million years ago) had the highest prolonged global temperatures of the past 65 million years. High Eocene [CO2]atm is established from sodium carbonate minerals formed in saline lakes and preserved in the Green River Formation, western United States. Coprecipitation of nahcolite (NaHCO3) and halite (NaCl) from surface waters in contact with the atmosphere indicates [CO2]atm > 1125 ppm (four times preindustrial concentrations), which confirms that high [CO2]atm coincided with Eocene warmth.

-----------

see also www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Note the graph of CO2 and temps.

CO2 has been several times higher than now when land animals were flourishing.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from PigHunter wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Mike Diehl you are reported for offensive language in one above post. I see you once again resort to name calling when you lose a debate.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Now let's take your chart and consider the implications. Notice, on your chart, that global mean temperature strongly correlates with measured CO2. Since we know HOW CO2 traps heat (this has been known for over 100 years), the strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and heat is not merely a correlation, but a **correlation for which the cause is known.**

-----------

RW: I didn't make the chart, it's from scientists. And no there is no CAUSATION infered. There is CORRELATION to some extent, but there is no way of knowing the CAUSE between them. A warmer climate could have caused the higher CO2, not the other way around.

-------------

That is why pretty much all current climate scientists agree that the present warming trend is being caused by CO2 forcing.

---------

RW: there is no evidence CO2 is the cause, and not the other way around.

---------

The second part of your statement attends to something that I mentioned very early in this blog. Namely this: Climate scientists are in near universal agreement that global warming is happening and CO2 concentration increases caused by fossil fuel emissions are driving it. But the CONSEQUENCES remain a matter of debate.

----------

RW: Consensus has no place in science, I have already pointed to a number of times in the past where the consensus is wrong, and still wrong today in some circles (Taxonomy for example). But it is nice to see that you are open to the good possibility that warming, that is not as cold winters, summers and tropics the same as today, may indeed be good, for everyone.

------------

Yes, indeed, dinosaurs did exist when CO2 concentrations were greater. But then, we're not them are we.

----------

RW: No, but birds are today.

----------

So, it's rather a stretch to claim that "because some life existed on Earth when CO2 concentrations were greater, therefore increasing CO2 concentrations cannot have any adverse effects." That line of reasoning is an example of, in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detector Kit, the "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle."

---------

RW: except for the fact that life DID flourish, otherwise we would not be here. You just cant admit that you were wrong about the lethality of CO2 levels.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

"Flourishing" is such a marvelously ambiguous word. It can mean anything from "gee there's a lot of different kinds of bacteria on this sandwich I found in the lunch room" to "Welcome to the Upper Amazon Basin circa 1830."

----------

RW: I will refrase. Life underwent explosive diversification and occupied most of the planet. There are a number of such times in the geological record. I again point you to the book Oil 101 because the author explains the various eras of great life expansion, in warmer periods, which produced our oil fields.

-----------

The question isn't "Will life go extinct if we push CO2-forcing to the limit." It never was that question. Your effort to make it that sort of question is an obvious effort at frame-shifting.

--------

RW: Yet that is exactly what your side has been saying, including that we will turn the earth into venus, or do you deny your side has made such claims?

---------

The question to hand is "What will be the effects of CO2 forced global warming and " (at least here at F&S and on the CH web site) "how will this affect hunters and fishermen?"

And that is the point of discussing it.

-----------

If anything for Canada it will mean longer summers with cooler temps than what we had in the 1930's (that is fact from EC dataset.) It means a longer growing season, and it means more growing areas. Forests will move further north.

-------------

We can say that habitat change will occur. Where, to what extent, and the effect on our outdoor resources are under consideration here.

------------

RW: As it has done for billions of years. Our CO2 has had NOTHING to do with the changes today, which you still have not addressed. What is happening today that is beyond normal variation? Why is that so hard to answer?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Call me a "liar" to my face some time, you warty brained, effimate wristed, helium-shoed urban twat.

------

RW: just dishing back the insulting that you started, which is typical of True Believers.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Call me a "liar" to my face some time, you warty brained, effimate wristed, helium-shoed urban twat.

--------
RW: Oh and for the record, I don't live in any city, but the country.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Anyhow, do your best, or worst, or whatever you want. No one at F&S is going to take action against me for providing a little forthright PG-13 blunt talk to someone who calls me a "liar." I could have said more. Perhaps if I ever meet him ftf I can give him a more fitting, errm, form of "rebuttal."

-----------

RW: Interesting that your last resort is to now threat with violence. This is because you cannot support your belief system, it is coming under attack from evidence and rational discussion challenging AGW, and you can't take it. So you start name calling, and now resort to personal harm threats. Nice.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

from Todd Tanner wrote 1 hour 45 min ago
Richard Wakefield,
I'm sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood me. I said that I'd give my shotgun to the first person who convinced me that I'm wrong about climate change. I'm afraid you haven't done that. And just so we're clear, getting your facts wrong on a regular basis doesn't increase your odds of success.

----------

RW: Like which facts? Explain and provide peer reviewed papers to back up your claim.

You need to serious look at the following:

judithcurry.com
wattsupwiththat.com
www.co2science.org
joannenova.com.au

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Todd the big question that needs to be asked is what would it take, what would have to happen in the climate, for you to realize that you are indeed wrong?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Science progresses by testing predictions against real world data obtained from direct observations and rigorous experiments. The stakes in the global-warming debate are much too high to ignore this observational evidence and declare the science settled. The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost. -- Claude Allegre + 15 co-authors, The Wall Street Journal, 21 February 2012

www.thegwpf.org/index.php?option=com_acymailing&ctrl=url&urlid=2595&mail...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

diehl, first off, get your paraphrasing correct- never did I say anyone was brainless, rather that anyone with a brain capable of independent thought should not waste their time on this topic any longer. You apparently don't fit into that category.

