C02 and the climate hoax someone's agenda ...

[Ninurta]

I watch the weather reports daily and the guy/gal in front of the green-screen offers the same comment
they have since I was a kid. "The weather is about right for this time of the year".

I'm 63 in December, if Ms Thunberg and Mr Gore's climate change was as impactful as they wail
about, those weathermen/women over the years must've been singing from the wrong song sheet!

Well we will get different weather reports in different world regions.

Just the other day on the news was a warning that snowpacks on mountains has dwindled so much yearly that wildlife are threatened because of it. So I guess it just depends on who and where the weather reports hail from.

Don't let it rattle you - they've been singing that same song for a couple decades now, with no results to show for it. Wasn't it Glacier National Park that put signs up around 2005 about how all the glaciers would be gone by 2010? Funny how those signs quietly disappeared when the glaciers didn't. Maybe the glaciers just ate them.

So don't let them panic you. Always follow the money, and always remember they are in it for the money, not for the planet or humanity.

In all fairness, I don't know much about the snowpack out west in the Rockies, but do not believe it's as bad as alarmists are painting it to be, nor is the wildlife there suffering as they would have us believe. I DO know that here wildlife is making an amazing comeback. We are practically overrun by deer and bear, both of which were in pretty short supply when I was growing up. The entire time I was growing up, I saw exactly TWO bears, and one bear skeleton. I've seen more than that just this year here.

Elk are back. Elk have not been seen here since 1820, but now we have a herd over 400 strong that breaks into smaller herds in the winters. Wolves are back. Bobcats are getting endemic, probably because of the humongous increase in the white deer population.

Actual, on-the-ground observation with my own lyin' eyes does not support the narrative the alarmists are trying to sell me.

.

[727Sky]

I never understood why all the fuss.

Why not just do what they taught us in middle school science?


Plant more trees.

They clean the air.

It is literally their job.

Oddly, as CO2 levels increase towards their historic norm, as they get closer to that norm, the Earth is getting greener as trees and other plant life respond favorably to the increased CO2 levels. So we don't even really have to plant anything - the Earth will take care of itself as it seeks and moves towards it's historic equilibrium.

I was recently looking at a couple of photos taken from the same spot in my front yard, but about 55 years apart, I can actually see the greening of the planet - or at least my little part of it - over that time period. All of the forest I am completely surrounded by here has grown over the last 50 years or so... and it's pretty damned impressive!

Same for the place I grew up. I went back there a couple years ago, and what was barren land back then is now grown into a massive cedar forest, one that would rival that cedar forest in Lebanon.

The Climate Killer crowd would end all that lush greenery in favor of enriching themselves at our expense, and the expense of the planet. I find that to be crass, and utterly wrong. I LIKE breathing!

.

Yep cut Co2 back to some of the levels that are bantered around we all die right after all the plants die. Control freaks and genocidal manics have been with us since the first tribes formed so why would anyone expect anything different ... The more people the less humans are valued by their governments or anyone else for that matter... Kinda like you have 10 kids you know all their names but 10,000, not gonna happen according to a rumor from Genghis.

Could it be this is all about the great reset ?

[Kenzo]

[BIAD]

Once more on my daily awakening from slumber, I quickly scanned the British Television's morning news outlets to
catch-up on the doses of information that somebody I have never met deems important to me.

Rick Astley -an aging English singer from the eighties is performing at the annual Glastonbury Festival alongside the
Queens Of The Stone Age. A gay Television Presenter quit a morning show and is somehow in the bad-books with
other announcers in his trade and the railways are on strike again.

It's the emergence of summer when that magical word 'News' -a miscellaneous jumble of events are decided on by
faceless editorial staff believe is important to that waning group of people who still cleave to the notion that such
visually-enhanced articles actually effects them, is rolled out in an entirely different manner from the day before.

Gone is the wealthy comedian/actor-cum-President of a Slavic realm, away is the world-travelling disease that can
only be conquered over and over again with the same vaccine and the invasion from outer-space is merely left to
sky-screamers like Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp to pontificate upon.

Climate Change...? Since it cast off its previous moniker of 'global warming' and slammed-up against an oil-stifling
narrative about war and the public becoming aware that electric cars glean their energy from places not conducive
with Greta's hungry Polar Bear getting wet, the topic isn't being listed in the top-ten of forced-narratives due to
audiences becoming bored with it. T-shirt-wearing Volodymyr knows this and so does the lab-coated scientists
who once talked about a bad flu.

There was a time -not too long ago, when we were all indoctrinated into believing that 'news' must always take the
form of unpleasant emotive information and even if such knowledge had no bearing on one's life, it must be held
in serious regard. On the heels of this faith, we are also to accept that those who serve up these stunted indications
of negative portrayals are somehow of a higher calibre of the 'average person' the constantly patronise with slight
innuendo that 'the-man-on-the-street' is somehow responsible.

The drying pool of Journalism is causing this recent type of crazy lashing-out with weekly or daily ominous items
and today's cult of Establishment is still confident that their banal word-smithed offerings will bring back their
dwindling audiences. Social media didn't just arrive due to the internet, it was born from the lazy behaviour of
a group of people who believed they had a monopoly on what they thought was good enough to serve up under
the banner of news.

Climate Change is Zelensky is UAPS is Elon Musk is some News Reader with cancer is a Vegas Mass-Shooter
is Donald Trump. When this is realised by the mainstream media as purile fodder that is no longer effective as
a tactic to keep their jobs, then maybe... just maybe, they can leave their desks and venture into the real rarely
-trodden jungle of news-gathering

Now... here Bernice with the weather.

[quintessentone]

I watch the weather reports daily and the guy/gal in front of the green-screen offers the same comment
they have since I was a kid. "The weather is about right for this time of the year".

I'm 63 in December, if Ms Thunberg and Mr Gore's climate change was as impactful as they wail
about, those weathermen/women over the years must've been singing from the wrong song sheet!

Well we will get different weather reports in different world regions.

Just the other day on the news was a warning that snowpacks on mountains has dwindled so much yearly that wildlife are threatened because of it. So I guess it just depends on who and where the weather reports hail from.

Don't let it rattle you - they've been singing that same song for a couple decades now, with no results to show for it. Wasn't it Glacier National Park that put signs up around 2005 about how all the glaciers would be gone by 2010? Funny how those signs quietly disappeared when the glaciers didn't. Maybe the glaciers just ate them.

So don't let them panic you. Always follow the money, and always remember they are in it for the money, not for the planet or humanity.

In all fairness, I don't know much about the snowpack out west in the Rockies, but do not believe it's as bad as alarmists are painting it to be, nor is the wildlife there suffering as they would have us believe. I DO know that here wildlife is making an amazing comeback. We are practically overrun by deer and bear, both of which were in pretty short supply when I was growing up. The entire time I was growing up, I saw exactly TWO bears, and one bear skeleton. I've seen more than that just this year here.

Elk are back. Elk have not been seen here since 1820, but now we have a herd over 400 strong that breaks into smaller herds in the winters. Wolves are back. Bobcats are getting endemic, probably because of the humongous increase in the white deer population.

Actual, on-the-ground observation with my own lyin' eyes does not support the narrative the alarmists are trying to sell me.

.

That's right, we don't know how other regions in the world are being affected because we can't observe it, however we can learn what is going on worldwide if we just do the research.

You are missing many factors with the true reality here, first and foremost is what other people worldwide are observing and experiencing. What the people on the ground there know to be true. 

Secondly, we are not aware of how other people are taking steps to help wildlife, ecosystems etc. So, of course, with all the work that is going on it would seem like there isn't a problem.

Which wildlife rescue organization(s) is/are working behind the scenes in your region to ensure extinction of wildlife and/or ecosystems does not happen?

Take a quiz and learn how WWF is working to help save wildlife around the world.

https://support.worldwildlife.org/site/S...UwMzQ4ODQz

[Ninurta]

That's right, we don't know how other regions in the world are being affected because we can't observe it, however we can learn what is going on worldwide if we just do the research.

You are missing many factors with the true reality here, first and foremost is what other people worldwide are observing and experiencing. What the people on the ground there know to be true. 

Secondly, we are not aware of how other people are taking steps to help wildlife, ecosystems etc. So, of course, with all the work that is going on it would seem like there isn't a problem.

Which wildlife rescue organization(s) is/are working behind the scenes in your region to ensure extinction of wildlife and/or ecosystems does not happen?

Take a quiz and learn how WWF is working to help save wildlife around the world.

https://support.worldwildlife.org/site/S...UwMzQ4ODQz

That's one of the problems I have with the alarmists - it's a "world wide" problem when it suits the narrative, but morphs into a "simply regional" problem when that is more convenient to the narrative.

The fact is, we have had "regional" problems like drought or flood since long before humans - or fossil fuels - were in existence. We will see the same long after humans and fossil fuels are gone. It seems to have more to do with mutable weather patterns - like el nino - than it does atmospheric composition.

As an example, during most of the Carboniferous - 320 million years ago or so - CO2 levels were at least 4 times the current levels, and the planet was a lush jungle of greenery. Biodiversity was off the charts. O2 levels were much higher than current as well. 32% as opposed to the current 21%, leading to things like 8 foot long millipedes and dragon flies with nearly 3 foot wingspans, because of the saturated availability of oxygen in the air. Quite opposite from "destructive" presence of such high (relative to the current dearth) of CO2, life did not suffer, it flourished.

But then, in the natural course of Earth cycles, the CO2 levels dropped dangerously near to current levels, and life DID suffer. The rain forests formerly in existence collapsed as CO2, O2, and temperatures plummeted.

THAT is the world the alarmists are attempting to usher in through artificial means. My only consolation in the matter is that it is as unlikely that mankind can do anything to wreck the climate as they have planned - it's just as unlikely as the notion that mankind can overheat the planet. it's the height of hubris to think that puny people can wreck the entire ecosystem of an entire planet.

Back to the current day, and the local environment. As far as I know, there are no governmental or NGO organizations "boosting" the local wildlife. I live in the area the organizations have forgot. There is a saying around here that Richmond thinks Virginia ends at Roanoke, and we are left pretty much to our own devices at all times that are not election seasons. During election seasons, we get all manner of flowery promises that never materialize after the elections are over and we go back to our forgotten status.

The elk were not introduced here by any organizations. they wandered back in from other regions as their numbers increased there and some were pushed out in search of fodder. The separate herds are not huge, but fairly sizable - I've counted up to 43 individuals grazing in a single field at a time. The same holds true for the coyotes and wolves - they've wandered back in after the increasing herds of herbivores.

Increases in wildlife that didn't disappear altogether, but got dangerously low, seem to be organic - particularly white tail deer, bear, and bobcats/lynxes. As climate has improved, their numbers have increased due to the increase in forage for them. When I was younger, you really had to hunt to find a deer - now they are regular occurrences, with a small herd passing between my house and my neighbor's house on their daily rounds, every morning. A couple months ago, a 6 or 8 point buck jumped my fence and was grazing in my yard - I guess he saw the grass as greener or something. The last snow left lynx tracks walking right across my deck, an unheard of occurrence in my youth. maybe he was after the deer. that's my best guess.

Mountain lions are still at a pretty low level here, but I expect them to increase in the coming years, if we can stave off the climate alarmists and keep the recovery going rather than deplete in in the name of pseudo-science and taxation. When I was young, I found mountain lion tracks along with mountain lion kitten tracks in a cave on Clinch River, but I figured that, being in a cave, they were protected from the elements and could have been centuries old. However, over the next month or two, a large cat DID start predating on local canines, outside the cave. I never saw it, but did recover it's tracks beside a creek at a kill site, and so could identify the culprit. In my old age, I have actually seen one in Buchanan County, about 5 or 6 years ago. So I know they are here now, and probably in slightly greater numbers, but nothing overwhelming yet. On average, a mountain lion has a 20 square mile territorial range, so they may be close to maxing out, and may never increase beyond their current boundaries.

My point is that far from climate change being a negative, it has improved ecosystems, and will continue to do so if left alone to follow nature's course. The only thing we are currently lacking here, compared to 300 years ago, is woods bison, or "buffalo". I doubt those will be making a comeback, however, since the last relict population of them that I am aware of is in eastern Canada (they are a different species from the plains bison in Yellowstone), and that's likely too far for them to migrate across all the "civilization" between here and there.

The only governmental interference that I know of is bag limits for hunters (which is increasingly less of a problem since hunting is on the decline here in favor of more processed store-bought grub), and two state parks that have been set off-limits to human kind, places where as a kid I roamed freely. One is Cedar Creek Park in Russell County, off limits now due to some plant that is found nowhere else on Earth, and another state park called "The Channels", on top of Clinch Mountain. As far as NGO's go, I've not found their thumb print anywhere within 200 miles of here.

Yet somehow, in spite of that lack of interference, biodiversity and wildlife presence is all but exploding here, "climate change" or no. It gripes me to see alarmists trying to destroy all that in the name of taxation and unjust enrichment, in a futile attempt to bring on the next ice age early and blow it ALL up.

ETA: I'm told this area is either the 4th or the 7th most biodiverse biome on planet Earth. I don't know how true that is, but a local college is running a program to catalog the local biodiversity - https://sw.edu/biodiversity/ - keep in mind that catalog is not exhaustive, but only contains species verified so far by the catalogers. For example, woodchucks, turkey vultures, and black vultures are not shown to be in Buchanan County yet in their lists, but I have personally seen all 3 species there. The same holds true for plant life, probably more so, because you have to get out into the wilderness to find that, it's doesn't just occasionally wander in like animal species do.

I have personally watched that biodiversity explode exponentially over the past 60 years or so, and am loathe to see the alarmists bring it to a grinding, screeching, screaming halt and then reverse the gains made in the name of some misguided concept of "man-made climate change".

Leave nature be. It does what it does. It always has, and always will.

The Southern Appalachians, which includes southwest Virginia, was identified as one of six biodiversity hotspots in the United States by The Nature Conservancy and NatureServe in their joint publication, Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States (2000). The nation's leading hotspot of aquatic diversity is Virginia's Clinch and Powell rivers, and Virginia is ranked second in the U. S. for dragonfly diversity.

http://www.landscope.org/virginia/plants...ies%20101/


.

[Chiefsmom]

[quote pid="5765" dateline="1685536420"]

That's right, we don't know how other regions in the world are being affected because we can't observe it, however we can learn what is going on worldwide if we just do the research.

You are missing many factors with the true reality here, first and foremost is what other people worldwide are observing and experiencing. What the people on the ground there know to be true. 

Secondly, we are not aware of how other people are taking steps to help wildlife, ecosystems etc. So, of course, with all the work that is going on it would seem like there isn't a problem.

Which wildlife rescue organization(s) is/are working behind the scenes in your region to ensure extinction of wildlife and/or ecosystems does not happen?

Take a quiz and learn how WWF is working to help save wildlife around the world.

https://support.worldwildlife.org/site/S...UwMzQ4ODQz
[/quote]
I respect other people having opinions on it.
But here is my main issue:  We only have what, 200 years of reliable data to go on? If that?
How old is the earth?
Weren't fossil's of tropical plants found on Greenland?

Now, don't confuse my NON belief in Climate change (man made, not earth changes), with the fact that I do believe we are polluting this planet, terribly!  
Plastics are the devil.  We need to clean up our mess.  Yesterday.  Should have never strayed from wood products, and glass.

But this earth has changed, temperature and climate wise, many, many times, and will do so again, even if we all disappeared tomorrow.

And how many of the animals are we losing, just because kill them, or destroy their habitat?  More than needs to, by far.
We are stupid, in general.  And that includes thinking we can fix things, the way we are trying to now.
We are only going to make it worse.

[Kenzo]

Scroll down this twitter , there`s  many examples of  place X  warming faster than the rest of the World


 Useless Tweeter


You cant make this up...

[quintessentone]

Scroll down this twitter , there`s  many examples of  place X  warming faster than the rest of the World


 Useless Tweeter


You cant make this up...

No it can't be made up because temperature monitoring over time shows the evidence. I think the question here is some people are asking 'Can we pin the changes on one thing, that being, man's activities?".

Some people are pointing to the sun's activity as the driving factor. Could be, but it's all a guessing game because they have been monitoring the sun's activity for a very short time and even still, scientists seem to be guessing here too.

Others point to volcanic activity. Where is the consensus in the wider scientific community that this is the one and only factor to rising temperatures?

What we do know for sure is that mankind is with some activities polluting our Earth, wildlife and ourselves and we have that evidence from many different types of scientists doing the studies. Do their studies point to one cause? They seem to think so and as I posted above, there is a consensus on the consensus.

[Ninurta]

No it can't be made up because temperature monitoring over time shows the evidence. I think the question here is some people are asking 'Can we pin the changes on one thing, that being, man's activities?".

Some people are pointing to the sun's activity as the driving factor. Could be, but it's all a guessing game because they have been monitoring the sun's activity for a very short time and even still, scientists seem to be guessing here too.

Others point to volcanic activity. Where is the consensus in the wider scientific community that this is the one and only factor to rising temperatures?

What we do know for sure is that mankind is with some activities polluting our Earth, wildlife and ourselves and we have that evidence from many different types of scientists doing the studies. Do their studies point to one cause? They seem to think so and as I posted above, there is a consensus on the consensus.

You're right, it's only the causes that are in question, not really whether or not the climate is warming. From what I've gathered, attempting to blame CO2 is as inaccurate as trying to blame only solar activity, or only volcanic activity, etc. It seems to be a combination of things working together, some cyclic, some episodic, but none man controllable.

CO2 appears to actually be the least contributory to the interlocking cycles, but it IS the only one they can figure out a way to make money on, so that is the reason it is being hammered on as the end-all be-all of climate change.

We have solar activity, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity, atmospheric composition, and I'm sure many other things acting together in a complex dance that causes Earth temperatures to vary. Historically, CO2 levels have been higher than they are today. sometimes as much as 4 times higher, with small effect on climate. There have been studies done as well that appear to show CO2 level increases lag BEHIND temperature changes - a result rather than a cause.

Man CAN affect CO2 levels, but only to a very slight degree, far less than natural processes. Still, if they can figure out a way to tax something, then that is what they are going to concentrate on and make grandiose claims that they have to tax humans because humans are causing the whole problem - if indeed it even IS a problem. I tend to think it isn't, and alarmism has not borne enough fruit to cause me to think otherwise.None of their dire predictions seem to ever come to pass, and in science, when a prediction does not happen to support a model, that model has to be scrapped in favor of another model that might actually fit observation and prediction.

That's how science used to be done anyhow, back in my day, before it got politicized and became financially lucrative to find the "right" answers that Big Wheels were willing to pay for.

They have yet to figure out how to blame humans for solar activity, Milankovitch cycles, or vulcanism. Since they cannot make an argument that logically blames humans for those events, they minimize them, because they cannot figure out a way to guilt people in giving them money over them. The problem is that those events seem to far outweigh CO2 in terms of climate forcing mechanisms... but they just can't make any money off of them, so they get minimized and pushed to the background noise while the far less substantial "anthropogenic CO2" is brought front and center and magnified because - "there's a tax for that!".

.