You cite a lot of "facts", but suffice it to say that many of these so called facts have been the product of over zealous climate researchers with an axe to grind and a pension for distorting or outright manufacturing data. You have not mentioned the East Anglia Research Unit's debacle of fraud nor have you shown with any legitimacy how humankind is facilitating the process of man-made climate change.

If you're so convinced about man-made climate change or what ever flavor of the month title you want to call it, you can do something to make yourself feel better and be free to make a donation to your favorite climate charity in my name, while I will drive my dodge ram on the autobahn at 110MpH using 98 octane with my AC on full blast with the windows open.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Even if you buy the alarmist non-sense, regulations in the developed world only move production (and jobs) to Asia where, according to the UN, they release 3-4 times the emmissions to produce $1 of goods.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

Global temperature has not "remained flat." It has increased. The increase began during the mid-19th century (the middle 1800s) and has accelerated in near perfect correlation with increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Heidelberg, who are these 1000 climate scientists your referring to? Are you sure they're "climate scientists?" Because years ago your fellow deniers began citing the number at 400, then it was 700 and now 1000. The original figure of 400 was from Senator Inhofe's flawed report. The majority of those original 400 scientists have ZERO credentials in climate research (i.e. -uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/650Skeptics.HTM). So you have a bunch of botanists and earth science teachers chiming in- great. The climategate "conspiracy" is much ado about nothing. Here, knock yourself out: (skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm). Note: that site will dispel the rest of your commonly-used denier myths. "We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one."

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

I think it should also be noted that some of the commenters on here aren't sportsmen or F&S readers, they're anti-climate change/tea party trolls. They took to the internet to blast this article and CH. Someone even wrote a widely-shared post in response to Hal's article. See for yourself, google: “Climate Change is Like Being Mauled By a Crazed Mama Bear"

How pathetic huh? No wonder there were some angry posts on here...

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

TM- you must be living in some sort of Orwellian bizarro world where up is down and yes is no. You're labeling people that believe in man-made climate change as anti-science posters? I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's still a bad point. In regards to my name-calling, it's all true. I've posted 2 examples to back this up. A handful of the individuals that have posted on this page are newly-registered trolls that do not fish, hunt or give a damn about conservation. They spend their hours spewing the same anti-climate change rhetoric on forums, message boards and blogs. It's one thing if these climate-change skeptics were truly concerned with the state of conservation in this country or illustrated some sort of interest in protecting our natural resources, but that's not the case. In fact, they could probably care less. So what's their motive? Sorry- I think I'll side with the people that have shown a passion for protecting our lands, air and water all along. Like I said earlier in regard to climate change deniers in D.C. - follow the money. These politicians are in the pockets of the gas, oil and coal companies. Now, for some of the deniers on this page- follow the motive. They're the rank-n-file supporters of these anti-science and anti-conservation politicians. There are hundreds of scientists to this day that deny evolution . On a final note, The Discovery Institute in their intelligent design campaigns have stated that there are over 700 scientists that dispute Darwinian evolution and support the theory of creationism. Who wants to take that cause up?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Heidelberg- this post is in response to your "700 scientists dissent over man-made Global Warming Claims" post that you took from Senator Inhofe's page.

To cite from Steven Dutch's (Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay) report.

Some of these "700 scientists" include individuals with scientific credentials NOT relevant to climate change.

Some examples include: 2 horticulturists, 2 botanists, a wildlife documentary maker, 40 chemists, a zoologist, 8 mathematicians, 2 electrical engineers, a malaria expert, 3 astronauts, a field geologist and 5 mechanical engineers.

There's 40 individuals on that list with ZERO scientific credentials. More than half of these individuals are economists.

"Bottom line: 58% of the 'experts' quoted on Inhofe's blog have no credentials in climate research and only 16% have top-notch credentials."

(uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/650Skeptics.HTM)

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

It does not have thousands of papers disputing AGW. It has hundreds of opinions and blog statements, almost none of which were written by climate scientists, and almost none of which have been peer reviewed, much less published, in any science journal.

---------

That is a lie. They are all published peer reviewed papers. Show links to those which are not.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

300 MYA the proxy-estimated CO2 was virtually identical to the present day.

---------

RW: You are cherry picking a low period. CO2 recovered to more than 3000ppm by 250myo and was steady until India collided with Asia, as I noted before.

See graph www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from TM wrote 2 years 8 weeks ago

There is ever-increasing scientific consensus that the competing opinions voiced on climate change are a leading emitter of greenhouse gases.

In short, you're all (on both sides) full of hot air!

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

Here you go. One of many such papers available.

www.oar.noaa.gov/research/papers07/greenhouse.html

-----------

RW: Fail. First this is forcings assumed by COMPUTER MODELS (the paper is paywall protected). Second, the abstracts admits to NORMAL forcings. Third, there is NOTHING there on what the changes any of this has had on the climate.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Wakefield wrote 2 years 7 weeks ago

'The 8 coldest days of the last decade have all occurred in the first seven weeks of 2012. Temperatures have dropped almost a full degree since 2010'

www.real-science.com/joe-bastardi-nailed

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from HeidelbergJaeger wrote 1 year 39 weeks ago

Well look here- proof showing that the earth's climate has been in a state of a cooling trend for the last 2000 years.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-c...

Mr Tanner, please polish that shotgun..

-3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs